BoxRec

this is hard to do, and this list is based on OVERALL categories


1. Joe Louis
2 Muhammad ali
3 rocky marciano
4 jack johnson
5 larry holmes
6 jack dempsey
7 George Foreman
8 Joe Frazier
9 Mike tyson
10 Sonny Liston
11 Lennox Lewis
12 James Jeffries
13 Gene Tunney
14 Evander Holyfield
15 Jersey Joe Walcott
16 Ezzard Charles
17 Riddick Bowe
18 Sam Langford
19 Floyd Patterson
20 Ken Norton
21 Max Schmeling
22 Joe Jeanette
23 Sam Mcvey
24 Bob Fitzimmons
25 Jack Sharkey
26 Harry Wills
27 Max Baer
28 Elmer Ray
29 Jerry Quarry
30 Ron Lyle
31 Tim Witherspoon
32 Pinklon Thomas
33 Jimmy Bivins
34 Tom Sharkey
35 Ingemar Johanssen
36 Mike Weaver
37 Jimmy Ellis
38 Peter Jackson
39 Archie Moore
40 Michael Spinks
41 Tommy Burns
42 Tiger Jack Foxx
43 Michael Dokes
44 Chris Bryd
45 Ray Mercer
46 Eddie Machen
47 Gerry Cooney
48 Jimmy Young
49 Earnie Shavers
50 James Braddock



just a preliminary list, i would like some feeback

Earnie Shavers?

edited, forgot shavers. but still, he wasnt a great fighter , people tend to overate him as a fighter because he was one of the hardest hitters who ever lived. he lossed a lot and to average fighters

Jimmy Ellis? Maybe?

Here's my $.02 on your list.

*^ = Move up a few spots

*v = Move down a few spots


1. Joe Louis
2 Muhammad ali
3 rocky marciano *v
4 jack johnson - Lost a lot. Title bouts were weak. *vv
5 larry holmes
6 jack dempsey
7 George Foreman
8 Joe Frazier - 1-5 vs Ali and Foreman. *v
9 Mike tyson - Did Tyson beat anyone in your top 50? *v
10 Sonny Liston
11 Lennox Lewis
12 James Jeffries - Never lost in his prime *^
13 Gene Tunney
14 Evander Holyfield
15 Jersey Joe Walcott - Beaten and Ko'd a bit too much. *vv
16 Ezzard Charles - Dittio. *vv
17 Riddick Bowe - Only lost once via close decsion to Holyfield *^
18 Sam Langford
19 Floyd Patterson - Not very durbale. *v
20 Ken Norton
21 Max Schmeling - One big upset win. *v
22 Joe Jeanette
23 Sam Mcvey - A bit crude. *vv
24 Bob Fitzimmons -Historians of the day said he was great *^
25 Jack Sharkey - Too hot and cold. *v
26 Harry Wills
27 Max Baer
28 Elmer Ray
29 Jerry Quarry
30 Ron Lyle - A bit high *v
31 Tim Witherspoon
32 Pinklon Thomas
33 Jimmy Bivins - Should not make the cut. * vvvvvvvvvv
34 Tom Sharkey
35 Ingemar Johanssen
36 Mike Weaver - Should make the cut, but a bit high. *vvv
37 Jimmy Ellis - Ellis was not that great *vvvv
38 Peter Jackson
39 Archie Moore - And he beat which heavyweight on the list? *vvvvvv
40 Michael Spinks
41 Tommy Burns
42 Tiger Jack Foxx - No way. Should not be on the list. *vvvvvvvvvvv
43 Michael Dokes - Drugs robed him, but he had talent.
44 Chris Bryd
45 Ray Mercer
46 Eddie Machen
47 Gerry Cooney
48 Jimmy Young
49 Earnie Shavers
50 James Braddock - No way *vvvvv

You might want to consider J Sullivan, J Corbett, J Williard, T Gibons, G Godfrey, C Williams, Z Foley, E Terell, M Morrer, I Iacubuchi, O McCall, H Rahman, and V Klitschko.

I would say that Sullivan, Corbett, Iacubuchi and Klitshcko belong in the top 50 for sure.

Moorer, Williams, Terell are close calls.

Solid list of names. I mostly agree.

i dont rate sullivan not because of lack of skill but he fought most of his fights bareknucle and the only fights he fought queensbury were when he was past his prime. i just wouldnt know where to put sullivan.


i would never put vitali klitschko on my list until he shows me something. his best win was over corey sanders who isnt a top 500 heavyweight. vitali is overated and unproven.
WHO HAS HE BEAT THATS A TOP 500 HEAVYWEIGHT OF ALL TIME????


- corbett i should add, godfrey i thought about but decided no.

- if i put tommy gibbons then i would have to put billy conn.

- cleveland williams is overated as a FIGHTER. he could hit very hard but he never beat any contenders except ernie terrell and terrell beat him in the rematch. i give him credit for giving sonny liston a good fight in the first fight but his resume is weak

- rahman had one big win, but lost to old holyfield, ruiz, tua, maskaev and others. one huge win cant get him on when he loses to those guys

- zora folley was knocked out a lot and by some journeyman, he was a good fighter but i dont think top 50.

- i thought about IKE but his career was too short, he didnt prove enough.



jimmy bivins was the top heavyweight contender for 5 years and beat all the heavyweight contenders of the 40s. he was a great fighter, he defintely deserves to be in



- jersey joe walcot at his peak (vs louis, marciano, charles) would give any heavyweight in history trouble. he lost alot when he was green, malnourished with no training pre WW II. walcott was a late bloomer and didnt reach his prime till early 30s but he recorded a lot of wins over great contenders and most thought he did beat joe louis, the greatest of all time. he also was on his way to beating rocky marciano a all time heavyweight, and walcott beat ezzard twice. walcott beat great contenders like elmer ray, jimmy bivins, lee q murray, harold johnson, joey maxim, curtis sheppard, etc

- max schmelings win over a prime louis is a huge deal. and he also was heavyweight champion, and many thought he was robbed vs sharkey. schmeling beat tough contenders and retained his title vs young stribling.

how can a world title holder who beat 2 hof fighters, including max baer, during a time when boxing was very competitive, not make the top 50... james j braddock is under guys who never got there hands on any world championship belt ive seen.. braddock should be in the 30's-40's area.

Baer should be at least top twenty, Corbett top 30. Bowe should be nowhere near the top twenty five, never amounted to anything besides beating Holyfield. And too many of the early 80's fighters are too high, most amounted to nothing and were entirely too inconsistent.

Other than that its pretty decent. I've never attempted anything past top 25, and that in itself is difficult. I'd personally have some of the early heavys a little high (Jackson, Corbett, Burns, etc.), but you already would know that :P

Sherlock wrote:Baer should be at least top twenty, Corbett top 30. Bowe should be nowhere near the top twenty five, never amounted to anything besides beating Holyfield. And too many of the early 80's fighters are too high, most amounted to nothing and were entirely too inconsistent.

Other than that its pretty decent. I've never attempted anything past top 25, and that in itself is difficult. I'd personally have some of the early heavys a little high (Jackson, Corbett, Burns, etc.), but you already would know that :P

i agree..... baer should def. be top 20... corbett top 25 IMO and bowe should barely make this list. AND JIMMY BRADDOCK COULD WHIP AT LEAST 15 OF THE GUYS ON THIS LIST.

I would indeed put Jim Corbett in the top 30. If Jackson made it, than you also need the guy that fought a 61 bout draw with him with gloves.

Jim Corbett.

Dont think Jimmy Braddock should be there.

I don't think Max Baer should be any higher due to the fact that he fought a lot of fighters who had losing records or who had never fought before. He had one stretch while still in his twenties where he fought ten straight fighters who either had a losing record or who had never fought before. In contrast Ali fought only two such fighters through his entire career.

kick asner wrote:I don't think Max Baer should be any higher due to the fact that he fought a lot of fighters who had losing records or who had never fought before. He had one stretch while still in his twenties where he fought ten straight fighters who either had a losing record or who had never fought before. In contrast Ali fought only two such fighters through his entire career.

Please not at the bottom of those records:

NB this record may be incomplete and/or inaccurate

It's a very good list and a very interesting exercise. I don't see why Tyson rates above Holyfield, Liston and Lewis. I can't think of an argument that holds water that puts him over these 3. I think Tyson is between 12-15. Other than that your top 10 would be my top 10 (with a shuffle here and there). I'm glad there was a place for Mercer in the top 50.

Other than that there's Godfrey (who you mention), Williams and Corbett. I'd also move Peter Jackson up the list.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 i dont rate sullivan not because of lack of skill but he fought most of his fights bareknucle and the only fights he fought queensbury were when he was past his prime. i just wouldnt know where to put sullivan.


i would never put vitali klitschko on my list until he shows me something. his best win was over corey sanders who isnt a top 500 heavyweight. vitali is overated and unproven.

WHO HAS HE BEAT THATS A TOP 500 HEAVYWEIGHT OF ALL TIME????

I have not seen a top 500 list. Vitally in my opinion has proved he can fight. His defeats are due to injury. Byrd was lucky. On top of a fantastic knock out record, Vitaly has never been behind on the cards or down. I agree beating Bean, Donald, Johnson, Sanders, Williams, Hide, and company do not register will on the hype meter, so I choose to look at his body of work to date. With his size and skills, I beleive Vitaly would defeat some of the of the smaller heavies on your list. Top 50? I think so, especially if he defeats Rahman.

- corbett i should add, godfrey i thought about but decided no

.

Ok

- if i put tommy gibbons then i would have to put billy conn.

Why?

- cleveland williams is overated as a FIGHTER. he could hit very hard but he never beat any contenders except ernie terrell and terrell beat him in the rematch. i give him credit for giving sonny liston a good fight in the first fight but his resume is weak

The big cat could punch. He also had a lot of heart. Maybe not a top 50 fighter, but close to it for sure.

- rahman had one big win, but lost to old holyfield, ruiz, tua, maskaev and others. one huge win cant get him on when he loses to those guys

I may not list Rhaman either, but I consider Sanders a big win for him. Rahman was also robbed of a decsion vs Tua. In fact hsi defeat to Tua shoudl be ruled a NC due to a foul after the bell. Maybe not top 50, but top 100 for sure.

- zora folley was knocked out a lot and by some journeyman, he was a good fighter but i dont think top 50.

Agree. I was just listing another name

- i thought about IKE but his career was too short, he didnt prove enough.

Ike was one of boxing’s all time could have beans. He knocked out Chirrs Byrd, a fighter on your list. He also won a toe to toe war with Tua. He was undefeated. Many thought he was the man to defeat Lewis.

jimmy bivins was the top heavyweight contender for 5 years and beat all the heavyweight contenders of the 40s. he was a great fighter, he definitely deserves to be in

I feel Bivins lost too much.

- jersey joe walcot at his peak (vs louis, marciano, charles) would give any heavyweight in history trouble. he lost alot when he was green, malnourished with no training pre WW II. walcott was a late bloomer and didnt reach his prime till early 30s but he recorded a lot of wins over great contenders and most thought he did beat joe louis, the greatest of all time. he also was on his way to beating rocky marciano a all time heavyweight, and walcott beat ezzard twice. walcott beat great contenders like elmer ray, jimmy bivins, lee q murray, harold johnson, joey maxim, curtis sheppard, etc

I feel that Charles and Walcott were great, but they too lost a bit much. Compare and contrast to Louis and you see one has an excellent ring record, while the other ring records are littered with upset losses.

- max schmelings win over a prime louis is a huge deal. and he also was heavyweight champion, and many thought he was robbed vs sharkey. schmeling beat tough contenders and retained his title vs young stribling

I agree. But Shcmeling was Ko'd a bit to much to rate any higher than you have him. At least in my opinion he was. This is your thread. Rank them were you feel its best. We can only offer input. After that its up to you.

i will admit the 25-50 spots are by far the hardest to rank, especially knowing where to place them.


i want some more feeback about where the 80s guys i mention should be ranked and where some of the old timers, burns ,corbett, jackson, etc should be ranked

How about Bonavena?

Decagon wrote:

24 Bob Fitzimmons

Boxrec ranks him #800-something all-time at heavyweight. I don't think they're too far off. Seriously, what name on Fitzsimmon's record suggests that he's even on the same level as Corrie Sanders or Tony Tucker? Or that he'd be competitive with either of them?

Where can I find Boxrec's all-time ranking for heavyweights?

Braddock def. makes this list hes more accomplished then plenty of the fighters on this list, and he beat a great top 20 Heavyweight of all time. He beat another HOF John henry lewis, and foght against tommy loughran.
he battled with the best in his day at light heavyweight, and earned himself a chance at the title. then he won a series of fights against the top contenders of the day to get his hands on the heavyweight title.... he lost to joe louis.. so u cant say he sucked n lost in his first defense, because i cant think of many heavyweights that could beat a young prime joe louis....

Brockton - I had a list I was going to post heavyweight list soon, you beat me to it ...again!
Anyway, I have 14 of the same games that you have in the top 15 (though not in the same order). It gets a little harder as you go along. Here are the main disagreements that I have:

I wouldn't have put Bivins,Moore, Foxx, Braddock, or Cooney in the Top 50.

Bivins was a great lightheavyweight, but he doesn't really have any major wins against heavyweights.
Moore doesn't have any big wins against heavyweights except against Bivins. (I'm not counting the legendary Bob Baker).
Braddock didn't do quite enough either.
Cooney's wins over name opponents were when they far over the hill.
Foxx did beat Walcott, but that was early in Walcott's career. Not much else noteworthy in his career. I wouldn't include him in the top 100.

I would add Corbett, Folley, Douglas, Moorer and Tucker.
Corbett did beat Sullivan, Choynski, went 61 rounds against Jackson,almost beat Jeffries. He should be listed in top 25.
Folley was as good as Machen. Should be in the Top 50.
Douglas is thought of as one hit wonder, but he fought a great fight against Tyson and beat McCall. Top50.

Moorer did beat Holyfield, and some second tier guys. He later had some meltdowns, but people forget that for awhile was a fairly skilled fighter. I think he was a notch above the "alphabet soup boys" like Witherspoon, Thomas, Dokes etc. ( I know I'm going to get some grief for this)
Tucker beat Douglas, gave Tyson a tough fight with an injured hand. Top 50 as well.

As for the 1980's heavyweights, (besides Holmes and Tyson) a few deserve to just make the top 50, and a few are just outside of it.
I think Douglas, Tucker, Witherspoon, Tubbs, Smith, Berbick, Thomas, and Dokes just make it and Page, Bruno, Weaver, Tate, and Coetzee just miss it. There isn't much to chose between these guys.

By the way the boxrec rankings are completely screwed up. It's almost comical.

thanx ampling app. i defintely agree wit hu about corbett and i totally regret not putting him. i simply wasnt thinking clealry and forgot about him. its tough putting together 30-50 guys because anyone of them can be taken out of the top 50. Its hard to choose whos in and whos out, but in my final list corbett will be in. he knocked out john L, almost knocked out fitz(if he didnt hold on to corbett)l and fought a draw with peter jackson. when he was slightly past his prime, he also managed to outbox a prime jeffries for the first 20 rounds until jeffries knocked him out. and i decided tiger jack foxx will be out. he was a good dangerous heavyweight contender but lossed alot and didnt beat great heavyeights.


moorer defintely holds a case of being in.



ampling app i saw ur anaylsis of 80s guys, its funny saying whos in and whos out since all would lose to everyone and beat everyone so there was no one that stuck out.




reasons i think weaver over dokes is

- weaver won the title and had three defenses of the title compared to dokes 1

- weaver gave larry holmes a tough fight and hurt holmes alot

- weaver beat coatzee unlike dokes

- weaver lost on a bad stoppage, and in the rematch it looked like weaver won but it was called a draw




but i will say


- weaver lost alot before and after his title reign. dokes managed to do well enough to even get a title shot in 92!!!

>>>most of his fights bareknucle and the only fights he fought queensbury were when he was past his prime<<<

Simply incorrect about John Sullivan. Many of his bouts were Queensberry Rules, in fact he fought more Queensberry ruled bouts than he did London Prize Ring rules and about his lack of skill...well all I can say is that some of you cats need to do a lot more, and I do mean a lot more research on John L. Sullivan because you are not judging him on his actual bouts and career, but instead listening to what someone who knows very little of his life and career has stated. Go through and read fight reports and newspaper articles of the time and in a few months if you do the research and you still feel that Sullivan lacked skill, or that he should not be ranked in a top 50 heavyweight list then I'll quit watching boxing altogther!

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Larry Holmes
3. George Foreman
4. Sonny Liston
5. Mike Tyson
6. Joe Frazier
7. Michael Spinx
8. Ken Norton
9. James Douglas
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Riddock Bowe
12. Evander Holyfield
13. Cleveland Williams
14. Ernie Terrell
15. Floyd Patterson
16. Eddie Machen
17. Tim Witherspoon
18. Jack Johnson
19. Rocky Marciano
20. Ingemar Johansson


http://www.boxingnews24.com/forum/viewt ... sc&start=0

Sullivan was actually very advanced for his time... he was a modernizer... and at his prime he was a great all round athelete. I think Sullivan would have been a very hard fight for the likes of Marciano, Jeffries and Dempsey and so if they are rated in the top 12 then it is plain wrong to leave Sullivan out of the top 50. I believe John L merits a place in the top 20 without a doubt... perhaps even higher. Certainly he was not the prehistoric caveman that many here seem to think. At his prime Sullivan was a deadly fighting machine who could have lived with and defeated many of the champions that came after him.

barry wrote:>>>most of his fights bareknucle and the only fights he fought queensbury were when he was past his prime<<<

Simply incorrect about John Sullivan. Many of his bouts were Queensberry Rules, in fact he fought more Queensberry ruled bouts than he did London Prize Ring rules and about his lack of skill...well all I can say is that some of you cats need to do a lot more, and I do mean a lot more research on John L. Sullivan because you are not judging him on his actual bouts and career, but instead listening to what someone who knows very little of his life and career has stated. Go through and read fight reports and newspaper articles of the time and in a few months if you do the research and you still feel that Sullivan lacked skill, or that he should not be ranked in a top 50 heavyweight list then I'll quit watching boxing altogther!

I've given up trying to explain this to posters on this forum. In reality, John L is probably the most important HW champion. Not just for his accomplishments in the ring, but for popularizing the sport. He truly was an international superstar, and was the first real "baddest man on the planet". And from the eyewitness accounts I have read, he was a highly skilled and athletic fighter, who relied as much on his quickness and ring smarts as on his strength and power. I put him in the top 20, and could easily make an argument for having him in a top 10 list of HW's. But that's just my opinion.

Always on the level. John L. Sullivan

Irish wrote:1. Muhammad Ali
2. Larry Holmes
3. George Foreman
4. Sonny Liston
5. Mike Tyson
6. Joe Frazier
7. Michael Spinx
8. Ken Norton
9. James Douglas
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Riddock Bowe
12. Evander Holyfield
13. Cleveland Williams
14. Ernie Terrell
15. Floyd Patterson
16. Eddie Machen
17. Tim Witherspoon
18. Jack Johnson
19. Rocky Marciano
20. Ingemar Johansson


http://www.boxingnews24.com/forum/viewt ... sc&start=0