BoxRec

Below is the original post. Now that I have decided how I will compile the overall list all I want is for as many people as possible to post their top 10, 15 or 20 heavyweights of all time (you can do more if you want, it won't really make a big difference though). Although the thread is 3 pages long I still only have 9 lists, so more will be much appreciated!

Voted for by "Boxers of the past" posters. Obviously what we come up with will be far better than the current Boxrec points system.

Before anyone goes posting their top 10 or whatever, I'd like some input as to how such a list should be compiled. My preference would be for everyone to vote for a top 15 or 20, and to compile the rankings from those votes. Of course for it to be truly comprehensive I would have to keep the topic open for at least 2 weeks to get as many votes as possible.

As for compiling the votes, my preference is for a political based voting system. Therefore, everyone's vote is worth the same amount, so outlandish votes such as one person rating Lewis or Tyson @ number 1, would not upset the ratings much at all, unlike a points based system where outlandish votes can make a big impact.

Also, how do we draw the line on what 'great' means. Some people rate Dempsey and Johnson in their top 5 based on how well they would fare head-to-head against others, some don't rate them in their top 10 because they didn't have the career accomplishments to warrant a high rating. My preference would be to let everyone decide what 'great' means to them, and post their ratings as they normally would.

Furter comments and advice would be very much appreciated.

Decagon wrote:1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Jack Johnson
5. Joe Frazier
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Jack Dempsey
12. Mike Tyson
13. Gene Tunney
14. Riddick Bowe
15. Jim Jeffries
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Jersey Joe Walcott
18. Jack Sharkey
19. Max Schmelling
20. Michael Spinks
21. Ken Norton
22. Floyd Patterson
23. Chris Byrd
24. Earnie Shavers
25. Sam Langford
26. Archie Moore
27. Jerry Quarry
28. Joe Jeannette
29. Harry Wills
30. Ike Ibeabuchi
31. Max Baer
32. George Godfrey
33. Jimmy Bivins
34. Tim Witherspoon
35. Roland LaStarza
36. Ingemar Johanssen
37. David Tua
38. Ron Lyle
39. Pinklon Thomas
40. Elmer Ray

Chris Byrd over Jerry Quarry, Willis, Langford, Baer, and the omitted Jimmy Young (who beat a much more impressive list of fighters than Byrd)??

Byrd's one clear win over a proven top contender was vs Tua. After that he has some wins over underachievers who typified why the division got so bad in the 21st century. I can think of many HW contenders who fought and beat tougher comp than Byrd.

Decagon wrote:1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Jack Johnson
5. Joe Frazier
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Jack Dempsey
12. Mike Tyson
13. Gene Tunney
14. Riddick Bowe
15. Jim Jeffries
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Jersey Joe Walcott
18. Jack Sharkey
19. Max Schmelling
20. Michael Spinks
21. Ken Norton
22. Floyd Patterson
23. Chris Byrd
24. Earnie Shavers
25. Sam Langford
26. Archie Moore
27. Jerry Quarry
28. Joe Jeannette
29. Harry Wills
30. Ike Ibeabuchi
31. Max Baer
32. George Godfrey
33. Jimmy Bivins
34. Tim Witherspoon
35. Roland LaStarza
36. Ingemar Johanssen
37. David Tua
38. Ron Lyle
39. Pinklon Thomas
40. Elmer Ray

Good list.

But where is Klondyke? I know for a fact that you have been told over and over again that he is far better than Foreman and Holmes.

Plus I'd have Quarry over Shavers.... and not just because he overwhelmed him easily.

Decagon, could you explain what Bowe has done to be rated #14 and Ibeabuchi #30?

Has anyone read my original post? What do we think of the idea? Does anyone have any suggestions?

If not though, feel free to post your top 10, 15, 20, whatever... I suppose I can use this post to make the tally

dempseyfire wrote:Chris Byrd over Jerry Quarry, Willis, Langford, Baer, and the omitted Jimmy Young (who beat a much more impressive list of fighters than Byrd)??

The answer is pretty simple. I'm sure it's because of the vast improvement in training and nutrition in the past 30-40 years, plus the fact that HWs are so much bigger. Those old guys really didn't use "modern" styles, so would be completely humiliated by the modern HWs. I'm surprised Decagon included anyone in this list from more than about 25 years ago.

jezzamundo wrote:Voted for by "Boxers of the past" posters. Obviously what we come up with will be far better than the current Boxrec points system.

Before anyone goes posting their top 10 or whatever, I'd like some input as to how such a list should be compiled. My preference would be for everyone to vote for a top 15 or 20, and to compile the rankings from those votes. Of course for it to be truly comprehensive I would have to keep the topic open for at least 2 weeks to get as many votes as possible.

As for compiling the votes, my preference is for a political based voting system. Therefore, everyone's vote is worth the same amount, so outlandish votes such as one person rating Lewis or Tyson @ number 1, would not upset the ratings much at all, unlike a points based system where outlandish votes can make a big impact.

Also, how do we draw the line on what 'great' means. Some people rate Dempsey and Johnson in their top 5 based on how well they would fare head-to-head against others, some don't rate them in their top 10 because they didn't have the career accomplishments to warrant a high rating. My preference would be to let everyone decide what 'great' means to them, and post their ratings as they normally would.

Furter comments and advice would be very much appreciated.

I don't understand what a "political based" voting system is (head-to-heac comparisons? What if these are circular?). If you settle for a points based system I suggest you simply exclude from the overall rating each fighter's 10 percent highest and 10 percent loewst scores. This way you get rid of outlandish votes.

I'll post my list in a little while.

Cheers, P

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

----------------------------

For the fun of it:

21. Peter Jackson
22. James Corbett
23. Archie Moore
24. Joe Jeanette
25. Jack Sharkey
26. Max Baer
27. Ken Norton
28. Riddick Bowe
29. Michael Spinks
30. Sam Mc Vea


Honorable mention: John L Sullivan

Among the current or more recent crop, Vitali is borderline all-time, a point could be made for a ranking in the top 40. Vlad has too much to prove still to merit a ranking.

Decagon wrote:1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Jack Johnson
5. Joe Frazier
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Jack Dempsey
12. Mike Tyson
13. Gene Tunney
14. Riddick Bowe
15. Jim Jeffries
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Jersey Joe Walcott
18. Jack Sharkey
19. Max Schmelling
20. Michael Spinks
21. Ken Norton
22. Floyd Patterson
23. Chris Byrd
24. Earnie Shavers
25. Sam Langford
26. Archie Moore
27. Jerry Quarry
28. Joe Jeannette
29. Harry Wills
30. Ike Ibeabuchi
31. Max Baer
32. George Godfrey
33. Jimmy Bivins
34. Tim Witherspoon
35. Roland LaStarza
36. Ingemar Johanssen
37. David Tua
38. Ron Lyle
39. Pinklon Thomas
40. Elmer Ray

The top 10 or so are OK, but Chris Byrd above a legend like Sam Langford (and way above both Klitschkos who clobbered him from pillar to post)?

pundit wrote:1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Larry Holmes
4. George Foreman
5. Jack Johnson
6. Sam Langford
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Sonny Liston
9. Joe Frazier
10. Gene Tunney
11. Rocky Marciano
12. Harry Wills
13. Jack Dempsey
14. Mike Tyson
15. Floyd Patterson
16. Max Schmeling
17. Ezzard Charles
18. Evander Holyfield
19. Jersey Joe Walcott
20. James Jeffries
21. Peter Jackson
22. James Corbett
23. Joe Jeanette
24. Jack Sharkey
25. Max Baer
26. Ken Norton
27. Riddick Bowe
28. Michael Spinks
29. Sam Mc Vea
30. Johnny Risko

Nice list. Not sure I agree with the order, but I do agree with the top 2, and beyond that I’m not sure the order really matters that much. You’ve got a nice smattering of the old guys and didn’t include any of the current embarrassing crop of HWs.

jezzamundo wrote:Voted for by "Boxers of the past" posters. Obviously what we come up with will be far better than the current Boxrec points system.

Before anyone goes posting their top 10 or whatever, I'd like some input as to how such a list should be compiled. My preference would be for everyone to vote for a top 15 or 20, and to compile the rankings from those votes. Of course for it to be truly comprehensive I would have to keep the topic open for at least 2 weeks to get as many votes as possible.

As for compiling the votes, my preference is for a political based voting system. Therefore, everyone's vote is worth the same amount, so outlandish votes such as one person rating Lewis or Tyson @ number 1, would not upset the ratings much at all, unlike a points based system where outlandish votes can make a big impact.

Also, how do we draw the line on what 'great' means. Some people rate Dempsey and Johnson in their top 5 based on how well they would fare head-to-head against others, some don't rate them in their top 10 because they didn't have the career accomplishments to warrant a high rating. My preference would be to let everyone decide what 'great' means to them, and post their ratings as they normally would.

Furter comments and advice would be very much appreciated.

How about everybody simply posting a top 20 and then assigning a descending number to the fighters in their list..

For example

1 = 20 pts
2 = 19 pts
3 = 18 pts
…
20 = 1pt

At the end simply tally up the score and rate them in point order. I think this is how the NCAA coaches and sports writers polls are done.

The Great John L wrote: Nice list. Not sure I agree with the order, but I do agree with the top 2, and beyond that I’m not sure the order really matters that much. You’ve got a nice smattering of the old guys and didn’t include any of the current embarrassing crop of HWs.

Thanks - much appreciated

I will put in 20.

Louis
Ali
Holmes
Dempsey
Johnson
Foreman
Frazier
Liston
Marciano
Langford
Holyfield
Tyson
Charles
Walcott
Tunney
Jim Jeffreis
Floyd Patterson
Elmer Ray
Lennox Lewis
Max Schmeling

1 Louis (20)
2 Ali (19)
3 Johnson (18)
4 Foreman (17)
5 Holmes (16)
6 Dempsey (15)
7 Marciano (14)
8 Fraizer (13)
9 Lewis (12)
10 Liston (11)
11 Charles (10)
12 Holyfield (09)
13 Tyson (08)
14 Tunney (07)
15 Langford (06)
16 Walcott (05)
17 Patterson (04)
18 Jeannette (03)
19 Jeffries (02)
20 Schmeling (01)

your right about Max, Ezzard :TU:

1. Ali
2. Johnson
3. Louis
4. Holmes
5. Dempsey
6. Frazier
7. Foreman
8. Holyfield
9. Marciano
10. Liston
11. Wills
12. Lewis
13. Tunney
14. Tyson
15. Charles
16. Langford
17. Jeffries
18. Walcott
19. Schmeling
20. Jeanette

I'm not sure I even agree with my own picks.

Just to say I think Schmeling is terribly underrated here. A lot of people consider Louis the greatest ever HW (and reasonably so) and Max beat him. Louis was not quite in his prime but Max was well past his. I'm intersted to know why he's being overlooked

Ezzard wrote:1. Ali
2. Johnson
3. Louis
4. Holmes
5. Dempsey
6. Frazier
7. Foreman
8. Marciano
9. Holyfield
10. Liston
11. Wills
12. Lewis
13. Tunney
14. Tyson
15. Charles
16. Langford
17. Jeffries
18. Walcott
19. Schmeling
20. Jeanette

I'm not sure I even agree with my own picks.

I know, Ive seen Wills ranked highly on 2 of these posts and I dont even know enough about him to rank him in 20. I sort of feel like I need to take Jeffries or Norton out and put someone else in. Who knows.

Ezzard wrote:Just to say I think Schmeling is terribly underrated here. A lot of people consider Louis the greatest ever HW (and reasonably so) and Max beat him. Louis was not quite in his prime but Max was well past his. I'm intersted to know why he's being overlooked

Yer right Ezzard, I just put him in at 20 over Norton.

expug wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Just to say I think Schmeling is terribly underrated here. A lot of people consider Louis the greatest ever HW (and reasonably so) and Max beat him. Louis was not quite in his prime but Max was well past his. I'm intersted to know why he's being overlooked

Yer right Ezzard, I just put him in at 20 over Norton.

I'm sure we'll all look at these again and change them. My top 4 stay the same, after that...

I'd be interested in agreeing on a set of criteria like:

jab
power
chin
defence
hand speed
foot work
quality of opposition
etc... and then marking all these out fo 10 (maybe weight some as out of 20 or others out of 5). Sometimes the resulst can often surprise you...

I like what I see so far. As always, people disagree sharply about Dempsey's ranking, but this is probably just in the nature of it. The 1910s/1920s were the critical transformation period of boxing (with fighters like Dempsey, Langford, Greb, Tunney, etc.) when the sport attained modern standards. Thus Dempsey is right at the edge of pre-modern and modern boxing.

Wills was the best black heavyweight in Dempsey's period but never got a shot - it's hard to rank him, too.

P

The Great John L wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:Voted for by "Boxers of the past" posters. Obviously what we come up with will be far better than the current Boxrec points system.

Before anyone goes posting their top 10 or whatever, I'd like some input as to how such a list should be compiled. My preference would be for everyone to vote for a top 15 or 20, and to compile the rankings from those votes. Of course for it to be truly comprehensive I would have to keep the topic open for at least 2 weeks to get as many votes as possible.

As for compiling the votes, my preference is for a political based voting system. Therefore, everyone's vote is worth the same amount, so outlandish votes such as one person rating Lewis or Tyson @ number 1, would not upset the ratings much at all, unlike a points based system where outlandish votes can make a big impact.

Also, how do we draw the line on what 'great' means. Some people rate Dempsey and Johnson in their top 5 based on how well they would fare head-to-head against others, some don't rate them in their top 10 because they didn't have the career accomplishments to warrant a high rating. My preference would be to let everyone decide what 'great' means to them, and post their ratings as they normally would.

Furter comments and advice would be very much appreciated.

How about everybody simply posting a top 20 and then assigning a descending number to the fighters in their list..

For example

1 = 20 pts
2 = 19 pts
3 = 18 pts
…
20 = 1pt

At the end simply tally up the score and rate them in point order. I think this is how the NCAA coaches and sports writers polls are done.

Jezzmundo- I think is the way to go. There is the risk that people will be biased, (for example there are anti-Ali people that will himrate low, people that rate Marciano way to high or low, or some people will rate Tyson #1 and others won't even have them in their top 20.) But if enough people do this it should be reasonably accurrate. Atleast it will be better than the silly Boxrec computer rankings.

Here is my top 20:
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Foreman
4. Johnson
5. Frazier
6. Holmes
7. Marciano
8. Dempsey
9. Holyfield
10. Lewis
11.Liston
12. Bowe
13. Tyson
14. Jeffries
15. Tunney
16. Langford
17. Wills
18. Jeanette
19. Norton
20. McVey

Ezzard wrote:Just to say I think Schmeling is terribly underrated here. A lot of people consider Louis the greatest ever HW (and reasonably so) and Max beat him. Louis was not quite in his prime but Max was well past his. I'm intersted to know why he's being overlooked

max was not past his prime. in fact he was at his peak when he beat joe louis in 1936. i think max was a better fighter then, then 6 years back when he won the title. max was bigger stronger, more experienced, and still clearly in his physical prime. he was also only 30 years old.

to further back up my point........


max recentley avended a draw and loss by knocking out steve hamas, and outpointed paolino uzuden before he fought joe louis. he was clearly on the upgrade going in the louis fight with his confidence at its peak.


max never looked better on film than he did vs louis in 1936.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Just to say I think Schmeling is terribly underrated here. A lot of people consider Louis the greatest ever HW (and reasonably so) and Max beat him. Louis was not quite in his prime but Max was well past his. I'm intersted to know why he's being overlooked

max was not past his prime. in fact he was at his peak when he beat joe louis in 1936. i think max was a better fighter then, then 6 years back when he won the title. max was bigger stronger, more experienced, and still clearly in his physical prime. he was also only 30 years old.

to further back up my point........

max recentley avended a draw and loss by knocking out steve hamas, and outpointed paolino uzuden before he fought joe louis. he was clearly on the upgrade going in the louis fight with his confidence at its peak.

max never looked better on film than he did vs louis in 1936.

Dunno - the Schmeling of 1929-32 who manhandled Risko, Paolino, Stribling and Walker and got (on balance) the better of Jack Sharkey was pretty impressive, arguably the best heavyweight in the world, before he fell into a hole. But I agree that the 1936 Schmeling wasn't past his prime - Schmeling is the rare case of a fighter who peaked twice.
The 1938 Schmeling was beyond his prime though.

Ambling Alp wrote:Jezzmundo- I think is the way to go. There is the risk that people will be biased, (for example there are anti-Ali people that will himrate low, people that rate Marciano way to high or low, or some people will rate Tyson #1 and others won't even have them in their top 20.) But if enough people do this it should be reasonably accurrate. Atleast it will be better than the silly Boxrec computer rankings.

Again, I suggest to take off the, say, two highest and two lowest scores for each fighter, to reduce the impact of outlandish ratings.

Decagon wrote:Some people can't face facts. Byrd did beat Vitali Klitschko.

He didn't. He lost almost every round against a one-armed Vitali before Vitali quit because of an injury that had nothing do to with anything Byrd did in the ring.

This "victory" of Byrd existst only on paper. In reality Byrd was totally overmatched and outclassed, and the latter fact, rather than the paper-result, should enter into your ranking.