BoxRec

1.) Jack Johnson
2.) Rocky Marciano/Muhammad Ali
3.) Joe Louis
4.) Jack Dempsey
5.) George Foreman
6.) Lennox Lewis
7.) Evander Holyfield
8.) Floyd Patterson
9.) Joe Frazier
10.) John L. Sullivan
11.) James J. Jefferies
12.) Ezzard Charles
13.) Gene Tunney
14.) Max Schmeling
15.) Jim Corbett
16.) Bob Fitzsimmons
17.) James J Braddock
18.) Tommy Burns
19.) Max Baer
20.) Joe Walcott

You might ask why are some in places you wouldn't expect, for instance, you might ask yourself WHY IS BURNS HIGHER THAN WALCOTT AND BAER? well simple: Burns made 11 title defenses against the best white fighters of the time; as Walcott and Baer didnt hold their titles for long.

Or WHY IS GENE TUNNEY BELOW EZZARD CHARLES? well easy, both men were better at lighter weights, but Charles made more defenses of his heavyweight title and fought better heavyweights than what Tunney did, plus the fact Tunney drew the color line and never fought any black contenders.

Or WHY IS PATTERSON HIGHER THAN FRAZIER? Simple: Frazier no matter how hard he tried he could never regain the title, but Patterson did.

Or WHY IS SULLIVAN ON THE LIST AT ALL HE WAS A BAREKNUCKLE BOXER? True, but Sullivan was in an era where the bare knuckle era was replaced by the gloved and he was undefeated as a bareknuckle fighter, and was undefeated for 9yrs as the very first Heavyweight Champion of the World in the gloved era, until his loss to Corbett. It was once written that if Sullivan's record was complete, he would have surpassed Archie Moore's KO record.

If I could add ONE more name to the list of greats it would have to be the legendary grandfather of boxing JAMES FIGG, who reigned for well over 20yrs in his native England under the London Prize Ring Rules.

IrishRufusMurphy, I respect any fan that takes the time to digest boxing knowledge and produce a list for debate, but the reasoning behind your list is quite flawed.

The number of defenses can be quite pointless and you have to go with quality over quantity. Case in point, several of Burns's defenses were against a sparring partner that traveled with him (Squires). The 1st O'Brien fight was staged to ensure a lucrative rematch. Do you really think he would have lost those? And does anyone know who Jewey Smith or Jem Roche even was? He also lost every second of his fight with Johnson and never landed a punch.

Saying Walcott didn't hold his title for long does not give him credit for beating Joe Louis and getting robbed by the decision. It doesn't give him credit for great efforts against Charles and Marciano in some losing bouts.

James Figg fought championship fights using a cudgel in a three-part skills competition that made "a championship fight". I didn't know that beating a man with a cudgel has any reflection on his boxing ability. In his best known fight against Ned Sutton, the boxing part of the competition came after this, when Sutton was bleeding from a cudgel wound.

Unbelievably, Sonny Liston doesn't even make your Top 20 HW list?

I see you're a newbie here. Great to have you here. If boxing knowledge is what you are looking for, you came to the right forum here. The posters here will get you straightened out and enhance your boxing knowledge if you read what they have to say and keep an open mind.

Believe me, after a couple of months on this forum, your heavyweights list will look far different!!!!

happened to me

..rory...funny....honest and perceptive

I'm surprised that you have Patterson ahead of Frazier.

Frazier would have starched Patterson with ease.

dnahar32 wrote:
Unbelievably, Sonny Liston doesn't even make your Top 20 HW list?

Screw Liston what about Holmes.

dnahar32 wrote:He also lost every second of his fight with Johnson and never landed a punch.

Heck of a statement. Burns did in fact land punches in this fight. At times during the fight Johnson let Burns hit him in the body to show that Burns could not hurt him. 14 rounds without landing a punch sounds more like urban legend than an actual fight.

Kind of like some of the retelings of the Sullivan Corbett fight, where Sullivan only landed one punch -- a glancing blow to the shoulder in an early round. Sheer nonsense.

Hey I just put all those names in a bucket and dropped them on the floor and I'm thinking about reporting the order they landed in. Cuz I think the bucket drop approach may have yielded superior results in this case.

OK honestly, I liked seeing the list and reading your thoughts but just don't agree with your rationale in many cases. However buy me a Corona and I'll be glad to show you where you got off track.

The Great John L wrote:

dnahar32 wrote:He also lost every second of his fight with Johnson and never landed a punch.

Heck of a statement. Burns did in fact land punches in this fight. At times during the fight Johnson let Burns hit him in the body to show that Burns could not hurt him. 14 rounds without landing a punch sounds more like urban legend than an actual fight.

Kind of like some of the retelings of the Sullivan Corbett fight, where Sullivan only landed one punch -- a glancing blow to the shoulder in an early round. Sheer nonsense.

I guess we have to add qualifiers to everything. Burns did not land one significant punch in the whole fight. I left out the word meaningful and you thought I literally meant he didn't land a single punch? Everyone lands some punches (well except Morrade Hakkar in the 1st round of the Hopkins fight, LOL). If I said Gatti didn't land any punches against Mayweather, that's not to be taken literally. As you probably know, Johnson's style was to try and "catch" every punch. He rarely got hit. If he let Burns hit him, are they really meaningful punches? Did Burns win any rounds on anyone's scoring sheet? A sportswriter of the time made the comment that not one second of the fight could be scored for Burns. I was trying to make a point that Burns was overrated, and not trying to imply that he didn't land a single punch. If the message got lost in the typing, I'll try and be more careful next time.

No Larry Holmes?!

Floyd Patterson in the top ten!!! Sonny not listed at all!!! Are you nuts? I'm old enough to have lived through the blight that was Floyd Patterson's championship reign. It was a disgrace. He avoided fighters like Cleveland Williams, Zora Foley, Doug Jones and Sonny Liston to fight the likes of Pete Rademacher, Brian London, Roy Harris, Hurricane Jackson and Johanssen. And he couldn't even run the table with those bums!! Johanssen KO'd him once and almost did it again. And we knew how bad he was at the time. Sport magazine ran a cover article with a title something like Will Patterson Ever Fight Real Contenders? All knowledgeable fight folks (mainly my father and my uncles) knew he was a joke and that once he fought somebody real it'd be ugly. I was actually border line angry that my childhood would pass with this lame fraud as champ. So when Liston came along and destroyed him, I was relieved. When Clay/Ali came along I was euphoric that I had a true great to root for. This current disaster in the HW division is depressing but imagine what it was like in the late 50s to have all those good heavyweights around and a champ like Patterson who wouldn't fight them. Oh, I'm assuming you just forgot Sonny Liston. He should be top ten for sure, Patterson shouldn't be top 20. And Joe Frazier would have killed Floyd Patterson. I'm not talking figuratively, I mean Floyd would have been dead, not breathing any more.

Sharkey....I happen to concur with your statement. Some people find some redeeming qualities in Patterson's speed but to me he just wasnt the whole package due to the china chin. Some have argued that his power was more than what it seemed based on his post Liston performances and point out his good defensive skills, (which he very much needed). They may have a point.

However to have him above Smokin Joe and not have Liston rated does seem as I mentioned earlier to be half hazard. Patterson does not make my top 10 unless I'm rating the top 10 heavyweight annoyances of my life. I also lived through that time and was devastated that he got past Archie Moore whom I thought should have taken him to the cleaners that night. But it was not to be.

ok sharkeyboy ur underating patterson, no patterson should not have been top 10 but defintely top 20.


dont go by pattersons title reign, patterson was really young and velieve it not, patterson reached his peak after he lossed the title. when he lossed the title, patterson kicked the shit out of eddie machen, beaat george chuvalo, henry cooper, oscar bonavena, was TOTALYY robbed against jimmy ellis, and he drew with jerry quarry in a fight many thought patterson won.

patterson didnt just have perhaps the fastest hands in heavyweight history, he also had underated power he had a great left hook. i couldnt believe patterson didnt make the RINGS TOP 100 HARDEST HITTERS LIST. and pattersons chin seemed to get better too cause he after he lost his title to liston, he fought some hard punchers and he was only knocked down by ali(patterson had bad back) and quarry.
even when patterson was past his prime he outboxed ali for 6 rounds in the rematch until the fight was stopped in the 7th due to cuts.

Blocky I agree that Patterson showed his best after he was champion but take it from the old buzzer, Floyd was not outboxing Ali in the rematch.
Floyd was probably happy to get out of that fight on cuts. He was taking a lickin though I admit he may have kept on tickin. No way was he ahead at the 7th. Nor did he look like he was about to catch a second wind.

quote by ali after rematch "he gave me a good lickin the first 5 rounds"

and i disagree, i thought patterson was winning until the stoppage. doesnt matter, both were past their prime. but if he didnt get cut, it would have been a close decision.

That was Ali in rare humble moment, he was becoming kinder as he matured

boxbuzz a fair amount of ringsiders and people thought patterson was winning the fight,

ill say this, the fight was very close until the stoppage.

i wonder if patterson didnt have a bad back how he would have done agaianst ali in 66, perhaps take ali the distance.

I'm not ribbing you with my following comment it's really just a straighforward question. But would you give Roy Jones that kind of slack with Tarver? I know Ali and Floyd didnt like each other going into the first fight but I think they were on better terms by the second. In the first fight it was almost the same tension that Tarver-Jones had. Ali was almost in that "whats your excuse tonight Floyd" mood after the first fight.

I think respect was won by both fighters in the second go round. I will grant you the second fight was competitive but I truly think Ali was "the boss" in the second go round and would have taken care of needed business if it would have needed to go the distance. I think Floyd sensed that and at the same time Ali gained respect for Floyd. They never really had bad words for one another after that as I recall.

I wish that Tarver-Jones would bury the hatchet the way Floyd and Ali did.
Not that Floyd and Ali became best friends but mutual respect seemed to be accepted after that fight.

Tarver does not seem to want to let up on the bad blood with Roy at this point.

Don't get after me for digressing. I know I do it all the time. It's part of the natural aging process.