Top 15 Greatest Heavyweights In History (Please Participate)

[sugarsean]

This list is based on many factors combined together abilty, achievements, longevity and Hd 2 Hd.

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Jack Johnson
4.Larry Holmes
5.George Foreman
6.Sonny Liston
7.Joe Frazier
8.Evander Holyfield
9.Rocky Marciano
10.Mike Tyson
11.Lennox Lewis
12.Ezzard Charles
13.Sam Langford
14.Jack Dempsey
15.Jersey Joe Walcott

Remember this is based on combined number of factors and is subjective.

Please all participate and give your reasons for your rankings.

[RockysSplitNose]

Hello Sugarsean, vaguely similar to own the only obvious differences being peak Marciano & Dempsey are my ultimate favourites so they're one and two for me - good to see Charles & Walcott in there -2 of my personal favourites also - but got to say I personally wouldn't have Holyfield or Frazier that high - but hey great list all the same - these lists are always fun to look at - I like getting everybodys opinions on who was the best - good to see Sam Langford included too - any fight with him in would've been fun to see - always imagine him chasing after Ali LOL that would be a good one to see for sure.

Sometimes when i think about my own list i sometimes struggle because sometimes i think in a head to head sense sometimes say number 12 might give everyone above him better fights style-wise than say number 5 or whatever - is there anyone in particular on your list where this sprung to mind for you? oh and who is your favourite fighter just to watch?

[WhataRock]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Check out this sug...should be a good start.

[sugarsean]

Hello Sugarsean, vaguely similar to own the only obvious differences being peak Marciano & Dempsey are my ultimate favourites so they're one and two for me - good to see Charles & Walcott in there -2 of my personal favourites also - but got to say I personally wouldn't have Holyfield or Frazier that high - but hey great list all the same - these lists are always fun to look at - I like getting everybodys opinions on who was the best - good to see Sam Langford included too - any fight with him in would've been fun to see - always imagine him chasing after Ali LOL that would be a good one to see for sure.

Sometimes when i think about my own list i sometimes struggle because sometimes i think in a head to head sense sometimes say number 12 might give everyone above him better fights style-wise than say number 5 or whatever - is there anyone in particular on your list where this sprung to mind for you? oh and who is your favourite fighter just to watch?

Fighters That Would Be Rated Higher If It Was A Hd 2 H2 List
Well I think Frazier V Louis is a 50-50 fight for one example and I think Foreman is top 3 when it come to Hd 2 Hd and I think Ezzard Charles is a stylistic nightmare for anyone.That just a few example if there's any other fighters in particular that you would like to know my opinion on where they would rate Hd 2 Hd I would gladly give you my opinion.

Favourite Heavyweights To Watch
Evander Holyfield, Jersey Joe Walcott, Joe Louis, Larry Holmes, Muhammad Ali, Joe Fraizer.

[mcvey]

This list is based on many factors combined together abilty, achievements, longevity and Hd 2 Hd.

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Jack Johnson
4.Larry Holmes
5.George Foreman
6.Sonny Liston
7.Joe Frazier
8.Evander Holyfield
9.Rocky Marciano
10.Mike Tyson
11.Lennox Lewis
12.Ezzard Charles
13.Sam Langford
14.Jack Dempsey
15.Jersey Joe Walcott

Remember this is based on combined number of factors and is subjective.

Please all participate and give your reasons for your rankings.

Decent list .
Factoring in longevity ,
Frazier and Tyson are too high ,imo.
Lewis is a lock for the top ten ,imo, probably 9 or 10 .
.
Head to Head ,I have Dempsey way up there ,but ,that is a personal anomaly.
Langford? I see him more as an ATG LH.
Maybe the right names ,just in a different order,possibly Jeffries makes the 15?.Removing Langford ,for the reason given?
Tunney is problematical ,very thin resume at the weight, but outside the 15?

[sugarsean]

Decent list .
Factoring in longevity ,
Frazier and Tyson are too high ,imo.
Lewis is a lock for the top ten ,imo, probably 9 or 10 .
.
Head to Head ,I have Dempsey way up there ,but ,that is a personal anomaly.
Langford? I see him more as an ATG LH.
Maybe the right names ,just in a different order,possibly Jeffries makes the 15?.Removing Langford ,for the reason given?
Tunney is problematical ,very thin resume at the weight, but outside the 15?

1.But with the other factors included its a fair rating

2.I know I said the same thing in my mind but then when I had made it he just misses out of my top ten of my list.

3.Langford was avoided by everyone and even Jack Dempsey said that Langford would have defeated him hence why they never fought and yes he was not a natural heavyweight but he was beating most of the best heavyweights of his era .

[sugarsean]

Your list is very similar to mine except I refuse to rank 0 footage/bad footage men like Johnson & Dempsey & Tyson deserves more respect than a shitty no10 place due to his best yrs at least.

Ps. I agree with your top 2 tho - & in that order - set that shit in stone.

I agree I don't usally rate fighters that there is very little footage of but there is quite a bit of footage of Johnson and Dempsey and Langford looks very impressive in the footage that there is of him, that plus his record, with regards to Tyson a number 10 rating is fair he can't be placed any higher because he did'nt do enough but being number 10 is still an amazing achievement given its history.

[McGrain]

You can basically justify or pick apart almost any list. From your list the rankings I would generally disagree with :

TOO LOW: Lennox Lewis, Jim Jeffries, Harry Wills

TOO HIGH: Jack Johnson, Ezzard Charles


Other than that, I wouldn't argue with you. Our 1, 2, 7 and 9 are identical, or nearly.

[punchy]

Lewis is too low he defeated everyone he faced and half the division running scared, look at Bowe, he also never ducked anyone except Ruiz.

[Beeston Brawler]

This list is based on many factors combined together abilty, achievements, longevity and Hd 2 Hd.

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Jack Johnson
4.Larry Holmes
5.George Foreman
6.Sonny Liston
7.Joe Frazier
8.Evander Holyfield
9.Rocky Marciano
10.Mike Tyson
11.Lennox Lewis
12.Ezzard Charles
13.Sam Langford
14.Jack Dempsey
15.Jersey Joe Walcott

Remember this is based on combined number of factors and is subjective.

Please all participate and give your reasons for your rankings.

Swap Lewis and Johnson around, swap Liston with Holyfield......

Other than that no real complaints.

[bodhi]

1. Louis, Ali
3. Marciano, Holmes, Johnson, Jeffries, Lewis
8. Foreman, Frazier, Liston, Holyfield
12. Patterson, Dempsey, Schmeling, Tyson

[nahkis]

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Larry Holmes
5. Jack Johnson

From here on it becomes hell trying to rank them. Holyfield, Tunney, Dempsey, Jeffries, Tyson, Lewis, Foreman, Frazier would be my 6-13, not in order. Sonny Liston grabs the 14th place and the 15th ill give to Harry Willis.

[Pachilles]

I do not have a fair amount of knowledge to compose a list of the 15 greatest of all time. However i do believe Ali is the no.1 greatest. I think the fact that the casual fanbase and general public have elevated him to god status leads many hardcore boxing fans to rate him lower than he actually is. Although alot of us still rate him no.1, but all should recognise. His who's who of victories, his longevity, the best chin bar NONE in history(including Lamotta). H2H primes, the only boxer i would give a 50% chance is Lennox Lewis and i honestly thing he'd cause a referee stoppage over prime Tyson about rounds 8 to 10

[bodhi]

One thing is for sure Max Schmeling and Floyd Patterson are trrible underated on here.

[dmt]

Schmeling is more like a top 20 guy, not quiet top 15. Patterson would be top 25, perhaps top 20. I dont think either of them should be in the top 15 though.

[McGrain]

I have Schmeling at #15. Higher than most though. But I basically agree with what you say DMT, he's not in amongst the very best in history, funnily enough, I see it as a top 14.

[Lunny]

I don't get how people can put Tyson above Lewis.I just can't see it being justified. His rise was amazing and being heavyweight champ at such a young age is a great achievemeent but his legendary 'prime' that people go on about so much ended when he was 24.

Lewis beat everybody out there except for Bowe (who would rather throw his belt in the bin than face Lewis again). He didn't get enough credit at the time by most fans, even being boo'd after beating Klitschko (which I thought was a disgrace from the fans) but I think in about 20 years when people look back he'll be remembered for what he was.

[nahkis]

Holyfield > Lewis > Tyson. Still, they all belong to the top15.

[ironchamp]

Lewis is too low he defeated everyone he faced and half the division running scared, look at Bowe, he also never ducked anyone except Ruiz.

And Byrd

[guilalah]

I don't have a ranked list presently but, chronologically: Sullivan, Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Marciano, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis.

I'm a bit short of time, but I'll get back to this post with reasons.

-----

[Edit, Jan 24, 2010] Can't prove that all of the above are more deserving than Peter Jackson, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Wills, Walcott, Charles or Bowe.

-------

[Edit: 1/25/10]
I go on H2H speculation, longevity as a top heavyweight, and consistency during period as a top heavyweight.

For H2H, I consider: 1) how boxer would do against other greats a) time-machined into his day from their own era; b) if they'd been born into his day and developed in a way analogous to how they developed in their own time; 2) how boxer would do against other greats a) time-machined into their day from his own era; b) if he'd been born into their day and developed in a way analogous to how he developed in his own time.

I think Lennox Lewis would do well enough in the Time-machine scenarios, but am not as sure about the 'born together' scenarios. I think John L Sullivan would do well in the 'born together' scenarios, but struggle when time-machined. I think '02-'05 Jeffries would be a beast on a 'born into Jeffries day' basis, but might have some trouble on a 'Time-machined into others times' basis. Ect., ect, ect ......

[ironchamp]

I don't get how people can put Tyson above Lewis.I just can't see it being justified. His rise was amazing and being heavyweight champ at such a young age is a great achievemeent but his legendary 'prime' that people go on about so much ended when he was 24.

Lewis beat everybody out there except for Bowe (who would rather throw his belt in the bin than face Lewis again). He didn't get enough credit at the time by most fans, even being boo'd after beating Klitschko (which I thought was a disgrace from the fans) but I think in about 20 years when people look back he'll be remembered for what he was.

Tyson ranking above Lewis has more to do with Tyson's dominance holding more weight than Lewis's longevity. Remember Lewis's reign was from 1999-2003. So even though he won the WBC belt in 1993 as a result of Bowe dropping it in the trash, he was not really considered the Champion much like Mike Weaver holding a belt during Holmes reign or John Ruiz during Lewis's reign. Lewis was simply a top flight contender for most of the 90s.

Tyson's 1986-1990 was simply better than Lewis's 1999-2003. Tyson unifying the belts individually to dispel any notion that may have arose in "what ifs" holds significant value as it has not been replicated since he's done it. Not only was Tyson beating the beltholders but he was also beating the guys that they beat to get the belts. So when he reigned he was unequivocally the baddest man on the planet as he was unequivocally undisputed.

Lewis relevant for a long period of time but until 1993-1999 he was never regarded as the man to beat. Holyfield was, Tyson was, Bowe was, but Lewis-Not yet. You make a good case that Lewis could be ranked ahead Tyson which some will agree with but there's no case good enough to suggest that Tyson cannot be ranked ahead of Lewis.


My Top 15
1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. George Foreman
7. Mike Tyson
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Joe Frazier
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Sonny Liston
12. Jack Dempsey
13. Jim Jeffries
14. Ezzard Charles
15. Floyd Patterson

[janitor]

I personaly think that Sam Langford should rank inthe lower half of the top 10 or just outside it.

I also think that Bob Fitzsimmons would have to make your top 20 by most criteria.

[Jaws]

I don't get how people can put Tyson above Lewis.I just can't see it being justified. His rise was amazing and being heavyweight champ at such a young age is a great achievemeent but his legendary 'prime' that people go on about so much ended when he was 24.


I don't think you can look at age in a vacuum like that. I think boxers only have a certain amount of fights in them. There is only so much punishment the human body can take. Some fighters peak early in life, some later. Tyson was truly a freak, hence why he was called a "man-child". Furthermore, some styles start to fade at an earlier age than others. Tyson had a style that relied heavily on speed and reflex, and this type of fighter usually starts to slow down in their very early 30's. So Tyson has both of those things working against him when looking at age--not only did he start incredibly early, but he was the type of fighter that has a short career as well.

Now I'm not saying this is why he lost at the age of 24, which was clearly a lack of concentration and discipline. But I'm just saying.

[janitor]

I don't get how people can put Tyson above Lewis.I just can't see it being justified. His rise was amazing and being heavyweight champ at such a young age is a great achievemeent but his legendary 'prime' that people go on about so much ended when he was 24.


Personaly I rank Lewis higher but I can see why people might not. Dominance counts for something even if it is over a short period.

However, if you do rate Tyson higly I would certainly challenge you if you did not rate Terry McGovern highly for the same reasons.

[mcvey]

1.But with the other factors included its a fair rating

2.I know I said the same thing in my mind but then when I had made it he just misses out of my top ten of my list.

3.Langford was avoided by everyone and even Jack Dempsey said that Langford would have defeated him hence why they never fought and yes he was not a natural heavyweight but he was beating most of the best heavyweights of his era .
No arguments from me :good
I beleive Dempsey made those remarks ,referring to his fledgling career ,when he was managed by "John The Barber" a flesh pedlar,who coaxed him into fighting John Lester Johnson ,who broke several of his ribs.
By the time Dempsey was in his prime ,Langford was several years past his, I would not have bet on Sam then.

[janitor]

No arguments from me :good
I beleive Dempsey made those remarks ,referring to his fledgling career ,when he was managed by "John The Barber" a flesh pedlar,who coaxed him into fighting John Lester Johnson ,who broke several of his ribs.
By the time Dempsey was in his prime ,Langford was several years past his, I would not have bet on Sam then.

Dempsey obviously held Langford in high regard.

He gave money to Langford when he was old and blind.

[mcvey]

Dempsey obviously held Langford in high regard.

He gave money to Langford when he was old and blind.

No one is a bigger fan of William Harrison Dempsey than myself.
BUT___________________________________

I have to wonder, speculate ,ponder, whatever,was he slightly racist,????
He stated he would not defend against a black man.
He slated Louis at every opportunity.
He backed several "whitehopes", including HEIN TEN HOFF, REX LAYNE.
AGAINST THAT,he paid for FEAB WILLIAMS funeral.


























FEAB WILLIAMS= GEORGE GODFREY, just checking you are awake :good

[janitor]

No one is a bigger fan of William Harrison Dempsey than myself.
BUT___________________________________

I have to wonder, speculate ,ponder, whatever,was he slightly racist,????
He stated he would not defend against a black man.
He slated Louis at every opportunity.
He backed several "whitehopes", including HEIN TEN HOFF, REX LAYNE.
AGAINST THAT,he paid for FEAB WILLIAMS funeral.

FEAB WILLIAMS= GEORGE GODFREY, just checking you are awake :good

I am awake.

I would say that Dempsey might be considered racist today, but kind of in the same way as my grandma.

He had grown up in an environment where those atitudes were rife and tact was not a high priority.

He basicaly took people as he found them, and the offensivley orientated Langford and Godfrey were much more sympathetic to him that the octopus Wills.

On a side note he was one of the first "experts" to identify Muhamad Ali's potential. He called him a bigger and faster version of Gene Tunney.

[BoxingFanNo1]

Holyfield > Lewis > Tyson. Still, they all belong to the top15.

Holyfield at heavyweight is not greater than Lewis.

[Seamus]

based on ability, accomplishments against contemporaries, greatness during prime and a factor of longevity, with a spice of head to head consideration, no active fighters considered (including Holyfield)...

1. Joe Louis
2. Clay/Ali
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Larry Holmes
5. Michael Tyson
6. George Foreman
7. Jack Dempsey
8. Rocky Marciano
9. John L. Sullivan
10. Sam Langford
11. Charles Liston
12. Joe Frazier
13. Jim Jeffries
14. Jack Johnson
15. Jersey Joe Walcott

[mcvey]

I am awake.

I would say that Dempsey might be considered racist today, but kind of in the same way as my grandma.

He had grown up in an environment where those atitudes were rife and tact was not a high priority.

He basicaly took people as he found them, and the offensivley orientated Langford and Godfrey were much more sympathetic to him that the octopus Wills.

On a side note he was one of the first "experts" to identify Muhamad Ali's potential. He called him a bigger and faster version of Gene Tunney.

That's interesting J,I never knew that :good

[frankenfrank]

1. Vitali Klitschko
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Wladimir Klitschko
4. David Tua
5. Mike Tyson
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Oliver McCall
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Ike Ibeabuchi
10. Larry Holmes
11. George Foreman
12. Rocky Marciano
13. James Douglas
14. Joe Louis
15. Sam Langford
16. Chris Byrd


Langford's no heavy but so is marciano.
that is why they are so low in this list.
borderline : Kirk Johnson , Aleksander Povetkin , James Toney , Sultan Ibragimov , Joe Frazier.
i guess they will complete to 20.

[janitor]

based on ability, accomplishments against contemporaries, greatness during prime and a factor of longevity, with a spice of head to head consideration, no active fighters considered (including Holyfield)...

1. Joe Louis
2. Clay/Ali
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Larry Holmes
5. Michael Tyson
6. George Foreman
7. Jack Dempsey
8. Rocky Marciano
9. John L. Sullivan
10. Sam Langford
11. Charles Liston
12. Joe Frazier
13. Jim Jeffries
14. Jack Johnson
15. Jersey Joe Walcott

Some decidedly old school picks there.

[PetethePrince]

1. Vitali Klitschko
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Wladimir Klitschko
4. David Tua
5. Mike Tyson
6. Oliver McCall
7. Evander Holyfield
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Ike Ibeabuchi
10. Larry Holmes
11. George Foreman
12. Rocky Marciano
13. James Douglas
14. Joe Louis
15. Sam Langford
16. Chris Byrd


Langford's no heavy but so is marciano.
that is why they are so low in this list.
borderline : Kirk Johnson , Aleksander Povetkin , James Toney , Sultan Ibragimov , Joe Frazier.
i guess they will complete to 20.

:lol:

[janitor]

1. Vitali Klitschko
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Wladimir Klitschko
4. David Tua
5. Mike Tyson
6. Oliver McCall
7. Evander Holyfield
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Ike Ibeabuchi
10. Larry Holmes
11. George Foreman
12. Rocky Marciano
13. James Douglas
14. Joe Louis
15. Sam Langford
16. Chris Byrd


Langford's no heavy but so is marciano.
that is why they are so low in this list.
borderline : Kirk Johnson , Aleksander Povetkin , James Toney , Sultan Ibragimov , Joe Frazier.
i guess they will complete to 20.

I see that your #2 beat your #1 while past his prime, and your #16 beat your #4.

[McGrain]

6. Oliver McCall
8. Muhammad Ali.

:rofl

[Seamus]

Some decidedly old school picks there.

If you look at my criteria, Sullivan fits perfectly. The only knock on him is not fighting Jackson (a fight I think he would have won) but he absolutely dominated his contemporaries and I think head-to-head he would have done well into the 1960's at least.

Langford is my #1 pound for pound fighter of all time. I will include him on all lists from now into perpetuity.

[Pachilles]

1. Muhammed Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sonny Liston
7. Larry Holmes
8. Gene Tunney
9. Mike Tyson
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Vitali Klitchsko
12. George Foreman
13. Jack Johnson
14. Floyd Patterson
15. Vladimir Klitchsko

[Richel Hersisia]

Ali
Louis
Marciano
Holmes
Foreman
Lewis
Johnson
Liston
Dempsey
Holyfield
Ezzard Charles
Frazier
Tyson
Patterson
Walcott

[Mendoza]

This has been done 10X before here, but here's my 15 for now. A mix of head to head, legacy, and ring records.

Ali
Holmes
Lewis
Jeffries
Liston
Foreman
Dempsey
Louis
V. Klitschko
Marciano
Holyfield
Tyson
Bowe
Frazier
Tunney

[bodhi]

1. Louis, Ali
3. Marciano, Holmes, Johnson, Jeffries, Lewis
8. Foreman, Frazier, Liston, Holyfield
12. Patterson, Dempsey, Schmeling, Tyson

I want explain a bit of my more unusual picks (at least at the place where they are) and perhaps stir up a bit more of a discussion instead of plain list-psotings:
- Jeffries: for his dominance during his prime; his great resume compared to the view fights he hat (Corbett 2 times, Fitzsimmons 2 times, Ruhlin (w+d), Choinsky (d), Jackson (albeit ancient), Sharkey 2 times, Johnson (l)). If anybody today would have such a stacked resume in so few fights he would be regarded as the greatest ever. Tyson´s run in the 80s was mediocre against this!
- Patterson: for his achievements (youngest champ, first two time champ), his longevity and him beeing competative despite beeing rather small and for a part of his career old. His resume also doesn´t look that bad when you look at it and put some wrong decisions right.
- Schmeling: his resume is better than given credit for (when you make a list of the hws champs and how many ring rated contenders they fought, Schmeling will end up between 8 and 10 if I remember correctly), his longevity (top contender from 1928 to 1937), consistency (in this time frame he only lost 2 fights, the Sharkey fight was a bad decision, one of which he avenged), having arguable the greatest win in hw history, his dominance over fellow top contenders (Risko, Walker, Stribling, Uzcudun, Neusel), achievements (beeing the first and only German to win the title in a time where beeing German wasn´t a benefit)

[frankenfrank]

:lol:
where is your list ?

[Green Eyes]

1. Muhammed Ali
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Joe Louis
4. George Foreman
5. Larry Holmes
6. Joe Frazier
7. Sonny Liston
8. Rocky Marciano
9. Mike Tyson
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Vitali Klitchsko
12. Jack Dempsey
13. Jack Johnson
14. Floyd Patterson
15. Ezzard Charles

[bodhi]

I wonder on what base people rank Vitali Klitschko in their Top15. I can´t even rank Wladimir in there and he surely must rank higher than his brother.

[nahkis]

Lennox Lewis very overrated here. Just because Lennox says he is top 5 heavy at every given opportunity doesnt mean you have to believe him. Top 15 for sure, top 10 very possibly, but no top 5, and sure as hell no top 3. Marciano is very underrated on many lists.

[bodhi]

Lennox Lewis very overrated here. Just because Lennox says he is top 5 heavy at every given opportunity doesnt mean you have to believe him. Top 15 for sure, top 10 very possibly, but no top 5, and sure as hell no top 3. Marciano is very underrated on many lists.

Explain yourself please.

I for myself can´t see how Holyfield or Tyson rank over Lewis at heavyweight.

[Mendoza]

I wonder on what base people rank Vitali Klitschko in their Top15. I can´t even rank Wladimir in there and he surely must rank higher than his brother.

Best rounds won to rounds lost ratio in the history of heavyweight boxing. Better than Ali or Holmes. Never down on the score cards after round three in any of his fights.

Never floored by a punch.

Highest KO % among heavyweight champions

Came back at age 37 with a near 4 year lay off with no warm up fights to take his title back.

[bodhi]

Best rounds won to rounds lost ratio in the history of heavyweight boxing. Better than Ali or Holmes. Never down on the score cards after round three in any of his fights.

Never floored by a punch.

Highest KO % among heavyweight champions

Came back at age 37 with a near 4 year lay off with no warm up fights to take his title back.

That´s the only thing, I think should be counted. Ali or Holmes would have done the same as Vitali if they would have faced his mediocre opposition - outside of Lewis. If you go by statistics you must thinkg boxrec has the best ranking ever. :lol:

[Mendoza]

That´s the only thing, I think should be counted. Ali or Holmes would have done the same as Vitali if they would have faced his mediocre opposition - outside of Lewis. If you go by statistics you must thinkg boxrec has the best ranking ever. :lol:

I don't like Box rec for older ranking statistics. How can a computer know when a fighter has grown old over night from a bad performace, or had inuries or issues outside the ring?

In sports a good big man usually beats a good small man. Vitlai is not big, he's huge. If he stood shoulder to shoulder vs. other past all time greats, some would quickly change their perspective, others would do so when they see that Vitali uses his size to the max in the ring, preventing smaller guys from landing on the outside.

PS: I have seen prime verisons of Ali and Holmes, two of the best boxers ever struggle with guys Vitali would not. It is possible that Vitlai is the hardest man to out point. He's active, he hits hard, and he,s not easy to hit cleanly either.

[bodhi]

I don't like Box rec for older ranking statistics. How can a computer know when a fighter has grown old over night from a bad performace, or had inuries or issues outside the ring?

In sports a good big man usually beats a good small man. Vitlai is not big, he's huge. If he stood shoulder to shoulder vs. other past all time greats, some would quickly change their perspective, others would do so when they see that Vitali uses his size to the max in the ring, preventing smaller guys from landing on the outside.

PS: I have seen prime verisons of Ali and Holmes, two of the best boxers ever struggle with guys Vitali would not. It is possible that Vitlai is the hardest man to out point. He's active, he hits hard, and he,s not easy to hit cleanly either.

I agree with much of this post and I definitly can appreciate Vitali for what he does. Head to head he is very hard to beat. But h2h is pure speculation - I for myself think he is too unproven against top-noth opposition to have a clear oppinion on him, the Lewis fight however gives us an indication how it could be. However, I can´t rank fighters on speculation. Those lists are highly subjective and counting in speculation would make them even more disputable.

btw. I think you make too much out of size differences. It makes a difference but not as much as you seem to think.

[mcvey]

Best rounds won to rounds lost ratio in the history of heavyweight boxing. Better than Ali or Holmes. Never down on the score cards after round three in any of his fights.

Never floored by a punch.

Highest KO % among heavyweight champions

Came back at age 37 with a near 4 year lay off with no warm up fights to take his title back.

I like Vitali ,but his opposition has been dire .
How many rounds you win and ko%, s dont mean much if you are fighting glorified journeyman.
I dont think Vitali is an alltime hitter, but he certainly can take a shot as Lewis landed some good punches ,and he stood up under them.
I picked Vitali to beat Peter ,and said so on here,Peter is a slow tub who throws looping puches that end up round the back of your head he has no defence, speed, jab, combinations or foot work ,add he did not train assidously, lacked stamina ,and you have a poor man's Micheal Grant.

[nahkis]

Explain yourself please.

I for myself can´t see how Holyfield or Tyson rank over Lewis at heavyweight.
Lewis's wins over Holyfield and Tyson came when they were both faded, and even the faded Holyfield put up a very strong effort in their second fight. If it wasn't for the robbery in the first fight, Holyfield could have very well gotten the decision the second time around.

Holyfield never got knocked out by an a-grade bum in his prime, and his quality of opposition i think is better than Lewis's. Tyson's record doesnt look that good on paper, at least compared to Lewis or Holyfield, but for a short while he was arguably the most badass guy that ever lived, and i can understand Tyson being ranked more highly than his record would suggest.

In my books it is Holyfield > Lewis > Tyson, with all in the top 15 heavyweights list.

[bodhi]

Lewis's wins over Holyfield and Tyson came when they were both faded, and even the faded Holyfield put up a very strong effort in their second fight. If it wasn't for the robbery in the first fight, Holyfield could have very well gotten the decision the second time around.

Lewis was older than Tyson when they fought. Holyfield could not have gotten the decision in the second fight. It was close but clear. Holyfield came of a 5 fight winning streak before faving Lewis beating Cyzc, Tyson 2 times, Moorer and Bean. He was past it but not faded. :-(


Holyfield never got knocked out by an a-grade bum in his prime, and his quality of opposition i think is better than Lewis's.

Neither was Lewis. Both rahman and McCall were top contenders for quite a while. And Lewis beat both in rematches. Their quality of oppisition is very similar with Lewis beeing more consistent and more dominant.


Tyson's record doesnt look that good on paper, at least compared to Lewis or Holyfield, but for a short while he was arguably the most badass guy that ever lived, and i can understand Tyson being ranked more highly than his record would suggest.

I agree with that.


In my books it is Holyfield > Lewis > Tyson, with all in the top 15 heavyweights list.

I disagree. See my posts up there.

[Boro chris]

1. Vitali Klitschko
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Wladimir Klitschko
4. David Tua
5. Mike Tyson
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Oliver McCall
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Ike Ibeabuchi
10. Larry Holmes
11. George Foreman
12. Rocky Marciano
13. James Douglas
14. Joe Louis
15. Sam Langford
16. Chris Byrd


Langford's no heavy but so is marciano.
that is why they are so low in this list.
borderline : Kirk Johnson , Aleksander Povetkin , James Toney , Sultan Ibragimov , Joe Frazier.
i guess they will complete to 20.

I don't make boxing lists because my knowledge is simply not good enough.
You should take a leaf out of my book.

[essexboy]

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

[frankenfrank]

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. George Foreman
5. Larry Holmes
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Sonny Liston
11. Gene Tunney
12. Evander Holyfield
13. Mike Tyson
14. Jim Jeffries
15. Ezzard Charles
dempsey , charles , jeffries , frazier , marciano and jack johnson really stood a chance against tua , ibeabuchi , byrd and kirk johnson , and schmelling and norton too , of course.

[essexboy]

dempsey , charles , jeffries , frazier , marciano and jack johnson really stood a chance against tua , ibeabuchi , byrd and kirk johnson , and schmelling and norton too , of course.

Tua, Ibeabuchi, Byrd and Johnson have achieved nothing in an era of multiple belts, what does that tell you? Also my list isnt strictly head to head as that would be a worthless exercise, who really knows what would happen? Its more who they beat and what they achieved at the time. I think you should have a look at your list before you go insulting mine as its complete dogshit.

[Seamus]

It's pretty obvious people are using different criteria in constructing these lists, some head to head, some legacy, some longevity. It would be good to see these mentioned (or what mix of these are being used) along with each list. It may make people think harder and avoid these qualifications that are made without context.

[ricardoparker93]

This list is based on many factors combined together abilty, achievements, longevity and Hd 2 Hd.

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Jack Johnson
4.Larry Holmes
5.George Foreman
6.Sonny Liston
7.Joe Frazier
8.Evander Holyfield
9.Rocky Marciano
10.Mike Tyson
11.Lennox Lewis
12.Ezzard Charles
13.Sam Langford
14.Jack Dempsey
15.Jersey Joe Walcott

Remember this is based on combined number of factors and is subjective.

Please all participate and give your reasons for your rankings.

Why as a HEAVYWEIGHT is Langford ahead of Harry Wills who won their series convincingly and was the top black heavyweight of that era and do Sonny Listons two wins over Floyd Patterson justify his ranking ahead of Frazier, Marciano and Holyfield?

[frankenfrank]

Tua, Ibeabuchi, Byrd and Johnson have achieved nothing in an era of multiple belts, what does that tell you? Also my list isnt strictly head to head as that would be a worthless exercise, who really knows what would happen? Its more who they beat and what they achieved at the time. I think you should have a look at your list before you go insulting mine as its complete dogshit.
talking about dogshit , only today my mum cleaned cat's turd outside of my appartment's door , i said it is dogshit , she said catshit , anyway , your list reminds me of it , coincidence :huh ? :hey

[Vanboxingfan]

It's pretty obvious people are using different criteria in constructing these lists, some head to head, some legacy, some longevity. It would be good to see these mentioned (or what mix of these are being used) along with each list. It may make people think harder and avoid these qualifications that are made without context.


That's usually the way it is. One way around it would be to make multiple lists in various categories with a certain amount of weighting and then combine them at the end. So one might have a top 10 or top 15 of the following categories and then combine them at the end.

For example

1. Quality of opposition (25%)

2. # of title defenses (20%)

3. Longivity (ie how long in the top 10) (15%)

4. Win/Loss Record (15%)

5. H2H guestimate (15%)

6. Intangibles (heart, coming back from knock downs, defeats etc) 5%

7. Notable achievements (ie Marciano undefeated) 5%

You could probably combine the last two together, but you get the point.

Monte Cox did something similar in his rating scheme.

[bodhi]

It's pretty obvious people are using different criteria in constructing these lists, some head to head, some legacy, some longevity. It would be good to see these mentioned (or what mix of these are being used) along with each list. It may make people think harder and avoid these qualifications that are made without context.

I base those list mostly on resume, longevity, dominance and achievements. I don't rate h2h, ability or intangibles because I think those are either too hard to compare or too much speculation. That's why I rate them in tiers and not in a list.

[randeris]

Ali
Louis
Holmes
Foreman
Lewis
Frazier
Marciano
Holyfield
Jeffries
Johnson
Liston
Tyson
Dempsey
Tunney
Patterson
V. Klitschko

[ironchamp]

1. Vitali Klitschko
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Wladimir Klitschko
4. David Tua
5. Mike Tyson
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Oliver McCall
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Ike Ibeabuchi
10. Larry Holmes
11. George Foreman
12. Rocky Marciano
13. James Douglas
14. Joe Louis
15. Sam Langford
16. Chris Byrd


Langford's no heavy but so is marciano.
that is why they are so low in this list.
borderline : Kirk Johnson , Aleksander Povetkin , James Toney , Sultan Ibragimov , Joe Frazier.
i guess they will complete to 20.

James Douglas
David Tua
Oliver McCall
Ike Ibeabuchi
Vitaly Klitschko
Wladimir Klitschko
and Chris Byrd would be uncomfortable being ranked that high.

Uncomfortable to the point of embarrassment.

Listen if you're new to boxing take time to learn about the sport because I'm not sure if this list is a joke or you're being serious.

[PetethePrince]

James Douglas
David Tua
Oliver McCall
Ike Ibeabuchi
Vitaly Klitschko
Wladimir Klitschko
and Chris Byrd would be uncomfortable being ranked that high.

Uncomfortable to the point of embarrassment.

Listen if you're new to boxing take time to learn about the sport because I'm not sure if this list is a joke or you're being serious.

It's Frankie. He's just a crazy man.

[essexboy]

talking about dogshit , only today my mum cleaned cat's turd outside of my appartment's door , i said it is dogshit , she said catshit , anyway , your list reminds me of it , coincidence :huh ? :hey

Was that supposed to be an insult? Because we just found out you still live with your mum and you discuss different types of shit with her.

[PhillyPhan69]

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Holmes
4. Marciano
5. Foreman
6. Lewis
7. Frazier
8. Dempsey
9. Johnson
10. Jeffries
11. Holyfield
12. Liston
13. Tyson

[Bill1234]

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Larry Holmes
5. Lennox Lewis
6. Jack Johnson
7. George Foreman
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Sonny Liston
11. Evander Holyfield
12. Mike Tyson
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Floyd Patterson
15. Jim Jeffries

[nahkis]

Lewis was older than Tyson when they fought.
I hope this wasn't a serious argument.

Holyfield could not have gotten the decision in the second fight. It was close but clear. Holyfield came of a 5 fight winning streak before faving Lewis beating Cyzc, Tyson 2 times, Moorer and Bean. He was past it but not faded. :-(
Past it, faded, what's the difference? Holyfield wasnt in his prime when he met Lewis.


Neither was Lewis. Both rahman and McCall were top contenders for quite a while. And Lewis beat both in rematches.
Top contenders my ass. Rahman and McCall were both complete no-hopers for a heavyweight strap that mattered.

Their quality of oppisition is very similar with Lewis beeing more consistent and more dominant.
More consistent and dominant? Holyfield lost three times in his prime days, and Lewis lost twice. The difference was that Holyfields losses came against Riddick Bowe and Michael Moorer, whereas Lewis lost to two much lesser guys and in much more crushing manner. And if it is worth anything, Holyfield also avenged his losses against those guys.

In terms of quality of opposition in the heavyweights Holyfield has a prime Riddick Bowe x3, a fresher version of Mike Tyson (x2) than the one Lennox faced, Michael Moorer x2, Buster Douglas who was coming on straight from the Tyson victory, Larry Holmes who was coming on straight from a victory over Ray Mercer, George Foreman, Ray Mercer, a prime Lennox Lewis twice.

Lennox has David Tua, Andrew Golota, Henry Akinwade, Tommy Morrison, Ray Mercer, a faded but still very game Evander Holyfield twice, Mike Tyson of 2003, and Vitali Klitschko.

Holyfields record and quality of opposition is better in my opinion.

[choklab]

1.louis
2.ali
3.marciano
4dempsey
5holmes
6johnson
7lennox lewis
8hollyfield
9foreman
10tyson
11 baer
12jeffries
13 schmeling
14liston
15charles

and here is how i rate the rest, i feel that the level outside 20 is more of a gulf but between 10-18 is very close.:

16 walcott
17 patterson
18frazier
19ingo johanason
20primo carnera
21buster douglas
22gene tunney
23bowe
24 willard
25 sharkey
26 rahman
27 tommy burns
28 moorer
29 mike spinks
30 braddock
31` leon spinks
32 shannon briggs
ive posted my whole list here. hope you like it.

[choklab]

That's usually the way it is. One way around it would be to make multiple lists in various categories with a certain amount of weighting and then combine them at the end. So one might have a top 10 or top 15 of the following categories and then combine them at the end.

For example

1. Quality of opposition (25%)

2. # of title defenses (20%)

3. Longivity (ie how long in the top 10) (15%)

4. Win/Loss Record (15%)

5. H2H guestimate (15%)

6. Intangibles (heart, coming back from knock downs, defeats etc) 5%

7. Notable achievements (ie Marciano undefeated) 5%

You could probably combine the last two together, but you get the point.

Monte Cox did something similar in his rating scheme.

yes, thats a fair way to decide but many fans will decide an unfamiliar opponent is "weak oposition" without knowing all the history of the division. tommy gibbons, roscoe toles, johny risco, carl morris, joe baksi could be dismissed out of hand. longivity could also mean that an era with an old guy on top is weak.
personaly a champ must dominate the era he is in. thats all he can do. great champs show domination in key fights, a guy squeaking through on points is not as good as the champ who nails a good champ to the floor to get his title. likewise there is no shame in an old champ losing a title on points to lesser champs or even going down fighting so long as he is past his best AT THAT TIME.
head to head is a house wifes bet. remember ali was 7-1 underdog to liston?
i prefere to rate a champ on his record as a champ and count those who defeat more linesr champs by KO highest. its the fairest way, otherwise its speculation.

[leverage]

:lol:
my thoughts exactly.

[frankenfrank]

James Douglas
David Tua
Oliver McCall
Ike Ibeabuchi
Vitaly Klitschko
Wladimir Klitschko
and Chris Byrd would be uncomfortable being ranked that high.

Uncomfortable to the point of embarrassment.

Listen if you're new to boxing take time to learn about the sport because I'm not sure if this list is a joke or you're being serious.
maybe about james douglas you're right. still he beat mccall and stopped tyson. and has some more worthy wins.
mccall has some embarassing losses but so does almost everyone , and they were decisions. ibeabuchi could be claimed to be not proven enough but still had a close affair with tua and stopped byrd , both in their prime.
byrd has an impressing list of wins over much bigger and physically superior opposition which must even gain him P4P status. why greb is considerred ATG and byrd not ? and greb never even faced langford. byrd faced one of the fiercest oppositions any fighter ever faced. and HW was never even his place.
about tua and the klitschkos (especially vitali) i'd say that you are the one who should study before he comments.

[kmcc505]

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Evander Holyfield
6. Jack Johnson
7. Larry Holmes
8. George Foreman
9. Joe Frazier
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Vitali Klitschko
12. Mike Tyson
13. Sonny Liston
14. Gene Tunney
15. Wladimir Klitschko

[anarci]

1. Muhamad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Larry Holmes
4.George Foreman
5.Evander Holyfield
6.Mike Tyson
7.Jack Johnson
8.Rocky Marciano
9.Joe Fraizer
10.Lennox Lewis
11.Sonny Liston
12.Gene Tunney
13.Jack Dempsey
14.Riddick Bowe My opinion he beats Lewis in a HTH matchup,but I cant rate him higher based on resume.
15.Ezzard Charles- Jersey Joe Walcott

[anarci]

1.louis
2.ali
3.marciano
4dempsey
5holmes
6johnson
7lennox lewis
8hollyfield
9foreman
10tyson
11 baer
12jeffries
13 schmeling
14liston
15charles

and here is how i rate the rest, i feel that the level outside 20 is more of a gulf but between 10-18 is very close.:

16 walcott
17 patterson
18frazier
19ingo johanason
20primo carnera
21buster douglas
22gene tunney
23bowe
24 willard
25 sharkey
26 rahman
27 tommy burns
28 moorer
29 mike spinks
30 braddock
31` leon spinks
32 shannon briggs
ive posted my whole list here. hope you like it. Horrible Horrible list Fraizer should be much higher I cant believe some of the guys you got above him Schmeling,Baer:patsch:lol: An you got Leon Spinks on that list but no Ken Norton. You think Primo Carnera was better than Riddick Bowe:patsch

[bodhi]

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Evander Holyfield
6. Jack Johnson
7. Larry Holmes
8. George Foreman
9. Joe Frazier
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Vitali Klitschko
12. Mike Tyson
13. Sonny Liston
14. Gene Tunney
15. Wladimir Klitschko


Please explain!

[bodhi]

1. Muhamad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Larry Holmes
4.George Foreman
5.Evander Holyfield
6.Mike Tyson
7.Jack Johnson
8.Rocky Marciano
9.Joe Fraizer
10.Lennox Lewis
11.Sonny Liston
12.Gene Tunney
13.Jack Dempsey
14.Riddick Bowe My opinion he beats Lewis in a HTH matchup,but I cant rate him higher based on resume.
15.Ezzard Charles- Jersey Joe Walcott

So, you rank this on resume? How ranks Bowe above Schmeling on resume. Please explain.

[kmcc505]

Please explain!

IMO, VK is one of the must underrated fighters of all time. He has been consistently dominant in all of his fights and, despite injury, should be considered one of the best ever.

However, I agree I am higher on VK than most. Hence the term "underrated".

He's got an awkward but effective style, he's a giant and he has a great chin. He knocks out almost everyone. His best wins are not spectacular but that is a product of the age he fights in--an age he dominates. He had LL on the ropes and on the way down but got stopped on cuts. His only other "loss" was when he could not continue versus Chris Byrd in a fight he was dominating because of injury.

Head to head, I think he'd be a tough out for anyone. His legacy is not all it could be because of injury and the time in which he fights, but it is still a pretty stout legacy IMO.

[BoxingFanNo1]

Holy and Tyson above Lewis on quite a few lists, will it ever end :-(

Tyson had 4-5 prime years, done fuck all for 10 years and doesn't have a win as good as Vitali or Holy on his resume, please don't throw Spinks, Tucker at me, I will just laugh at you.
Holyfield was 'prime' vs Tyson yet 1 1/2 yrs later was 'past it' vs Lewis (Yes I've heard this from a few people), the bullshit double standards never stops.

Anyways:

1 - Ali
2 - Louis
3 - Holmes
4 - Lewis
5 - Foreman
6 - Marciano
7 - Frazier
8 - Holyfield
9 - Liston
10 - Tyson
11 - Dempsey
12 - Johnson
13 - Tunney
14 - Jeffries
15 - Patterson

[PhillyPhan69]

Holy and Tyson above Lewis on quite a few lists, will it ever end :-(

Tyson had 4-5 prime years, done fuck all for 10 years and doesn't have a win as good as Vitali or Holy on his resume, please don't throw Spinks, Tucker at me, I will just laugh at you.
Holyfield was 'prime' vs Tyson yet 1 1/2 yrs later was 'past it' vs Lewis (Yes I've heard this from a few people), the bullshit double standards never stops.

Anyways:

1 - Ali
2 - Louis
3 - Holmes
4 - Lewis
5 - Foreman
6 - Marciano
7 - Frazier
8 - Holyfield
9 - Liston
10 - Tyson
11 - Dempsey
12 - Johnson
13 - Tunney
14 - Jeffries
15 - Johnson

Which Johnson is 12 and which Johnson is 15???

[BoxingFanNo1]

Which Johnson is 12 and which Johnson is 15???

:lol: my bad, fixed it.

[haglerforever]

1. Muhammud Ali
2. Larry Holmes
3. Joe Louis
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Rocky Marciano
6. George Foreman
7. Jack Johnson
8. Joe Frazier
9. Mike Tyson
10. Jack Dempsey
11. Sonny Liston
12. Evander Holyfield
13. James Jeffries
14. John L Sullivan
15. Sam Langford

[PetethePrince]

Holy and Tyson above Lewis on quite a few lists, will it ever end :-(

Tyson had 4-5 prime years, done fuck all for 10 years and doesn't have a win as good as Vitali or Holy on his resume, please don't throw Spinks, Tucker at me, I will just laugh at you.
Holyfield was 'prime' vs Tyson yet 1 1/2 yrs later was 'past it' vs Lewis (Yes I've heard this from a few people), the bullshit double standards never stops.

Anyways:

1 - Ali
2 - Louis
3 - Holmes
4 - Lewis
5 - Foreman
6 - Marciano
7 - Frazier
8 - Holyfield
9 - Liston
10 - Tyson
11 - Dempsey
12 - Johnson
13 - Tunney
14 - Jeffries
15 - Patterson

A solid list... Johnson a tad low though. One of the best ones I've seen, though.

[kmcc505]

Holy and Tyson above Lewis on quite a few lists, will it ever end :-(

Tyson had 4-5 prime years, done fuck all for 10 years and doesn't have a win as good as Vitali or Holy on his resume, please don't throw Spinks, Tucker at me, I will just laugh at you.
Holyfield was 'prime' vs Tyson yet 1 1/2 yrs later was 'past it' vs Lewis (Yes I've heard this from a few people), the bullshit double standards never stops.

Anyways:

1 - Ali
2 - Louis
3 - Holmes
4 - Lewis
5 - Foreman
6 - Marciano
7 - Frazier
8 - Holyfield
9 - Liston
10 - Tyson
11 - Dempsey
12 - Johnson
13 - Tunney
14 - Jeffries
15 - Patterson

Good list. However, you surely jest when you say the 37 year old EH who fought LL was in his "prime". C'mon. No doubt LL is a hof'er and I can see why you would choose to rank him so highly but Holy was most assuredly NOT in his prime when they fought. It isn't even really debatable. In fact, I've never heard anyone argue it.

Solid list though.

[BoxingFanNo1]

Good list. However, you surely jest when you say the 37 year old EH who fought LL was in his "prime". C'mon. No doubt LL is a hof'er and I can see why you would choose to rank him so highly but Holy was most assuredly NOT in his prime when they fought. It isn't even really debatable. In fact, I've never heard anyone argue it.

Solid list though.

Never said Holy was in his prime, he wasn't, 91' - 93' Holy was prime imo.
What I would (and do) argue is that there wasn't any real difference between the Holy that fought Tyson and the one that fought Lewis.

Holy vs the smaller man could move forward, control the pace and didn't fear what Tyson threw at him.
When he got in the ring with the big guy however the comparison was hugely different, 6 inches in height, huge reach (Tyson 72" Lewis 84") and 20+ lbs more than what Tyson had.
He couldn't do what he did with Tyson.

[anarci]

So, you rank this on resume? How ranks Bowe above Schmeling on resume. Please explain.
Easy its a combination of resumes and HtH matchup, I give Lewis the bigger edge over Bowe in Resume, although Im only slightly leaning towards Bowe in a HTH matchup.

Bowe would have never lost to Steve Hamas, or drew with Paulino Uzcudan,Or kod by a Gypsy Daniels.
IN fact his only loss in his prime was to ATG Holyfield and he beat him twice. Bowes prime might not have been to long(and thats why I dont have him higher) but HTH he is definitly at least in the top 7 or maybe even around 5.

[Quitali Bitchko]

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Marciano
4. Holmes
5. Johnson
6. Foreman
7. Lewis
8. Tyson
9. Holyfield
10. Dempsey
11. Fraizer
12. Langford
13. Liston
14. Sullivan
15. Jeffries

[ricardoparker93]

Holy and Tyson above Lewis on quite a few lists, will it ever end :-(

Tyson had 4-5 prime years, done fuck all for 10 years and doesn't have a win as good as Vitali or Holy on his resume, please don't throw Spinks, Tucker at me, I will just laugh at you.
Holyfield was 'prime' vs Tyson yet 1 1/2 yrs later was 'past it' vs Lewis (Yes I've heard this from a few people), the bullshit double standards never stops.

Anyways:

1 - Ali
2 - Louis
3 - Holmes
4 - Lewis
5 - Foreman
6 - Marciano
7 - Frazier
8 - Holyfield
9 - Liston
10 - Tyson
11 - Dempsey
12 - Johnson
13 - Tunney
14 - Jeffries
15 - Patterson


Good list, I would probably move Johnson and Dempsey up two places each but other than that it is solid :good ( I do get uneasy about Lewis being that high though :lol: )

[Quitali Bitchko]

Tyson had 4-5 prime years, done fuck all for 10 years and doesn't have a win as good as Vitali or Holy on his resume, please don't throw Spinks, Tucker at me, I will just laugh at you.


Well then here a good dose of laugh for you: even old Holmes is a much better win then Vitali. Hell, Tucker, Ruddock, Biggs, Thomas and yes SPINKS are better wins then Vitali.
This is no knock on LL's resume, as you can see I have him higher then both Holy and Tyson, this is a knock on the quality of QUITALI. :thumbsup:deal:hi:

[BoxingFanNo1]

Well then here a good dose of laugh for you: even old Holmes is a much better win then Vitali. Hell, Tucker, Ruddock, Biggs, Thomas and yes SPINKS are better wins then Vitali.
This is no knock on LL's resume, as you can see I have him higher then both Holy and Tyson, this is a knock on the quality of QUITALI. :thumbsup:deal:hi:

A 39 yr old Holmes who's last two fights vs Spinks were losses and had been retired the best part of two years is better than prime Vitali?

Infact, everyone you listed has me scratching my head but esp Holmes.

Please tell me you're kidding.

[guilalah]

I posted an unranked list, and some rationale, post #20.

Here's my ranked list.

------

My current top-15 Alltime Heavyweights.

Differences of one or two or even three ranking spots shouldn't be taken to express a decisive opinion.

guilalah

---------

Guilalah’s
TOP FIFTEEN ALLTIME HEAVYWEIGHTS
Ranked Feb 1st, 2010
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. James J. Jeffries
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. John L. Sullivan
7. Larry Holmes
8. Jack Johnson
9. Gene Tunney
10. Joe Frazier
11. Evander Holyfield
12. Mike Tyson
13. George Foreman
14. Lennox Lewis
15. Sonny Liston

Honorable Mentions: Peter Jackson, James J. Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, Sam Langford, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Riddick Bowe.

[Jersey Joe]

1. Ali

2. Louis

3. Holmes

4. Lewis

5. Marciano

6. Dempsey

7. Johnson

8. Tyson

9. Frazier

10. Foreman

11. Liston

12. Jeffries

13. Holyfield

14. V. Klitchsko

15. Charles

[Jersey Joe]

dempsey , charles , jeffries , frazier , marciano and jack johnson really stood a chance against tua , ibeabuchi , byrd and kirk johnson , and schmelling and norton too , of course.

Considering that 5 out of the 6 old-timers are no longer alive, then yes I agree they would struggle to beat the modern journeymen. After all, it's hard to fight from a coffin.

[ironchamp]

maybe about james douglas you're right. still he beat mccall and stopped tyson. and has some more worthy wins.
mccall has some embarassing losses but so does almost everyone , and they were decisions. ibeabuchi could be claimed to be not proven enough but still had a close affair with tua and stopped byrd , both in their prime.
byrd has an impressing list of wins over much bigger and physically superior opposition which must even gain him P4P status. why greb is considerred ATG and byrd not ? and greb never even faced langford. byrd faced one of the fiercest oppositions any fighter ever faced. and HW was never even his place.
about tua and the klitschkos (especially vitali) i'd say that you are the one who should study before he comments.

Are you being sarcastic or serious?

[ironchamp]

I posted an unranked list, and some rationale, post #20.

Here's my ranked list.

------

My current top-15 Alltime Heavyweights.

Differences of one or two or even three ranking spots shouldn't be taken to express a decisive opinion.

guilalah

---------

Guilalah’s
TOP FIFTEEN ALLTIME HEAVYWEIGHTS
Ranked Feb 1st, 2010
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. James J. Jeffries
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. John L. Sullivan
7. Larry Holmes
8. Jack Johnson
9. Gene Tunney
10. Joe Frazier
11. Evander Holyfield
12. Mike Tyson
13. George Foreman
14. Lennox Lewis
15. Sonny Liston

Honorable Mentions: Peter Jackson, James J. Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, Sam Langford, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Riddick Bowe.

What has Gene Tunney done at HW to warrant a ranking above Frazier, Holyfield, Tyson, Foreman, Lewis and Liston?

While we're at it what has Jack Dempsey done to get the same?

[cuchulain]

This list only goes back to the Joe Louis era, as I find comparisons before that to be too problematic.


1 Ali
2 Louis
3 Lewis
4 Foreman
5 Marciano
6 Holmes
7 Liston
8 Tyson
9 Frazier
10 Patterson
11 Walcott
12 Charles
13 Norton
14 Holyfield
15 Klitschko (Vitali)

[bodhi]

Again the question to those guys ranking Vitali Klitschko in the Top15 and above his brother: on what criteria are you doing so? Other than h2h I just see none.

[mattdonnellon]

Again the question to those guys ranking Vitali Klitschko in the Top15 and above his brother: on what criteria are you doing so? Other than h2h I just see none.

One possible reason is that he fought and competed well with an ATG in Lewis. Hw also doesn't have the embarrasing losses that Wlad has.
I get the point that Wlad has a better WINNING resumee, though.

[bodhi]

One possible reason is that he fought and competed well with an ATG in Lewis. Hw also doesn't have the embarrasing losses that Wlad has.
I get the point that Wlad has a better WINNING resumee, though.

A far better winning resume. And abetter resume overall. And better longevity. Dominance is about equal. Accomplishment-wise Wlad has unified. Vitali had his great comeback. Both were the man at a time but Vitali was never linear while Wlad is recognized as such after beating Ibragimov and Chagaev.
Ranking Vitali ahead of Wlad based on a losing effort is crazy. Totally crazy. :nut

[Mendoza]

Again the question to those guys ranking Vitali Klitschko in the Top15 and above his brother: on what criteria are you doing so? Other than h2h I just see none.

I think I already put forth the reasons why. It is very easy to to rip competition. In such a case lets look at the top two guys on most lists.

Joe Louis for example, I think Vitali would look better vs many of the guys who gave Louis trouble. Would he get smacked around by a 168 pound billy Conn, floored by a journeyman like fighter in Galento, drop 5-6 rounds to Tommy Farr etc...?

Wanna try Ali on for size. Do you think Vitali nearly get's Kod by Cooper, nearly out boxed by Jones, losses 2 of 3 to Kenny Norton, and has problems out boxing the likes of Jimmy Young, Ron Lyle, and Floyd Patterson?

If you believe size is an asset when combined with skills, and understand how styles and ring generalship can make fights, Vitali really doesn't have a tough go in many eras.

I'm sold he's top 15. I'll send you a PM on an article I worte back in 2006 with a current update.

[Jorodz]

I posted an unranked list, and some rationale, post #20.

Here's my ranked list.

------

My current top-15 Alltime Heavyweights.

Differences of one or two or even three ranking spots shouldn't be taken to express a decisive opinion.

guilalah

---------

Guilalah’s
TOP FIFTEEN ALLTIME HEAVYWEIGHTS
Ranked Feb 1st, 2010
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. James J. Jeffries
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. John L. Sullivan
7. Larry Holmes
8. Jack Johnson
9. Gene Tunney
10. Joe Frazier
11. Evander Holyfield
12. Mike Tyson
13. George Foreman
14. Lennox Lewis
15. Sonny Liston

Honorable Mentions: Peter Jackson, James J. Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, Sam Langford, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Riddick Bowe.

not a bad list but peter jackson deserves more than an honourable mention, as does i think fitz and charles. i'd move tunney down and consider taking holyfield and sullivan out. yes, john l was awesome but i think jackson was better and deserves a spot more

[Seamus]

not a bad list but peter jackson deserves more than an honourable mention, as does i think fitz and charles. i'd move tunney down and consider taking holyfield and sullivan out. yes, john l was awesome but i think jackson was better and deserves a spot more

What proof do you offer that Jackson was better? Perhaps that Sullivan was as racist as most men of his day?

My readings of Sullivan's bouts reveal a fighting dynamo seldom approached in skill or ferocity, let alone matched. In return, the Jackson reports are rather scarce. Is it this paucity of facts that allows the imagination, and judging acumen, run wild?

[Boilermaker]

not a bad list but peter jackson deserves more than an honourable mention, as does i think fitz and charles. i'd move tunney down and consider taking holyfield and sullivan out. yes, john l was awesome but i think jackson was better and deserves a spot more

where would you rank Bill Farnan, who actually knocked out Peter Jackson in 3 rounds?

[Jorodz]

where would you rank Bill Farnan, who actually knocked out Peter Jackson in 3 rounds?

Jackson is a difficult case but i'm making the argument based on contemporary reports of his skill, the fact that he was persistently and consistently ducked and the assessments of his peers, notably corbett who stated he was the best boxer he'd ever seen. much like sullivan and others from the era much of their placement comes from anecdotes and testimonies from the time. his record, like many of that era especially blakc fighters, it littered with the same names for multiple fights. his resume should not and cannot be scrutinized in the same way as current fighters. but things like this are a matter of subjectivity and opinion

[Seamus]

Being disregarded by the powers that be does nary prove superiority.

[bodhi]

I think I already put forth the reasons why. It is very easy to to rip competition. In such a case lets look at the top two guys on most lists.

Joe Louis for example, I think Vitali would look better vs many of the guys who gave Louis trouble. Would he get smacked around by a 168 pound billy Conn, floored by a journeyman like fighter in Galento, drop 5-6 rounds to Tommy Farr etc...?

Wanna try Ali on for size. Do you think Vitali nearly get's Kod by Cooper, nearly out boxed by Jones, losses 2 of 3 to Kenny Norton, and has problems out boxing the likes of Jimmy Young, Ron Lyle, and Floyd Patterson?

If you believe size is an asset when combined with skills, and understand how styles and ring generalship can make fights, Vitali really doesn't have a tough go in many eras.

I'm sold he's top 15. I'll send you a PM on an article I worte back in 2006 with a current update.


I can see your arguments and if you would make a h2h list I would think you would have a point. But a proper list can't be based on head to head IMHO but on the actual resume, achievements, longevity and dominance. Because these things are actual facts. H2h is pure speculation. I stated this again and again. Same with ability. You can look great against bums but can you be rated based on that? I don't think so.
If you make a list based mainly on h2h and put Vitali in your Top15. Fine. I can see your points. But most of the lists with Vitali in the Top15 seem not to be based on h2h. And I want to see the arguments on that.

On your article. Sorry but beeing never behind on cards, KO percentage, never beeing floored and having less tomatoe-cans on your record are non-arguments. They ignore totally Vitali's subpar opposition.
And sorry but neither Universum nor Sdunek are second rate promoter or trainer. That's just wrong. Sdunek trained 10+ world champs. Second rate my ass.
The only point that is a real argument is his comeback. But that's it.

[Mendoza]

bodhi: I can see your arguments and if you would make a h2h list I would think you would have a point. But a proper list can't be based on head to head IMHO but on the actual resume, achievements, longevity and dominance.

Thanks. I did in fact include resume, achievements, longevity, and dominance. I just did not spell it out. I will now.

Resume:

190-15 as an amateur. World amateur champ.
World amateur kick boxing champion
Pro kick boxing champion with a 29-2 record*
Pro boxing champion WBO, WBC, IBO, and Ring Magazine champion. Current 39-2 record.
10-2 in world title fights as a pro boxer.

Achievements:

Highest KO% among the history of heavyweights.
Never floored by a punch as a pro.
Best rounds won to round lost ratio in the history of heavyweight boxing. Never behind on score cards after rd 3.
A come back in the late 30 with near four years off, which includes a 4-0 run vs 4 top ten ring magazine ranked guys, three of which were stopped, the other lost 120-108 on a score card.

Longevity: He's still a force at age 38. Louis was done for and Ali was punch drunk by then. Very few champions had their belt and fought well at Vitali's age. And few came back from as many surgeries. Vitali looks to keep his belt and make a few title defenses in a row until until age 40. No heavyweight has done that.

Dominance: There is no one in his era what dared to give him a re-match, and no one besides his brother who can give him a tough fight.

Sdunek are second rate promoter or trainer. That's just wrong. Sdunek trained 10+ world champs. Second rate my ass.

Second rate compared to Blackburn, Dundee, Steward, Futch, or Arcel...for sure. Sdunek is not in their class as a trainer. That is my point.

I hope you can accept the others as I broke them down on your terms.

[Boxed Ears]

Schmeling is more like a top 20 guy, not quiet top 15. Patterson would be top 25, perhaps top 20. I dont think either of them should be in the top 15 though.

Patterson is a tough call, I think he can be considered p4p significantly higher than a lot of the people I'd rank above him for just HW. I'm just beginning though with making lists. I only decided to give p4p and division by division lists a little while ago. Interesting hobby though.

[Boxed Ears]

Thanks. I did in fact include resume, achievements, longevity, and dominance. I just did not spell it out. I will now.

Resume:

190-15 as an amateur. World amateur champ.
World amateur kick boxing champion
Pro kick boxing champion with a 29-2 record*
Pro boxing champion WBO, WBC, IBO, and Ring Magazine champion. Current 39-2 record.
10-2 in world title fights as a pro boxer.

Achievements:

Highest KO% among the history of heavyweights.
Never floored by a punch as a pro.
Best rounds won to round lost ratio in the history of heavyweight boxing. Never behind on score cards after rd 3.
A come back in the late 30 with near four years off, which includes a 4-0 run vs 4 top ten ring magazine ranked guys, three of which were stopped, the other lost 120-108 on a score card.

Longevity: He's still a force at age 38. Louis was done for and Ali was punch drunk by then. Very few champions had their belt and fought well at Vitali's age. And few came back from as many surgeries. Vitali looks to keep his belt and make a few title defenses in a row until until age 40. No heavyweight has done that.

Dominance: There is no one in his era what dared to give him a re-match, and no one besides his brother who can give him a tough fight.



Second rate compared to Blackburn, Dundee, Steward, Futch, or Arcel...for sure. Sdunek is not in their class as a trainer. That is my point.

I hope you can accept the others as I broke them down on your terms.

Is he really planning on hanging in until 40? To try and get all the belts between he and Wlad or for another reason? It seemed like he was making it a point after Arreola that he didn't want to be around too much longer. As you mentioned with the surgeries and the other combat sports fights, I'm sure it takes an immense toll. I'm impressed that he's really been motivated enough to still be going at this level. Staying in at that kind of fitness alone is tough enough for most of these guys, let alone looking for the best fights, regardless of the division's condition.

[bodhi]

Thanks. I did in fact include resume, achievements, longevity, and dominance. I just did not spell it out. I will now.

Resume:

190-15 as an amateur. World amateur champ.
World amateur kick boxing champion
Pro kick boxing champion with a 29-2 record*
Pro boxing champion WBO, WBC, IBO, and Ring Magazine champion. Current 39-2 record.
10-2 in world title fights as a pro boxer.

The highlighted part is totally irrelevant ranking him as a pro boxer. Totally irrelevant.
IBO? You gotta kidding me?
Yep, he picked up two belts in his career and was ring mag champ for a while. That's not bad but these things fall under achievements not resume. :bart
And compared to what even somebody like Patterson, Walcott, or Charles who had all the real title it just falls short.
10-2 is not bad but those were fights for belts for the most. And it was against mediocre opponents. That's what resume is bout. Who he fought and how good his opponents were and how he did against them.


Achievements:

Highest KO% among the history of heavyweights.
Never floored by a punch as a pro.
Best rounds won to round lost ratio in the history of heavyweight boxing. Never behind on score cards after rd 3.
A come back in the late 30 with near four years off, which includes a 4-0 run vs 4 top ten ring magazine ranked guys, three of which were stopped, the other lost 120-108 on a score card.

Like I already wrote the highlighted part only get's relevant in combination with his resume and that makes them more or less irrelevant because his opposition was mediocre in an all-time sense.



Longevity: He's still a force at age 38. Louis was done for and Ali was punch drunk by then. Very few champions had their belt and fought well at Vitali's age. And few came back from as many surgeries. Vitali looks to keep his belt and make a few title defenses in a row until until age 40. No heavyweight has done that.

He had 41 fights. Longevity is not just about age but about how long the career was and how many fights they had. 41 fights are okay but not actually a good longevity.
Louis and Ali were done at 40 right but look hof often they fought and look at their far superior resume. It's a joke that you bring that up.


Dominance: There is no one in his era what dared to give him a re-match, and no one besides his brother who can give him a tough fight.

True. He is very dominant but this has to be looked at in the context of his opposition. Ali wouldn have lost one round against Vitali's opposition - aside of Lewis perhaps.


Second rate compared to Blackburn, Dundee, Steward, Futch, or Arcel...for sure. Sdunek is not in their class as a trainer. That is my point.

A question: how many world champs have Blackburn or Dundee trained before Louis and Ali and what where their credentials? You have your answer. :good

You make the mistake to totally ignore his quality of opposition but that is the most important fight when you want to rank a fighter. Dominance, longevity and achievements don't mean much when the quality of opposition is low.

[Boxed Ears]

The highlighted part is totally irrelevant ranking him as a pro boxer. Totally irrelevant.
IBO? You gotta kidding me?
Yep, he picked up two belts in his career and was ring mag champ for a while. That's not bad but these things fall under achievements not resume. :bart
And compared to what even somebody like Patterson, Walcott, or Charles who had all the real title it just falls short.
10-2 is not bad but those were fights for belts for the most. And it was against mediocre opponents. That's what resume is bout. Who he fought and how good his opponents were and how he did against them.



Like I already wrote the highlighted part only get's relevant in combination with his resume and that makes them more or less irrelevant because his opposition was mediocre in an all-time sense.




He had 41 fights. Longevity is not just about age but about how long the career was and how many fights they had. 41 fights are okay but not actually a good longevity.
Louis and Ali were done at 40 right but look hof often they fought and look at their far superior resume. It's a joke that you bring that up.



True. He is very dominant but this has to be looked at in the context of his opposition. Ali wouldn have lost one round against Vitali's opposition - aside of Lewis perhaps.



A question: how many world champs have Blackburn or Dundee trained before Louis and Ali and what where their credentials? You have your answer. :good

You make the mistake to totally ignore his quality of opposition but that is the most important fight when you want to rank a fighter. Dominance, longevity and achievements don't mean much when the quality of opposition is low.

When it comes to longevity, I don't believe it's at all irrelevant to take under consideration the miles he's had on himself as an amateur and in his kickboxing career. Of course his kickboxing accomplishments don't add to his resume as a boxer but they do add to the context of his longevity as a world class athlete in his boxing career. You take blows to your body, you stay in world class shape long enough, it takes a toll and you have to factor it into how he's still going. My opinion.

I take a look at some of these newer fighters for instance and look at what kind of career they've had in the amateurs. Gamboa, Rigondeaux and Solis, that crop of defected Cubans trying to make their name in the pros now, I have to look at whatever they can achieve with the consideration of the miles they already have on them. I can't look at it without that context, personally. Of course we all see it differently and that's what makes it interesting. :good

[Mendoza]

When it comes to longevity, I don't believe it's at all irrelevant to take under consideration the miles he's had on himself as an amateur and in his kickboxing career. Of course his kickboxing accomplishments don't add to his resume as a boxer but they do add to the context of his longevity as a world class athlete in his boxing career. You take blows to your body, you stay in world class shape long enough, it takes a toll and you have to factor it into how he's still going. My opinion.

I take a look at some of these newer fighters for instance and look at what kind of career they've had in the amateurs. Gamboa, Rigondeaux and Solis, that crop of defected Cubans trying to make their name in the pros now, I have to look at whatever they can achieve with the consideration of the miles they already have on them. I can't look at it without that context, personally. Of course we all see it differently and that's what makes it interesting. :good

Correct Vitali had over 300 combined boxing and kick boxing matches. That is a lot of fights. To still be on top after all that at age 38 is remarkable.

[Mendoza]

bodh: The highlighted part is totally irrelevant ranking him as a pro boxer. Totally irrelevant.
IBO? You gotta kidding me?
Yep, he picked up two belts in his career and was ring mag champ for a while. That's not bad but these things fall under achievements not resume. :bart
And compared to what even somebody like Patterson, Walcott, or Charles who had all the real title it just falls short.


Oh really? Who did Patterson ever beat in title matches, besides Ingo? Most of them were far easier than Vitlai's opponents.

How many title defenses did Walcott make? Who did Charles beat that can be viewed as top notch as heavyweight champion, besides Walcott who went 2-2 with him, and Ko'd him clean with one punch?

10-2 is not bad but those were fights for belts for the most. And it was against mediocre opponents. That's what resume is bout. Who he fought and how good his opponents were and how he did against them.

As I said before, almost all champions can have their opposition picked apart. I happen to think Vitlai's title opponents were better than Charles


Like I already wrote the highlighted part only get's relevant in combination with his resume and that makes them more or less irrelevant because his opposition was mediocre in an all-time sense.

If Vitali was matches vs. small heavies, cruiser weight or light heavies, he look even better.

He had 41 fights. Longevity is not just about age but about how long the career was and how many fights they had. 41 fights are okay but not actually a good longevity.

Longevity includes age, and total fights. Vitali is 38 and has had 300+ combat matches as a pro and amateur kick boxer. 41 boxing matches does not tell the entire story. can you name 5 heavies who looked better than Vitlai is now at age 38???? If you can't, I think its safe to say Vitali has good longevity.

Louis and Ali were done at 40 right but look hof often they fought and look at their far superior resume. It's a joke that you bring that up.

Ali for sure fought the best competition, but he also struggled at times vs guys Vitlai would have easy nights with. Louis competition as champion was often suspect...very suspect. Bum of the month club type guys, and only two of his 26 title defenses were vs. black opponents. The best fighters Louis fought were Schemling, M. Bear, Marciano, Walcott, and Charles. The Brown bomber is 3-4 vs these men on fair score cards...yes Walcott was robbed in the first fight.


True. He is very dominant but this has to be looked at in the context of his opposition. Ali wouldn have lost one round against Vitali's opposition - aside of Lewis perhaps.

Disagree 100%. Ali lost plenty of rounds. If you want a seperate thread on this, I can show you where, and when.


You make the mistake to totally ignore his quality of opposition but that is the most important fight when you want to rank a fighter. Dominance, longevity and achievements don't mean much when the quality of opposition is low.

As I said before, anyones competition can be knocked.

[bodhi]

Oh really? Who did Patterson ever beat in title matches, besides Ingo? Most of them were far easier than Vitlai's opponents.

How many title defenses did Walcott make? Who did Charles beat that can be viewed as top notch as heavyweight champion, besides Walcott who went 2-2 with him, and Ko'd him clean with one punch?



As I said before, almost all champions can have their opposition picked apart. I happen to think Vitlai's title opponents were better than Charles




If Vitali was matches vs. small heavies, cruiser weight or light heavies, he look even better.



Longevity includes age, and total fights. Vitali is 38 and has had 300+ combat matches as a pro and amateur kick boxer. 41 boxing matches does not tell the entire story. can you name 5 heavies who looked better than Vitlai is now at age 38???? If you can't, I think its safe to say Vitali has good longevity.



Ali for sure fought the best competition, but he also struggled at times vs guys Vitlai would have easy nights with. Louis competition as champion was often suspect...very suspect. Bum of the month club type guys, and only two of his 26 title defenses were vs. black opponents. The best fighters Louis fought were Schemling, M. Bear, Marciano, Walcott, and Charles. The Brown bomber is 3-4 vs these men on fair score cards...yes Walcott was robbed in the first fight.




Disagree 100%. Ali lost plenty of rounds. If you want a seperate thread on this, I can show you where, and when.




As I said before, anyones competition can be knocked.

God, you are as slick as Willie Pep when it comes to Vitali but all your arguements don't negate the fact that Vitali lacks in resume to be ranked where you and other's rank him. That's not his fault. He can only beat who is available and who knows how he would have done in other eras. But fact is fact. :bart

[Stevie G]

1. Ali

2. Louis

3. Holmes

4. Lewis

5. Marciano

6. Dempsey

7. Johnson

8. Tyson

9. Frazier

10. Foreman

11. Liston

12. Jeffries

13. Holyfield

14. V. Klitchsko

15. Charles
I definitely agree with your top 3. Muhammad Ali,without doubt in my mind,is certainly the number one heavy of all time. Natural ability,speed,and in his 60's prime,uncanny radar which enabled him to avoid a punch. Later on he proved that he could TAKE a shot just as well as he could avoid one. As faras his resume goes,he had a few questionable decisions towards the end,but his record circa 1964-75 is second to none. In that period,he only had two losses which he evened the score on. Joe Frazier,who was another all time great,and Ken Norton who was n't a great,but certainly a very good heavyweight.

[mcvey]

The highlighted part is totally irrelevant ranking him as a pro boxer. Totally irrelevant.
IBO? You gotta kidding me?
Yep, he picked up two belts in his career and was ring mag champ for a while. That's not bad but these things fall under achievements not resume. :bart
And compared to what even somebody like Patterson, Walcott, or Charles who had all the real title it just falls short.
10-2 is not bad but those were fights for belts for the most. And it was against mediocre opponents. That's what resume is bout. Who he fought and how good his opponents were and how he did against them.



Like I already wrote the highlighted part only get's relevant in combination with his resume and that makes them more or less irrelevant because his opposition was mediocre in an all-time sense.




He had 41 fights. Longevity is not just about age but about how long the career was and how many fights they had. 41 fights are okay but not actually a good longevity.
Louis and Ali were done at 40 right but look hof often they fought and look at their far superior resume. It's a joke that you bring that up.



True. He is very dominant but this has to be looked at in the context of his opposition. Ali wouldn have lost one round against Vitali's opposition - aside of Lewis perhaps.



A question: how many world champs have Blackburn or Dundee trained before Louis and Ali and what where their credentials? You have your answer. :good

You make the mistake to totally ignore his quality of opposition but that is the most important fight when you want to rank a fighter. Dominance, longevity and achievements don't mean much when the quality of opposition is low.

Dundee trained.
Carmen Basilio
Jose Napoles
Luis Rodriguez
Sugar Ramos
Ralph Dupas.
And, after Ali Leonard

Balckburn trained.
Sammy Mandell
Bud Taylor
Jersey Joe Walcott.
Who has Sudenek trained?

[Brit Sillynanny]

This list is based on many factors combined together abilty, achievements, longevity and Hd 2 Hd.

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Jack Johnson
4.Larry Holmes
5.George Foreman
6.Sonny Liston
7.Joe Frazier
8.Evander Holyfield
9.Rocky Marciano
10.Mike Tyson
11.Lennox Lewis
12.Ezzard Charles
13.Sam Langford
14.Jack Dempsey
15.Jersey Joe Walcott

Remember this is based on combined number of factors and is subjective.

Please all participate and give your reasons for your rankings.


At a glance .. not appropriate to haggle over some of the ordering .. but first look says it's a real good list.:good

[mcvey]

At a glance .. not appropriate to haggle over some of the ordering .. but first look says it's a real good list.:good
No two posts will be identical ,but if the "usual suspects" are there, none should be decried imo.We all have our favourites,I probaly rate Johnson ,and Dempsey too high, will I rectify that ? NO!

[bodhi]

Dundee trained.
Carmen Basilio
Jose Napoles
Luis Rodriguez
Sugar Ramos
Ralph Dupas.
And, after Ali Leonard

Balckburn trained.
Sammy Mandell
Bud Taylor
Jersey Joe Walcott.
Who has Sudenek trained?

World Champs or former Worldchamps he trained:
Zsolt Erdei
Sebastian Zbik
Vitali Klitschko
Karoly Balzsay
Artur Grigorian
Juan Carlos Gomez
Wladimir Klitschko
Michael Löwe
Ralf Rocchigiani
Dariusz Michaelchewski

Actual or former world level contender:
Khoren Ghevor
Denis Boytsov
Alexander Dimitrenko
Denix Boytsov
Mario Veit
Alexander Alexeev
Sinan Samil Sam


obviously not as many known names as the guys up there but enough to not consider him a "second rater"

[Mendoza]

World Champs or former Worldchamps he trained:
Zsolt Erdei
Sebastian Zbik
Vitali Klitschko
Karoly Balzsay
Artur Grigorian
Juan Carlos Gomez
Wladimir Klitschko
Michael Löwe
Ralf Rocchigiani
Dariusz Michaelchewski

Actual or former world level contender:
Khoren Ghevor
Denis Boytsov
Alexander Dimitrenko
Denix Boytsov
Mario Veit
Alexander Alexeev
Sinan Samil Sam


obviously not as many known names as the guys up there but enough to not consider him a "second rater"

Look at Wlad. He's much better under Steward. Sudenk was light years behind him. Sdunek had no experience with enswell until recently, didn't know when to pour water over his fighters, head, and went for bulk over sparring and conditiong with some of his fighter. Sdunek's advice in the corners when Wlad needed it was rather poor.

Maybe second rater is harsh, but he's not a top level trainer like many past greats had.

The best trainers today are Steward, and Roach. Sdunek is on the next level. That is my point.

[Brian123]

Jim Jeffries deserves to be in the mix. From Cyberzone boxing:

Jeffries has been called the greatest heavyweight of all-time by numerous boxing people -- Jim Corbett, Jack Dempsey, Tommy Burns, Willie Ritchie, and Tom Sharkey to name five.

Jack Johnson, the first black Heavyweight Champion and the only man to beat Jeffries, also called Jim the greatest heavyweight of all-time.

Sam Langford, the great light-heavyweight fighter, even advertised in papers to fight any man in the world except Jim Jeffries.

[janitor]

This list is based on many factors combined together abilty, achievements, longevity and Hd 2 Hd.

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Jack Johnson
4.Larry Holmes
5.George Foreman
6.Sonny Liston
7.Joe Frazier
8.Evander Holyfield
9.Rocky Marciano
10.Mike Tyson
11.Lennox Lewis
12.Ezzard Charles
13.Sam Langford
14.Jack Dempsey
15.Jersey Joe Walcott

Remember this is based on combined number of factors and is subjective.

Please all participate and give your reasons for your rankings.

We have the same top 3 in a slightly different order.

Langford at 13 is an inspired pick.

Jim Jeffries should be in.

Harry Wills should be in.

Bob Fitzsimmons has a case despite his size.

[burt bienstock]

At their peaks,my intuitive piks...
Jack Dempsey-Pantherlike,great chin, left hook bobbing defense
Joe Louis-Greatest combo puncher,and leverage, in a heavyweight
James J Jeffries-Strongest heavyweight, best stamina and chin, no one outlasts him
Jack Johnson-Greatest defensiveheavy, catlike and cutting puncher
Ali-very fast for a heavy,needed rope-dope- for lack of punching power.good chin
Gene Tunney-great precise boxer,smartest heavy,very good chin and mover
Rocky Marciano-inhuman battering ram, punishing puncher, and TIRELESS conditioned
Joe Frazier-A large Henry Armstrong,great left hook,a brave crowd pleaser
Larry Holmes-great boxer, great left jab,and straight right hand,
Mike Tyson- Destructive puncher, had short prime, lacking discipline and purpose
Max Schmeling- greatest right hand, like a laser, rugged and dependable
Sam Langford- probably best P4P of all, but small by heavy standards,great fighter
Jack sharkey-with Tunney's brain and Sharkey,s skills closer to the top
James J Corbett- lithe ,fast and clever boxer, but hard to rate
Lennox Lewis-Big and strong , good puncher, questionable chin, rigid style

[johnmaff36]

At their peaks,my intuitive piks...
Jack Dempsey-Pantherlike,great chin, left hook bobbing defense
Joe Louis-Greatest combo puncher,and leverage, in a heavyweight
James J Jeffries-Strongest heavyweight, best stamina and chin, no one outlasts him
Jack Johnson-Greatest defensiveheavy, catlike and cutting puncher
Ali-very fast for a heavy,needed rope-dope- for lack of punching power.good chin
Gene Tunney-great precise boxer,smartest heavy,very good chin and mover
Rocky Marciano-inhuman battering ram, punishing puncher, and TIRELESS conditioned
Joe Frazier-A large Henry Armstrong,great left hook,a brave crowd pleaser
Larry Holmes-great boxer, great left jab,and straight right hand,
Mike Tyson- Destructive puncher, had short prime, lacking discipline and purpose
Max Schmeling- greatest right hand, like a laser, rugged and dependable
Sam Langford- probably best P4P of all, but small by heavy standards,great fighter
Jack sharkey-with Tunney's brain and Sharkey,s skills closer to the top
James J Corbett- lithe ,fast and clever boxer, but hard to rate
Lennox Lewis-Big and strong , good puncher, questionable chin, rigid style
Sorry Burt but i think you underestimate Ali. There was a lot more to him than this 'rope-a-dope' some people go on about. For starters, he was a pro for 14yrs before he first got accredited to it. Secondly, you dont win fights by just lying on the ropes. Ali was ahead when that fight was over so he must of did something.
Anyway, i enjoy your posts as you have been around the golden age of boxing and i always respect yours and John Garfields insights more than most (Ali aside ha!)

[Seamus]

Jim Jeffries wouldn't even be in the top 10 strongest heavyweights over the last decade.

[RockysSplitNose]

At their peaks,my intuitive piks...
Jack Dempsey-Pantherlike,great chin, left hook bobbing defense
Joe Louis-Greatest combo puncher,and leverage, in a heavyweight
James J Jeffries-Strongest heavyweight, best stamina and chin, no one outlasts him
Jack Johnson-Greatest defensiveheavy, catlike and cutting puncher
Ali-very fast for a heavy,needed rope-dope- for lack of punching power.good chin
Gene Tunney-great precise boxer,smartest heavy,very good chin and mover
Rocky Marciano-inhuman battering ram, punishing puncher, and TIRELESS conditioned
Joe Frazier-A large Henry Armstrong,great left hook,a brave crowd pleaser
Larry Holmes-great boxer, great left jab,and straight right hand,
Mike Tyson- Destructive puncher, had short prime, lacking discipline and purpose
Max Schmeling- greatest right hand, like a laser, rugged and dependable
Sam Langford- probably best P4P of all, but small by heavy standards,great fighter
Jack sharkey-with Tunney's brain and Sharkey,s skills closer to the top
James J Corbett- lithe ,fast and clever boxer, but hard to rate
Lennox Lewis-Big and strong , good puncher, questionable chin, rigid style

As ever Burt - top picks - Great to here Dempsey came straight to mind :yep one of my personal favourites. Also good to see Tunney and Johnson in the mix too - and Sam - great natural talent.

[burt bienstock]

Seamus, about my choice of Jim Jeffries as strongest heavyweight of alltime, Hands down.... I define strongest as not just heavy punchers and pushers, but my strengh definition, includes great STAMINA also...In that vein could George Foreman fight 20 round bouts, sans mouthpiesce, thin gloves,etc as Jeffries did .And impervious to punishment in his prime, I might add?.If your paragon of strength is Foreman, than solely on strength alone a Primo Carnera,thirty pounds heavier of pure muscle, would surely qualify as the "strongest"...Methinks....

[jaffay]

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Evander Holyfield
7. Jack Johnson
8. Joe Frazier
9. Sonny Liston
10. Jack Dempsey
11. Harry Wills
12. George Foreman
13. James Jeffries
14. Mike Tyson
15. Ezzard Charles

[Seamus]

Seamus, about my choice of Jim Jeffries as strongest heavyweight of alltime, Hands down.... I define strongest as not just heavy punchers and pushers, but my strengh definition, includes great STAMINA also...In that vein could George Foreman fight 20 round bouts, sans mouthpiesce, thin gloves,etc as Jeffries did .And impervious to punishment in his prime, I might add?.If your paragon of strength is Foreman, than solely on strength alone a Primo Carnera,thirty pounds heavier of pure muscle, would surely qualify as the "strongest"...Methinks....

word.

i love your input, as someone who has seen way more than I. When talking about strength one needs to qualify, though. and by all acounts Jeffries had both raw, explosive strength and stamina.

And my paragon of strength, and all else in life, is Tony TNT Tubbs.

[Unforgiven]

Holy and Tyson above Lewis on quite a few lists, will it ever end :-(

Tyson had 4-5 prime years, done fuck all for 10 years and doesn't have a win as good as Vitali or Holy on his resume, please don't throw Spinks, Tucker at me, I will just laugh at you.
Holyfield was 'prime' vs Tyson yet 1 1/2 yrs later was 'past it' vs Lewis (Yes I've heard this from a few people), the bullshit double standards never stops.

No, Holyfield wasn't prime against Tyson. He was past-his-prime definitely. Holyfield's prime was 1987 - '93.

Tyson had a short prime, it's true. It's arguable that he was never the same again after the Spinks win.

Yes, Lewis had the longevity over them both. He was arguably performing at the top of his game from 1992 until 2001 or '02 ! That's remarkable.



Anyways:

1 - Ali
2 - Louis
3 - Holmes
4 - Lewis
5 - Foreman
6 - Marciano
7 - Frazier
8 - Holyfield
9 - Liston
10 - Tyson
11 - Dempsey
12 - Johnson
13 - Tunney
14 - Jeffries
15 - Patterson


Good list. :good