BoxRec

Based on the votes of 17 BoxRec users (the topic was open to all for about 1 month, but only 17 voted) below, in order, are the 20 greatest heavyweights of all time:

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

Ali was the clear No1, preffered over Louis by 13 of 17 voters.
Louis was the clear No2, preffered over Holmes by 15 of 17 voters.
Holmes and Johnson were very tight for the No2 spot, with Holmes preferred by a single vote.
Johnson was clearly preffered over Foreman by 11 votes to 6.
Foreman was voted as No5 ahead of Marciano by 11 votes to 6.
Marciano was favoured over Dempsey by 11 votes 6, to take 6th spot.
Dempsey and Frazier was a very tight vote for 7th, Dempsey taking it by a single vote.
Frazier was clearly favoured over Lewis for 8th, taking it by 12 votes to 5.
Lewis came ahead of Liston by 10 votes to 7, taking 9th place.
Liston beat Holyfield to the final spot in the top 10, preferred by 11 votes to 6.
Likely due to their record against each other, Holyfield was hugely favoured over Tyson, by 13 votes to 4, taking 11th spot.
Tyson beat Jeffries to 12th by a clear 6 votes.
Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles and James Jeffries were in a three way voting tie. After using a points system to separate them, Jeffries took 13th, Charles 14th and Tunney 15th.
Langford was favoured over Walcott by 4 votes to take 16th.
Walcott beat Patterson to 17th by 4 votes.
Patterson beat Wills to 18th by 4 votes.
Wills was voted in ahead of Schmeling by a single vote, taking 19th spot.
Schmeling placed clearly ahead of any others voted to take the 20th and final spot.

Any comments are welcome. If people would like me to reopen the post so we can get more votes in I am willing to do that, just don't expect results back for a few weeks!

Personally I feel that Johnson and Dempsey are a bit too high and that Patterson is a little low, but otherwise I quite like the look of the rankings. Certainly a hell of a lot better than BoxRec's all time rankings.

Jeezamundo, I would like to apologise for not posting my opinion(s) on your thread, I must have missed it, I am truly sorry...

So, the list is...

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


You don't seem to have forgotten anyone, BUT I have got three misgivngs.

1. I believe that Jack Johnson (legend that he is) is placed slightly too high...

2. I think that Larry Holmes is placed far, far too high...

3. Jersey Joe Walcott is placed far too low.

May I ask where these boxers finished up:
John L. Sullivan,
Jim Jeffries,
Max Baer,
Jim corbett.

My questoin is: are there no circularities in the ranking? If you evalaute eveyone head by head, it's easily possible that the #15 beats the #16, the #16 beats the #17, and the #17 beats the #15. I'd also be interest what a points ranking with, say, truncated top and bottom 10 percent votes would give you.

Finally, I think this is an eminently sensible list, although in my opinion Rocky Marciano and Jack Dempsey are too high.

Why is Langford on the list? The man fought back and forth from Welterweight to Heavyweight...he wasn't a full-time Heavyweight.

Foreman's reign was far too short to merit him an ATG champion in my opinion...though his record was impressive and his 94' comeback was tremendous.

Holmes is too high, though you can't really take away his place in history for having 20 successful defenses---but the man never did unify the titles either---plus outside of Shavers, a washed up Ali and Cooney, who did he really fight that was a threat to him (in his title reign) certainly not the bums he faced, but that isn't his fault, his era was dry of good Heavyweights.

Johnson I'd say is correct in his standing...as he did beat everyone they thrown at him, but of course myself most of his opponents were either smaller than himself or lumbering goons.

Liston is too high...as is Frazier, whom I'd personally place below the top 10...Tunney was mostly a Light Heavyweight and his reign as champion was far too short to merit anything great, plus he drew the color line...

I could go on but I wont.

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:Why is Langford on the list? The man fought back and forth from Welterweight to Heavyweight...he wasn't a full-time Heavyweight.

Langford held the colored heavyweight titles for many years. I believe it's correct to include him here, my only complaint is that he is ranked too low.

All in all it's a decent list. The top 4 is my top 4 (slightly different order). Holyfield is above Tyson (although not Lewis). Maybe Foreman is too high. Tunney would have been a top 10 HW even 20-30 years ago whereas Foreman migth not have been top 10.

May I ask where these boxers finished up:
John L. Sullivan,
Jim Jeffries,
Max Baer,
Jim corbett.

Sullivan was not in the top 20 and I stopped counting by then.
Jim Jeffries is No13 (I recorded him as James Jeffries)
Max Baer was just outside the top 20 also.
Corbett did not recieve a great amount of votes, also outside top 20.

My questoin is: are there no circularities in the ranking? If you evalaute eveyone head by head, it's easily possible that the #15 beats the #16, the #16 beats the #17, and the #17 beats the #15. I'd also be interest what a points ranking with, say, truncated top and bottom 10 percent votes would give you.

Finally, I think this is an eminently sensible list, although in my opinion Rocky Marciano and Jack Dempsey are too high.

At certain points in time there were circularities, but after 17 voters the only real circularity was the 3 way tie between Jeffries, Charles and Tunney. I checked for other circularities, there were a lot outside the top 20 which is part of the reason I stopped counting by then.

I used a points ranking also (not truncated), but have not kept the results. I do remember however that the top 10 were exactly the same.