BoxRec

The official boxrec list waqs assembled a few months ago in a much more comprehensive fashion by jezzamundo, and 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

Both lists are rather similar though. However, this one is better.

both lists are pretty much the same. They both show a lack of insight.

The real list!
1) Mike Tyson
2) Muhammad Ali
3) Larry Holmes
4) George Foreman
5) Lennox Lewis
6) Joe Louis
7) Joe Frazier
8) Jack Johnson
9) Jack Dempsey

Cranky post ^. Better grab that blood pressure medication, old boy. I think your REAL question is: Why do I have them ranked in that order? Well the original post had the first 6 in this order:
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Larry Holmes
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Rocky Marciano

Let's break it down. Ali beat some decent-to-great comp. Liston, Frazier and Foreman among them. The frazier and foreman fights were after his 3 year exile. He lost to Frazier and norton in his post-exile years and struggled with doug jones and cooper in his pre-championship years. His innovative style and charismatic activist personality revolutionized boxing and changed America and the world. Hard to argue with those credentials. However, Tyson was much stronger and faster than Liston, Frazier and Foreman. Peak Tyson also had better stamina than Foreman, better combination punching ability and better defense. Tyson also dominated his era knocking off guys like Holmes and Spinks. Tyson was away from boxing for 4 years and came back to win 2 versions of the title. Ali and Tyson are a toss-up. Ali had the more competitive matchups against big name guys but Tyson dominated many talented past and future title-holders. I rank Tyson over Ali on the basis of Tyson's decisive destruction of the best fighters of the 80's, while Ali sometimes struggled to put away outclassed guys like Mildenberger and Chuvalo.

Joe Louis had more defenses and a longer reign than any other heavywt...but, as has been noted many times, he defended against 2 black fighters...one was a half-blind light heavy and the other, Walcott was even older than a post-prime Louis...And Louis lost the first Walcott fight and came thisclose to losing the second. Louis was KO specialist and a beautiful combination punching machine, still, his avoidance of the most talented, toughest crop of fighters of his era evokes some doubt about how good he really was. Tyson fought the best of his era and dominated...if Louis had fought ALL the best of his era, would he have reigned for 12 years or maybe 2 or 3? If Tyson had fought ONLY white heavywts during his prime I think he'd have surpassed Louis' mark.

Jack Johnson was way ahead of his time...a truly amazing man and a great fighter for his era...however, he defended against Jeffries, Ketchel and some other dude. Tyson catches hell for beating an "old" Holmes, but what about Jeffries? Ketchel was a freakin middlewt...Tyson fought and beat much better comp than did Johnson. Tyson deserves to be ranked far above him.

Larry Holmes was another great heavywt...lots of successful defenses against the best of the early 80's. He beat all-comers as well. He certainly ranks above Louis and Johnson. But Larry had lots of problems with the guys of his era...struggles with Norton, witherspoon, carl williams, bonecrusher smith and Mike Weaver. Dropped by Shavers and Snipes. He beat them but he was far from dominant in his prime....Tyson fought many of the same guys Holmes did...including Spinks, Bonecrusher, Berbick & carl williams. He beat them all much more decisively than Holmes did...That is, none of them gave him any trouble at all, while Holmes struggled with some of them...sometimes unsuccessfully. Tyson over holmes.

Jack Dempsey beat georges carpentier (a lightheavywt) and lost to the first decent boxer he came across (Tunney)...Tyson ranks far above him.

Rocky Marciano came along after WWII when the heavywt division was populated by guys too old for the draft when there HAD BEEN a draft...He beat a bunch of geriatric types, some of whom weren't even real heavywts...and he struggled. Walcott dropped him and was beating him bad when Marciano landed that fortuitous right hand. Many think that Charles actually beat Marciano in their first fight...geez, even old archie moore a lightheavywt, dropped marciano. Marciano's competition was atrocious. He was far from great. Just the best of a bad bunch...had he come along five years later, Patterson would have knocked him out. Tyson beat better comp: young, strong, hungry monsters and he did it in the most devastating fashion. Tyson is far above Marciano.

Sure, Tyson lost to Holyfield (HELLLOOOO!....what part of 4 years absence from boxing do we not understand?) and Lewis in his post-prime years. I don't consider the 90's to be the "Tyson Era"...that was the late 80's. A short span to be sure, but Tyson never had a style that favored longevity. He is very short and compact, strong but not really athletic and always having to punch upward to defeat guys that were usually much bigger, stronger and more physically gifted than he. In his later years, his lack of focus got the better of him...but in his prime he was simply better than anybody else at their prime.

Decagon wrote:I have two questions:

• How come you only rank nine fighters?
• Were you born stupid, or were you dropped as an infant?

I made the mistake of entering into a discussion with Dentsun only to realise he doesn't know what he's talking about. Tyson, over the hill at 24, was the greatest of all time...etc...

Dentsun4228 wrote: I rank Tyson over Ali on the basis of Tyson's decisive destruction of the best fighters of the 80's, while Ali sometimes struggled to put away outclassed guys like Mildenberger and Chuvalo.

Holmes struggled with some of them...sometimes unsuccessfully. Tyson over holmes.

Just the best of a bad bunch...had he come along five years later, Patterson would have knocked him out. Tyson beat better comp: young, strong, hungry monsters and he did it in the most devastating fashion. Tyson is far above Marciano.

These are my favourite bits of what looks like a troll post............Comparing Tysons fights in the 80s against the drug rehab team to Ali's competition. Which fighter did Holmes struggle with unsuccessfully until Mike Spinks (and thats arguable). HTF would Patterson knock Marciano out? And which "young, strong hungry monsters did Tyson ever beat"

dr_devious wrote:

Dentsun4228 wrote: I rank Tyson over Ali on the basis of Tyson's decisive destruction of the best fighters of the 80's, while Ali sometimes struggled to put away outclassed guys like Mildenberger and Chuvalo.

Holmes struggled with some of them...sometimes unsuccessfully. Tyson over holmes.

Just the best of a bad bunch...had he come along five years later, Patterson would have knocked him out. Tyson beat better comp: young, strong, hungry monsters and he did it in the most devastating fashion. Tyson is far above Marciano.

These are my favourite bits of what looks like a troll post............Comparing Tysons fights in the 80s against the drug rehab team to Ali's competition. Which fighter did Holmes struggle with unsuccessfully until Mike Spinks (and thats arguable). HTF would Patterson knock Marciano out? And which "young, strong hungry monsters did Tyson ever beat"

nice picks. I didn't bother to read it too closely...

Dentsun4228 wrote:both lists are pretty much the same. They both show a lack of insight.

The real list!
1) Mike Tyson
2) Muhammad Ali
3) Larry Holmes
4) George Foreman
5) Lennox Lewis
6) Joe Louis
7) Joe Frazier
8) Jack Johnson
9) Jack Dempsey

Let's say: this is an opinion. I also have an opinion about the world's top 10 - sorry, 9 -- nuclear physicists.

Decagon wrote:]Really? Of Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles and John Henry Lewis, which one wasn't black?

Louis never defended his title against Charles.

Rocky Marciano came along after WWII when the heavywt division was populated by guys too old for the draft when there HAD BEEN a draft...He beat a bunch of geriatric types, some of whom weren't even real heavywts...and he struggled. Walcott dropped him and was beating him bad when Marciano landed that fortuitous right hand. Many think that Charles actually beat Marciano in their first fight...geez, even old archie moore a lightheavywt, dropped marciano. Marciano's competition was atrocious. He was far from great. Just the best of a bad bunch...had he come along five years later, Patterson would have knocked him out.

OMFG!!!!

Great quotes.

Dentsun4228 wrote:Let's break it down. Ali beat some decent-to-great comp.

However, Tyson was much stronger and faster than Liston, Frazier and Foreman.

Ali and Tyson are a toss-up.

Louis avoidance of the most talented, toughest crop of fighters of his era evokes some doubt about how good he really was.

If Tyson had fought ONLY white heavywts during his prime I think he'd have surpassed Louis' mark.

Rocky Marciano came along after WWII when the heavywt division was populated by guys too old for the draft when there HAD BEEN a draft...

The last one is the only one with a kernel of truth in it...

Dentsun4228 wrote:If Tyson had fought ONLY white heavywts during his prime I think he'd have surpassed Louis' mark

I agree imagine what Buster Douglas would have done to Joe Louis.

dr_devious wrote:

Dentsun4228 wrote: I rank Tyson over Ali on the basis of Tyson's decisive destruction of the best fighters of the 80's, while Ali sometimes struggled to put away outclassed guys like Mildenberger and Chuvalo.

Holmes struggled with some of them...sometimes unsuccessfully. Tyson over holmes.

Just the best of a bad bunch...had he come along five years later, Patterson would have knocked him out. Tyson beat better comp: young, strong, hungry monsters and he did it in the most devastating fashion. Tyson is far above Marciano.

These are my favourite bits of what looks like a troll post............Comparing Tysons fights in the 80s against the drug rehab team to Ali's competition. Which fighter did Holmes struggle with unsuccessfully until Mike Spinks (and thats arguable). HTF would Patterson knock Marciano out? And which "young, strong hungry monsters did Tyson ever beat"

A troll post, huh? Lemme guess. Your next move is to report me to the mods, right? And you're gonna say that I must be a troll because I actually argue in favor of Tyson being a great fighter instead of a bum which is what seems to be the popular view among old fossils like yourselves. Sorry fella, but just look at the records...Tyson dominated his era. Berbick, Tucker, Thomas, Ruddock, Bruno, Tubbs, Biggs, Spinks, Smith, Williams...all of them were pretty good fighters. Good enough to have won and held world titles, olympic medals etc. These guys for the most part were bigger and stronger than any group of heavywts before or since...At 6-3, in his prime, Ali was taller than most of his comp. The guys I listed were on average about 6-3, 6-4...and bigger. Even Michael Spinks was a 6-2, 212 lb when Tyson decimated him, about the same size as Ali in his prime. But it's not just about size...These guys were all top fighters...no mildenbergers or brian londons or scott franks or scott ledouxs here...no soft touches. All were world class and had proven it. Tyson destroyed them all. The fact that he lost to DOuglas is more a result of having had too much success...he was out of shape in the douglas fight, but still had enough to take a shellacking and drop douglas for what appeared to be more than 10 seconds.

How anyone can say with a straight face that Mike Tyson was THE greatest HW champion ever is in need of a lobotomy. The guy said it would have been a toss up between Ali and Tyson. I don't see how that's remotely logical, because if Tyson had trouble with James 'Not So Quick' Tillis and went the distance with him...imagine what Ali would have done.

Decagon...Louis retired after defending his title against Jersey Joe Walcott the second time. Though alot of boxing organizations did not recognise Charles as the new champion, he did gain recognition as being Louis' successor after beating Walcott via decision.

When Louis came back, Charles beat him, and THEN all organizations said that Charles was the true champion, even though he already wore the championship belt around his waist.

It wasn't a 'defense' for Louis, it was a defense for Charles.

Decagon wrote:It's debatable. I see Louis as the Lineal champion, with Charles holding a few paper titles. I'm still curious as to who came to the ring last.

Didn't Gerry Cooney enter the ring after Larry Holmes, and if so does that mean that he was the defending champion?

pundit why dont you save us your bullshit. none of dentsun said is true including the marciano World War II comment. Marcianos reign happened 7-11 years after WW II ended, so it doesnt even make sense. i never hear anyone say dempseys era was weak even though dempseys reign came RIGHT AFTER world war I

Tyson was not even the best of his own era. He ranks behind Holyfield and Lewis has a better resume. Tyson fans have no case at all for ranking Tyson top 5 because he would have had to prove himself the best of his own time to rank so highly which Tyson failed to do.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Tyson was not even the best of his own era. He ranks behind Holyfield and Lewis has a better resume. Tyson fans have no case at all for ranking Tyson top 5 because he would have had to prove himself the best of his own time to rank so highly which Tyson failed to do.

That is a nonsensical argument. First of all the 90's was not the Tyson era. The Tyson era was the late 80's. That was when Tyson was in his prime. After 4 years absence from boxing, Tyson in '97 was no longer the fighter he had been 10 years earlier. His time had already past. He also had no desire to fight anymore. His timing, stamina, strength, balance and all were irretrievably gone. As I said earlier, Tyson's style favored a short prime...his prime was cut further short by his imprisonment on rape charges. Given those 4 years to re-establish himself after the Buster loss and the ruddock and stewart fights, he may have climbed back to the top or maybe not. Point is, he was the best ever in his heyday.

Marciano did fight in an especially weak era...The fact that the top contenders in the Marciano era were Roland lastarza, don cockell, Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott is ample evidence. Charles and Walcott fought 4 CONSECUTIVE TIMES for the title before Marciano-Walcott...why? Because there was NOBODY ELSE AROUND! Marciano made out due to very weak comp after the war which devastated the pool of talent that he would otherwise have had to face...Marciano was no great. Anyone who knows boxing can tell that from watching his tapes. He was short and small (185lbs) in his prime, yet surprisingly slow and clumsy. He cut easy and got dropped by guys like archie moore and walcott. Even Louis had him on queer street. He was lucky to catch Walcott and Charles when he did...a couple of years earlier he would have been target practice for both of them.

I believe Ali and Tyson are a toss-up for the best heavywt champ of all time. I can make an argument either way. having seen both guys ad nauseum, I think Tyson had qualities that would have worn a prime Ali down. Nobody admires Ali more than me, but I don't see that it takes anything away from him to say that Tyson was better in his prime...Carl Lewis broke Jesse Owens record. Does that make Owens less of a hero? The facts are there for all to see...Tyson's record is one of the best as a heavywt champ...he ducked no one and he beat his comp in the most devastating fashion. To rank him lower than #1 or #2 is a discredit to boxing.

Dentsun4228 wrote:

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Tyson was not even the best of his own era. He ranks behind Holyfield and Lewis has a better resume. Tyson fans have no case at all for ranking Tyson top 5 because he would have had to prove himself the best of his own time to rank so highly which Tyson failed to do.

That is a nonsensical argument. First of all the 90's was not the Tyson era. The Tyson era was the late 80's. That was when Tyson was in his prime. After 4 years absence from boxing, Tyson in '97 was no longer the fighter he had been 10 years earlier. His time had already past. He also had no desire to fight anymore. His timing, stamina, strength, balance and all were irretrievably gone. As I said earlier, Tyson's style favored a short prime...his prime was cut further short by his imprisonment on rape charges. Given those 4 years to re-establish himself after the Buster loss and the ruddock and stewart fights, he may have climbed back to the top or maybe not. Point is, he was the best ever in his heyday.

Marciano did fight in an especially weak era...The fact that the top contenders in the Marciano era were Roland lastarza, don cockell, Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott is ample evidence. Charles and Walcott fought 4 CONSECUTIVE TIMES for the title before Marciano-Walcott...why? Because there was NOBODY ELSE AROUND! Marciano made out due to very weak comp after the war which devastated the pool of talent that he would otherwise have had to face...Marciano was no great. Anyone who knows boxing can tell that from watching his tapes. He was short and small (185lbs) in his prime, yet surprisingly slow and clumsy. He cut easy and got dropped by guys like archie moore and walcott. Even Louis had him on queer street. He was lucky to catch Walcott and Charles when he did...a couple of years earlier he would have been target practice for both of them.

I believe Ali and Tyson are a toss-up for the best heavywt champ of all time. I can make an argument either way. having seen both guys ad nauseum, I think Tyson had qualities that would have worn a prime Ali down. Nobody admires Ali more than me, but I don't see that it takes anything away from him to say that Tyson was better in his prime...Carl Lewis broke Jesse Owens record. Does that make Owens less of a hero? The facts are there for all to see...Tyson's record is one of the best as a heavywt champ...he ducked no one and he beat his comp in the most devastating fashion. To rank him lower than #1 or #2 is a discredit to boxing.

Hilarious. Funniest post of the year material. Well done.

Longevity is part of what makes a fighter great. Fighters who show consistency across a long period of time will rank above those with less gongevity unless the fighter with less longevity somehow manages to beat more top contenders in a shorter period of time.

Tyson was past it when he suffered losses to Lewis, Danny Williams and Kevin McBride but he was in his prime vs Douglas and Holyfield.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Longevity is part of what makes a fighter great. Fighters who show consistency across a long period of time will rank above those with less gongevity unless the fighter with less longevity somehow manages to beat more top contenders in a shorter period of time.

Tyson was past it when he suffered losses to Lewis, Danny Williams and Kevin McBride but he was in his prime vs Douglas and Holyfield.

So you're saying that Ali was in his prime vs Quarry, Bonavena and Frazier I? I think most knowledgeable fans would disagree with that...Tyson was coming off a 4 year absence from boxing. I don't see how anyone could argue that a man who's been away for 4 friggin' years and now getting back into it, with questionable desire is still in his prime. Against Douglas, I agree, he blew it by being out of shape...but against Holy, Tyson was nowhere the fighter he was when he was knocking out the best of his division in the late 80's.

I watched the Tyson-Douglas fight the other day. Tyson is as in shape as he is normally, there's a good chance he wasn't 100% there mentally with some of the things going on in his life around the time, but physically I thought Tyson was fine. He just didn't seem to have a counter for Douglas' jab, maybe that was down to being underprepared, but if Douglas could do that to Tyson, imagine what Ali or Holmes could of done to Tyson if he fought them in their primes. Tyson's a borderline top 10 fighter on the all-time list, top 3 is mental.

Les Darcy wrote:I watched the Tyson-Douglas fight the other day. Tyson is as in shape as he is normally, there's a good chance he wasn't 100% there mentally with some of the things going on in his life around the time, but physically I thought Tyson was fine. He just didn't seem to have a counter for Douglas' jab, maybe that was down to being underprepared, but if Douglas could do that to Tyson, imagine what Ali or Holmes could of done to Tyson if he fought them in their primes. Tyson's a borderline top 10 fighter on the all-time list, top 3 is mental.

I think most people who saw that fight recognize that Tyson wasn't in the kind of physical shape typical of his title defenses. He also fought a lot differently than usual. From the first round, it was noted by the commentators and fans that Tyson appeared lethargic and unfocused. Douglas didn't show Tyson anything that he hadn't seen before from better fighters than Douglas...Tony Tucker was a much better fighter than Buster. It was Tucker who knocked Buster out for the title. Tony Tubbs, Tyrell Biggs, Spinks, Carl Williams, even Larry Holmes in his post-prime had better jabs than Buster and were certainly all a level higher. Buster was a no-hoper who Tyson took lightly and didn't prepare for. Buster got lucky and he still technically lost, since he was on the deck for longer than 10 seconds.

Dentsun4228 wrote:

Les Darcy wrote:I watched the Tyson-Douglas fight the other day. Tyson is as in shape as he is normally, there's a good chance he wasn't 100% there mentally with some of the things going on in his life around the time, but physically I thought Tyson was fine. He just didn't seem to have a counter for Douglas' jab, maybe that was down to being underprepared, but if Douglas could do that to Tyson, imagine what Ali or Holmes could of done to Tyson if he fought them in their primes. Tyson's a borderline top 10 fighter on the all-time list, top 3 is mental.

I think most people who saw that fight recognize that Tyson wasn't in the kind of physical shape typical of his title defenses. He also fought a lot differently than usual. From the first round, it was noted by the commentators and fans that Tyson appeared lethargic and unfocused. Douglas didn't show Tyson anything that he hadn't seen before from better fighters than Douglas...Tony Tucker was a much better fighter than Buster. It was Tucker who knocked Buster out for the title. Tony Tubbs, Tyrell Biggs, Spinks, Carl Williams, even Larry Holmes in his post-prime had better jabs than Buster and were certainly all a level higher. Buster was a no-hoper who Tyson took lightly and didn't prepare for. Buster got lucky and he still technically lost, since he was on the deck for longer than 10 seconds.

The thing Douglas had though was that he actually gave his all to win the fight and came there to win the fight. Tucker may have beaten Douglas in 1987, but the Douglas that fought Tyson was a completely different fighter. Douglas put up a better show then any of those other heavyweights did against Tyson, and Tyson was shown up as a one dimensional fighter with no adaptability and a man who can't fight off the back foot, just as Evander Holyfield did in their fights. Does that description really fit a fighter you think is the greatest heavyweight ever? Douglas fought a terrific fight, he wasn't lucky, he was just better on the night.