BoxRec

Posted: **14 Jan 2019, 12:24**

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.

Posted: **14 Jan 2019, 12:32**

oogiebe wrote: ↑14 Jan 2019, 12:06
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.

Tyson is usually dramatically overrated or unfairly underrated with very few level headed folks getting him correctly IMO. I am very close to putting him as my #10 ahead of Johnson. I feel some people dislike(d) him as a person so much it clouded their judgement and of course there's the natural way of rebelling against a popular opinion (i.e - the casual fans overrating of Tyson) but as time goes on his legacy will age fairly well IMO.

Foreman is an interesting one. I rank him ahead of fighters I know are better than him like Liston and Frazier though he did crush Frazier and he has some big accomplishments too.

Posted: **14 Jan 2019, 14:35**

You rank Foreman ahead of Frazier and Liston even though you know they were better? Is that a typo?

I rank Foreman ahead of them because I think he was better then them.

Posted: **14 Jan 2019, 15:06**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑14 Jan 2019, 14:35 You rank Foreman ahead of Frazier and Liston even though you know they were better? Is that a typo?

I rank Foreman ahead of them because I think he was better then them.

I mean better in the term I think they had better all around ability/talent than he did and do better in more mythical head to head matches but I rank his career ahead.

Posted: **16 Jan 2019, 16:56**

I've had a crack my my next 10 though I feel less confident of the order.

11. Tyson
12. Dempsey
13. Wlad Klithscko
14. Wills
15. Langford
16. Jeffries
17. Patterson
18. Walcott
19. Charles
20. Norton

Between Norton and Bowe it's close. I think Norton deserves a 2-1 over Ali, whereas Bowe had 2-1 over Holyfield but despite more losses and quick KO one's at that Norton was better for longer and got more quality in overall IMO.

Posted: **16 Jan 2019, 17:03**

Today I'm going

Ali
Louis
Johnson
Holmes
Foreman
Holyfield
Lewis
Frazier
Tyson
Wlad k
Liston
Vitali k
Wills
Marciano
Langford
Dempsey
Tunney
Jeffries
Charles
Walcott

Posted: **16 Jan 2019, 17:14**

Don't want to get into the Klitschkos, it's been hammered to death over and over. Suffice to say, I don't think they are anywhere near these guys; especially Vitaly.

Otherwise I am in the same ball park as you guys. The other guys mentioned are at least arguably top 20 and are roughly even with each other. I have Dempsey in the top 10 a head of Liston and Tyson but it's certainly debatable.

I would move up Jeffries up a bit, he should be #13.
I think Tunney deserves to be in the conversation. He had more fights against heavyweights than many people realize.
Agree the rest of these guys are very close. There are others that you could argue for such as Jeannette, McVey, Schmeling, Baer, Sharkey, Corbett, and Fitzsimmons.

Posted: **17 Jan 2019, 17:58**

gilgamesh wrote: ↑28 Jan 2013, 17:59
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.

Mike Tyson unwittingly ushered in another era of punch and grab (for his opponents), some were successful.

Posted: **18 Jan 2019, 12:10**

They have been punching and grabbing more in the last 20 years or so then ever.
Johnson was great at parrying punches. He would stop his opponent's punches with his own glove. Strange that tactic went away.

Posted: **18 Jan 2019, 12:22**

funso banjo baby wrote: ↑17 Jan 2019, 17:58
gilgamesh wrote: ↑28 Jan 2013, 17:59
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.

Mike Tyson unwittingly ushered in another era of punch and grab (for his opponents), some were successful.

Yup, Tyson obliged holding once he was on the inside, especially against larger opponents. (Bonecrusher Smith a great example).

Posted: **18 Jan 2019, 12:37**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑18 Jan 2019, 12:10 They have been punching and grabbing more in the last 20 years or so then ever.
Johnson was great at parrying punches. He would stop his opponent's punches with his own glove. Strange that tactic went away.

Agreed, we just had a 'great' fight with two guys landing less punches in a fight than bowe and holy field combined to land in a round.

Posted: **08 Oct 2019, 17:32**

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.

For some reason I was considering Sugar Ray Robinson as a welterweight, and Griffith as a middleweight, when it's quite the opposite.

Sorry, nevertheless I agree on Sugar Ray being arguably the best ever at middleweight.

Posted: **08 Oct 2019, 17:44**

Jacopodb wrote: ↑08 Oct 2019, 17:32
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.
For some reason I was considering Sugar Ray Robinson as a welterweight, and Griffith as a middleweight, when it's quite the opposite.

Sorry, nevertheless I agree on Sugar Ray being arguably the best ever at middleweight.

don't agree on Robinson but it's certainly reasonable. Srr was definitely at his best at welter, you had that right.

Posted: **08 Oct 2019, 22:56**

My top 10 Heavyweight Boxers all time list:
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Evander Holyfield
7. Larry Holmes
8. George Foreman
9. Joe Frazier
10. Lennox Lewis

Posted: **13 Oct 2019, 16:43**

here's a rough list, though my mind could change next week.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Lennox Lewis
6. George Foreman
7. Joe Frazier
8. Mike Tyson
9. Evander Holyfield
10. Wladimir Klitschko

Posted: **13 Oct 2019, 18:28**

drunkenpiper36 wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 16:43 here's a rough list, though my mind could change next week.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Lennox Lewis
6. George Foreman
7. Joe Frazier
8. Mike Tyson
9. Evander Holyfield
10. Wladimir Klitschko

Real rough with Tyson over holyfield. Less accomplished, dominated h2h, didn't face nearly the same competition. Most of lists like these can be subjective, nothing subjective about Mike over vander. Flat out lunacy.

Posted: **13 Oct 2019, 18:52**

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 18:28
drunkenpiper36 wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 16:43 here's a rough list, though my mind could change next week.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Lennox Lewis
6. George Foreman
7. Joe Frazier
8. Mike Tyson
9. Evander Holyfield
10. Wladimir Klitschko
nothing subjective about Mike over vander. Flat out lunacy.

Not really... While I can definitely see arguments ranking Evander higher than Tyson and have even had that order myself in the past, those are two guys who are interchangeable in the lower part of the top 10.

Posted: **13 Oct 2019, 18:53**

drunkenpiper36 wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 18:52
Onetimeonly wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 18:28

nothing subjective about Mike over vander. Flat out lunacy.

Not really... While I can definitely see arguments ranking Evander higher than Tyson and have even had that order myself in the past, those are two guys who are interchangeable in the lower part of the top 10.

Nonsense. Wherever you rate them holyfield has to be higher.

Posted: **13 Oct 2019, 18:59**

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 18:53
drunkenpiper36 wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 18:52

Not really... While I can definitely see arguments ranking Evander higher than Tyson and have even had that order myself in the past, those are two guys who are interchangeable in the lower part of the top 10.
Nonsense. Wherever you rate them holyfield has to be higher.

In all fairness, Tyson was 33 when he faced Holy. Personally, I don't have either in the top 10. Holy at around 12 and Tyson closer to 20, maybe as high as 16.

Posted: **13 Oct 2019, 18:59**

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 18:53
drunkenpiper36 wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 18:52

Not really... While I can definitely see arguments ranking Evander higher than Tyson and have even had that order myself in the past, those are two guys who are interchangeable in the lower part of the top 10.
Nonsense. Wherever you rate them holyfield has to be higher.

No he really doesn't.... Tyson spent his entire career at heavy and from the time he was 20-23 flattened an entire division, unifying a crown, beating the best available and establishing himself as the youngest champ. Holy's first reign consisted of beating an out of shape Douglas who doubtfully even trained, was extended the distance by two 40+ year old champs on the comeback trail and was decked by Bert Cooper. He lost the crown to Bowe then narrowly regained it when Bowe was deconditioned then lost it to Moorer. He beat Tyson in their two fights when BOTH were past it... Again, I can see arguments favoring holy and as stated, even rated Evander higher in the past.. Hell I might even rank him higher next week. But I don't see a clear distinction between either man which would place one significantly higher than the other.

Posted: **13 Oct 2019, 19:06**

oogiebe wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 18:59
Onetimeonly wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 18:53

Nonsense. Wherever you rate them holyfield has to be higher.
In all fairness, Tyson was 33 when he faced Holy. Personally, I don't have either in the top 10. Holy at around 12 and Tyson closer to 20, maybe as high as 16.

Evander was older than that and has a better resume anyway.

Posted: **13 Oct 2019, 19:06**

drunkenpiper36 wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 18:59
Onetimeonly wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 18:53

Nonsense. Wherever you rate them holyfield has to be higher.
No he really doesn't.... Tyson spent his entire career at heavy and from the time he was 20-23 flattened an entire division, unifying a crown, beating the best available and establishing himself as the youngest champ. Holy's first reign consisted of beating an out of shape Douglas who doubtfully even trained, was extended the distance by two 40+ year old champs on the comeback trail and was decked by Bert Cooper. He lost the crown to Bowe then narrowly regained it when Bowe was deconditioned then lost it to Moorer. He beat Tyson in their two fights when BOTH were past it... Again, I can see arguments favoring holy and as stated, even rated Evander higher in the past.. Hell I might even rank him higher next week. But I don't see a clear distinction between either man which would place one significantly higher than the other.

Posted: **13 Oct 2019, 19:07**

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 19:06
drunkenpiper36 wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 18:59

No he really doesn't.... Tyson spent his entire career at heavy and from the time he was 20-23 flattened an entire division, unifying a crown, beating the best available and establishing himself as the youngest champ. Holy's first reign consisted of beating an out of shape Douglas who doubtfully even trained, was extended the distance by two 40+ year old champs on the comeback trail and was decked by Bert Cooper. He lost the crown to Bowe then narrowly regained it when Bowe was deconditioned then lost it to Moorer. He beat Tyson in their two fights when BOTH were past it... Again, I can see arguments favoring holy and as stated, even rated Evander higher in the past.. Hell I might even rank him higher next week. But I don't see a clear distinction between either man which would place one significantly higher than the other.

Posted: **13 Oct 2019, 19:11**

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 19:06
oogiebe wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 18:59

In all fairness, Tyson was 33 when he faced Holy. Personally, I don't have either in the top 10. Holy at around 12 and Tyson closer to 20, maybe as high as 16.
Evander was older than that and has a better resume anyway.

No doubt, but the type of style that Tyson had was a young man's style. He was far past it at 33 (for him). Holy was the better fighter with better accomplishments, but a 22 year old Tyson would have been a handful for a even prime Holy.

Posted: **13 Oct 2019, 19:22**

oogiebe wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 19:11
Onetimeonly wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 19:06

Evander was older than that and has a better resume anyway.
No doubt, but the type of style that Tyson had was a young man's style. He was far past it at 33 (for him). Holy was the better fighter with better accomplishments, but a 22 year old Tyson would have been a handful for a even prime Holy.

That's just speculation. With what happened in reality there is no reasoning to rank Mike ahead of him.

BoxRec

Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...

Re: Top ten heavyweights of all time...