How Do You Rank These Smaller Heavyweight Champions?

[keithmoonhangover]

Floyd Patterson, Joe Frazier, Evander Holyfield, Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles, Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano.

Seven greats, in which order do you rank them?

[goose 5]

Holyfield, Frazier, Louis, Marciano, Charles, Patterson, Tunney. I wouldn't argue with Louis being ahead of Frazier, however.

[Ambling Alp II]

Of these 7, I would have it:

1. Louis
2. Frazier
3. Holyfield
4. Marciano
5. Charles
6. Patterson
7. Tunney


Louis is the clear #1. Frazier and Holyfield are close. Charles and Patterson are very close. Main reason Tunney is last is that he didn't have nearly as many fights at heavyweight.

[goose 5]

Are you ranking them on how dominant they were in their own time or on a film analysis of who would beat whom ?

[gilgamesh]

Of these 7, I would have it:

1. Louis
2. Frazier
3. Holyfield
4. Marciano
5. Charles
6. Patterson
7. Tunney


Louis is the clear #1. Frazier and Holyfield are close. Charles and Patterson are very close. Main reason Tunney is last is that he didn't have nearly as many fights at heavyweight.

I'd switch up the placement of Holyfield and Frazier, but other than that I'm with ya, and I agree with you that Charles and Patterson are splitting hairs as well.

[Ambling Alp II]

Are you ranking them on how dominant they were in their own time or on a film analysis of who would beat whom ?

I was rating them both on their body of work and how they look on film. How dominant they are can be deceiving because it's harder to be dominant in a strong era. (i.e Frazier's era was tougher than the rest).

Wasn't really thinking of head-to-head matchups between the 7. Usually, the higher ranked guy will beat the lower ranked guy.
As mentioned, Tunney is a little tricky. Certainly, could see him winning some fights here.

[elmersalsa]

1. Joe Louis
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Evander Holyfield
4. Joe Frazier
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Floyd Patterson
7. Gene Tunney

[DrDuke]

1. Evander Holyfield
2. Joe Frazier
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Joe Louis
5. Floyd Patterson
6. Gene Tunney
7. Ezzard Charles

[keithmoonhangover]

1. Evander Holyfield
2. Joe Frazier
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Joe Louis
5. Floyd Patterson
6. Gene Tunney
7. Ezzard Charles

[keithmoonhangover]

Of these 7, I would have it:

1. Louis
2. Frazier
3. Holyfield
4. Marciano
5. Charles
6. Patterson
7. Tunney


Louis is the clear #1. Frazier and Holyfield are close. Charles and Patterson are very close. Main reason Tunney is last is that he didn't have nearly as many fights at heavyweight.

That's pretty much my list, but I'd swap Patterson and Charles.

[DrDuke]

1. Evander Holyfield
2. Joe Frazier
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Joe Louis
5. Floyd Patterson
6. Gene Tunney
7. Ezzard Charles

Marciano should be higher. Charles and Moore were better than anybody Louis beat. Marciano also had more convining wins over Walcott. Of course, Louis was past prime vs Walcott, but Walcott also gotta rank higher than the likes of Baer, Schmeling, etc.

[pound per pound]

Floyd Patterson, Joe Frazier, Evander Holyfield, Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles, Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano.

Seven greats, in which order do you rank them?

Well Holyfield was on PED's. How he would do naturally is debatable. Likely not as good as he did. Removing him out of the conversation there hasn't been a man Frazier size of 205 pound for nearly 50 years among heavyweight greats.

We are talking about moderns cruiser weight greats. Who is the best depends on a great many things. You can make a case for all of them.

[Ambling Alp II]

He probably was, as were some of the guys since him. However, Louis was better anyway.
He had the big wins over Schmeling and Baer, as well as several good wins.
He was technically sound, and a brutal puncher. Obviously, nobody is perfect, but on video he looks the best.

The real arguments are between Holyfield and Frazier for 2nd, and Patterson and Charles for 5th.

[Ambling Alp II]

Of these 7, I would have it:

1. Louis
2. Frazier
3. Holyfield
4. Marciano
5. Charles
6. Patterson
7. Tunney


Louis is the clear #1. Frazier and Holyfield are close. Charles and Patterson are very close. Main reason Tunney is last is that he didn't have nearly as many fights at heavyweight.

That's pretty much my list, but I'd swap Patterson and Charles.

Patterson and Charles both had their ups and downs. Really a tough call.

[Bodyshot3]

I really don't know about the old and bold guys.....but Holyfield was pretty feckin' immense.

[oogiebe]

No love for Tunney.

[DrDuke]

No love for Tunney.

Definitely gotta be higher than Charles. It's close with Patterson.

[keithmoonhangover]

No love for Tunney.

I love me some Tunney, as a person and a boxer. At heavyweight his only wins were against an aged and part time champion.

[Ambling Alp II]

Tunney is hard to rate at hw and I have gone back and forth on where to rate him over the years. I have finally come to the conclusion that he deserves to be rated a little behind the "mid-tier" champions (such as Charles and Patterson) but ahead of the "lower-tier ones". (like Braddock, Willard, Carnera etc.)

He did have more wins at heavyweight than people seem to think. However, after Dempsey, Heeney is probably his 2nd best opponent at heavyweight. Risko was inconsistent and hadn't quite reached his best when Tunney fought him. That isn't quite enough to rank him above Charles and Patterson. Had he actually fought more of the top heavyweights, he very well may have beaten them. However, we can only go with what actually happened.

[p4p1]

Does Charles deserve to be above Marciano? He gave Marciano some of his toughest fights at 34 and based on his career after the first Marciano fight he was very clearly past his use by date.
Based purely on age I would think, although it is not guaranteed, that the version of Walcott he beat was better than the Marciano version. Ditto the version of Louis. He also had defences than Rocky. Outside of a robbery (according to the ring) he never lost a HW fight until he had passed his 30th birthday. Admittedly to an older man. Beat better versions of Moore and younger versions of some common opponents between them.

[tiny_acres]

Does Charles deserve to be above Marciano? He gave Marciano some of his toughest fights at 34 and based on his career after the first Marciano fight he was very clearly past his use by date.
Based purely on age I would think, although it is not guaranteed, that the version of Walcott he beat was better than the Marciano version. Ditto the version of Louis. He also had defences than Rocky. Outside of a robbery (according to the ring) he never lost a HW fight until he had passed his 30th birthday. Admittedly to an older man. Beat better versions of Moore and younger versions of some common opponents between them.

I rank Charles higher than I do Marciano. But I also of the belief that Marciano is vastly over rated by boxing fans. Simply because he went undefeated.
Marciano's best wins were over past prime greats.

[Ambling Alp II]

Some people do overrate him because he was undefeated. Some underrate him for the same reason.
He was consistent. when rating him, we should not look at how good Louis, Charles, and Walcott were at their best. We should look at how good they were when Marciano fought him. They all had to varying degrees something left.

As for Charles, the losses to Layne and Valdes hurt his case the most.

[p4p1]

Some people do overrate him because he was undefeated. Some underrate him for the same reason.
He was consistent. when rating him, we should not look at how good Louis, Charles, and Walcott were at their best. We should look at how good they were when Marciano fought him. They all had to varying degrees something left.

As for Charles, the losses to Layne and Valdes hurt his case the most.

Do we consider Charles in his prime at that stage though? I haven't seen the fight but from the boxrec wiki on it, it does sound like Charles may have been robbed. 2 rounds to 1 with 7 even would give the indication that Dempsey bent over backwards not to give it to Charles.
What you said about what Walcott, Louis and Charles had left is kind of my point Alp. It would appear that Charles beat better versions of some of Marciano's biggest wins. Charles spent a lot more time facing the elite of the HW division than Marciano. Rocky was smart of course and got out when he knew that his time was almost up, Charles unfortunately didn't.

[p4p1]

Does Louis belong on this list? Obviously he is a smaller heavyweight by todays standards but sitting around 200lbs for most of his career, he did outweigh the majority of his opponents. It's similar with Frazier although most of his opponents were more or less the same weight as him. The other guys on the list were consistently, though not always the smaller man in the ring.

[DrDuke]

Some people do overrate him because he was undefeated. Some underrate him for the same reason.
He was consistent. when rating him, we should not look at how good Louis, Charles, and Walcott were at their best. We should look at how good they were when Marciano fought him. They all had to varying degrees something left.

As for Charles, the losses to Layne and Valdes hurt his case the most.

Louis was obviously way past prime. Charles wasn't at his very best, but was still credible. Walcott was near his best, since he had a late start type of a career, similarly to what Bernard Hopkins would do.