My Method for Determining the Greatest Heavyweight Champions.

[dezbeast]

Determining the greatest is an impossible task to do accurately, but I believe my method of rating to be better than the method of most experts who's lists I've ever read. My method consisted of taking a champion who was at his absolute best, and putting him against all the other champions on this list at their best and estimating how many wins he would get in 10 fights. Afterward I tallied up all the wins. The fighter who gets the most wins is the best out of the fighters on the list since I purposely left fighters out to make the list simpler. I only included champions who I feel established a high enough legacy and who I am familiar enough with. So most of the partial champions of modern times you won't see and I left out fighters like Bowe, Norton, Terrell, Johannson, Walcott, Charles, Baer, Schmeling, and others who might've made it on the list. I decided to use Jack Johnson as the cut off point as far as era's are concerned, so you won't see fighters like Jeffries or Sullivan.


1. Lennox Lewis- In his prime I believe he would've beaten every champion on this list a majority of times except for Holmes and Ali. He scored 101 wins out of 120 in my estimation.

2. Mike Tyson- I believe with the exception of a peak Lewis and maybe a peak Holyfield, he would've beaten every champion on this list a majority of times. Tyson scored 92 wins out of 120 fights.

2. Larry Holmes- He might be the best master boxer ever in the heavyweight division. I think he could have beaten every heavyweight champion on this list a majority of times except for Tyson. His score was also 92 wins.

4. Muhammad Ali- He revolutionalized the sport, but in reality, at his best he probably wasn't as good as the champions above. I say this truthfully because he is my favorite fighter. In my opinion, Tyson and Holmes would've beaten him more times than not. Ali scored 88 wins.

5. Evander Holyfield- He scored 84 wins.

6. Sonny Liston- He scored 69 wins.

7. George Foreman- He surprisingly scored 61 wins. I was sure he would score higher than Liston.


Now we reach the lower end of the list, where every fighter from Frazier on loses more than half of the matches against everyone else.


8. Joe Frazier- Head to head and at his peak Frazier might possibly win close to half of the matches verses a peak Ali. The reason why he's ranked this low is because some of the opponents who would beat him I feel Ali could beat, but I don't think Frazier could beat anyone who could beat Ali. Scored 57 wins.

9. Floyd Patterson- When I first watched footage of him I was extremely impressed with the combination of his hand speed and punching power. Everyone might think I'm crazy or stupid for rating him this high, but I'm basing this result from how many fights I think he would win out of 120 fights against the rest of the fighters on this list. He scored 40 wins.

10. Jack Johnson- He was a master boxer for his time, but I think he was too cautious to be rated higher. Scored 36 wins.

11. Joe Louis- I like Joe Louis, but in my opinion, he is one of the most overrated champions in history. I'm sure I'm going to get negative responses for this, but I'm not convinced he would be a champion today. He scored 33 wins.

12. Jack Dempsey- He might have been one of the hardest pound for pound punching heavyweights ever but from what I've seen on film he looked kind of crude even for his day. His score was 15 wins.

13. Rocky Marciano- His punching power was good, but I feel it was overrated. One thing that does impress me was his excellent stamina and conditioning. Score was 12 wins.


If it's possible, can anyone else follow the same system that I did? I'd like to see what scores other people would come up with for the champions.

[SuzieQ49]

Floyd Patterson over Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, and Jack Dempsey. WOW.

[TheGreatA]

This doesn't determine greatness in my opinion, only head to head abilities. I could believe the Ike Ibeabuchi beats any fighter who ever fought 10 out of 10 times but it still doesn't make him the greatest because he achieved very little.

I believe you are underrating Joe Louis' head to head abilities and overrating Patterson's. I'm a big fan of both, probably a bigger fan of Patterson, but prime for prime Louis would knock him out.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[janitor]

Determining the greatest is an impossible task to do accurately, but I believe my method of rating to be better than the method of most experts who's lists I've ever read. My method consisted of taking a champion who was at his absolute best, and putting him against all the other champions on this list at their best and estimating how many wins he would get in 10 fights. Afterward I tallied up all the wins. The fighter who gets the most wins is the best out of the fighters on the list since I purposely left fighters out to make the list simpler. I only included champions who I feel established a high enough legacy and who I am familiar enough with. So most of the partial champions of modern times you won't see and I left out fighters like Bowe, Norton, Terrell, Johannson, Walcott, Charles, Baer, Schmeling, and others who might've made it on the list. I decided to use Jack Johnson as the cut off point as far as era's are concerned, so you won't see fighters like Jeffries or Sullivan.


1. Lennox Lewis- In his prime I believe he would've beaten every champion on this list a majority of times except for Holmes and Ali. He scored 101 wins out of 120 in my estimation.

2. Mike Tyson- I believe with the exception of a peak Lewis and maybe a peak Holyfield, he would've beaten every champion on this list a majority of times. Tyson scored 92 wins out of 120 fights.

2. Larry Holmes- He might be the best master boxer ever in the heavyweight division. I think he could have beaten every heavyweight champion on this list a majority of times except for Tyson. His score was also 92 wins.

4. Muhammad Ali- He revolutionalized the sport, but in reality, at his best he probably wasn't as good as the champions above. I say this truthfully because he is my favorite fighter. In my opinion, Tyson and Holmes would've beaten him more times than not. Ali scored 88 wins.

5. Evander Holyfield- He scored 84 wins.

6. Sonny Liston- He scored 69 wins.

7. George Foreman- He surprisingly scored 61 wins. I was sure he would score higher than Liston.


Now we reach the lower end of the list, where every fighter from Frazier on loses more than half of the matches against everyone else.


8. Joe Frazier- Head to head and at his peak Frazier might possibly win close to half of the matches verses a peak Ali. The reason why he's ranked this low is because some of the opponents who would beat him I feel Ali could beat, but I don't think Frazier could beat anyone who could beat Ali. Scored 57 wins.

9. Floyd Patterson- When I first watched footage of him I was extremely impressed with the combination of his hand speed and punching power. Everyone might think I'm crazy or stupid for rating him this high, but I'm basing this result from how many fights I think he would win out of 120 fights against the rest of the fighters on this list. He scored 40 wins.

10. Jack Johnson- He was a master boxer for his time, but I think he was too cautious to be rated higher. Scored 36 wins.

11. Joe Louis- I like Joe Louis, but in my opinion, he is one of the most overrated champions in history. I'm sure I'm going to get negative responses for this, but I'm not convinced he would be a champion today. He scored 33 wins.

12. Jack Dempsey- He might have been one of the hardest pound for pound punching heavyweights ever but from what I've seen on film he looked kind of crude even for his day. His score was 15 wins.

13. Rocky Marciano- His punching power was good, but I feel it was overrated. One thing that does impress me was his excellent stamina and conditioning. Score was 12 wins.


If it's possible, can anyone else follow the same system that I did? I'd like to see what scores other people would come up with for the champions.

My main criticism of your method is that it is subjective and entirley based on speculation. Some of it misguided speculation.

We can never know for sure how Jack Johnson would do in a fight against Michael Dokes but we can safley say that Jack Johnson acomplished a lot more.

Acomplishments are fact while head to head is speculation.

[janitor]

I would add that your #4 and #11 totaly piss on your #1-3 in terms of resume.

[dezbeast]

Ok, enough about my list. Can any of you guys compose your own list using the same method, even though you don't agree that it doesn't determine greatness? I'm only interested in H2H and prime abilities. Not accomplishments.

Also TheGreatA, I may very well have underrated Louis' H2H abilities. How Many times do you think he would have beaten Patterson out of 10. I estimated 3 times, all by KO.

[MrMarvel]

Your method sucks. Sorry.

[SuzieQ49]

How Many times do you think he would have beaten Patterson out of 10. I estimated 3 times, all by KO.

10 out of 10 all by kayo


Marciano and Dempsey all kayo patterson each time


Patterson was great, but he was no better than walcott or charles

[dezbeast]

Let's not forget that Charles lasted the distance against the Rock in their first fight. To say that he'd KO Patterson ten times out of ten fights sounds like an emotional statement.

[Dempsey1238]

Well Nearly evey time Patterson did face a puncher, he did ended up on his back.

I would favor Marciano ten times out of ten vs Patterson.

[asero]

your method is why i believe the true sense of p4p...who beats who in a hypothetical round robin match-up taking every boxer's absolute best...the best fighter would be the one who would have the fewest number of losses...

but ATG should consider greatly the accomplishment in the ring and its historical impact...there has to be a balance of overall ability(head to head) and accomplishment




who are the 120 fighters you considered? are they all heavyweights? why no bowe and walcott, they are easily top 30 HW of all-time

[dezbeast]

The 120 fights are only fought between the guys on the list (10 fights between each fighter). This list is only mean't for heavyweight champs. Also, I left Bowe and Walcott out purposely (see first paragraph of original post).

[SuzieQ49]

Let's not forget that Charles lasted the distance against the Rock in their first fight. To say that he'd KO Patterson ten times out of ten fights sounds like an emotional statement.


A. Charles had a better chin against punchers than Patterson

B. Patterson was destroyed at least once by every top puncher he faced

C. Ingemar Johansson knocked him out badly, johannson is not the puncher or fighter louis marciano and dempsey are

[dezbeast]

Fair enough. By the way, the purpose of my original post is to see what everyone else would come up with using my method. Not for everyone to critisize my own results. I just posted a list to prompt others to post one also, using the same method.

[aj415]

The reason people are going to shit on this method is simple..

You mistakenly define the definition of a mans Greatness as being the same as a mans Greatest potential.


This is completely and utterly outside of reality. Meaning outside the reality of the human condition, which accounts for, especially in boxing, strength of willpower, heart and mentality.

Greatness is what one proves they are ABLE to accomplishe by DOING so. The method and and manner in this process is important too.

It is NOT what they HYPOTHETICALLY can accomplish.

[JohnThomas1]

Welcome to the forum mate. There's probably a few glaring moments in your list but good to see something out of the norm.

[asero]

in order to attest the overall ability of a fighter is to put them in hypothetical match up with fellow greats...but it is not the be all of greatness...there has to be a balance of overall ability and accomplishment..historical impact and timeliness must also be considered

[ripcity]

Determining the greatest is an impossible task to do accurately, but I believe my method of rating to be better than the method of most experts who's lists I've ever read. My method consisted of taking a champion who was at his absolute best, and putting him against all the other champions on this list at their best and estimating how many wins he would get in 10 fights. Afterward I tallied up all the wins. The fighter who gets the most wins is the best out of the fighters on the list since I purposely left fighters out to make the list simpler. I only included champions who I feel established a high enough legacy and who I am familiar enough with. So most of the partial champions of modern times you won't see and I left out fighters like Bowe, Norton, Terrell, Johannson, Walcott, Charles, Baer, Schmeling, and others who might've made it on the list. I decided to use Jack Johnson as the cut off point as far as era's are concerned, so you won't see fighters like Jeffries or Sullivan.


1. Lennox Lewis- In his prime I believe he would've beaten every champion on this list a majority of times except for Holmes and Ali. He scored 101 wins out of 120 in my estimation.

2. Mike Tyson- I believe with the exception of a peak Lewis and maybe a peak Holyfield, he would've beaten every champion on this list a majority of times. Tyson scored 92 wins out of 120 fights.

2. Larry Holmes- He might be the best master boxer ever in the heavyweight division. I think he could have beaten every heavyweight champion on this list a majority of times except for Tyson. His score was also 92 wins.

4. Muhammad Ali- He revolutionalized the sport, but in reality, at his best he probably wasn't as good as the champions above. I say this truthfully because he is my favorite fighter. In my opinion, Tyson and Holmes would've beaten him more times than not. Ali scored 88 wins.

5. Evander Holyfield- He scored 84 wins.

6. Sonny Liston- He scored 69 wins.

7. George Foreman- He surprisingly scored 61 wins. I was sure he would score higher than Liston.


Now we reach the lower end of the list, where every fighter from Frazier on loses more than half of the matches against everyone else.


8. Joe Frazier- Head to head and at his peak Frazier might possibly win close to half of the matches verses a peak Ali. The reason why he's ranked this low is because some of the opponents who would beat him I feel Ali could beat, but I don't think Frazier could beat anyone who could beat Ali. Scored 57 wins.

9. Floyd Patterson- When I first watched footage of him I was extremely impressed with the combination of his hand speed and punching power. Everyone might think I'm crazy or stupid for rating him this high, but I'm basing this result from how many fights I think he would win out of 120 fights against the rest of the fighters on this list. He scored 40 wins.

10. Jack Johnson- He was a master boxer for his time, but I think he was too cautious to be rated higher. Scored 36 wins.

11. Joe Louis- I like Joe Louis, but in my opinion, he is one of the most overrated champions in history. I'm sure I'm going to get negative responses for this, but I'm not convinced he would be a champion today. He scored 33 wins.

12. Jack Dempsey- He might have been one of the hardest pound for pound punching heavyweights ever but from what I've seen on film he looked kind of crude even for his day. His score was 15 wins.

13. Rocky Marciano- His punching power was good, but I feel it was overrated. One thing that does impress me was his excellent stamina and conditioning. Score was 12 wins.


If it's possible, can anyone else follow the same system that I did? I'd like to see what scores other people would come up with for the champions.

Comparing heavyweights from completly difrent earas is a little tricky. You have the likes of Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano listed at the bottem of your list, and in fact if you were to take a time mechine and put them in the ring with their more modern counterparts it is very likely they will strugle and even get beat. Give them more modern traning and stratgey and they would most likley do very well. I think Dempsey and Marciano would probbly be better served at crusierweight than at heavyweight.
I think your method would work very well for any other weight class but is very flawed at heavyeight.

[dezbeast]

Comparing heavyweights from completly difrent earas is a little tricky. You have the likes of Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano listed at the bottem of your list, and in fact if you were to take a time mechine and put them in the ring with their more modern counterparts it is very likely they will strugle and even get beat. Give them more modern traning and stratgey and they would most likley do very well. I think Dempsey and Marciano would probbly be better served at crusierweight than at heavyweight.
I think your method would work very well for any other weight class but is very flawed at heavyeight.

I would like to add that I also took that into account. I imagined if it's possible to travel back in time in a time machine and bring Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano etc. all at their peaks to the future and have them face the other champions only how they were, without the benefit of the more modern training techniques. That's why they win so little fights. I guess I can make another list based on how well they all would do with modern nutrition and training. But that seems kind of difficult.

[McGrain]

Also, rulset. Jeffries is a nightmare for modern fighters under his own ruleset, but having him fight over 12 in clean fights with no wrestling takes away a big dunt of his game.

Similairly, Holyfield would do really well under an old-style ruleset I feel.

Putting Johnson in with Tyson under a 2008 ruleset is obviously of huge help to Tyson. But putting him in with Johnson under big Jack's ruleset is different again.

[The 1-2 Kid]

No matter how you want to turn it, it's the level of competiton that determines, who is who. For example, Lewis beat two hall of fame fighters ( Hoyfield and Tyson ) compared to Ali who beat Patterson twice, Frazier twice, Liston twice, Norton twice, Foster, and Foreman. Facts are facts.

[Shake]

No matter how you want to turn it, it's the level of competiton that determines, who is who. For example, Lewis beat two hall of fame fighters ( Hoyfield and Tyson ) compared to Ali who beat Patterson twice, Frazier twice, Liston twice, Norton twice, Foster, and Foreman. Facts are facts.

In the end, nearly everything is subjective. Who makes the Hall of Fame is subjective. These are not facts, even though I agree fervently with your overall point.

The search for who, at his peakest of peak, his highest high, that one split second flash it all came together, was the overall best of all-time is a fun but ultimately futile undertaking. We cannot put people of different eras together, and we can't say with any kind of certainty how good some people were who left question marks and didn't prove it completely. Debating is fun, though.

It is not about who was the best, imo, but who did the best. Who went out determined to prove it? What did he show us?

Some fighters can mesmerise you with flash and convince you they belong higher than they do. Fighters like Mike Tyson and Roy Jones capture the imagination, but at the end what you have is a lot of couldabeen and shouldadone. They're up there of course, but I'm talking top 3 at their best weight, top 10 pfp. Floyd Mayweather is another one headed down that path of the least resistance, not doing all he can do in the prime of his career.

You know why Duran's win over Iran Barkley was a monumental achievement? Because he went in there. Against a towering beast of a man. Could he have lost? Absolutely. Hell yeah. Even any conceivable win was going to be associated with grit, punishment and pain. But he took the match, and he fought for his life, and achieved a legendary win. Now that counts! That should count for something. And if you don't do that, but you still looked real good fighting someone who could never beat you, it doesn't count as hard.

Resume. Resume, resume, resume.

[markedwardscott]

Interesting methodology. I would still rate Ali and Louis 1 and 2.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Bokaj]

Interesting methodology. I would still rate Ali and Louis 1 and 2.

These are the two I especially would like to see how they looked if they were at their peak today. A Louis born in the late 70's early 80's might very well have been 2 inches taller to begin with, and add modern training and nutrition to that and you have perhaps a 220-230 lbs punching machine. Truly frightening prospect.