1975 Ring Magazine's 'All-Time Heavyweight Top 10'

[kosaros]

Just looking through one of my old Ring mags and found this interesting and controversial ranking of the all-time great heavyweights and thought I would share it with the Classic forum. These rankings are taken from the March-April 1975 issue of The Ring Magazine:

1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Dempsey
3. Jim Jeffries
4. Jack Johnson
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Gene Tunney
7. Bob Fitzsimmons
8. Jim Corbett
9. Muhammad Ali
10. Joe Frazier

Also, if you want me to post the other divisions I would be more than happy to do so :good

[brando18b4h]

Hellzya!!!!

[TBooze]

A pretty solid list.

I think we are very often too far up our own arses here to accept that was thought to be a top 10 in 1975, has just as much merit as what is thought a top 10 list in 2009.

[jaffay]

Division-By-Division - The Greatest Fighters of All-Time
From Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia
Jump to: navigation, search

As selected by The Ring magazine in various years.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Stevie G]

They had n't quite admitted Muhammad Ali's greatness at this point,in spite of Muhammad whupping George Foreman.

[fists of fury]

Times have changed, eh?

[kosaros]

Division-By-Division - The Greatest Fighters of All-Time
From Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia
Jump to: navigation, search

As selected by The Ring magazine in various years.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Never seen that before - cheers :good

[Addie]

Just looking through one of my old Ring mags and found this interesting and controversial ranking of the all-time great heavyweights and thought I would share it with the Classic forum. These rankings are taken from the March-April 1975 issue of The Ring Magazine:

1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Dempsey
3. Jim Jeffries
4. Jack Johnson
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Gene Tunney
7. Bob Fitzsimmons
8. Jim Corbett
9. Muhammad Ali
10. Joe Frazier

Also, if you want me to post the other divisions I would be more than happy to do so :good

Muhammad Ali dominates everyone above him easily, with the sole exception of Joe Louis. Let's be honest here.

[Shake]

I don't think he has an easy time with Marciano at all.

[Seamus]

Times have changed, eh?

Can times really do that? I'm surprised to hear such an utterance in these parts.

[McGrain]

Can times really do that? I'm surprised to hear such an utterance in these parts.


If you are capable of playing a different record, why not try that in the next few days.

[prime]

Originally Posted by jaffay
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I remember that ranking of Holy in third place, all-time.

The world was in awe of the Real Deal on the strength of his defeating Mike Tyson.

In some ways, Tyson was a nightmare to be banished.

Tokyo was no doubt a fluke; in the early '90s, Tyson's aura remained just as formidable as in his prime, but it had morphed into something even scarier: he was no longer just the fiendishly gifted athlete who savagely tore through the best heavyweights in the world. He had continuously deteriorated into the unsettling public behavior of a strong man at large who in his cynicism acknowledged no boundaries and was capable of the worst hair-trigger response. No wonder Ali said, "I'm scared of him."

Then he was convicted of rape and imprisoned.

Upon his release, he returned to the ring and looked every bit as frightening as in the time when he destroyed Holmes and Spinks. McNeely, Mathis, champion Bruno and Seldon, no matter their prefight bravado, simply came unhinged before Iron Mike Tyson and met swift, ignominious defeat.

And heart patient Evander Holyfield, he of the third Bowe war washed-up warrior cave-in, since retired, was challenging Tyson? And steadfastly predicting his triumph?

No wonder the crowd was pure excitement and joy that night at the close. Darkness had just been banished by a (seemingly) old-school warrior who showed up and beat the unbeatable foe and fulfilled the impossible dream.

The rematch merely confirmed this all, and then some. Only a madman could resort to what Mike Tyson did in the ring that night. And only a gallant hero could respond with Holyfield's poise and courage through it all. Everyone agreed the bully had taken the way out, never to chill hearts again.

This was Holyfield's standing in 1998 and why so many believed in him, despite all the exceeding ring wear, against Lewis a year later.

[Rubber Warrior]

Just looking through one of my old Ring mags and found this interesting and controversial ranking of the all-time great heavyweights and thought I would share it with the Classic forum. These rankings are taken from the March-April 1975 issue of The Ring Magazine:

1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Dempsey
3. Jim Jeffries
4. Jack Johnson
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Gene Tunney
7. Bob Fitzsimmons
8. Jim Corbett
9. Muhammad Ali
10. Joe Frazier

Also, if you want me to post the other divisions I would be more than happy to do so :good

A nice read but little more than that, IMO. The decade of the 70's was far from over and hindsight had yet to kick-in. Besides, it was likely compiled by a guy pushing 90 years-old and betrothed with old-timers.

:smoke

[Rock0052]

A nice read but little more than that, IMO. The decade of the 70's was far from over and hindsight had yet to kick-in. Besides, it was likely compiled by a guy pushing 90 years-old and betrothed with old-timers.

:smoke

As opposed to today, where the timeline works out just about right to wind up with older guys who were growing up with 70's fighters, and their kids who heard about how great the 70's Heavyweights were, fill their top 10 lists with that nonstop on their computers. The more things change, the more they stay the same. :lol:

[Rubber Warrior]

As opposed to today, where the timeline works out just about right to wind up with older guys who were growing up with 70's fighters, and their kids who heard about how great the 70's Heavyweights were, fill their top 10 lists with that nonstop on their computers. The more things change, the more they stay the same. :lol:

Not gonna argue with that, but having hindsight on just about three additional decades does tend to shade in a few things, no?

:good

[Rock0052]

Not gonna argue with that, but having hindsight on just about three additional decades does tend to shade in a few things, no?

:good

Man you're lightning quick on the reply, I didn't even have time to get my edit in to make it more readable. :lol:

To answer your post, absolutely!

Frankly, I love reading stuff like this about what people thought the all time rankings were in their eras because people tend to be so iron-clad in their opinions today, so I find it interesting to see what would be looked at as against-the-grain rankings today be accepted as reasonable at the time. Especially when fighters were retired in both cases and are ranked dramatically differently, because that means the only thing that could've possibly changed is public opinion about the exact same career.:thumbsup

[Rock0052]

Here's a couple examples of what I mean:

Sonny Liston goes from not being top 10 in 1975 and below Dempsey and Johnson in both 1975 and 1994, to being ranked above both men in 1998, just 4 years later. Marciano overtakes Dempsey between 75 and 94, and passes Johnson by 98.

Nevermind that obviously, none of these men were fighting in that time frame. Just a little food for thought the next time anyone takes things like rankings a little too seriously. :D

[Rubber Warrior]

Here's a couple examples of what I mean:

Sonny Liston goes from not being top 10 in 1975 and below Dempsey and Johnson in both 1975 and 1994, to being ranked above both men in 1998, just 4 years later. Marciano overtakes Dempsey between 75 and 94, and passes Johnson by 98.

Nevermind that obviously, none of these men were fighting in that time frame. Just a little food for thought the next time anyone takes things like rankings a little too seriously. :D

Great points. :good

[Dempsey1238]

wonder if in 30 years Lewis will over take the likes of Ali.

So far he is edging on Joe Louis lol.

[Bill Butcher]

Just looking through one of my old Ring mags and found this interesting and controversial ranking of the all-time great heavyweights and thought I would share it with the Classic forum. These rankings are taken from the March-April 1975 issue of The Ring Magazine:

1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Dempsey
3. Jim Jeffries
4. Jack Johnson
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Gene Tunney
7. Bob Fitzsimmons
8. Jim Corbett
9. Muhammad Ali
10. Joe Frazier

Also, if you want me to post the other divisions I would be more than happy to do so :good

Give that shit 10 more yrs & that will be changing like a mofo.

Oops.

[Vanboxingfan]

Here's a couple examples of what I mean:

Sonny Liston goes from not being top 10 in 1975 and below Dempsey and Johnson in both 1975 and 1994, to being ranked above both men in 1998, just 4 years later. Marciano overtakes Dempsey between 75 and 94, and passes Johnson by 98.

Nevermind that obviously, none of these men were fighting in that time frame. Just a little food for thought the next time anyone takes things like rankings a little too seriously. :D


These echo my thought as well. I remember there being a list in the 50's that had Dempsey on top and Louis was 2nd, and this was after their careers had finished. The real interesting part about that was that most of the people who compiled the list actually saw all these fighters, from Johnson on forward. Yet fast forward 5 decades or so, and their input is either lost or rendered meaningless, as all the fighters have not only retired, they're dead.

Here's a quote from Monte Cox's excellent site.


In 1950, the Associated Press conducted a poll of sportswriters to name the greatest fighter of all-time, pound-for-pound, and Dempsey was the runaway winner, collecting 251 votes. [Joe Louis finished a distant second with 109 votes; Henry Armstrong was third with 13.] The sportswriters of the first half of the century named Dempsey as the greatest fighter they had ever seen. As late as 1962, in the Dec 1962 Ring Magazine, a panel of 40 boxing writers tabbed Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight of all time.

[scartissue]

Everything depends on who had compiled it. The '75 list (even though Nat was gone by this time) was compiled by a slew of Nat Fleisher's maintstays. All of them elderly and all of them, like Nat, showed a true disdain for Ali. Indeed, I believe it was the accompanying article where they mentioned Ali several times throughout and get this, they were still calling him Clay. However, interspersed in the article there were several references to Ali. It was like they didn't know what to call him let alone where to rank him. It is no surprise that the next generation of writers lean towards their contemporaries.

Scartissue

[Bill Butcher]

In 1950, the Associated Press conducted a poll of sportswriters to name the greatest fighter of all-time, pound-for-pound, and Dempsey was the runaway winner, collecting 251 votes. [Joe Louis finished a distant second with 109 votes; Henry Armstrong was third with 13.] The sportswriters of the first half of the century named Dempsey as the greatest fighter they had ever seen. As late as 1962, in the Dec 1962 Ring Magazine, a panel of 40 boxing writers tabbed Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight of all time.

:lol:

That is comedy goldness of the very highest quality, thanks for that :good

[PowerPuncher]

Just looking through one of my old Ring mags and found this interesting and controversial ranking of the all-time great heavyweights and thought I would share it with the Classic forum. These rankings are taken from the March-April 1975 issue of The Ring Magazine:

1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Dempsey
3. Jim Jeffries
4. Jack Johnson
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Gene Tunney
7. Bob Fitzsimmons
8. Jim Corbett
9. Muhammad Ali
10. Joe Frazier

Also, if you want me to post the other divisions I would be more than happy to do so :good

Even excluding 70s fighters it was a poor list. No Liston, No Patterson, No Wills, No Langford, No Charles, No Walcott, No Schmelling. Yet Fitz makes 7 and Tunney 6.

[Rock0052]

:lol:

That is comedy goldness of the very highest quality, thanks for that :good

When I look at the general disdain given to anybody picking a fighter of the last 25 years to defeat Ali, all I see is that the names have changed, but the case is the same- the legend outgrows the man. No surprise that Heavyweight greats tend to have that effect on fans though.

[Bill Butcher]

When I look at the general disdain given to anybody picking a fighter of the last 25 years to defeat Ali, all I see is that the names have changed, but the case is the same- the legend outgrows the man. No surprise that Heavyweight greats tend to have that effect on fans though.

The paragraph I laughed my ass off at was mainly about boxing `experts` calling Jack Dempsey the best ever fighter, you must know how wrong they were spouting that nonsense, surely.

[MrMarvel]

It's an atrocious list. A list trying to hang on to myth and legend and not reality. Where's Sonny Liston? Where's George Foreman? Hell, Patterson ranks above several of those fighters.

[Bill Butcher]

They had n't quite admitted Muhammad Ali's greatness at this point,in spite of Muhammad whupping George Foreman.

Yep, they had to eventually tho, must have killed some of them :lol:

[Rock0052]

The paragraph I laughed my ass off at was mainly about boxing `experts` calling Jack Dempsey the best ever fighter, you must know how wrong they were spouting that nonsense, surely.

That's exactly my point my friend- nothing gets the exaggeration of legacies going like a heavyweight champ that can capture the public interest, and Dempsey did that in spades. Over the last 100 years, I'd still say he's one of the four kings of heavyweight "buzz"- the kind of star that had everyone interested in them, win or lose and to a certain measure, became bigger than the sport. The other 3? Louis, Ali, and Tyson.

It's easy for us 60 years after the fact to say how "wrong" it appears that Dempsey was thought of that highly, but I can assure you if this was 1950 and we'd all been there for his rise or heard direct stories of it, we'd be hyping him up the exact same way, if not quite to that extent. I do find it funny that he was voted best overall standard that widely, but I'm not surprised he got that kind of hype because it seems like it usually takes a good 20-30 years after a fighter retires for them to "peak" rankings wise- which would've put it square at 1950.

[Jaws]

When I look at the general disdain given to anybody picking a fighter of the last 25 years to defeat Ali, all I see is that the names have changed, but the case is the same- the legend outgrows the man. No surprise that Heavyweight greats tend to have that effect on fans though.

Very astute observation.

[Jaws]

That's exactly my point my friend- nothing gets the exaggeration of legacies going like a heavyweight champ that can capture the public interest, and Dempsey did that in spades. Over the last 100 years, I'd still say he's one of the four kings of heavyweight "buzz"- the kind of star that had everyone interested in them, win or lose and to a certain measure, became bigger than the sport. The other 3? Louis, Ali, and Tyson.

It's easy for us 60 years after the fact to say how "wrong" it appears that Dempsey was thought of that highly, but I can assure you if this was 1950 and we'd all been there for his rise or heard direct stories of it, we'd be hyping him up the exact same way, if not quite to that extent. I do find it funny that he was voted best overall standard that widely, but I'm not surprised he got that kind of hype because it seems like it usually takes a good 20-30 years after a fighter retires for them to "peak" rankings wise- which would've put it square at 1950.

Tyson states in his latest documentary something like "It's one thing to be the heavyweight champ, but it's something totally different to be a special heavyweight champ."

[Stevie G]

Everything depends on who had compiled it. The '75 list (even though Nat was gone by this time) was compiled by a slew of Nat Fleisher's maintstays. All of them elderly and all of them, like Nat, showed a true disdain for Ali. Indeed, I believe it was the accompanying article where they mentioned Ali several times throughout and get this, they were still calling him Clay. However, interspersed in the article there were several references to Ali. It was like they didn't know what to call him let alone where to rank him. It is no surprise that the next generation of writers lean towards their contemporaries.

Scartissue
I remember around that time,The Ring had a fantasy fight between Ali and Jack Johnson. Muhammad was knocked out in the fourth round ! :huh:huh

[bodhi]

When I look at the general disdain given to anybody picking a fighter of the last 25 years to defeat Ali, all I see is that the names have changed, but the case is the same- the legend outgrows the man. No surprise that Heavyweight greats tend to have that effect on fans though.

Same is happening to Tyson (and to a lesser degree Lewis) at the moment. Good observation :good

[Boilermaker]

Just looking through one of my old Ring mags and found this interesting and controversial ranking of the all-time great heavyweights and thought I would share it with the Classic forum. These rankings are taken from the March-April 1975 issue of The Ring Magazine:

1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Dempsey
3. Jim Jeffries
4. Jack Johnson
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Gene Tunney
7. Bob Fitzsimmons
8. Jim Corbett
9. Muhammad Ali
10. Joe Frazier

Also, if you want me to post the other divisions I would be more than happy to do so :good

I would like to see the other divisions, please.

[Zakman]

Just looking through one of my old Ring mags and found this interesting and controversial ranking of the all-time great heavyweights and thought I would share it with the Classic forum. These rankings are taken from the March-April 1975 issue of The Ring Magazine:

1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Dempsey
3. Jim Jeffries
4. Jack Johnson
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Gene Tunney
7. Bob Fitzsimmons
8. Jim Corbett
9. Muhammad Ali
10. Joe Frazier

Also, if you want me to post the other divisions I would be more than happy to do so :good

This is what I try to point out when people say Jack Dempsey doesn't belong in the top 5. Until the guys who saw him started dying off, he was considered on a par with Louis. Dempsey is, imo, extremely underrated today.

[PetethePrince]

Marciano is really the only fighter that belongs at his spot (Excluding Louis). The Rock really hasn't shifted in many places. That 49-0 regardless of what weaknesses really has a strong hold.

[Boilermaker]

Marciano is really the only fighter that belongs at his spot (Excluding Louis). The Rock really hasn't shifted in many places. That 49-0 regardless of what weaknesses really has a strong hold.

Jack Johnson generally stays about the same spot as he is in most of the lists. His ranking is close to corect.

I dont see how Frazier is much different either, although it is strange to see him retain his spot at this stage, considering Foreman had already beaten him but ranks lower than him.

James Jeffries suffers from the same problem as Dempsey, and he would have been already feeling it fully by this time. His ranking is close to correct.

Tunneys ranking, i suspect, took a massive dive when Tyson KOd spinks in a round, because their carreers were very similar.

Fitzsimmons is an interesting case. I suspect the Dempsey (fans died out) factor had already nosedived his ranking by this stage. And it has dropped further now, due to the film factor and also the Modern evolution factor. Still though, if an equal middleweight is ever born that comes through the modern ranks and KOs modern superheavys at the middleweight limit, he would skyrocket back inside the top 10 and maybe the top 5, imo.

[PetethePrince]

Jack Johnson generally stays about the same spot as he is in most of the lists. His ranking is close to corect.

Johnson dropped 5 spots from the first to last list.

I dont see how Frazier is much different either, although it is strange to see him retain his spot at this stage, considering Foreman had already beaten him but ranks lower than him.

I was thinking in terms of the general top 10 rankings.

Tunneys ranking, i suspect, took a massive dive when Tyson KOd spinks in a round, because their carreers were very similar.

I think his lack of longevity as a HW, toppled with the fact that other Cruiser/LHW moved up and did more as Heavyweights killed Tunney's ranking.

[Boilermaker]

Johnson dropped 5 spots from the first to last list.

Which list is the last list? I was just going off that 1975 list.




I was thinking in terms of the general top 10 rankings.



ok


I think his lack of longevity as a HW, toppled with the fact that other Cruiser/LHW moved up and did more as Heavyweights killed Tunney's ranking.

I think so too, but the dieing out must have really hurt his legacy because: Most of his best work and that of his opponents was not caught on film, and also because the short nature of his reign meant that he was going to rely on those who actually seen him fight much more. I tend to think that Tyson's legacy will suffer like this in the future, quite a bit and it would have been worse if film quality wasnt so advanced.

[PetethePrince]

Which list is the last list? I was just going off that 1975 list.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


I think so too, but the dieing out must have really hurt his legacy because: Most of his best work and that of his opponents was not caught on film, and also because the short nature of his reign meant that he was going to rely on those who actually seen him fight much more. I tend to think that Tyson's legacy will suffer like this in the future, quite a bit and it would have been worse if film quality wasnt so advanced.

Good point, too.

[Boilermaker]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




Good point, too.


In 1975, Sugar Ray Robinson was not rated in the top 10 as a welterweight :admin.

But he made the middleweight list:admin

Who wrote those lists?

[PetethePrince]

In 1975, Sugar Ray Robinson was not rated in the top 10 as a welterweight :admin.

But he made the middleweight list:admin

Who wrote those lists?

Yeah lol... crazy stuff.