BoxRec

Just for fun I thought I would do something different. Once in a while people argue who was the best of a certain decade. It always gets a little tricky, for example how do you compare to a guy who comes along at the end of the dacade (or the beginning) to someone else that wasn't the best but was up there for most of the decade.

So I thought I would try to develop a system of rating heavyweights. I looked at Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings and developed a point system. A fighter ranked #1 for the year would get 10 points, the #2 guy would get 9 and so on until #10 who would get 1 point. The champion would get 12 points.

I then totaled the 10 years of each decade and came up with the top 10 for each decade. Of course this isn't a perfect system. Of course Ring Magazine's ratings aren't perfect, but they are certainly better than the "Governing Bodies".
Anyway I thought this would be interesting and it was. Here are the rankings with the fighter's total points for the decade in parenthesis.

The 1940's
1. Joe Louis (108)
2. Tami Mauriello (46)
3. Jimmy Bivins (37)
4. Jersey Joe Walcott (29)
5. Elmer Ray (28)
6. Turkey Thompson (27)
6. Lee Q. Murray (27)
8. Joe Baski (22)
8. Lee Savold (22)
10. Melio Bettina (21)

The 1950's
1. Rocky Marciano (54)
2. Ezzard Charles (48)
3. Floyd Patterson (45)
4. Nino Valdes (37)
5. Bob Baker (27)
5. Willie Pastrano (27)
7. Ingemar Johansson (26)
7. Jersey Joe Walcott (26)
9. Clarence Henry (25)
10. Archie Moore (24)

The 1960's
1. Muhammad Ali (92)
2. Floyd Patterson (66)
3. Sonny Liston (66)
4. Zora Folley (47)
5. Ernie Terrell (37)
6. Jimmy Ellis (26)
6. George Chuvalo (26)
8. Eddie Machen (23)
8. Cleveland Williams (23)
10. Karl Mildenberger (22)

The 1970's
1. Muhammad Ali (100)
2. George Foreman (65)
3. Joe Frazier (62)
4. Ken Norton (53)
5. Ron Lyle (47)
6. Larry Holmes (35)
7. Jimmy Young (32)
8. Jerry Quarry (27)
9. Oscar Bonavena (26)
10. Earnie Shavers (21)

The 1930's was the first full decade that Ring had ratings. Unfortunately, the website that I looked this up on had a mistake.They had the exact same ratings in every weight class for 1930 and 1931 so that has to be a mistake. If anyone has the ratings for both of those years I could total that decade as well. For some reason the website didn't have the 1980's and 1990's. If some one has the ratings for each year of those decades I would be happy to total those decades as well.

A few of the results suprised me. Probably the biggest was Mauriello being #2 for the 1940's.
Of course this system isn't perfect but it is interesting.

What thoughts do you guys have on the results?

Interesting. For what it's worth some time ago I compiled a top 6 for each decade. Here it is (slightly revised)

1890s
1. Jim Corbett
2. Peter Jackson
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. John L. Sullivan
5. Jim Jeffries
6. Tom Sharkey

1900s
1. Jack Johnson
2. Jim Jeffries
3. Sam Langford
4. Joe Jeanette
5. Sam McVea
6. Tommy Burns

1910s
1. Sam Langford
2. Harry Wills
3. Jack Johnson
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Joe Jeanette
6. Sam McVea

1920s
1. Gene Tunney
2. Jack Dempsey
3. Harry Wills
4. Jack Sharkey
5. George Godfrey
6. Tommy Gibbons

1930s
1. Joe Louis
2. Max Schmeling
3. Jack Sharkey
4. Max Baer
5. Primo Carnera
6. Jim Braddock

1940s
1. Joe Louis
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Jersey Joe Walcott
4. Elmar Ray
5. Jimmy Bivins
6. Billy Conn

1950s
1. Rocky Marciano
2. Sonny Liston
3. Floyd Patterson
4. Jersey Joe Walcott
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Archie Moore

1960s
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Sonny Liston
3. Joe Frazier
4. Floyd Patterson
5. Ernie Terrell
6. Jimmy Ellis

1970s
1. Muhammad Ali
2. George Foreman
3. Joe Frazier
4. Larry Holmes
5. Ken Norton
6. Jimmy Young

1980s
1. Larry Holmes
2. Mike Tyson
3. Michael Spinks
4. Tim Witherspoon
5. Michael Dokes
6. Trevor Berbick

1990s
1. Evander Holyfield
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Riddick Bowe
4. Mike Tyson
5. Andrew Golota
6. Michael Moorer

2000s (to date)
1. Lennox Lewis
2. Vitali Klitschko
3. Vladimir Klitschko
4. Hasim Rahman
5. Chris Byrd
6. John Ruiz

hey guys thanks.that was interesting.longevity paid off for alot
of these guys.

Ambling Alp wrote:The 1970's
1. Muhammad Ali (100)
2. George Foreman (65)
3. Joe Frazier (62)
4. Ken Norton (53)
5. Ron Lyle (47)
6. Larry Holmes (35)
7. Jimmy Young (32)
8. Jerry Quarry (27)
9. Oscar Bonavena (26)
10. Earnie Shavers (21)

What a list. And to think that Ali beat everyone on that list but Holmes.

Nice work Alp.

Excellent stuff Ambling Alp.

It's certainly one of the better ways to rate fighters that I have seen.

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:The 1970's
1. Muhammad Ali (100)
2. George Foreman (65)
3. Joe Frazier (62)
4. Ken Norton (53)
5. Ron Lyle (47)
6. Larry Holmes (35)
7. Jimmy Young (32)
8. Jerry Quarry (27)
9. Oscar Bonavena (26)
10. Earnie Shavers (21)

What a list. And to think that Ali beat everyone on that list but Holmes.

Nice work Alp.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Will we ever see such depth in the HW division EVER again? Personally I doubt it.

Can this be done for other weight divisions? Welters would make for some good lists.

Nice work AA.

el tigre del sur wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:The 1970's
1. Muhammad Ali (100)
2. George Foreman (65)
3. Joe Frazier (62)
4. Ken Norton (53)
5. Ron Lyle (47)
6. Larry Holmes (35)
7. Jimmy Young (32)
8. Jerry Quarry (27)
9. Oscar Bonavena (26)
10. Earnie Shavers (21)

What a list. And to think that Ali beat everyone on that list but Holmes.

Nice work Alp.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Will we ever see such depth in the HW division EVER again? Personally I doubt it.

Can this be done for other weight divisions? Welters would make for some good lists.

Nice work AA.

el tigre de sur - Yes I can do this for welterweights. It is a bit time consuming but I can probably have it done in a couple of weeks. That could be interesting. I have no idea how it will come out.

John L- Yes the 1970's heavyweight list is pretty awesome. There is no doubt that this was by far the best decade in heavyweight boxing. Ali really was a fighting champion. There were a lot of great fights involving other guys as well.
Btw, Ali beat everyone else on the 1960's list except for Eddie Machen!

Pundit - Yes I remember the list that you did. I pretty much agree it, with just a few minor exceptions.

One of the reasons that I wanted to compile this list was to see if someone has been forgotten by history. There are a few guys are here who you seldom hear about anymore.
As I mentioned before Tami Mauriello being #2 in the 1940's was a big surprise to me. Ring Magazine must have thought highly of him. This brings up the question, was Mauriello overrated in his own time or underrated now?

Another surprise to me was Willie Pastrano. He came in at #5 on the heavyweight list for the 1950's.

Ambling Alp wrote:

el tigre del sur wrote:

The Great John L wrote: What a list. And to think that Ali beat everyone on that list but Holmes.

Nice work Alp.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Will we ever see such depth in the HW division EVER again? Personally I doubt it.

Can this be done for other weight divisions? Welters would make for some good lists.

Nice work AA.

el tigre de sur - Yes I can do this for welterweights. It is a bit time consuming but I can probably have it done in a couple of weeks. That could be interesting. I have no idea how it will come out.

John L- Yes the 1970's heavyweight list is pretty awesome. There is no doubt that this was by far the best decade in heavyweight boxing. Ali really was a fighting champion. There were a lot of great fights involving other guys as well.
Btw, Ali beat everyone else on the 1960's list except for Eddie Machen!

Pundit - Yes I remember the list that you did. I pretty much agree it, with just a few minor exceptions.

One of the reasons that I wanted to compile this list was to see if someone has been forgotten by history. There are a few guys are here who you seldom hear about anymore.
As I mentioned before Tami Mauriello being #2 in the 1940's was a big surprise to me. Ring Magazine must have thought highly of him. This brings up the question, was Mauriello overrated in his own time or underrated now?

Another surprise to me was Willie Pastrano. He came in at #5 on the heavyweight list for the 1950's.

What does the 30s list look like if you accept the 30/31 doubling?

Ambling Alp wrote:Btw, Ali beat everyone else on the 1960's list except for Eddie Machen!

Yes he did. Pretty remarkable.

Well if you assume that the ratings were exactly the same for 1930 and 1931 (I know that there is a mistake on the website because every weight class has the exact same ratings for those two years) here is what the heavyweight ratings would be for the decade of the 1930's:

1. Max Schmeling (83)
2. Joe Louis (57)
3. Primo Carnera (52)
4. Jack Sharkey (32)
4. King Levinsky (32)
6. Tommy Loughran (25)
7. Ernie Schaaf (24)
7. Jim Braddock (24)
9. Tony Galento (23)
10. Lou Nova (22)

The website has the following rankings for both 1930 and 1931.
Champion Schmeling
1. Sharkey
2. Schaaf
3. Carnera
4. Levinsky
5. Walker
6. Loughran
7. Stribling
8. Poreda
9. Griffiths
10. Baer

By looking at the results I'm guessing that 1931 is the incorrect year. King Levinsky was only 5-6 that year, I doubt he would be rated at all for that year.

The top 3 positions would be still be the same regardless. Schmeling would still be #1, Louis #2, and Carnera #3.
After that it gets tricky. Sharkey would probably still be #1 for 1931 since he beat Walker and Carnera and didn't lose. Levinsky would lose 7 points because he probably wouldn't be rated for 1931 and would fall from a tie for 4th with Sharkey to a tie for 5th with Loughran. If Loughran would have been rated higher than #6 for 1931 he would have been higher that Levinsky for the decade.

Schaaf would have to be #2 for 1931 to stay tied for 7th with Braddock for the decade. It's hard to say if he would have or not. He went 16-1 for the year, with his loss being to Loughran.

It doesn't look like anyone else would have cracked the top 10. The only one close that didn't make the top 10 was Bob Pastor and he wouldn't have been ranked in 1931. My best guess if I had the correct rating for that year that the total results for the decade of the 1930's would have ended up like this:

1. Schmeling
2. Louis
3. Carnera
4. Sharkey
5. Loughran
6. Levinsky
7. Schaaf
7. Braddock
9. Galento
10. Nova

Sorry if I told you more than you wanted to know.

Ambling Alp wrote:Well if you assume that the ratings were exactly the same for 1930 and 1931 (I know that there is a mistake on the website because every weight class has the exact same ratings for those two years) here is what the heavyweight ratings would be for the decade of the 1930's:

1. Max Schmeling (83)
2. Joe Louis (57)
3. Primo Carnera (52)
4. Jack Sharkey (32)
4. King Levinsky (32)
6. Tommy Loughran (25)
7. Ernie Schaaf (24)
7. Jim Braddock (24)
9. Tony Galento (23)
10. Lou Nova (22)

The website has the following rankings for both 1930 and 1931.
Champion Schmeling
1. Sharkey
2. Schaaf
3. Carnera
4. Levinsky
5. Walker
6. Loughran
7. Stribling
8. Poreda
9. Griffiths
10. Baer

By looking at the results I'm guessing that 1931 is the incorrect year. King Levinsky was only 5-6 that year, I doubt he would be rated at all for that year.

The top 3 positions would be still be the same regardless. Schmeling would still be #1, Louis #2, and Carnera #3.
After that it gets tricky. Sharkey would probably still be #1 for 1931 since he beat Walker and Carnera and didn't lose. Levinsky would lose 7 points because he probably wouldn't be rated for 1931 and would fall from a tie for 4th with Sharkey to a tie for 5th with Loughran. If Loughran would have been rated higher than #6 for 1931 he would have been higher that Levinsky for the decade.

Schaaf would have to be #2 for 1931 to stay tied for 7th with Braddock for the decade. It's hard to say if he would have or not. He went 16-1 for the year, with his loss being to Loughran.

It doesn't look like anyone else would have cracked the top 10. The only one close that didn't make the top 10 was Bob Pastor and he wouldn't have been ranked in 1931. My best guess if I had the correct rating for that year that the total results for the decade of the 1930's would have ended up like this:

1. Schmeling
2. Louis
3. Carnera
4. Sharkey
5. Loughran
6. Levinsky
7. Schaaf
7. Braddock
9. Galento
10. Nova

Sorry if I told you more than you wanted to know.

Thank you.
A bit strange that Max Baer doesn't make the list.

Guess what, he should be on the list.
He had 42 points. That puts him at #4.

The list should read:
1. Schmeling (83)
2. Louis (57)
3. Carnera (52)
4. Baer (42)
5. Levinsky (32)
5. Sharkey (32)
7. Loughran (25)
8. Schaaf (24)
8. Braddock (24)
10. Galento (23)

Nova shouldn't have been on it.

Ambling Alp wrote:Guess, what he should be on the list.
He had 42 points. That puts him at #4.

The list should read:
1. Schmeling (83)
2. Louis (57)
3. Carnera (52)
4. Baer (42)
5. Levinsky (32)
5. Sharkey (32)
7. Loughran (25)
8. Schaaf (24)
8. Braddock (24)
10. Galento (23)

Nova shouldn't have been on it.

Nice lists. They put longevity above peak performance, of course, which explains some of the oddities.

For fun I did one for the 1920s -- as you say it's incomplete and starts with 1924 only, hence Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills get too few points (Wills would surely be #2 if the ratings would start in 1920), and fighters Tommy Gibbons, Bill Brennan or Charley Weinert don't get a chance at all....

1. Jack Dempsey (44)
2. Jack Sharkey (35)
3. Gene Tunney (33)
4. George Godfrey (30)
5. Harry Wills (26)
6. Paolino Uzcudun (24)
7. Jack Renault (19)
7. Jim Maloney (19)
9. Johnny Risko (16)
10. Knute Hansen (11 - ever heard of this fellow?)

Brockton also did very good lists some time ago

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... avyweights

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Btw, Ali beat everyone else on the 1960's list except for Eddie Machen!

Yes he did. Pretty remarkable.

More evidence, as if it was needed, that he is the greatest Heavyweight of all time. Fascinating stuff.

Flump wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Btw, Ali beat everyone else on the 1960's list except for Eddie Machen!

Yes he did. Pretty remarkable.

More evidence, as if it was needed, that he is the greatest Heavyweight of all time. Fascinating stuff.

If you look at the 30s list, Louis beat Schmeling, Baer, Sharkey, Carnera, Galento, Levnisky, Braddock. Only Schaaf and Loughran are missing (and Schaaf died before Louis could have fought him). Plus Mauriello, Bivins, Walcott from the 40s list -- the numbers 2-4 -- as well as Lee Savold.

Not much to choose between Ali and Louis also here.

What website has the ratings?

pundit wrote:

Flump wrote:

The Great John L wrote: Yes he did. Pretty remarkable.

More evidence, as if it was needed, that he is the greatest Heavyweight of all time. Fascinating stuff.

If you look at the 30s list, Louis beat Schmeling, Baer, Sharkey, Carnera, Galento, Levnisky, Braddock. Only Schaaf and Loughran are missing (and Schaaf died before Louis could have fought him). Plus Mauriello, Bivins, Walcott from the 40s list -- the numbers 2-4 -- as well as Lee Savold.

Not much to choose between Ali and Louis also here.

All true Pundit, but I think overall Ali had the tougher opposition which swings it for me.

1940s


1. joe louis
2. jersey joe walcott
3. ezzard charles
4. elmer ray
5. lee q murray
6. Billy Conn

1950s

1. Rocky Marciano
2. Sonny Liston
3. Jersey Joe Walcott
4. Floyd Patterson
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Cleveland Williams



1980s


1. mike tyson
2. larry holmes- tysons record in the 1980s better than holmes 1980s record
3. tim witherspoon
4. pinklon thomas
5. mike weaver
6. Michael Spinx

1910s:
1. Jack Johnson
2. Jack Dempsey
3. Sam Langford
4. Harry Wills
5. Joe Jeanette
6. Jess Willard

i would replace willard with either miske, greb, fulton, mccarthy, Gunboat, or kid norfolk

1960s
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Sonny Liston
3. Joe Frazier
4. Floyd Patterson
5. Jerry Quarry
6. Zora Folley

folley over terell??? also consider ernie whipped on folley

1900s:
1. Jack Johnson
2. Jim Jeffries
3. Joe Jeanette
4. Sam Langford
5. Tommy Burns
6. Sam VcVey

i would never put tommy burns over sam mcvea. i think mcvea would have destroyed burns also. mcvea fought and beat far better competition than burns too, a much more proven fighter

This kind of comparision for greatnes is just one of many possible.
Ofcourse that is the best way for long carrer great boxers conquer the top of the list. Louis and Ali era the best examples.
I thgin there never was "Marciano era". Louis era, Ali era, Tyson era, Dempsey era... -yes, but not "Marciano era".
Rocky Marciano's career is comparatively short to call him "era", but the most remarkable and unique. He is not long time sapoon opera carrer hero with low and high points(losses and wins in rematches).
Marciano is the only undefeated, undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, with 49 consecutive wins and 43 ko's. That is! All the rest is variations of theme - "Who is the greatest?"

Yes, Tyson is not as great as Marciano.
But I saw that his name circulate in fans and no boxing fans mind so long time. I saw that this type of point system like author of the topic made privilege this kind of boxers - with long careers. I think long sucsesuful career isn't more important than not so long but remarkable career like Marciano's.
Rocky Marciano is the Greatest.

Since we have been talking about heavyweights by decade recently on another thread, I though I would upadate an old thread. This time I added the 1980s and 1990s. Again 12 points goes the champion of an individual year, 10 for #1 challenger, 9 for #2 challenger, 8 for #3, all the way to 1 point for the #10 contender for the year. Then all 10 years of the decade are added up.
What is nice about this is that it considers both greatness and longevity.

The 1940's
1. Joe Louis (108)
2. Tami Mauriello (46)
3. Jimmy Bivins (37)
4. Jersey Joe Walcott (29)
5. Elmer Ray (28)
6. Turkey Thompson (27)
6. Lee Q. Murray (27)
8. Joe Baski (22)
8. Lee Savold (22)
10. Melio Bettina (21)

The 1950's
1. Rocky Marciano (54)
2. Ezzard Charles (48)
3. Floyd Patterson (45)
4. Nino Valdes (37)
5. Bob Baker (27)
5. Willie Pastrano (27)
7. Ingemar Johansson (26)
7. Jersey Joe Walcott (26)
9. Clarence Henry (25)
10. Archie Moore (24)

The 1960's
1. Muhammad Ali (92)
2. Floyd Patterson (66)
3. Sonny Liston (66)
4. Zora Folley (47)
5. Ernie Terrell (37)
6. Jimmy Ellis (26)
6. George Chuvalo (26)
8. Eddie Machen (23)
8. Cleveland Williams (23)
10. Karl Mildenberger (22)

The 1970's
1. Muhammad Ali (100)
2. George Foreman (65)
3. Joe Frazier (62)
4. Ken Norton (53)
5. Ron Lyle (47)
6. Larry Holmes (35)
7. Jimmy Young (32)
8. Jerry Quarry (27)
9. Oscar Bonavena (26)
10. Earnie Shavers (21)

1980s
1. Holmes (69)
2. Dokes(52)
3. Witherspoon (49)
4. Thomas (44)
5. Tyson (42)
6. Coetzee (41)
7. Weaver (40)
8. Page (39)
9. M. Spinks (36)
10. Berbick (30)

1990s
1. Holyfield ((73)
2. Lewis (62)
3. Bowe (50)
4. Moorer (43)
5. Tyson (39)
6. Foreman (24)
7. Mercer (20)
8. Ruddock (19)
9. Grant (16)
10. McCall (14)
* The website is missing rankings for 1997.

Ring rankings are certainly a useful historical source, but I certainly wouldn't use them as some sort of definite barometer of who deserved to be listed among the best in a given period.

No it's not meant to be a definite barometer. It does make you think though. Obviously there are some guys who have been largely forgotton that are on these lists. Others we think of a top fighter in a particular era and they really were only a top fighter in that era for a short time.

Occasionally a guy gets overrated because of one high profile win and will too high for a given year. However, if he isn't for real, he isn't going to rated high for a 10-year period. The rankings aren't perfect, but they certainly are ballpark.

A few points that bear mentioning:

-I think that Foreman was #6 for the 1990s says a lot. Fortysomething Foreman was way past it when he fought in the 1990s. Much slower, less power, could not fight at nearly the same pace. He would not be close to the top 10 in the 1970s. However, the fighters below Foreman in the 1990s were very inconsistent. Clearly there was a big dropoff after the top few.

-Tyson would have been higher had he not lost three years to prison. He would have been higher than Moorer and Bowe. What might have been.

-The 1950s seems like an odd decade. You sort have the Marciano-Walcott-Charles-Moore group in the early part and then the Patterson-Johannsson-Folley group in the 2nd half.

dempseyfire wrote:Ring rankings are certainly a useful historical source, but I certainly wouldn't use them as some sort of definite barometer of who deserved to be listed among the best in a given period.

No, but if you look at the list closely, I think its about where most knowledgable people would place these guys from decade-to-decade. I mean, you can take exceptions to some of it (for example, Tyson is too low in the 1980s, and Charles missing from the 1940s is baffling), but generally I think it's pretty accurate at least as to how I would rank these guys.