BoxRec

Decagon wrote:

billythekid wrote:Klitschko-Lewis I think deserves some consideration in a top fifteen, top twenty poll

Nearly any top heavyweight could've beaten the Lewis that showed up against Vitali Klitschko. Maybe even Evander Holyfield

Decagon wrote:Lewis was shot that night. He was completely untrained, and I think he might have been stoned. Nearly any competent heavyweight would have wrested the title from him.

Decagon, 5000 posts and you know so little about the sport. I can't believe you just wrote that. Roy Jones? Roy fornicating Jones? Ruiz? You are sad.

Decagon wrote:Lewis was shot that night. He was completely untrained, and I think he might have been stoned. Nearly any competent heavyweight would have wrested the title from him.

Why don't you go back to where you hid out the past few weeks and look for something like an IQ gas station. You're simply too dumb for this site. You add nothing but embarassment.

Decagon wrote:Lewis couldn't have lasted 12 rounds that night. The only reason he won was that he was facing another oversized heavyweight who was huffing and puffing after three rounds, himself. Any well-conditioned heavyweight could have beaten Lewis that night. He had nothing in the tank. The fact that Quitali couldn't only shows how crappy he truly was.

God has also a long white beard, and the easter bunny brought big purple chocolate eggs today.

pundit wrote:

Decagon wrote:Lewis couldn't have lasted 12 rounds that night. The only reason he won was that he was facing another oversized heavyweight who was huffing and puffing after three rounds, himself. Any well-conditioned heavyweight could have beaten Lewis that night. He had nothing in the tank. The fact that Quitali couldn't only shows how crappy he truly was.

God has also a long white beard, and the easter bunny brought big purple chocolate eggs today.

Are you saying that you don’t think they were both exhausted and pretty much stumbling around the ring the last few rounds of their fight? While it was an entertaining fight, the skills and conditioning exhibited by both Lewis and Vitali were anything but championship caliber.

Oh yes, I’m happy to hear that you had an enjoyable Easter.

I tried a bit more systematic appraoch, adding up fighters' ranks from my top 50 ATG rating. If a fighter fought before or after his prime I took his score times 2. If a fighter was a shell of his former self (Ali vs Holmes, Tyson vs. Lewis, Louis vs. Marciano, post-comeback Holmes, Foreman) or very green (Langford vs. Johnson 1906) I didn't consider it. Also, a top 20 fighter had to be involved, and both had to be top 50. Possible that I may have overlooked some fights.

Here are the top 50 haevyweight fights AT thus assembled.

To my chagrin, Lewis (7X2) vs. Klitschko (45)==59 just failed to make it.


1. Ali (1X2) Foreman (5) 7
2. Ali (1X2) Frazier I (9) 11
3. Ali (1) Liston (6X2) I and II 13
4. Foreman (5) Frazier (9) I 14
5. Ali (1X2) Frazier II and III (9X2) 20

6. Louis (2) Schmeling I (19) 21
7. Louis (2X2) vs. Walcott (20) I and II 24
8. Ali (1X2) vs. Norton (25) I II III 27
8. Liston (6) vs Patterson (21) I and II 27
10. Louis (2) vs. Baer (26) 28
10. Holmes (3) vs. Norton (25) 28
10. Foreman (5X2) vs. Frazier (9X2) II 28

13. Spinks (24) vs. Holmes (3X2) I and II 30
14. Wills (15) vs Langford (8X2) in 1916 31
14. Marciano (11) vs. Walcott I (20) 31
14. Ali (1X2) vs. Quarry (29) 31

17. Johnson (4) vs. Jeanette (28.) in 1906 32
18. Tunney (10) -Dempsey (12X2) 34
18. Charles (14) vs. Walcott (20) I 34
20. Johnson (4) vs Jeffries (16X2) 36
20. Langford (8.) vs. Jeanette (28.) around 1910/11 36
20. Holmes (3) vs. Witherspoon (33) 36
20. Ali (1X2) vs. Young (34) 36
24. Wills (15X2) vs Langford (8.) in 1914 38
24. Frazier (9) vs. Quarry (29) 38

26. Marciano (11) vs. Charles (14X2) 39
27. Louis (2) Schmeling II (19X2) 40
27. Jackson (22) vs. Corbett (18.) 40
27. Ali (1X2) vs. Lyle (38.) 40
30. Liston (6) vs. Williams (35) 41
30. Lewis (7) vs. Holyfield (17X2) 41

32. Schmeling (19) -Sharkey (23) I 42
32. Marciano (11) vs. Moore (31) 42
34. Holyfield (17) Tyson I and II (13X2) 43
34. Ali (1) vs. Patterson (21X2) 43
34. Ali (1) vs. Terrell (42) 43
34. Louis (2) vs. Conn (41) 43
34. Holmes (3) vs. Weaver (40) 43

39. Bowe (27) Holyfield I and II (17) 44
39. Foreman (5X2) vs. Young (34) 44

41. Langford (8.) vs. McVea (37) in 1911 45
42. Charles (14) vs. Ray (32) 46
43. Dempsey (12X2) vs. Jack Sharkey (23) 47
44. Louis (2) vs. Jack Sharkey (23X2) 48
44. Ali (2X2) vs Shavers (44) 48

46. Louis (2) vs. Carnera (49) 51
47. Jeffries (16) vs. Corbett (18X2) II 52
47. Walcott (20) vs. Ray (32) 52
49. Liston (6) vs. Machen (48.) 54
49. Wills (15X2) vs. Jeanette (28.) 1913 58

Nice list, Pundit! I think that's a pretty clever and accurate way of working out the best heavyweight matchups, of course, influenced by your personal rankings of the fighters. Incidentally, I also have Ali, Louis and Holmes at 1, 2, 3 and Lewis at 7.

BTW please check my "Heavyweight Boxing World Cup" thread. Should be interesting if enough people vote.

Pundit, This is good way of ranking the fights. Of course no two people will have the same rankings, but it shows that you put some thought into it. The results look pretty realistic. I have the first 6 the same as you and in order!

I like that you took into consideration 3 phases, prime, not quite prime (which you did the 2x) and the completely past their prime like
Marciano-Louis, Holmes-Tyson etc. which you threw out. I would also throw out Johnson-Jeffries. Jeffries was 35, and hadn't fought in 6 years. He wasn't remotley close to the level that he was once at.

A couple of other suggestions:
For Patterson-Ali I, Patterson the 2x shouldn't be used. Patterson was still in his prime. (Or did you do this because of the back injury that Patterson had during the fight?)

Holyfield is only your #17 heavyweight? I have never seen anyone rate him that low.

For Holyfield-Tyson, We have debated this before but I just don't see how Tyson can labeled past his prime but Holyfield who was clearly farther past his prime isn't labeled past his prime. Tyson is a 2x but Holyfield who was 4 years older and considered washed up, and given little chance against Tyson, isn't 2x?

As for Langford, Wills,Jeanette, and McVey I do agree that Langford was the best, followed by Wills, then Jeanette, then McVey.
However, I believe the gap between them is smaller than you think. If you take a hard look at their records, (even though some of their fights are probably unrecorded ) there isn't a huge difference. McVey, the worst of them, never lost to anyone else in his prime and was very competitive with the other 3, including even Langford. Langford seems a bit too high as the #8 heavyweight of all time, and McVey should be higher than #37.

The other guy I was wondering about was Jimmy Ellis. Going by your formula, his fights with Ali and Frazier should be included. Is this just an oversight? Where do you have Ellis ranked all time?

I'm really just nitpicking here. It's a great idea for a topic, and the formula that you have is interesting.

Ambling Alp wrote:Pundit, This is good way of ranking the fights. Of course no two people will have the same rankings, but it shows that you put some thought into it. The results look pretty realistic. I have the first 6 the same as you and in order!

I like that you took into consideration 3 phases, prime, not quite prime (which you did the 2x) and the completely past their prime like
Marciano-Louis, Holmes-Tyson etc. which you threw out. I would also throw out Johnson-Jeffries. Jeffries was 35, and hadn't fought in 6 years. He wasn't remotley close to the level that he was once at.

A couple of other suggestions:
For Patterson-Ali I, Patterson the 2x shouldn't be used. Patterson was still in his prime. (Or did you do this because of the back injury that Patterson had during the fight?)

Holyfield is only your #17 heavyweight? I have never seen anyone rate him that low.

For Holyfield-Tyson, We have debated this before but I just don't see how Tyson can labeled past his prime but Holyfield who was clearly farther past his prime isn't labeled past his prime. Tyson is a 2x but Holyfield who was 4 years older and considered washed up, and given little chance against Tyson, isn't 2x?

As for Langford, Wills,Jeanette, and McVey I do agree that Langford was the best, followed by Wills, then Jeanette, then McVey.
However, I believe the gap between them is smaller than you think. If you take a hard look at their records, (even though some of their fights are probably unrecorded ) there isn't a huge difference. McVey, the worst of them, never lost to anyone else in his prime and was very competitive with the other 3, including even Langford. Langford seems a bit too high as the #8 heavyweight of all time, and McVey should be higher than #37.

The other guy I was wondering about was Jimmy Ellis. Going by your formula, his fights with Ali and Frazier should be included. Is this just an oversight? Where do you have Ellis ranked all time?

I'm really just nitpicking here. It's a great idea for a topic, and the formula that you have is interesting.

Thanks, Alp. A few reactions:

-- the 2X business is tricky. I also threw Charles vs. Louis out, for example, but maybe I shouldn't have. In this case this would be the #5 fight (2X2 vs. 14 == 18.). I toyed with eliminating Jeffries vs. Johnson, but then this was the most anticipated heavyweight bout ever with the possible exceptions of Louis vs. Schmleing II, Ali vs. Frazier I, and the Rumble in the Jungle, so I hesitated.

-- we've discussed Holyfield and just disagree there. As for the color line fighters, I have McVea at #37 between Godfrey and Lyle -- you consider this too low? I'm more bothered by the fact that I got so few 19th century fights in there, but Jeffries (16), Corbett (18.), Fitzsimmons (30), Tom Sharkey (43) rarely fought one another when they were both at or near primes (Choynski just fails to make my top 50).

-- Jimmy Ellis isn't in my top 50 but probably should be. My 48-50 are Machen, Carnera, Loughran, Ellis could be above these. If so, Ali vs. Ellis would be around #45.

good thread. could not be arsed to contribute myself (plus my knowledge of Ancient HW's is limited lol) but good reading.

one point - when BTK said he would take his chances with...... i was a bit shocked until i read on and realised he didnt actually mean jump in there himself

Pundit,
Our biggest discrepancy would be McVey and Godfrey.
I wouldn't rate Godfrey anywhere near McVey. McVey fought Langford,Wills and Jeanette and held his own. He beat them all, and gave them all a lot of trouble in several fights. He never lost to anyone else in his prime. He has to be close to the top 20.
Take a hard look at who Godfrey beat. A superfical look will show that he beat Fulton,Gains, and Uzcudun. Fulton was way past his prime when Godfrey beat him; in fact he had lost his previous 3 fights. Gains was several years away from being a ranked contender when Godfrey beat him. Really all you are left with is a decision over Uzcudun. That just isn't enough to be ranked anywhere near #36 all time. I currently have him at #73.

Dec,
He mentioned in an earlier post that he doesn't include fights in which he considers one of the two fighters a "shell of his former self". He gave a few examples and Ali-Holmes was one of them.

Ambling Alp wrote:Pundit,
Our biggest discrepancy would be McVey and Godfrey.
I wouldn't rate Godfrey anywhere near McVey. McVey fought Langford,Wills and Jeanette and held his own. He beat them all, and gave them all a lot of trouble in several fights. He never lost to anyone else in his prime. He has to be close to the top 20.
Take a hard look at who Godfrey beat. A superfical look will show that he beat Fulton,Gains, and Uzcudun. Fulton was way past his prime when Godfrey beat him; in fact he had lost his previous 3 fights. Gains was several years away from being a ranked contender when Godfrey beat him. Really all you are left with is a decision over Uzcudun. That just isn't enough to be ranked anywhere near #36 all time. I currently have him at #73.

Alp,

Godfrey's record is chock-full of tank-jobs and shady circumstances. Judging by the info we have he was MUCH better than his record indicates. And even from the little film we have, George heavy and fouling out vs Carnera in a fight he was winning easily (many of Carnera's early "wins" were due to fouls) one can see he was a nimble, fleet-footed big man with an aggressive style. All of the scribes of the time ranked him as a very big puncher.

Based on the circumstances I'd put Godfrey at least in the top 50.

But I agree Mcvey must be ranked much higher due to his record.

Ambling Alp wrote:Pundit,
Our biggest discrepancy would be McVey and Godfrey.
I wouldn't rate Godfrey anywhere near McVey. McVey fought Langford,Wills and Jeanette and held his own. He beat them all, and gave them all a lot of trouble in several fights. He never lost to anyone else in his prime. He has to be close to the top 20.
Take a hard look at who Godfrey beat. A superfical look will show that he beat Fulton,Gains, and Uzcudun. Fulton was way past his prime when Godfrey beat him; in fact he had lost his previous 3 fights. Gains was several years away from being a ranked contender when Godfrey beat him. Really all you are left with is a decision over Uzcudun. That just isn't enough to be ranked anywhere near #36 all time. I currently have him at #73.

The trouble with McVea is that he fought few significant folks outside Johnson, Langford and Jeanette (and the young Harry Wills when he was already deteriorating). There wer the gruelling battles with Denver Ed Martin early in his career, where generally McVea came out on top, but apart from that? Even the best names -- Battling Jim Johnson, Jack Lester, Jim Barry, Jim Stewart -- are largely forgotten, and the remainder were mostly European and Australian bums that McVea fought on his tours abroad. So what do you make of all this? Tricky. I feel quite comfortable with where I have him. Between Jeanette and him I have Quarry, Fitzsimmons, Moore, Elmer Ray, Witherspoon, Jimmy Young, Big Cat Williams, Godfrey. I feel all this can be argued.

This said, on Gdofrey I agree I may have him a tad too high. He's difficult to assess too, given that there are many losses that may have been fixed. At this best he was one of the best 1920s heavyweights. Btw, at least Jim Maloney and Jack Renault should also be counted as fine wins.

Fine list Pundit, good rankings on the whole as well

First of all, I'm very skeptical of Godfrey's losses being fixes. Even if you believe that they are, you can't assume that he would have beaten that guy anyway. To me, you have to prove it. The guys that Godfrey actually beat simply isn't very impressive. Would you rank any of them in the top 50? Uzcudun would probably be the only one that you could rank in the top 100.
The reason I'm high on McVey is that he fought Wills, Langford, and Jeanette each many times. It's not like he just got lucky once. Take a hard look at his record. He was certainly in their league. It would have been nice if McVey would have fought Burns, Willard, or some of the white hopes, but it seems that McVey did more than enough in his fights against the "Big 3" that he was close to them.

It think it has to be Ali-Foreman. Ali is #1 all time at Heavyweight, though some would say #2. Foreman is probably top 5. Foreman was in his prime, and Ali was still pretty good. Ali-Frazier I is a good example, except for Ali's ring rust...

Louis is #2 all time as a Heavyweight (at least in my mind) while Walcott is probably not top 10.

Lewis is probably top 10 all time as a Heavyweight, Vitali was not. Lewis-Holyfield is probably a better example, even if Holyfield was getting old.

guys that Godfrey actually beat simply isn't very impressive. Would you rank any of them in the top 50?

larry gains? of course i would. tiger jack fox was also a great fighter

btw pundit i disagree with ur list, but nice way of doing things.


jeffries was coming off a 6 year layoff and was washed up for the fight, how could you include that one but not marciano-louis? for instance

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:btw pundit i disagree with ur list, but nice way of doing things.


jeffries was coming off a 6 year layoff and was washed up for the fight, how could you include that one but not marciano-louis? for instance

Sure. There are many quibbles, this is one of them. Even worse, I excluced Charles vs. Louis, which otherwise would be the #5 fight.

I agree. I never buy the "threw the fight" as an excuse for many reasons. It's a loss.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

guys that Godfrey actually beat simply isn't very impressive. Would you rank any of them in the top 50?

larry gains? of course i would. tiger jack fox was also a great fighter

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Larry Gains was several years from even being a top 10 contender at the time that Godfrey beat him.

Tiger Jack Fox? He certainly wasn't a great heavyweight. He wasn't even a ranked light heavyweight at the time that Godfrey beat him.

It was pointed by someone a long time ago on a previous post that the Schmeling fight wasn't a big deal. Schmeling hadn't even won the German lightheavyweight title yet when Gains beat him.

Soldier Jones??? I hope you are kidding. Jones won 1 out of his previous 15 fights before he fought Gains. Jones was a tomato can.

I agree that Ring Magazines Rankings are far from perfect. However, in this case there really is no reason for Gains to have been ranked in the top 10 at the time that he fought Godfrey, or for a few years after that for that matter.

Decagon, are you being serious?
Schmeling had been a pro for about 13 months. He hadn't beaten of any consequence yet. He wasn't even a heavyweight yet.

Sodlier Jones record is incomplete? Can you fill us in on the good fighters he beat that aren't listed by the database? He sure had a lot of losses. I have never heard any mention of him being one of the best fighters of his era anywhere.

Gains was already near the top of his game? How do you figure that? He really hadn't beat anyone worth mentioning yet (except for Schmeling) and in the next 3 years would lose to Chuck Wiggins,Bill Hartwell, and Martin Burke, respectable fighters but certainly not great fighters. It would be quite a while before Gains started beating some top fighters.

Ambling Alp wrote:I agree. I never buy the "threw the fight" as an excuse for many reasons. It's a loss.

Well sorry but that's just stupid. There are a multitude of reasons for a fighter to throw a fight. To dismiss them all under some holier than thou pretext of fistic integrity is naive and foolish.

If we were to eliminate from the HOF any fighter that had some bouts under shady circumstances it would be mighty empty . . . .