BoxRec

Crease wrote:Maybe Vitali could have squeezed in had he not retired for years...

And Wladimir is not getting in because he has fought an exceptionally pooer standard of opposition...

Wlad has fought legends compared to Vitali. Agreed that neither of them are remotely qualified for the top 10. I suppose Wlad could maybe squeeze into the top 20, Vitali isn't worthy of that.

MEISINGER wrote:

Il Duce wrote:1........Joe Louis
2........Jack Dempsey
3........Larry Holmes
4........Muhammad Ali

Jack Dempsey at #2 because of historical importance.

dempsey more important then ali?
curious as to the thought behind it

Not to answer for him, but Dempsey was the most important fighter I can think of. He spread the popularity of the sport into the main stream. The guy raised the profile to the extent that he pulled a million dollar purse in his day. He had live gates that Ali couldn't touch and because of Dempsey they started broadcasting fights on the radio.

Plus he had the most savage Championship victory of all time. His fight with Willard was a massacre.

Imo no fighter had as much historical importance as Jack Johnson, if he was not successful at that time It would have severely hampers the progress of many folks of his race. He had to inspire millions all over into believing they were just as good as others?

scallum wrote:Imo no fighter had as much historical importance as Jack Johnson, if he was not successful at that time It would have severely hampers the progress of many folks of his race. He had to inspire millions all over into believing they were just as good as others?

He didn't help other blacks after him get title shots or more money. He was pretty much universally considered an asshole. Definitely a great fighter, but Burley, Charles, Moore, Williams, etc.. didn't benefit from anything he did. If that's the angle, Joe Louis was the far greater beacon. If anything, though the issues were obviously racist and shit, Johnson set back equality in Boxing.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

scallum wrote:Imo no fighter had as much historical importance as Jack Johnson, if he was not successful at that time It would have severely hampers the progress of many folks of his race. He had to inspire millions all over into believing they were just as good as others?

He didn't help other blacks after him get title shots or more money. He was pretty much universally considered an asshole. Definitely a great fighter, but Burley, Charles, Moore, Williams, etc.. didn't benefit from anything he did. If that's the angle, Joe Louis was the far greater beacon. If anything, though the issues were obviously racist and shit, Johnson set back equality in Boxing.

Some might say that if Jack Johnson hadnt existed Langford, McVey and Jeanette would have shared the title (Burns would have definitely given at least one their chance before long). Another version i guess is that Tommy Burns might be ranked an awful lot higher by modern boxing fans.

The name George Barton may not be familiar to many contributors to this topic, but some may find his all-time ranking to be of interest. Barton was a professional boxer, turning pro at 17 when boxing was illegal in his native Minnesota, who later became a referee, and then a commissioner in Minnesota. He boxed as a pro until 1909, with his biggest win in 1904, a six round decision over 24 year old ex-featherweight and ex-bantamweight champion Terry McGovern. He also sparred with Joe Gans. At one point, he trained Mike Gibbons. As a referee, he officiated bouts involving Harry Greb, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Tommy Loughran, and other greats. Simultaneous to his boxing career, he was the sports editor for a succession of Twin Cities daily newspapers and covered heavyweight championship bouts beginning with Jack Johnson KO 15 James J. Jeffries (Reno, 1910) until his retirement in the late 1950s. Those are remarkable credentials.

In 1957, Barton published a book of his remembrances, "My Lifetime in Sports". In that book, he lists his view of the top 10 boxers all-time in each of the eight weight classes. His top 10 heavyweights:

Jack Johnson
James J. Jeffries
Robert Fitzsimmons
Jack Dempsey
Joe Louis
James J. Corbett
Gene Tunney
John L. Sullivan
Rocky Marciano
Max Baer

He ranked Sam Langford as the top all-time light heavyweight, saying that Langford "was at his best as a middleweight and light heavyweight".

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Louis
Ali
Holmes
Holyfield
Foreman
Frazier
Johnson
Lewis
Marciano
Liston

I got no problem with that list . Jack Johnson was certainly a great in his time, I'm always curious with those super old timers and the tendency to punch and grab constantly. How they'd do against the Modern style of boxers. I doubt they'd do very well at all.

Why do you doubt the grab style would do very well today?

John Ruiz proved it would be pretty effective. Imagine if it was actually someone with skills who used that style. IN fact, in many ways Wlad currently does. The grabbing and fighting in a clinch is a skill and an area where modernboxing has outlawed it and therefore the modern guys are going to be less skilled and at a disadvantage. If in 100 years they have outlawed punching in the head in the sport, i seriously doubt that those guys will have much of a chance fighting todays fighters, regardsless of whether i believe evolution or not. The same goes with outlawing the clinch, to a lesser extent of course.

Boxrec's computerized ratings upset me a bit: rating Henry Armstrong so low, is criminal to me... can't really tell if their biased, or if it's just a glitch in the matrix...

Nevertheless, I foud out that Boxrec's top-10 hevyweights rating is quite satisfying. More than other cathegories, as I see it.

Not to have you watching at all costs, I reported it below.
Boxrec's ratings for top-10 all-time heavyweights:
1 Muhammad Ali 1,708 56 5 0
2 Joe Louis 1,390 66 3 0
3 Evander Holyfield 1,384 44 10 2
4 Ezzard Charles 1,257 95 25 1
5 Jack Johnson 1,193 71 11 11
6 Floyd Patterson 1,178 55 8 1
7 Sam Langford 1,097 211 43 53
8 Rocky Marciano 1,062 49 0 0
9 Wladimir Klitschko 1,029 64 5 0
10 Gene Tunney 979 79 1 4

All fighters above named have excellent records, obviously. I'd put Klitschko and Patterson lower, adding Lewis and Holmes instead, but, being no Bert Sugar, I'm not sure what would exactly be my list. The heavyweight category is not like the middleweight one ( 1) Monzon, 2) Hagler, 3) Griffith, hands down, at least, until proven wrong... ): fighters' class is closer than in most other weight classes. Foreman or Holmes...? Etc. I consider Sugar Ray Robinson as a natural welterweight, that tells a lot about the respect I have for him.

Nevertheless, they're all there: I respect Tunney, which is usually vastly underrated (can't picture how people might rate him lower than Dempsey), Langford, Marciano, not sure if Louis was actually better than Alì, but they're both there.

Patterson was a small guy for heavyweights, but Marciano, even smaller for a heavyweight, has done better than Patterson: so, they might be biased for Patterson and Armstrong, for opposite reasons, how do I know?

Nevertheless I roughly agree with Boxrec's list except for Lewis and Holmes. I'd rate Vitali Klistchko above Volodymyr... That's it.

Griffith as the #3 all-time hands down middleweight is as outlandish a rating as you'll ever see.

Boilermaker wrote: ↑16 Feb 2013, 17:18

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Louis
Ali
Holmes
Holyfield
Foreman
Frazier
Johnson
Lewis
Marciano
Liston

I got no problem with that list . Jack Johnson was certainly a great in his time, I'm always curious with those super old timers and the tendency to punch and grab constantly. How they'd do against the Modern style of boxers. I doubt they'd do very well at all.

Why do you doubt the grab style would do very well today?

John Ruiz proved it would be pretty effective. Imagine if it was actually someone with skills who used that style. IN fact, in many ways Wlad currently does. The grabbing and fighting in a clinch is a skill and an area where modernboxing has outlawed it and therefore the modern guys are going to be less skilled and at a disadvantage. If in 100 years they have outlawed punching in the head in the sport, i seriously doubt that those guys will have much of a chance fighting todays fighters, regardsless of whether i believe evolution or not. The same goes with outlawing the clinch, to a lesser extent of course.

When rating oldie all-timers (Greb, Langford, Johnson...), I always give them a break: I'd picture giving them some time to get used to nowadays' assets, and then fight: that would be the bare necessity, in the nerdy science of fantasy-fights. Wouldn't be fair the other way.

What I consider most in rating all-timers, is work-ethics: Marciano, Floyd Jr., Calzaghe and Hagler, might beat more gifted opponents (respectively Patterson, both Armstrong and arguably Robinson - but only at welterweight - , Toney at super-middleweight, and Griffith at middleweight, of course), thanks to their superior work-ethics, to me.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 09:39 Griffith as the #3 all-time hands down middleweight is as outlandish a rating as you'll ever see.

Where would you rate him, exactly or roughly?

Jacopodb wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 09:46

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 09:39 Griffith as the #3 all-time hands down middleweight is as outlandish a rating as you'll ever see.

Where would you rate him, exactly or roughly?

It's a stacked division and I'd have to look closer at his record in the division but I imagine he would be top 30 or so.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 09:48

Jacopodb wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 09:46

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 09:39 Griffith as the #3 all-time hands down middleweight is as outlandish a rating as you'll ever see.

Where would you rate him, exactly or roughly?

It's a stacked division and I'd have to look closer at his record in the division but I imagine he would be top 30 or so.

Griffith has beaten a lot of dangerous fighters, at middleweight: my only concern would be wether to consider him, technically, a natural welterweight or a middleweight, but with those athletic assets he had, he could do as much as a middleweight as Roy Jones Jr. could do at super-middleweight, even if they both started out at lower weight-classes: because, both fighters had more-unique-than-rare physical makings: Griffith was stocky, same reach as Toney, stronger and faster than most middleweights; look at his back and chest, they're wide and muscular as few or none I have ever seen in boxing, with the due proportions; he could develop great power and speed, for a middleweight: when you have a body like that, it's difficult not to jump over weight-classes. So, he's no less than a middleweight, in my eyes, as well as Mayweather Jr. is a welterweight, even if they both started in lower weight-classes. Sugar Ray Robinson, for example, was rather tall, but not that stocky, and suffered very much vs inferior La Motta at middleweight, he was even knocked off the ropes...

...So, why not rate Griffith that high, sorry? I couldn't find a better n° 3 than him.

Bring technical arguments, possibly, please.

Greb is clearly #1. I know Emile beat nino, Archer and tiger among others. He most definitely was a prime welterweight. As for the whole angling of what any fighter could do, that has no business in ranking fighters.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 10:08 Greb is clearly #1. I know Emile beat nino, Archer and tiger among others. He most definitely was a prime welterweight. As for the whole angling of what any fighter could do, that has no business in ranking fighters.

I see your point, but Greb was a big guy, for a middleweight... Not that tall, but very stocky. Tyson also wasn't that tall, but look at his speed and punching power. Tyson was shorter than either Calzaghe, Andre Ward, and Froch, but was a plain, regular, all-rounded, utter heavyweight, by every mean: height and weight are not so strictly related concepts to each other, in anatomy, even with no body fat at all.

What are you talking about?

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 10:24 What are you talking about?

Boxing, dude. Duh.

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Foreman
4. Liston
5. Holmes
6. Johnson
7. Frazier
8. Lewis
9. Tunney
10. Marciano

writehooks wrote: ↑14 Jan 2019, 00:02 1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Foreman
4. Liston
5. Holmes
6. Johnson
7. Frazier
8. Lewis
9. Tunney
10. Marciano

Why Liston so high? Just asking, no pun intended. It's a good list, IMO, but I'm not so used to see Liston rated so high in lists: do you believe he's underrated, perhaps? just asking, of course.

Hey, no one's insulting me, how come? Come on, then...

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Lewis
5. Holyfield
6. Foreman
7. Frazier
8. Marciano
9. Liston
10. Johnson

My #1 & 2 are interchangeable. I think #3 & 4 are dead close. My 5-8 I could put them in almost any order. I’ve rated Rocky #5 before. Liston on head to head would be higher IMO and I’m very tempted to put Tyson at 10 but not quite.

Dempsey would be 12 but I have him quite far back from being a possible top 10.

chrisjs1985 wrote: ↑14 Jan 2019, 10:02 1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Lewis
5. Holyfield
6. Foreman
7. Frazier
8. Marciano
9. Liston
10. Johnson

My #1 & 2 are interchangeable. I think #3 & 4 are dead close. My 5-8 I could put them in almost any order. I’ve rated Rocky #5 before. Liston on head to head would be higher IMO and I’m very tempted to put Tyson at 10 but not quite.

Dempsey would be 12 but I have him quite far back from being a possible top 10.

Where do you stand on Tunney, Chris?

chrisjs1985 wrote: ↑14 Jan 2019, 10:02 1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Lewis
5. Holyfield
6. Foreman
7. Frazier
8. Marciano
9. Liston
10. Johnson

My #1 & 2 are interchangeable. I think #3 & 4 are dead close. My 5-8 I could put them in almost any order. I’ve rated Rocky #5 before. Liston on head to head would be higher IMO and I’m very tempted to put Tyson at 10 but not quite.

Dempsey would be 12 but I have him quite far back from being a possible top 10.

Nice to see Holmes being recognized. I love 1-4. 5-8 could be in any order for me, except I don't see Foreman any higher than 6/7, maybe even 8. 9-10, I think I could interchange with a few other greats as it gets more hazy for me. Prime Tyson is always a tough call for me. 86/87 Tyson was like nothing we've ever seen, IMHO. He gets lost on folks for his subsequent years' abating of skills and motivation.

prewarboxing wrote: ↑14 Jan 2019, 10:43

chrisjs1985 wrote: ↑14 Jan 2019, 10:02 1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Lewis
5. Holyfield
6. Foreman
7. Frazier
8. Marciano
9. Liston
10. Johnson

My #1 & 2 are interchangeable. I think #3 & 4 are dead close. My 5-8 I could put them in almost any order. I’ve rated Rocky #5 before. Liston on head to head would be higher IMO and I’m very tempted to put Tyson at 10 but not quite.

Dempsey would be 12 but I have him quite far back from being a possible top 10.

Where do you stand on Tunney, Chris?

He just doesn't have a big enough body of work at heavyweight for me though I think he'd probably be a top 25 all-time on my pound for pound rankings.

Purely as a heavyweight I don't think I can place him ahead of Langford, Wills, Patterson, Walcott, Charles for example.