BoxRec

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Larry Holmes
4. Joe Louis
5. George Foreman
6. Sonny Liston
7. Joe Frazier
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Ken Norton
10. Jim Corbett
11. Gene Tunney
12. Jim Jeffries
13. Jersey Joe Walcott
14. Evander Holifield
15. Jack Dempsey
16. Lennox Lewis
17. Rocky Marciano
18. Mike Tyson
19. Riddick Bowe
20. Tim Witherspoon

this is my revised all time heavyweight champs top 20 list... before people mention it I've rated Walcott and Charles over Marciano after much thought as I belive that both men were better fighters in their primes and Marciano got them both on the slide... for much the same reason Holifield is ranked above Lewis... views anyone??... 8)

Witherspoon and Norton are the only Gaffes I see here. I assume Archie Moore would be considered a LHW in your listings to I won't squawk about that.

Otherwise these names are perrenial top 20 considerations to my way of thinking. Norton was a "style puzzle" for Ali later in his career rather than a top 20 candidate IMHO. And as far as Witherspoon well my guess is you've been into the Egg Nog a bit early this year.

Otherwise you have around an 85 to 90% accuracy aspect in a generalist sort of way. Lewis and Bowe could be suspect as well but not overly scandalzing to the intellect.

Well I think Norton would have been a tough fight for all the champs, probably especially the boxers like Johnson, Holmes (as we know!) Charles, Tunney... he may have been bombed out by the big punchers but theres really no shame in being koed by Foreman and Shavers... sounds better than Mccall and Rahman 8) ...with Witherspoon I think he's underrated generally, when he was fit ( ) he was a toughie for anyone, excellent chin, strong, stamina, good punch, clever... the Witherspoon who fought Holmes belongs in the top 20 imo...
Lewis and Bowe had weaknesses but their overall skills and power get them in there I think, Bowe could have got much higher had he done things differently while Lewis got just about everything out of himself really and was near great except for the dodgey chin and sometimes dubious opposition...

I don't know about Norton being up that high...in the second Ali-Norton fight, for the first six rounds...you can see what a younger Ali would have done to him for 15 rounds...dance around and outpoint him by a mile...

Norton's 'greatness' is based on good showings against and out of shape Ali (3-73), an in shape Ali past his prime, who was running out of gas after 6 rounds (9-73), and a well past his prime Ali (9-76)...and he still lost 2 out of 3...did well against Holmes, but I always thought Holmes would have done better in a rematch...remember, it was Holmes' first really big fight...

He was obliterated by Foreman...I just can't get on that bandwagon...I think there's 20 all timers who could beat him...a few already did...

The main problem I had with Norton against Shavers was how he looked in defeat. It wasn't like he just happend to get caught with a punch he never saw, he offered little resistence and pretty much just stood their and took a beating.

In a head to head matchup which I realize is not the deciding factor in the way an all time great list is comprised, but head to head I think Norton fares poorly against an aggresive fighter like Tyson who would go right after his opponent.

Norton was 36 when he lost to shavers so that loss shouldn't be held too much against him. Having said that #9 is way too high. You could make a good arguement that he belongs in the top 20 though.

Louis should be #2 and Marciano at #17 is too low. Otherwise the least is pretty respectable.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Jack Johnson
5. George Foreman
6. Sonny Liston
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Sam Langford
9. Joe Frazier
10. Gene Tunney

11. Rocky Marciano
12. Jack Dempsey
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Mike Tyson
15. Jim Jeffries
16. Harry Wills
17. Jim Corbett
18. Evander Holyfield
19. Max Schmeling
20. Jersey Joe Walcott

Honorable mention: Floyd Patterson, Jack Sharkey, John L Sullivan

Sharkey? I could pay Jack to lay down for any of these guys.

Lennox Lewis over these boys

STOP looking at acheivements; when on ANY given night while in their Primes, these good Ol' Boys OBLITERATE Lennox Lewis...

Rocky Marciano
Jack Dempsey
Ezzard Charles
Mike Tyson
Jim Jeffries
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Joe Frazier
Gene Tunney

Lennox does NOT even make an all-time list... p4p, peak-for-peak!

Marciano at 17? dempset ar 15??


PASS THE CRACK PIPE SILK!!!!




as for rating charles and walcott over marciano, well facts speak forthemselves.


marciano= 4-0 against walcott and charles



charles @ heavyweight lost to nino valdez, elmer ray, jersey joe walcott 2x, rex layne, harold johnson.

marciano lost ZERO times and would never lose to the some of the guys charles lost too


walcott @ heavyweight lost to joey maxim, rex layne, elmer ray, johnny allen.

marciano lost ZERO times and would never lose to some of the guys walcott lost too.


marciano reigned as champ 1952-56 and defended his title 6 times against all guys ranked # 1 or # 2 by ring magazine!!!!!


in comparison, charles reigned only 1950-51 and defended his title 6 times, with only 2 of those title defenses against guys ranked in the top 5 by Ring Magazine. even if you count charles title reign as starting in 1949, charles defended it 8 times with only 2 of his title defenses against fighters rated in top 5 heavwyeight rankings by Ring Magazine





so facts clearly show undeniable marciano WAS the better heavyweight than ezzard charles and jersey joe walcott. his accomplishments at heavyweight far exceeded both. whether or not charles or walcott ever could have beat marciano is irrelevant here, and im sure if you asked walcott about his fight vs marciano, he would tell you himself he could have never fought a finer one vs marciano.

larry holmes over joe louis is quite ridiculous IMO.

double standard= silkov critisizing marciano for beating louis, charles, "walcott" when they were past there primes but not critisizng jack johnson for not beating prime versions of jeanette, mcvea, langford

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Marciano at 17? dempset ar 15??


PASS THE CRACK PIPE SILK!!!!




as for rating charles and walcott over marciano, well facts speak forthemselves.


marciano= 4-0 against walcott and charles



charles @ heavyweight lost to nino valdez, elmer ray, jersey joe walcott 2x, rex layne, harold johnson.

marciano lost ZERO times and would never lose to the some of the guys charles lost too


walcott @ heavyweight lost to joey maxim, rex layne, elmer ray, johnny allen.

marciano lost ZERO times and would never lose to some of the guys walcott lost too.


marciano reigned as champ 1952-56 and defended his title 6 times against all guys ranked # 1 or # 2 by ring magazine!!!!!


in comparison, charles reigned only 1950-51 and defended his title 6 times, with only 2 of those title defenses against guys ranked in the top 5 by Ring Magazine. even if you count charles title reign as starting in 1949, charles defended it 8 times with only 2 of his title defenses against fighters rated in top 5 heavwyeight rankings by Ring Magazine





so facts clearly show undeniable marciano WAS the better heavyweight than ezzard charles and jersey joe walcott. his accomplishments at heavyweight far exceeded both. whether or not charles or walcott ever could have beat marciano is irrelevant here, and im sure if you asked walcott about his fight vs marciano, he would tell you himself he could have never fought a finer one vs marciano.

So Marcinao was unbeaten?... so what?... look at his record, he only fought about half a dozen world class fighters and most of them were past their best, I've heard all your Marciano arguments before and its really time you moved on man!... 8)

Decagon wrote:Yeah, but where are your "Corbett was better than Marciano" arguments? You have him ridiculously overrated.

Well thats your opinion, which I dont exactly put that much value on... 8)

corbett over marciano, i cant wait to hear this one. corbett was demolished in 9 rounds by a 5'8 180lb tom sharkey who was something of a poor mans marciano. yet corbett beats marciano?

Decagon wrote:Jim Corbett would get splattered by any competent heavyweight. Jack Sharkey would DESTROY him, unless he became stupid again. Well, let's call it even odds.

You obviously know very little about Corbett... Jack SHarkey splatter him??.... Corbett almost beat Jeffries in their first fight and Jeffries would have splattered Sharkey... figure it out for yourself....

Decagon wrote:Corbett was a crappy boxer. Watch any footage of him, and you'll know that. The only reason he did so well against Jeffries was that Jeffries wasn't that good.

Jeffries was one of the strongest and toughest of all the heavyweight champions, if he was crap what does that make Marcinao and Dempsey??.... plenty of people who had seen all three fighters said Jeffires was the better of them, and I'm guessing they saw more of him than you have....

Decagon...are you of the opinion that the old fighters just don't measure up to the later century crew? Forgive me if I'm having a senior moment but I can't remember your take on "eras" . But I'm not sure I've heard you speak highly of any of the older boxers.

silkov wrote:1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Larry Holmes
4. Joe Louis
5. George Foreman
6. Sonny Liston
7. Joe Frazier
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Ken Norton
10. Jim Corbett
11. Gene Tunney
12. Jim Jeffries
13. Jersey Joe Walcott
14. Evander Holifield
15. Jack Dempsey
16. Lennox Lewis
17. Rocky Marciano
18. Mike Tyson
19. Riddick Bowe
20. Tim Witherspoon

this is my revised all time heavyweight champs top 20 list... before people mention it I've rated Walcott and Charles over Marciano after much thought as I belive that both men were better fighters in their primes and Marciano got them both on the slide... for much the same reason Holifield is ranked above Lewis... views anyone??... 8)

A respectable list. The only one that seems a bit odd to me is Rocky Marciano, however if you presented a good argument based on accomplishment, I can see why you'd rate him there. I've always had mixed feelings about Marciano, sometimes I rate him highly.. top 5 material, other times I rate him top 10. Marciano at 17 just looks odd, however I can see why you'd put him there. An 0 on your record means nothing if you haven't fought everybody. Some Marciano fans forget this sometimes. I still believe he's easily top 10 though.

As for me, I know I might get ridiculed by some, but I strongly believe that Joe Louis is the greatest heavyweight of all time. Ali is a close second. That's my honest opinion.

What do you expect from a guy who spends his free time hanging from the nuts of Marvin Hagler?.......

Decagon wrote:Jim Corbett would get splattered by any competent heavyweight. Jack Sharkey would DESTROY him, unless he became stupid again. Well, let's call it even odds.

This statement is a direct contradiction to your recent comments on the Best Heavyweights from 1985-2005 thread, when some of use were debating (i dont know why) the relative merits of Bowe and Foreman against Corbett and Jackson. Why dont you make your mind up Dec, or at least stop making posts that are argumentative for the sake of it

My top 5.
1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Lennox Lewis
4.Jack Johnson
5.Larry Holmes

BoxBuzz wrote:Decagon...are you of the opinion that the old fighters just don't measure up to the later century crew? Forgive me if I'm having a senior moment but I can't remember your take on "eras" . But I'm not sure I've heard you speak highly of any of the older boxers.

Thats because his video collection only goes back as far as the mid 80s and Ray Mancini... who he writes poetry about!....

My Top 5 Ten Heavyweight Champions of All-Time
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Mike Tyson
4. Evander Holyfield
5. George Foreman

silkov wrote:Well I think Norton would have been a tough fight for all the champs, probably especially the boxers like Johnson, Holmes (as we know!) Charles, Tunney... he may have been bombed out by the big punchers but theres really no shame in being koed by Foreman and Shavers... sounds better than Mccall and Rahman 8) ...with Witherspoon I think he's underrated generally, when he was fit ( ) he was a toughie for anyone, excellent chin, strong, stamina, good punch, clever... the Witherspoon who fought Holmes belongs in the top 20 imo...
Lewis and Bowe had weaknesses but their overall skills and power get them in there I think, Bowe could have got much higher had he done things differently while Lewis got just about everything out of himself really and was near great except for the dodgey chin and sometimes dubious opposition...

There are different ways to look at this but Witherspoon, IMO, doesn't belong anywhere near the top 20. He had a couple of decent fights but rating him on what he could have been or how could he could be at times doesn't equate to an entire career or a career full of highs. That goes for Bowe as well although he deserves to be higher than Witherspoon.