Post your all-time top heavyweights rankings

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 22 May 2006, 10:43

The Great John L wrote:
pundit wrote:
bigzab wrote:1.Ali
2.Louis
3.Holmes
4.Johnson
5.Foreman
6.Liston
7.Langford
8.Frazier
9.Dempsey
10.Schmeling
11.Charles
12.Lewis
13.Bowe
14.Holyfield
15.Walcott
16.Tyson
17.Norton
18.Tunney
19.Patterson
20.Jefferies
Interesting list with several eccentric but defendable picks. However, you have forgotten Marciano, haven't you?
Which picks do you consider eccentric? Actually, other than the exclusion of the Rock, this list looks pretty mainstream.

Well, Schmeling is higher than most people would have him, for example, as is Bowe.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 22 May 2006, 10:49

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:well no ezzard,

its just i thought schmeling never looked better than in louis I. i certainly didnt see any signs of aging when he fought louis. on the other hand, i thought schmeling was stronger, smarter, more experienced as well as retaining his physical peak.

on the other hand i think charles was past his prime vs marciano cause unlike schmeling, i noticed phyiscal decline in charles wheres i did not in schmeling.

I agree that Schmeling never looked better but he's landing right after right on one of the greatest fighters who ever lived - he's got to be looking good, right!!! It was an inspired win for Schmeling but IMO it was more skill and focus than physical attributes. Max had not faded much but going into the fight he was obviously not the force he once was.

I read a biography of Louis in which Joe suggested he was paying too much attention to the putting green and the ladies prior to the fight. Schmeling was also the best fighter Louis had faced up until that point.

Joe was not fully developed, but he wasn't far off the fighter he would become. Max deserves some plaudits for this win, surely.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 22 May 2006, 11:37

Schmeling was also the best fighter Louis had faced up until that point.

one could say max baer was the best fighter since he slaughtered max schmeling in 1933.

Max had not faded much but going into the fight he was obviously not the force he once was.

i really dont see how that is?? going into the louis fight, he recentley slaughtered hamas and uzcuden avenging a loss and a draw. he looked as good as ever in these fights.

i think the 1936 schmeling was better than a 29-32 schmeling because he was stronger, more mature, more experienced, and smarter. i also think a 1936 schmeling was just as fast with just as good reflexes as a 1929 or 1930 schmeling.

where are these signs of aging? was he noticeably slower? was his reflexes slower? was he heavier?

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 22 May 2006, 11:59

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Schmeling was also the best fighter Louis had faced up until that point.
one could say max baer was the best fighter since he slaughtered max schmeling in 1933.

Max had not faded much but going into the fight he was obviously not the force he once was.

i really dont see how that is?? going into the louis fight, he recentley slaughtered hamas and uzcuden avenging a loss and a draw. he looked as good as ever in these fights.

i think the 1936 schmeling was better than a 29-32 schmeling because he was stronger, more mature, more experienced, and smarter. i also think a 1936 schmeling was just as fast with just as good reflexes as a 1929 or 1930 schmeling.

where are these signs of aging? was he noticeably slower? was his reflexes slower? was he heavier?

You could say Baer, yes, although stylewise Schmeling was more equipped at handling Joe.

Max definitely had more experience, but he had to fight in a more measured way because his fitness wasn't quite what it was. Also, mentally, the Baer fight took somethign away from him. His attitude changed a little after that fight, it changed again after he beat Louis and he started to believe in himself becoming champion again.

He's looking so good because he's beating up Joe Louis.

Where would you rate Schmeling?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 22 May 2006, 12:00

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Schmeling was also the best fighter Louis had faced up until that point.
one could say max baer was the best fighter since he slaughtered max schmeling in 1933.

Max had not faded much but going into the fight he was obviously not the force he once was.
i really dont see how that is?? going into the louis fight, he recentley slaughtered hamas and uzcuden avenging a loss and a draw. he looked as good as ever in these fights.

i think the 1936 schmeling was better than a 29-32 schmeling because he was stronger, more mature, more experienced, and smarter. i also think a 1936 schmeling was just as fast with just as good reflexes as a 1929 or 1930 schmeling.

where are these signs of aging? was he noticeably slower? was his reflexes slower? was he heavier?

Schmeling was always a pretty smart fighter, however, it's open to debate whether he could have pulled a "Louis 1936" earlier in his career. Maybe, maybe not.

As for Uzcudun, Schmeling clobbered him pretty badly also in 1929, when Uzcudun was arguably closer to his prime than in 1935. The 1934 bout was Schmeling's first comeback fight after falling into a hole, apparently he won that handsomely but got screwed.

Finally, how would you substantiate the claim from that the 1936 Schmeling was stronger than the 1929 Schmeling?

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 22 May 2006, 22:31

Just clarifying things here: You do not have to post a top 20 if you do not want to. I am drawing the line at a minimum of a top 10, so hopefully more people will put in their lists.

Please, if you have been posting on this thread, but not put in your list, please do so seeing as I want the final compilated list to be as comprehensive as possible.

Thanks

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 22 May 2006, 23:02

I have to say, looking at Max vs Sharkey, Baer, Stribling and than the Max vs Louis in their first fight, that the Schmeling of 1936 is better, at least in comparison to those fights. He still has the same reflexes, speed, and stamina of a few years back, but fights more confidently and at a more assured pace. In the Baer bout he seems to mentally unravel after that first round in which Baer took a flush right hand and laughed at him. He just didn't let his hands go after that.

In the end, does it really matter? He certainly wasn't shot, and I see the same results vs Louis, both of the first fight and the rematch, vs any Schmeling of 1930-1938.

Les Darcy · Post by **Les Darcy** » 23 May 2006, 05:41

Good idea, whatever the format this is my current top 20:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Rocky Marciano
5. George Foreman
6. Joe Frazier
7. Lennox Lewis
8. James J. Jeffries
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Jack Johnson
11. Mike Tyson
12. Sonny Liston
13. Evander Holyfield
14. Gene Tunney
15. Ezzard Charles
16. Jersey Joe Walcott
17. Sam Langford
18. Floyd Patterson
19. Ken Norton
20. Harry Wills

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 24 May 2006, 08:15

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 24 May 2006, 17:05

My top 25 heavyweights:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Evander Holyfield
7. George Foreman
8. Larry Holmes
9. Joe Frazier
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Ezzard Charles
12. Jersey Joe Walcott
13. Mike Tyson
14. Riddick Bowe
15. Floyd Patterson
16. Jim J. Jeffries
17. John L. Sullivan
18. Harry Wills
19. Sam Langford
20. Max Schmeling
21. Joe Jeannette
22. Ken Norton
23. Jack Sharkey
24. Sam McVeay
25. Peter Jackson

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 24 May 2006, 17:16

elmersalsa wrote:My top 25 heavyweights:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Evander Holyfield
7. George Foreman
8. Larry Holmes
9. Joe Frazier
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Ezzard Charles
12. Jersey Joe Walcott
13. Mike Tyson
14. Riddick Bowe
15. Floyd Patterson
16. Jim J. Jeffries
17. John L. Sullivan
18. Harry Wills
19. Sam Langford
20. Max Schmeling
21. Joe Jeannette
22. Ken Norton
23. Jack Sharkey
24. Sam McVeay
25. Peter Jackson

I badly miss Gene Tunney, and everyone fighting before 1920 except Jack Johnson appears to be squeezed between #16 and #25.

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 25 May 2006, 23:04

Brockton Blockbuster, Dempseyfire, where are your lists? Plus anyone else who has posted here but is yet to put up a list.

Thanks

bigzab · Post by **bigzab** » 26 May 2006, 02:59

Decagon wrote:I hate it when people rank George Foreman in the top five. [/short rant]

1.Ali
2.Louis
3.Holmes
4.Johnson
5.LISTON
6.FOREMAN
7.Marciano
8.Langford
9.Frazier
10.Dempsey
11.Schmeling
12.Charles
13.Lewis
14.Bowe
15.Holyfield
16.Walcott
17.Tyson
18.Norton
19.Tunney
20.Patterson
You happy now? I am. Thanks!

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 May 2006, 12:39

My list (Besides Jefferies and Johnson I exclude pre 1920 fighters due to lack of comparable data, and consider Tunney a light HW)

1) Joe Louis

2) Clay/Ali

3) Jack Johnson

4) Larry Holmes

5) Jack Dempsey

6) George Foreman

7) Joe Frazier

8) Rocky Marciano

9) Sonny Liston

10) Jim Jefferies

11) Evander Holyfield

12) Lennox Lewis

13) Mike Tyson

14) Max Schmeling

15) Jersey Joe Walcott

16) Ezzard Charles

17) Ken Norton

18) Floyd Patterson

19) Jack Sharkey

20) Harry Willis

21) Max Baer

22) Jerry Quarry

23) Jimmy Young

24) Riddick Bowe

25) George Godfrey

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 26 May 2006, 12:45

dempseyfire wrote:My list (Besides Jefferies and Johnson I exclude pre 1920 fighters due to lack of comparable data, and consider Tunney a light HW)

So where would Tunney be if you'd rank him as a heavy?

Professor X · Post by **Professor X** » 26 May 2006, 19:11

[quote="elmersalsa"][size=18]My top 25 heavyweights:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Evander Holyfield
7. George Foreman
8. Larry Holmes
9. Joe Frazier
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Ezzard Charles
12. Jersey Joe Walcott
13. Mike Tyson
14. Riddick Bowe
15. Floyd Patterson
16. Jim J. Jeffries
17. John L. Sullivan
18. Harry Wills
19. Sam Langford
20. Max Schmeling
21. Joe Jeannette
22. Ken Norton
23. Jack Sharkey
24. Sam McVeay
25. Peter Jackson[/size][/quote]

This is the most accurate list.

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 26 May 2006, 22:27

Just a top 15 for me.

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Foreman
5. Marciano
6. Frazier
7. Lewis
8. Johnson
9. Dempsey
10. Liston
11. Holyfield
12. Tyson
13. Charles
14. Tunney
15. Patterson

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 27 May 2006, 02:41

pundit wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:My list (Besides Jefferies and Johnson I exclude pre 1920 fighters due to lack of comparable data, and consider Tunney a light HW)
So where would Tunney be if you'd rank him as a heavy?

Hard to say. He was HW champion beating an aged Dempsey twice, but his only other accomplishments at HW are a title defense against a very underserving Tom Heeney, a win over fringe contender Charley Weinert (somewhat impressive) and wins over a few journeyman such as Bartley Madden and Martin Burke (all of whom were small HWs, weighing in the 180s).

I'd probably rank him in between Charles and Norton.

barry · Post by **barry** » 27 May 2006, 03:18

Heavyweight

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Jack Johnson
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Mike Tyson
7. Jim Jeffries
8. George Foreman
9. Sonny Liston
10. Larry Holmes
11. Joe Frazier
12. Max Baer
13. Sam Langford
14. Bob Fitzsimmons
15. Ezzard Charles
16. Gene Tunney
17. Evander Holyfield
18. Peter Jackson
19. John L. Sullivan
20. Tommy Burns

barry · Post by **barry** » 27 May 2006, 03:32

>>>Based on what do you rank Tommy Burns over Lennox Lewis?<<<

Based on the fact that he was never knocked out by one, much-less two ordinary heavyweights while in his prime!

barry · Post by **barry** » 27 May 2006, 03:36

>>>Don't you think he would have if he'd taken on the best in the division instead of hiding behind the color line?<<<

Maybe, maybe not...fact is he was never knocked out by an ordinary heavyweight...whether he would, or wouldn't is just specualtion!

barry · Post by **barry** » 27 May 2006, 03:45

Again...you are just throwing speculation around...I prefer to stick to facts! Whether Lewis fought the best and Burns didn't is purely opinionated...nothing more, nothing less!

barry · Post by **barry** » 27 May 2006, 03:59

No...Burns lost by techinal stoppage...the Johnson result was stopped by the police...Burns didn't give up, nor did the referee stop it...it was the police...not a TKO. Beckett stopped Burns in 1920 on a TKO when Burns was an old man and way, way, way past his prime!

And for the record...what Rahman and McCall has done throughout they're repective careers speaks lot more ordinary than spectacular and it is based more on fact than opinion, but if you want to name some of the fighters that Burns failed to fight I'll gladly counter with several that Lewis never faced as well!

jimglen · Post by **jimglen** » 27 May 2006, 04:00

I applaud you Barry you strike me as a very methodical researcher and use the facts to solidify your claims, unlike a lot sheep who just regurgitate the same 'old' stuff we've been told for years...

With so many modern researchers 'diggen' up the stories of 'forgotten & unknown greats', we MUST include them in! And you do Barry, a noble & honest researcher.

I myself would put Tommy Farr & Bruce Woodcock before Lewis in a heartbeat, they were simple 'tougher' and better fighters!

Jim.

barry · Post by **barry** » 27 May 2006, 04:06

Thank you Jim! As you know I respect you very much and admire the work that you have done for early boxing history in Great Britain...especially for fighters like McAvoy and Bert Gilroy!

I have tried to model the method I research and look at boxing history the way that the top historians in the world do. They are my peers and I look to them often for guidance when I don't know something...instead of trying to pretend like I already know it...though modestly speaking, I do know a hell of a lot about boxing, but I have earned it by doing the work myself.