BoxRec

jezzamundo wrote:Based on a vote from BoxRec members over a month

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

Overall an eminently reasonable list, even though I have my quibbles with details, of course.

Terence wrote:These guys who fought for us, all that blood, sweat, tears and jeers and they gets their posthumous (for many) reward when Boxrec posters bounce their names all over a few lists

It is a touching rememberance.

Only kidding, I don't do lists but a lot of them seem very sensible. One question, why is Klitters mentioned in this strand

Becuase Decagon ranks a guy above a legend like Langford who was outclassed by the Klitters. Otherwise there's no reason to mention them in this thread.

1.Ali
2.Holmes
3.Foreman
4.Tyson.
5.Lewis
6.Holyfield
7.marciano
8.Dempsey
9.Gołota

Terence wrote:

pundit wrote:

Terence wrote:These guys who fought for us, all that blood, sweat, tears and jeers and they gets their posthumous (for many) reward when Boxrec posters bounce their names all over a few lists

It is a touching rememberance.

Only kidding, I don't do lists but a lot of them seem very sensible. One question, why is Klitters mentioned in this strand

Becuase Decagon ranks a guy above a legend like Langford who was outclassed by the Klitters. Otherwise there's no reason to mention them in this thread.

I suppose you include what you can judge. I wonder how a list called: "Best Heavtweights whom you have seen in at least 3-4 full fights." would look.

I would not endorse it, but it makes a point, I think.

I saw footage purported to be Langford, he seemed ahead of his time.

Well ahead indeed.

sasey wrote:1.Ali
2.Holmes
3.Foreman
4.Tyson.
5.Lewis
6.Holyfield
7.marciano
8.Dempsey
9.Gołota

You're not gonna make friends with this....

Decagon wrote: Basically, I'm hearing that Chris Byrd would've been a great cruiserweight, while a man he was 7 inches taller than and 40 pounds heavier than was one of the greatest heavyweights of all time. I'd pick Michael Spinks at 175 to beat Langford at heavyweight. Bob Foster, too. Lots of light heavyweights could get the better of Langford, and a lot of heavyweights could as well. He ranks as high as he does on my list because he did have a very good run at heavyweight. I rank him #4 pound-for-pound and #7 at light heavyweight. He was a top heavyweight when boxing was in its infancy. While Johnson's size and defense would make him a threat in any era, I don't see Langford doing well in the 1970s, or even the 1980s.

Well, the issue is that Langford DID beat the best heavyweights of his era (or at least those he was allowed to fight): Harry Wills (until 1916), Joe Jeanette, Sam Mc Vea; and a very green Langford went 15 rounds with the great Jack Johnson who was at his prime. In contrast, Byrd was twice beaten from pillar to post by Vlad (who, strangely, doesn't make your top 40), and he struggled with old Golota and bum Oquendo. Whenever it mattered, Byrd could NOT make up for lack fo size with technique, while Langford did -- over and over again.

Decagon wrote:You're ignoring Langford's losses and concentrating on Byrd's. Try a more balanced approach. Wladimir Klitschko's a one-hit-wonder. Sure, he beat Byrd twice, but he didn't beat anyone else of note, against some very bad losses. Buster Douglas doesn't make my top 40, either, and at least Douglas beat a prime Mike Tyson.

How can you even begin to compare Byrd and Langford???.... absolutely absurd!...

I doubt Byrd would last 3 rounds with Sam...

Rocky was just 29 when he gained the title from Walcott, 32 when he defended it the last time against Moore; while Moore and Walcott were close to 40 (or over 40, if you believe Moore and not his mum).

walcott was 38 and was HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION and a known late bloomer


moore was 38 coming off a 45-1 run heading into the marciano fight






pundit,


dempsey beat a better version of gibbons than tunney did. in fact tunney avoided a prime gibbons

silkov wrote:

Decagon wrote:You're ignoring Langford's losses and concentrating on Byrd's. Try a more balanced approach. Wladimir Klitschko's a one-hit-wonder. Sure, he beat Byrd twice, but he didn't beat anyone else of note, against some very bad losses. Buster Douglas doesn't make my top 40, either, and at least Douglas beat a prime Mike Tyson.

How can you even begin to compare Byrd and Langford???.... absolutely absurd!...

I doubt Byrd would last 3 rounds with Sam...

Well, Langford had 200 something fights, often with a week between two bouts, so it's no wonder he has a few losses. But on balance he came out on top agasint EVERYONE except (i) the great Jack Johnson when Langford was green and Johnson at his peak, and (ii) the almost-as-great Harry Wills when Langford was half-blind and deteriorating.

In contrast, Byrd came out as a mashed potato against Vlad twice; and overall he has in few convincing wins on his record. Vitali and Holyfield were injured (and Holyfield over-the-hill); the best win is perhaps Tua, but who is Tua? A journeyman with a hard left hook. This is not the material ATGs are made off. As said, Byrd is outside the top 100.

Btw: Byrd-McCline SD 12; Vlad-McCline TKO 10, winning 9 rounds on two scoreacards and 8 on the remaining card. This is NOT to say that Vlad should be in your top 40 (maybe after unifying a few belts, but not at this satge); this is to say Bryd should not be there.

Decagon wrote:Byrd fought a lot of heavyweights and only came up short against Wlad and Ibeabuchi. Langford had multiple losses to guys like Bill Tate, Gunboat Smith and Fred Fulton. And I don't care what the scorecards were, Byrd CLEARLY beat McCline and Shitily.

Can't help but do a John L on you: my friend, you need to learn a bit more about boxing in the 1910s and 1920s before making statements whose naivety is hard to surpass.

(the substantial response was already in my previous post)

Decagon wrote:Langford had multiple losses to guys like Bill Tate, Gunboat Smith and Fred Fulton.

This implies that you don't think these guys were any good, or am I missing something? Dec, remember, Tate was as solid as Holmes, so losing to him is understandable. I think Smith and Fulton were pretty good fighters as well.

Decagon wrote:Aren't you the one who said that Andrew Golota was one of the best heavyweights of the 1990s?

At his best he was, ...big difference to saying Byrd was better than Langford for christssake!...

pundit wrote:

Decagon wrote:Byrd fought a lot of heavyweights and only came up short against Wlad and Ibeabuchi. Langford had multiple losses to guys like Bill Tate, Gunboat Smith and Fred Fulton. And I don't care what the scorecards were, Byrd CLEARLY beat McCline and Shitily.

Can't help but do a John L on you: my friend, you need to learn a bit more about boxing in the 1910s and 1920s before making statements whose naivety is hard to surpass.

(the substantial response was already in my previous post)

Hear, hear!... I still havent stopped laughing!...

[quote="punditCan't help but do a John L on you:[/quote]

Hey, what do you mean by that!! 8)

The Great John L wrote:[quote="punditCan't help but do a John L on you:

Hey, what do you mean by that!! 8)[/quote]

A little bit of patronizing at the right moment can shorten a pointless discussion considerably.... 8)

pundit wrote:

The Great John L wrote:[quote="punditCan't help but do a John L on you:

Hey, what do you mean by that!! 8)

A little bit of patronizing at the right moment can shorten a pointless discussion considerably.... 8)[/quote]

It didn't work in the Vitali threads...

The Great John L wrote:

pundit wrote:

The Great John L wrote:[quote="punditCan't help but do a John L on you:

Hey, what do you mean by that!! 8)

A little bit of patronizing at the right moment can shorten a pointless discussion considerably.... 8)

It didn't work in the Vitali threads...[/quote]

Well, I guess I've figured you out by now (at least this part).

pundit wrote:Well, I guess I've figured you out by now (at least this part).

I don't think so...

The Great John L wrote:

pundit wrote:Well, I guess I've figured you out by now (at least this part).

I don't think so...

Decagon wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Decagon wrote:Langford had multiple losses to guys like Bill Tate, Gunboat Smith and Fred Fulton.

This implies that you don't think these guys were any good, or am I missing something? Dec, remember, Tate was as solid as Holmes, so losing to him is understandable. I think Smith and Fulton were pretty good fighters as well.

I'm always going to underrate fighters using the upright, early stance. Very few make it work. Langford was a part of the start of modern boxing, with the jab, defense and combinations. That's what made him so good.

Again, #4 of all time, pound-for-pound, #7 of all time at light heavyweight. At heavyweight, I see too many fighters getting the better of him. Put him in with the fighters of the 1970s, and he does no better than Bob Foster did (not that what Foster did was terribly bad, of course).

Tate and Smith were very good technical fighters who didn't stand ram-rod straight. Your grouping together a whole group of fighters together based on a joke of a Corbett exhibition flick and poor film speed/quality.

I think the best way to rank boxers is based on accomplishments in their era. Langford was the best heavyweight in the world for a time and ranks above guys who never established themselves as the best.

Decagon wrote:Byrd fought a lot of heavyweights and only came up short against Wlad and Ibeabuchi. Langford had multiple losses to guys like Bill Tate, Gunboat Smith and Fred Fulton. And I don't care what the scorecards were, Byrd CLEARLY beat McCline and Shitily.

langford was far past his prime and basically blind when he lost to fulton and bill tate.


gunboat smith did beat a prime langford though.......however sam avenged the loss in dramatic fashion.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:I think the best way to rank boxers is based on accomplishments in their era. Langford was the best heavyweight in the world for a time and ranks above guys who never established themselves as the best.

I think this is a good criterion although not the only one (otherwise Vitali would be an all-time great, to the chagrin of some). Here are the fighters who were considered # 1 heavywegihts for a period, trying to keep the "vacant" periods at a minimum:

1889-1892 John L. Sullivan
1892-1894 Peter Jackson (considered better than Corbett till about 94)
1894-1897 James Corbett
1897-1899 Bob Fitzsimmons
1899-1903 Jim Jeffries

1903-1912 Jack Johnson (openly ducked by Jeffries)
1912-1916 Sam Langford (Johnson deteriorated, didin't give Langford another shot)
1916-1923 Harry Wills (Started to beat Langford from 1916 regularly Willard and Dempsey ducked Wills. Deteriorated from 1923)
1923-1926 Jack Dempsey (some would say from 1919 but I say from 1923, as Demsey avoided Wills)
1926-1928 Gene Tunney

1928-1929 VACANT (no obvious candidate around)
1929-1931 Jack Sharkey (took over with Stribling win, still held in higher regard than Schmeling after their first bout)
1931-1933 Max Schmeling (took over with KO over Stribling that convinced most doubter; 1932 loss to Sharkey was widely seen as robbery)
1933-1935 Max Baer (Braddock loss was seen as due to lack of preparation)
1935-1947 Joe Louis (takes over with knockout of Baer. Schmeling loss cost him but he was still considered the best heavyweight)

1947-1948 Jersey Joe Walcott (lost a fight to Louis that most thought he had won)
1948-1949 Joe Louis (the first to come back)
1949-1951 Ezzard Charles
1951-1952 Jersey Joe Walcott
1952-1956 Rocky Marciano

1956-1959 Floyd Patterson (there are doubts - avoided Folley, Machen; but there was no dominant challenger before 1960)
1959-1960 Ingemar Johannson (borderline - many considered Patterson's loss a slip, as it turned out to be)
1960-1964 Sonny Liston (ducked by Patterson, after victory over Folley widely considered the best heavyweight)
1964-1970 Muhammad Ali
1970-1973 Joe Frazier (since the Ellis win)

1973-1974 George Foreman
1974-1978 Muhammad Ali
1978-1985 Larry Holmes
1985-1986 Michael Spinks
1986-1990 Mike Tyson

1990-1992 Evander Holyfield
1992-1993 Riddick Bowe
1993-1994 Evander Holyfield
1994-1995 VACANT (all canddiates lost big fights in 94 - Holyfield, Moorer, Lewis and there is noone obvious to pick)
1995-1996 Mike Tyson

1996-1999 Evander Holyfield
1999-2004 Lennox Lewis (retired in early 2004)
2004-2006 Vitali Klitschko (retired in early 2006)
2006- Vlad Klitschko (since the Byrd win)

Decagon wrote:But in your argument against Byrd, you have concentrated on his losses when he was past his prime.

Byrd never had a prime. Whenever he stepped up to fight a big reasonably skilled heavyweight, he got spanked like a schoolboy.

pundit wrote:...Vitali would be an all-time great, to the chagrin of some).

Really?? How so?

pundit wrote:2004-2006 Vitali Klitschko (retired in early 2006)
2006- Vlad Klitschko (since the Byrd win)

Hmmm, I noticed that you had used the very logical VACANT before, but obviously you are looking to start another flame war? 8)