BoxRec

Here is the last of the ratings. Comments and critisms welcome. I was a bit surprised at the lack of depth to the 70's but this can in part be explained by the quantity of good 60's fighters who extended their career's well into the 70's and also Larry Holmes, whom I rated in the 80's. The top 5 I thought rated themselves.
The 80's led to a big call, Tyson or Holmes. I plumped for Larry on the basis of his longevity, consistantcy and a reasonable second career. To-morrow i might go for Tysons sheer power and speed. The hardest call I had to make.
The rest of the alpha boys are a matter of opinion, I tried to rate them on what they achieved rather than their potential.
The 90's I lead with Holy rather than Bowe despite the latters head-to-head superiority based on a far better career resumee. The 2000 on I perhaps should'nt have touched at all and after Lewis and V.Klit i think it is fair to say that the jury is still out on a lot of them.
One comment I would make is that after completing this exercise I am surprised to see the strenght in the 10-20 ratings of the 80's-the best of all in my opinion.
See below the caviate I attach to all of the ratings.
"I am in the process of rating the top 200 Heavyweights of alltime, a daunting task. The methodology I am applying is to rate the top 20 for each decade, a total of 260 boxers and then use this template to do up the 200.
I intend to post my ratings for the decades in four parts as the total would be too big a post for forum readers to absorb in a short span of time and offer their criticisms and opinions.
NB A fighter is rated in only one decade, the one in which IMO he did his best work. Sometimes this can be arbitary, think Jeffries, Louis, Doughlas for example but in the final shake-up it wont matter.
NB2! While I have rated the men by decade I'm rating them on them on their career body of work.
The main criteria is career accomplishments, not potential or peak performance. Head to head comes into play only when I find it hard to split two fighters and I'm sure the biggest factor is my own biases and lack of knowledge."
1970-79
1 foreman
2 norton
2 young
4 lyle
5 shaver
6 tate
7 bugner
8 knoetzee
9 bobick
10 middleton
11 l.spinks
12 h.smith
13 LeDoux
14 l.jones
15 ward
16 merritt
17 garcia
18 ocasio
19 bordeaux
20 kirkman

1980-89
1 holmes
2 tyson
2 witherspoon
4 doughlas
5 m.spinks
6 tucker
7 tubbs
8 cooney
9 dokes
10 coetzee
11 thomas
12 weaver
13 berbick
14 smith
15 ruddock
16 page
17 c.wlliams
18 snipes
19 damiani
20 mason

1990-99
1 holyfield
2 bowe
2 moorer
4 mercer
5 ikebuchi
6 byrd
7 tua
8 mccall
9 bruno
10 akiwanda
11 morrison
12 grant
13 golota
14 briggs
15 donald
16 seldon
17 hunter
18 norris
19 botha
20 schulz

2000-07
1 lewis
2 v.klitscho
2 w.klitscho
4 Peter
5 toney
6 maskaev
7 rahman
8 ruiz
9 valuev
10 sanders
11 chagaev
12 igbramov
13 k.johnson
14 lyakhovich
15 brewster
16 oquendo
17 mccline
18 povetkin
19 mesi
20 brock

Decagon wrote:Ruiz at #8 is simply stupid. He has a better resume than anyone not named Lennox Lewis. Vitali Klitschko at #2? For beating whom? That's simply ridiculous.

Johnson, Donald, Sanders and Hide. 34 ko's in 35 wins. Leading on points in the only two fights he lost(By injury and cuts) against a man defeated by Kobozev and Nicholson? Or the great losing performances against Tua and ancient Holyfield? Or maybe the sterling challanges he mounted against blown up l/heavys Toney and Jones?
Stupid?

So far the 00s is the decade I have the most disagreement with. I don't mind the 20 fighters you have selected, but this is the order I would have them in:

1 lewis
2 w.klitscho
3 v.klitscho
4 ruiz
5 rahman
6 brewster
7 Peter
8 maskaev
9 toney
10 valuev
11 sanders
12 chagaev
13 igbramov
14 k.johnson
15 lyakhovich
16 mccline
17 oquendo
18 brock
19 povetkin
20 mesi

You Klitschko haters are not even seeing the bigger monstrosity.

Lennox Lewis is not in the TOP 20 in the 1990s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you only rating a fighter in ONE decade, because it's bizarre that Lennox Lewis does not feature in the 1990's, as he was arguably the best heavyweight of that decade too.

Syntax Error wrote:Are you only rating a fighter in ONE decade, because it's bizarre that Lennox Lewis does not feature in the 1990's, as he was arguably the best heavyweight of that decade too.

Spot on, only one decade only.

generic screen name wrote:You Klitschko haters are not even seeing the bigger monstrosity.

Lennox Lewis is not in the TOP 20 in the 1990s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ali isn't in the top 20 in the 70s either. Apparently the author believes a fighter can only have fought in one decade, even if he fought in 2 decades. Of course the resulting ratings must look odd.

For the 2000s, 1 LL, 2, 3 the Klitschkos is simply common sense.

pundit wrote:

generic screen name wrote:You Klitschko haters are not even seeing the bigger monstrosity.

Lennox Lewis is not in the TOP 20 in the 1990s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ali isn't in the top 20 in the 70s either. Apparently the author believes a fighter can only have fought in one decade, even if he fought in 2 decades. Of course the resulting ratings must look odd.

For the 2000s, 1 LL, 2, 3 the Klitschkos is simply common sense.

NB A fighter is rated in only one decade, the one in which IMO he did his best work. Sometimes this can be arbitary, think Jeffries, Louis, Doughlas for example but in the final shake-up it wont matter.
NB2! While I have rated the men by decade I'm rating them on them on their career body of work
Read my lips.

rahman and ruiz are more achieved than quitali.

The Tua fight does count against Ruiz even though it was in the 1990's. The author (donnellon) has explained that he is evaluating a fighters whole career, and then putting him in one decade.

The Ruiz-Toney fight shouldn't be held against Ruiz since it was declared a no-contest becasue Toney tested positive for steroids.

However, the Ruiz-Johnson fight should count against Ruiz. Ruiz acting job of being hurt by Johnson's low punches isn't something a good fighter has to do. Granted, Johnson was stupid for hitting him anywhere remotely low after being warned about being disqualified. However, Ruiz performance was despicable.

Ruiz's fights against Holyfield were against a way past his prime Holyfield. There is no way that Ruiz should have got a draw in the 3rd fight. He did nothing but hold in that fight.

Ruiz was also very fortunate to get the decision against Golota.

I suppose you can give Ruiz a little credit for beating a lethargic Rahman. If you really want to I suppose you can give Ruiz a little credit for Oquendo, though it's seen as a bad fight.

Losing to Roy Jones and Valuev have to be held against Ruiz as well.

Lewis has to be #1, Wladimir Klitschko a distant #2, then you have several mediocre guys that are relatively even. Put their names in a hat and pick them. Who cares.

Thanks, Alp, I deleted a similar post having decided the 2000's weren't worth it!