Looking for a consensus HW top100!

[ChrisPontius]

I'm not interested in the exact rankings, especially since it becomes peculiar beyond the top15 in ranking individual numbers, so i'm only gonna go by decades (numbers of 10, not talking about years) in the rankings, i.e.:

1-10: (again, no order, for all of them)
Ali
Louis
Lewis
Marciano
Holmes
Frazier
Foreman
Holyfield
Tyson
Dempsey

11-20:
Walcott
Patterson
Banana Sam
..
etc etc



Note:

1. Only fighters who fought between 1900 and 1999 are allowed. However, when a fighter spent part of his career outside of this time, i.e. in the 2000's or during the 1800's, the accomplishments during that time are to be taken into account. Why this seemingly inconsistent rule? Because all other fighters are judged on their entire career, so it would be unfair to judge those on the edge on a few fights on their end/start of their careers.

Boxers post-2000 are excluded because many haven't finished their careers yet, and it is a general rule of human psychology that a boxer's standing will rise several years after they retired. So, for a fair measurement, they're left out.

Pre-1900 is excluded because documentation on them (complete records, film) does not compare to those of the 20th century, and the rules of boxing were much different back then from what it was during most of the 20th century.


2. I'm looking for a general consensus here where many will disagree, so if you think one fighter should be top80 instead of top90, don't bother. The difference between top20 and top30 is obviously larger, but from there on things are becoming hard to separate. Top80 is only a bit lower than top60, even if there's 20 fighters between them.


3. Currently active fighters who spent part of their career in the 90's are excluded, unless it's clear they're not going to accomplish anything anymore.

So, for instance, Tua will be judged on his entire career despite part of that being in the 2000's. Officially he is still active, but it's not likely he'll achieve anything big in the future, so he's allowed to be on. The same goes for Holyfield and Ruiz. Jeffries had quite some fights before the 1900's and they are included because he was active as a champ in the 1900's. The Klitschko's however, were active in the 90's but are still active today and hence are not included. Corbett is excluded because he fought almost exclusively in the 1800's.

4. Comments on who you like higher, lower, or who is missing on the list are more than welcome, but please state at the cost of which fighter this goes, i.e. which boxer drops down 10 spots, 20 spots or whatever to make room for the new one?


I came up with the following top100 off the top of my head. It is a start and i probably left a few names off and have some unfair rankings.

Here is the list as it is now.

1-10
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Dempsey

11-20
Riddick Bowe
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston
Jack Johnson
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Bob Fitzsimmons
Ingemar Johansson

21-30
Gene Tunney
Floyd Patterson
Max Schmeling
Tim Witherspoon
Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry
Jimmy Young
Chris Byrd
Joe Jeannette
David Tua

31-40
Max Baer
Oliver McCall
Sam Mcvey
Jimmy Ellis
Pinklon Thomas
Hasim Rahman
Archie Moore
Tom Sharkey
Primo Carnera
Ike Ibeabuchi

41-50
Michael Spinks
John Ruiz
Jack Sharkey
Buster Douglas
Ron Lyle
Donovan Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno
Eddie Machen
Bob Baker


51-60
Michael Moorer
Michael Dokes
Corrie Sanders
Jerry Cooney
Cleveland Williams
Tommy Morrison
Tommy Loughran
George Godfrey
Arthuro Godoy
Clarence Henry

61-70
Tony Tucker
Zora Folley
Billy Miske
Lee Murray
Bob Pastor
Oleg Maskaev
Elmer Ray
Marvin Hart
Jimmy Bivins
Rex Layne

71-80
Tony Tubbs
Trevor Berbick
Tommy Gibbons
Ernie Shavers
Larry Gains
Mike Weaver
Fred Fulton
Jess Willard
Turkey Thompson
Ernie Terrel


81-89
Larry Donald
Greg Page
Gerrie Coetzee
Luis Firpo
Shannon Briggs
Buddy Baer
Paulino Uzcudun
Harry Matthews
Roland LaStarza
Mike DeJohn

90-99
James Smith
Bob Satterfield
Gus Ruhlin
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Joe Bugner
Abe Simon
Tommy Burns
Henry Akinwande
Gerrie Coetzee



When the list has evolved to a consensus top100 according to most ESB'ers, i'll analyze the data and use it for a few new threads to come.

[Loewe]

I don´t do lists anymore but I highlight the hws I consider as atgs and so should be above the rest.


Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Dempsey
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston
Jack Johnson
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Bob Fitzsimmons
Gene Tunney
Floyd Patterson
Max Schmeling
Joe Jeannette
Max Baer
Sam Mcvey
Archie Moore
Jack Sharkey

[PowerPuncher]

I tried doing a top100 then I got banned from ESB, then I decided I'd changed my listings

1-10
Muhammad Ali - YEP
Larry Holmes - Shouldnt be top 5
Evander Holyfield - Lower top 10 or lower still
Joe Louis - top3
Joe Frazier - Lower top 10 or lower still
George Foreman - not top 10
Lennox Lewis - top 3
Mike Tyson - about right
Rocky Marciano - higher, dominated his era
Jack Dempsey - MUCH LOWER, not top10, and shouldn't have more than a hairs breadth from Wills

11-20
Riddick Bowe - Lower top 20 or lower still
James Jeffries - old and small men and no black title defenses, LOWER
Sonny Liston - UP a bit
Jack Johnson - TOP 10, maybe top5
Harry Wills - around 12
Ezzard Charles - above Bowe/Jeffries
Jersey Joe Walcott - above Bowe/Jeffries
Sam Langford - about right
Bob Fitzsimmons - Your pushing the 'not before 1900s' a bit hard with him
Ingemar Johansson - lower

21-30
Gene Tunney - about right
Floyd Patterson - about right
Max Schmeling - above Johansson
Tim Witherspoon - lower
Ken Norton - higher
Jerry Quarry -
Jimmy Young - difficult to rank
Chris Byrd - NOT pre-2000
Joe Jeannette
David Tua

31-40
Max Baer
Oliver McCall - people will argue BUT beat 5 champs in Lennox, Holmes, Maskeev, Seldon, Akiwande
Sam Mcvey
Jimmy Ellis
Pinklon Thomas
Hasim Rahman
Archie Moore - MUCH HIGHER - Top 30 spot
Tom Sharkey
Primo Carnera
Ike Ibeabuchi - lower than Byrd who he splatered in 5?

41-50
Michael Spinks - did as much or more than Tunney as a HW for my money
John Ruiz - pre 2000? Yet no Vitali who held a belt pre-2000.
Jack Sharkey
Buster Douglas - Beat Tyson, a better Tyson than Tunney's Dempsey - could be top30
Ron Lyle
Donovan Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno
Eddie Machen
Bob Baker


51-60
Michael Moorer - again his Holyfield win is on par with Tunney's Dempsey win
Michael Dokes
Corrie Sanders - whats his second best win? And where's Rahman his conquerer?
Jerry Cooney - any relation to Gerry?
Cleveland Williams
Tommy Morrison
Tommy Loughran
George Godfrey - ALLOT HIGHER
Arthuro Godoy
Clarence Henry

61-70
Tony Tucker
Zora Folley
Billy Miske
Lee Murray
Bob Pastor
Oleg Maskaev - other than Rahman...
Elmer Ray - could be 20-35 spots higher
Marvin Hart
Jimmy Bivins - could be 20-35 spots higher
Rex Layne

71-80
Tony Tubbs
Trevor Berbick
Tommy Gibbons
Ernie Shavers
Larry Gains
Mike Weaver
Fred Fulton
Jess Willard - a bit harsh
Turkey Thompson
Ernie Terrel


81-89
Larry Donald
Greg Page
Gerrie Coetzee
Luis Firpo
Shannon Briggs
Buddy Baer
Paulino Uzcudun
Harry Matthews
Roland LaStarza - THE ONLY MAN TO ARGUABLY BEAT MARCIANO IS ONLY 88?
Mike DeJohn

90-99
James Smith
Bob Satterfield
Gus Ruhlin
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Joe Bugner
Abe Simon
Tommy Burns
Henry Akinwande
Gerrie Coetzee

[PowerPuncher]

You missed off Golota, no he doesnt have a massive win but he retired Bowe after beating on him twice and deserved the nod over Byrd and Ruiz

[PowerPuncher]

Oh you also missed Leon Spinks, goto rank above Bugner

[PowerPuncher]

Also:

Jimmy Braddock
Conn
Young Stribling
Harry Greb
Rahman

You may consider:

Bonavena
Fireman Jim Flynn - beat Dempsey, fought Jack Johnson and fought Langford to a draw, a journeyman though

[enquirer]

Is the super southpaw freak of nature corrie 'the nation' t-rex saunders down?

[Loewe]

Also:

Jimmy Braddock
Conn
Young Stribling
Harry Greb
Rahman

You may consider:

Bonavena
Fireman Jim Flynn - beat Dempsey, fought Jack Johnson and fought Langford to a draw, a journeyman though

Good mentions :good

[Loewe]

Is the super southpaw freak of nature corrie 'the nation' t-rex saunders down?

Corey "T-Rex" Sanders is not Corrie Sanders.

[Arka]

I don´t do lists anymore but I highlight the hws I consider as atgs and so should be above the rest.

No Riddick Bowe in your ATG list?

[Quick Cash]

This is quite a daunting task considering no one can even agree on a consensus number one! I'll try to submit an ordered list later, once I've consolidated the latter portion.

[Loewe]

No Riddick Bowe in your ATG list?

Nah, beating Holyfield 2-times is not enough to be an atg imo.

[enquirer]

My bad,i mean corrie sanders...

[ChrisPontius]

Thanks for the comments PowerPuncher. I'll think about your suggestions.

You did miss a few comments i made before presenting the list though. For instance, the list has a "resolution" of 10 ranks, i.e. there is no distinction between #1 and #9, #13 or #17, etc etc.




This is quite a daunting task considering no one can even agree on a consensus number one! I'll try to submit an ordered list later, once I've consolidated the latter portion.

You don't have to produce your own list (though be my guest), i was just looking for comments on the one posted.

[Quick Cash]

1-10
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield (just outside)
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Dempsey (just outside)

11-20
Riddick Bowe
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston (should be well within the top ten in my opinion but it depends on criteria)
Jack Johnson (rounds out my top ten)
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles (I don't rate career light heavyweights but Charles would also fall under this tier if he were included in my list)
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford (maybe a little bit lower)
Bob Fitzsimmons (a light heavyweight I honestly don't know where to place him)
Ingemar Johansson (doesn't belong in the top twenty even though he's a top twenty five talent the difference is distinct)

21-30
Gene Tunney (I don't count him but you've got him pegged fine)
Floyd Patterson
Max Schmeling
Tim Witherspoon (too inconsistent to be put this high)
Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry
Jimmy Young (inside forty but not inside thirty)
Chris Byrd (too high for me)
Joe Jeannette
David Tua (an incredible talent he should rank higher than Byrd in my opinion but this is perhaps a tad too high)

31-40
Max Baer
Oliver McCall
Sam Mcvey (slightly too low but I can't really tell for sure since this is not ordered I feel he should be rated near Quarry and Jeannette)
Jimmy Ellis (have him at 42)
Pinklon Thomas (quite a bit overrated)
Hasim Rahman (to have him securely placed within the top fifty is a gross misunderstanding of his talents in my humble opinion)
Archie Moore
Tom Sharkey
Primo Carnera
Ike Ibeabuchi (shouldn't be below Chris Byrd you could place him under Tua though even though I personally don't have it that way)

41-50
Michael Spinks
John Ruiz (too high)
Jack Sharkey
Buster Douglas
Ron Lyle
Donovan Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno
Eddie Machen (too low)
Bob Baker (wouldn't rate him over Clarence Henry)


51-60
Michael Moorer
Michael Dokes
Corrie Sanders
Jerry Cooney
Cleveland Williams
Tommy Morrison
Tommy Loughran
George Godfrey (mid-40's)
Arthuro Godoy
Clarence Henry

61-70
Tony Tucker (too low)
Zora Folley (too low)
Billy Miske
Lee Murray
Bob Pastor
Oleg Maskaev
Elmer Ray (too low)
Marvin Hart
Jimmy Bivins (too low)
Rex Layne

71-80
Tony Tubbs
Trevor Berbick
Tommy Gibbons
Ernie Shavers
Larry Gains
Mike Weaver
Fred Fulton
Jess Willard
Turkey Thompson
Ernie Terrel


81-89
Larry Donald
Greg Page
Gerrie Coetzee
Luis Firpo
Shannon Briggs
Buddy Baer
Paulino Uzcudun
Harry Matthews
Roland LaStarza
Mike DeJohn

90-99
James Smith
Bob Satterfield
Gus Ruhlin
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Joe Bugner
Abe Simon
Tommy Burns
Henry Akinwande
Gerrie Coetzee

This is a reasonably decent list. Perhaps I was overly critical, knowing practically next to nothing of the order you put them in.

I'm pretty sure you were drastically mistaken in your ranking of Byrd, Rahman, Machen, Folley, Ray, and Bivins, however. But I can only extend my opinion and hope you take it as constructive criticism.

Most of all, I would like to see you put this thing in order from 1-100 as I'm certain it would also help me form my own opinions regarding the subject.

[My dinner with Conteh]

11-20:
Walcott
Patterson
Banana Sam
..
.


It's great to see Sam finally getting the credit he deserves. :cool:

[enquirer]

What about fruity floyd? Tangerine tyson? Lemon liston?
Had a lot of a'peel' did banana man sammy....

[My dinner with Conteh]

Oh you also missed Leon Spinks, goto rank above Bugner


Spinks is a hard one. I think his level is summed up by two moments after he beat Ali.


1. Ken Norton is asked by Boxing Illustrated to name the best 10 heavies in the world, he's said about 8 when the interviewer asks him "What about Spinks?", to which Kenny just laughs and says something like his "mother could beat Spinks".

2. The July 1978 issue of World Boxing's headline: "Is there anyone who cannot beat Leon Spinks?"


This is how highly he was rated back then- when he was world champ.

[My dinner with Conteh]

What about fruity floyd? Tangerine tyson? Lemon liston?
Had a lot of a'peel' did banana man sammy....


Sam would have knocked them into next sundae. :yep :oops:

[enquirer]

Only if sammy had used his 'fruit punch' between rounds...:lol:

[OLD FOGEY]

OK Chris--you're doing this by tens, not in order.

Top ten--all justifiable, but why exactly Dempsey over Johnson or Jeffries who fought the best of their time and thus dominated their era more than Dempsey. I would put Johnson in the top ten myself and would certain strongly consider Jeffries.

11-20--Johansson is a stretch this high. How exactly does he rate higher than Patterson considering he lost 2 of 3 to Patterson and Floyd certainly lasted longer and beat more top men.

21-30--I wouldn't put Byrd this high. Archie Moore would be a better choice.

31-40--I don't think Tom Sharkey meets your 20th century criteria-and I wouldn't put him this high anyway.

41-50--My judgement would be that Baker is way too high. He did defeat an impressive number of "names" but almost all of them were over the hill or second stringers--He lost badly in his prime to Henry, Moore, and Satterfield.

51-60--Loughran could move up quite a bit for beating all kinds of top men. He was erratic, though. Only non-champ to lick three lineal champs. Henry always ranks way up on these lists, but he never beat a champ or a really top contender. When he had his chance against Johnson and Moore, he lost.
I would drop him 30 places or so.

61-70--Ray should be much higher, probably at least in the thirties--How many had 72-1 streaks with wins over two prime champions. Layne slipped badly after a quick start, but he also beat two top 20 champions. I would move him up also. Bivins is hard to rate, as his best efforts were as a lightheavy.

71-80--Gibbons did very little at heavy. He was a great middle and lightheavy. If Gibbons is on this list, why not Greb and Walker, both of whom did much more at heavy.

81-90--Mike DeJohn-a decent fighter but one who never cracked the top five in his own day. I think someone like Lee Savold or Jack Renault should rate higher. They were actually considered top contenders at one time or another. And Tommy Farr, who beat Baer and Loughran, certainly was a better contender than DeJohn.

91-100--Okay. Satterfield could rate much higher, but he also blew all kinds of fights, so who can argue his placing.

Tommy Farr and Tami Mauriello probably should have made this list. It is easy to dismiss Tami, but he was considered the #1 contender at one time and had an impressive number of victories over second-stringers. He might fit into the nineties okay. And Melio Bettina, Billy Conn, and Harold Johnson all deserve a place unless you dismiss them as only lightheavies.

[JohnThomas1]

Dinner, do you have Tucker 10 - 20 or 20 - 30?

:hey

[My dinner with Conteh]

Dinner, do you have Tucker 10 - 20 or 20 - 30?

:hey


101...poor Tony just missed out. I wanted to include him, I really did. I just felt on head-to-head Banana Sam decisions him- a split of course. :p

[JohnThomas1]

101...poor Tony just missed out. I wanted to include him, I really did. I just felt on head-to-head Banana Sam decisions him- a split of course. :p

:lol:

[Cachibatches]

Please consider:

Joe Chonyski (his knockout of Jack Johnson was 1901)

Fireman Jim Flynn (KO 1 Jack Dempsey)

Gunboat Smith (beat Sam Langford and Jess Willard)

Lou Nova (this one is iffy, but two wins over Max Baer and legendary fights with Galento)

James Braddock (didn't see him on there)

[ChrisPontius]

Okay, adaptations:

Promoted Johnson to top10, demoted Dempsey to top20.
Promoted Patterson to top20, demoted Johansson to top30.
Promoted Moore to top30, demoted Byrd to top40.
Promoted Loughran to top50, demoted Baker to top60.
Promoted Elmer Ray from top70 to top30. Witherspoon from top30 demoted to top40. Removed Tom Sharkey from the list(top40) because nearly everything he did was in the late 1800's.
Promoted Layne from top70 to top60.
Removed Gibbons from the list because his record at heavyweight is tiny. Greb took his place (top80).
Removed Mike DeJohn (top90) and had him replaced by Jack Renault who was ranked highly for several years.
Removed James Smith (top100) and had Clarence Henry take his place.
Removed Gerry Coetzee (top100) and had Tami Mauriello take his place because he was ranked the #1 contender for a period untill Joe Louis knocked him out of it.
Removed Joe Bugner (top100) and had Tommy Farr take his place, because Bugner lost everytime he stepped up (besides Cooper), whereas Farr beat Loughran, Max Bear, Neusel and Gains before losing to Louis and going downhill.
Removed Akinwande (top100) because he did too little when he stepped up, James Braddock takes his place.
Removed Gerry Coetzee for a second time (top90, for some reason he was in both the top90 and top100). Lou Nova took his place.


PowerPuncher - Ibeabuchi was lower than Byrd because his career was cut short, which stopped us from seeing his weaknesses. If Elmer Ray had retired (or gone to prison) after his 72-1 winning streak with wins over prime version of Charles and Walcott, we could rate him in the top10, but that would've shielded us from his shortcoming. Too many questionmarks on Ike to rate him higher.

On a sidenote, i switched Byrd and Moore, making Byrd and Ibeabuchi rank just as high (top40).

Good point about Tunney and Douglas, plus the above argument holds for Tunney as well.
Demoted Tunney from top20 to top30, promoted McCall to the top30 which may be a stretch to some, but so would any other promotion from the top30.
Spinks perhaps did as much at heavy as Tunney did, but Tunney did get stopped in 91 seconds. He has the advantage of never having fought Tyson of course, but still.


On LaStarza, he lost to Marciano in a close decision, but Marciano was green and when they fought again a few years later, he was battered badly. While his winning streak is impressive, very few of them were actually in the top10. For similar reasons, Marshall could rank high because he actually beat a green Liston instead of losing a close decision. But other than that, he was a journeyman lightheavyweight for most of his career.



1-10
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Johnson

11-20
Riddick Bowe
Jack Dempsey
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Bob Fitzsimmons
Floyd Patterson


21-30
Oliver McCall
Ingemar Johansson
Max Schmeling
Elmer Ray
Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry
Jimmy Young
Archie Moore
Joe Jeannette
David Tua

31-40
Max Baer
Gene Tunney
Sam Mcvey
Tim Witherspoon
Jimmy Ellis
Hasim Rahman
Chris Byrd
Pinklon Thomas
Primo Carnera
Ike Ibeabuchi

41-50
Michael Spinks
John Ruiz
Jack Sharkey
Buster Douglas
Ron Lyle
Tom Sharkey
Donovan Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno
Eddie Machen
Tommy Loughran


51-60
Michael Moorer
Michael Dokes
Corrie Sanders
Gerry Cooney
Cleveland Williams
Tommy Morrison
Bob Baker
Rex Layne
George Godfrey
Arthuro Godoy


61-70
Tony Tucker
Zora Folley
Billy Miske
Lee Murray
Bob Pastor
Oleg Maskaev
Tony Tubbs
Trevor Berbick
Marvin Hart
Jimmy Bivins


71-80
Tami Mauriello
Roland LaStarza
Harry Greb
Ernie Shavers
Larry Gains
Mike Weaver
Fred Fulton
Jess Willard
Turkey Thompson
Ernie Terrel


81-89
Larry Donald
Greg Page
Lou Nova
Luis Firpo
Shannon Briggs
Paulino Uzcudun
Harry Matthews
Bob Satterfield
Jack Renault
Clarence Henry

90-99
Gus Ruhlin
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Tommy Farr
Abe Simon
Tommy Burns
Jimmy Braddock
Joe Choynski
Buddy Baer
Lee Savold

[Mendoza]

Okay, adaptations:

Promoted Johnson to top10, demoted Dempsey to top20.
Promoted Patterson to top20, demoted Johansson to top30.
Promoted Moore to top30, demoted Byrd to top40.
Promoted Loughran to top50, demoted Baker to top60.
Promoted Elmer Ray from top70 to top30. Witherspoon from top30 demoted to top40. Removed Tom Sharkey from the list(top40) because nearly everything he did was in the late 1800's.
Promoted Layne from top70 to top60.
Removed Gibbons from the list because his record at heavyweight is tiny. Greb took his place (top80).
Removed Mike DeJohn (top90) and had him replaced by Jack Renault who was ranked highly for several years.
Removed James Smith (top100) and had Clarence Henry take his place.
Removed Gerry Coetzee (top100) and had Tami Mauriello take his place because he was ranked the #1 contender for a period untill Joe Louis knocked him out of it.
Removed Joe Bugner (top100) and had Tommy Farr take his place, because Bugner lost everytime he stepped up (besides Cooper), whereas Farr beat Loughran, Max Bear, Neusel and Gains before losing to Louis and going downhill.
Removed Akinwande (top100) because he did too little when he stepped up, James Braddock takes his place.
Removed Gerry Coetzee for a second time (top90, for some reason he was in both the top90 and top100). Lou Nova took his place.


PowerPuncher - Ibeabuchi was lower than Byrd because his career was cut short, which stopped us from seeing his weaknesses. If Elmer Ray had retired (or gone to prison) after his 72-1 winning streak with wins over prime version of Charles and Walcott, we could rate him in the top10, but that would've shielded us from his shortcoming. Too many questionmarks on Ike to rate him higher.

On a sidenote, i switched Byrd and Moore, making Byrd and Ibeabuchi rank just as high (top40).

Good point about Tunney and Douglas, plus the above argument holds for Tunney as well.
Demoted Tunney from top20 to top30, promoted McCall to the top30 which may be a stretch to some, but so would any other promotion from the top30.
Spinks perhaps did as much at heavy as Tunney did, but Tunney did get stopped in 91 seconds. He has the advantage of never having fought Tyson of course, but still.


On LaStarza, he lost to Marciano in a close decision, but Marciano was green and when they fought again a few years later, he was battered badly. While his winning streak is impressive, very few of them were actually in the top10. For similar reasons, Marshall could rank high because he actually beat a green Liston instead of losing a close decision. But other than that, he was a journeyman lightheavyweight for most of his career.



1-10
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield...way too high
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier...to high, and. over Foreman??
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Johnson

11-20
Riddick Bowe
Jack Dempsey
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles ...too high
Jersey Joe Walcott...too high
Sam Langford
Bob Fitzsimmons
Floyd Patterson


21-30
Oliver McCall....way too high
Ingemar Johansson
Max Schmeling
Elmer Ray....too high
Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry
Jimmy Young
Archie Moore
Joe Jeannette...too high
David Tua

31-40
Max Baer
Gene Tunney...way too low
Sam Mcvey
Tim Witherspoon
Jimmy Ellis
Hasim Rahman
Chris Byrd
Pinklon Thomas
Primo Carnera
Ike Ibeabuchi

41-50
Michael Spinks
John Ruiz
Jack Sharkey
Buster Douglas
Ron Lyle
Tom Sharkey
Donovan Ruddock...way too high
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno
Eddie Machen
Tommy Loughran


51-60
Michael Moorer
Michael Dokes
Corrie Sanders
Gerry Cooney
Cleveland Williams
Tommy Morrison
Bob Baker
Rex Layne
George Godfrey
Arthuro Godoy...way too high


61-70
Tony Tucker
Zora Folley
Billy Miske
Lee Murray...not sure if he should rate
Bob Pastor...not sure if he should rate
Oleg Maskaev...too high
Tony Tubbs
Trevor Berbick
Marvin Hart
Jimmy Bivins


71-80
Tami Mauriello...should not tate
Roland LaStarza...should not rate
Harry Greb..should not rate at heavy
Ernie Shavers
Larry Gains
Mike Weaver
Fred Fulton
Jess Willard
Turkey Thompson
Ernie Terrel


81-89
Larry Donald
Greg Page
Lou Nova...should not rate
Luis Firpo
Shannon Briggs
Paulino Uzcudun
Harry Matthews
Bob Satterfield...should not rate
Jack Renault...should not rate
Clarence Henry

90-99
Gus Ruhlin
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Tommy Farr
Abe Simon...should not rate
Tommy Burns
Jimmy Braddock
Joe Choynski
Buddy Baer
Lee Savold

my coments are in .... format

[PowerPuncher]

Spinks is a hard one. I think his level is summed up by two moments after he beat Ali.

1. Ken Norton is asked by Boxing Illustrated to name the best 10 heavies in the world, he's said about 8 when the interviewer asks him "What about Spinks?", to which Kenny just laughs and says something like his "mother could beat Spinks".

2. The July 1978 issue of World Boxing's headline: "Is there anyone who cannot beat Leon Spinks?"

This is how highly he was rated back then- when he was world champ.

Well he beat the GOAT, something Shavers couldnt do plus a win over Mercado is good and Evangalista is decent. Goto be top100

[PowerPuncher]

Thanks for the comments PowerPuncher. I'll think about your suggestions.

You did miss a few comments i made before presenting the list though. For instance, the list has a "resolution" of 10 ranks, i.e. there is no distinction between #1 and #9, #13 or #17, etc etc. .

I missed that first time, I actually assumed you'd done that but was skim reading :D

[SuzieQ49]

Its a nice list pontius. ill post my thoughts later.


my only biggest disagreement is mike dejohn being rated over nino valdez. nino valdez in his 30s beat mike dejohn TWICE, and overall in there careers nino was the higher rated contender, had better wins on paper, and looks better on film in his respective prime. valdez was a potential world beater, dejohn was not.

[OLD FOGEY]

Chris--I don't know how one would justify leaving Harold Johnson off. I think he should rank in the forties or fifties. Johnson owns victories over 8 of your ranked fighters--Charles, Moore, Machen, Godoy, Bivins, Satterfield, Henry, and Valdes.

[Ramon Rojo]

I find it interesting that some you rate Harry Wills higher than Max Schmeling.

[radianttwilight]

I find it interesting that some you rate Harry Wills higher than Max Schmeling.

I think Wills was quite better than Schmeling.

Maybe not in an H2H sense, but certainly in a resume-for-the-era sense.

[Marciano Frazier]

I'm not interested in the exact rankings, especially since it becomes peculiar beyond the top15 in ranking individual numbers, so i'm only gonna go by decades (numbers of 10, not talking about years) in the rankings, i.e.:

1-10: (again, no order, for all of them)
Ali
Louis
Lewis
Marciano
Holmes
Frazier
Foreman
Holyfield
Tyson
Dempsey

11-20:
Walcott
Patterson
Banana Sam
..
etc etc



Note:

1. Only fighters who fought between 1900 and 1999 are allowed. However, when a fighter spent part of his career outside of this time, i.e. in the 2000's or during the 1800's, the accomplishments during that time are to be taken into account. Why this seemingly inconsistent rule? Because all other fighters are judged on their entire career, so it would be unfair to judge those on the edge on a few fights on their end/start of their careers.

Boxers post-2000 are excluded because many haven't finished their careers yet, and it is a general rule of human psychology that a boxer's standing will rise several years after they retired. So, for a fair measurement, they're left out.

Pre-1900 is excluded because documentation on them (complete records, film) does not compare to those of the 20th century, and the rules of boxing were much different back then from what it was during most of the 20th century.


2. I'm looking for a general consensus here where many will disagree, so if you think one fighter should be top80 instead of top90, don't bother. The difference between top20 and top30 is obviously larger, but from there on things are becoming hard to separate. Top80 is only a bit lower than top60, even if there's 20 fighters between them.


3. Currently active fighters who spent part of their career in the 90's are excluded, unless it's clear they're not going to accomplish anything anymore.

So, for instance, Tua will be judged on his entire career despite part of that being in the 2000's. Officially he is still active, but it's not likely he'll achieve anything big in the future, so he's allowed to be on. The same goes for Holyfield and Ruiz. Jeffries had quite some fights before the 1900's and they are included because he was active as a champ in the 1900's. The Klitschko's however, were active in the 90's but are still active today and hence are not included. Corbett is excluded because he fought almost exclusively in the 1800's.

4. Comments on who you like higher, lower, or who is missing on the list are more than welcome, but please state at the cost of which fighter this goes, i.e. which boxer drops down 10 spots, 20 spots or whatever to make room for the new one?


I came up with the following top100 off the top of my head. It is a start and i probably left a few names off and have some unfair rankings.

Here is the list as it is now.

1-10
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Dempsey

11-20
Riddick Bowe
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston
Jack Johnson
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Bob Fitzsimmons
Ingemar Johansson

21-30
Gene Tunney
Floyd Patterson
Max Schmeling
Tim Witherspoon
Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry
Jimmy Young
Chris Byrd
Joe Jeannette
David Tua

31-40
Max Baer
Oliver McCall
Sam Mcvey
Jimmy Ellis
Pinklon Thomas
Hasim Rahman
Archie Moore
Tom Sharkey
Primo Carnera
Ike Ibeabuchi

41-50
Michael Spinks
John Ruiz
Jack Sharkey
Buster Douglas
Ron Lyle
Donovan Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno
Eddie Machen
Bob Baker


51-60
Michael Moorer
Michael Dokes
Corrie Sanders
Jerry Cooney
Cleveland Williams
Tommy Morrison
Tommy Loughran
George Godfrey
Arthuro Godoy
Clarence Henry

61-70
Tony Tucker
Zora Folley
Billy Miske
Lee Murray
Bob Pastor
Oleg Maskaev
Elmer Ray
Marvin Hart
Jimmy Bivins
Rex Layne

71-80
Tony Tubbs
Trevor Berbick
Tommy Gibbons
Ernie Shavers
Larry Gains
Mike Weaver
Fred Fulton
Jess Willard
Turkey Thompson
Ernie Terrel


81-89
Larry Donald
Greg Page
Gerrie Coetzee
Luis Firpo
Shannon Briggs
Buddy Baer
Paulino Uzcudun
Harry Matthews
Roland LaStarza
Mike DeJohn

90-99
James Smith
Bob Satterfield
Gus Ruhlin
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Joe Bugner
Abe Simon
Tommy Burns
Henry Akinwande
Gerrie Coetzee



When the list has evolved to a consensus top100 according to most ESB'ers, i'll analyze the data and use it for a few new threads to come.
Not surprisingly, I find most of your choices near the top entirely reasonable, while I disagree more and more as we get lower on the list.

Some guys who I think shouldn't be on the list:
Larry Donald (what's the best win of the man's career? Bert Cooper??? Was he ever even in the top 10???)
Gerry Coetzee (or at least not two of him)
Mike DeJohn (shouldn't contemporaries who beat him and accomplished more, like, say, Chuvalo, deserve priority?)
Harry Matthews (very good fighter, but basically, he had one big heavyweight win against Layne, was blown out by Marciano and never did anything of serious note in the division again)
Abe Simon (not an elite, didn't really beat much of anyone aside from a then-stepping-stone Walcott)

Some guys who I think should or could be on the list:
Jim Braddock (Baer, Lewis, Farr, decked Louis and gave him a run for his money- not bad at all, surely better than Larry Donald)
Harold Johnson (should be a shoe-in; the man beat Charles, Machen, Valdes, Henry, Godoy, the works- he probably has a decisively-winning record against guys on the list)
Young Stribling (yeah)
Lou Nova (a good share of quality wins, including two over Baer, was viewed as having a serious shot at Joe Louis at one point)


Some guys whose inclusion I find dubious:
Bob Satterfield (a memorable fighter, and pulled of some impressive upsets, but not all that good a heavyweight on the whole)
Tony Tubbs (surely there are more worthy guys than him)


Some guys I think are substantially too low:

Jack Sharkey (I can see this one, but I think he deserves 15-20 spots higher with a resume like his- wins over Carnera, Schmeling, Wills, Loughran, Godfrey, Stribling, etc., several of whom are ranked well above him, and notably faced the best black fighters of his day)
Elmer Ray (easily top 50 in my estimation, arguably even top 30. 50-fight winning streak, beat two prime future champs who are in your top 20)
Ernie Terrell (what makes Folley, Machen and especially Williams so much better than him?
Jimmy Bivins (interim champ, extended run at #1, beat practically everyone in '41-45)
Jess Willard (beat a still-very-formidable Johnson for the title, had a few other solid wins, deserves at least top 60, I'd say)

Some guys who I think are substantially too high:
Gerry Cooney (weak resume, bit of a hype-job)
Cleveland Williams (")
John Ruiz (the guys on the "too-low" list above are probably turning over in their graves at the thought of being ranked below this man)
Bob Baker (I don't see where he was leagues ahead of guys like Valdes and Satterfield, who are way down in the nether reaches of the list)
Corrie Sanders (one-hit wonder)
Hasim Rahman (")
Oliver McCall (")
Buster Douglas ("- although he did beat Berbick and McCall)

[punchy]

Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Dempsey

11-20
Riddick Bowe
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston
Jack Johnson
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Bob Fitzsimmons
Gene Tunney
Ingemar Johansson

21-30
Ingemar Johansson
Floyd Patterson
Max Schmeling
Buster Douglas
Ken Norton
Michael Spinks
Jerry Quarry
Jess Willard
Max Baer
Joe Jeannette
David Tua

31-40
Chris Byrd
Oliver McCall
Sam Mcvey
Jimmy Ellis
Jimmy Young
Hasim Rahman
Archie Moore
Tom Sharkey
Primo Carnera
Ike Ibeabuchi

41-50
John Ruiz
Jack Sharkey
Tim Witherspoon
Jerry Quarry
Ron Lyle
Donovan Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno
Eddie Machen
Bob Baker


51-60
Michael Moorer
Michael Dokes
Corrie Sanders
Jerry Cooney
Cleveland Williams
Tony Tucker
Tommy Loughran
George Godfrey
Arthuro Godoy
Clarence Henry

61-70
Tommy Morrison
Zora Folley
Billy Miske
Lee Murray
Bob Pastor
Oleg Maskaev
Elmer Ray
Marvin Hart
Jimmy Bivins
Rex Layne

71-80
Tony Tubbs
Trevor Berbick
Tommy Gibbons
Ernie Shavers
Larry Gains
Mike Weaver
Fred Fulton
Jess Willard
Leroy Spinks
Ernie Terrel


81-89
Larry Donald
Greg Page
Gerrie Coetzee
Luis Firpo
Shannon Briggs
Buddy Baer
Paulino Uzcudun
Harry Matthews
Roland LaStarza
Mike DeJohn

90-99
James Smith
Bob Satterfield
Gus Ruhlin
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Joe Bugner
Abe Simon
Tommy Burns
Henry Akinwande
Gerrie Coetzee



I have really just adjusted your list mr Pontious, I have moved Douglas and Spinks up as well as a couple of others

[PowerPuncher]

I find it interesting that some you rate Harry Wills higher than Max Schmeling.

Arguably Wills was no1 HW on the planet from 1914-1926

[ChrisPontius]

Unfortunately, i can't edit my original post to update the list, so many of the comments have already
been used.

Mendoza.. read the text of the initial post, i rate per 10 ranks.
Charles and Walcott both have been at the top of the heavyweight division for 5+ years with a lot of
ranked contenders beaten, many people have them in their top20.
You figure Tunney is too low at top40, and think McCall is way too high at top30. McCall however has
a win over a prime Lewis, which is much better than two wins over a nearly-retired Dempsey. He also
has wins over good fighters like Maskaev (first round knockout), Tucker, Akinwande and old but still
capable Holmes. Tunney's heavyweight resume is way too short to justify a spot in the top20, unless
you go by head to head speculation, which is just that: speculation.

On Greb, he accomplished plenty at heavyweight, and during his time there was a vague barrier between
light heavyweight and heavyweight. Most heavyweights made name by beating lightheavyweights, and no
one beat more of them than Greb. He deserves in there.


As for guys like Nova, Renault, LaStarza and others that you think "should not rate", they were
in the top5 for a decent period of time and remember that we're talking about top90 here. Why shouldn't
they rank? You have no problem with guys like Ruhlin, Page and Matthews (to name a few) who have
similar or less accomplishements.



Marciano_Frazier:
Again, too bad i can't edit the original list because many of the suggestions have been taken care of.

On Donald: he beat Valuev according to almost every observer, when he was 37. He had a nice winning
streak in the 90's that was ended by Bowe, and a rather boring "boxers" style, but he's been near
the top for a long time. I agree he's somewhat too high though: i moved him to the lowest bracket.

I removed Abe Simon (top100) and substituted Harold Johnson (top70); switched a few names to do so
but no big changes. I have added Braddock and Nova already in the second list (page 2).
I think Satterfield and Tubbs belong; Satterfield, while losing often, also scored good wins over
quality fighters at heavyweight (he's ranked in the bottom). Tubbs has been in the top5 for twe
consecutive years and had a razor close fight with all time great Riddick Bowe, which many scored in
his favor. He was also the first to beat undefeated Alexander Zolkin. Both when he was past his best.
I don't think top80 is unreasonable for him.


Sharkey was erratic and while i wouldn't mind moving him up, i think none of the top40 should be
demoted. If there's more people calling for it then i will do so. On Terrel, Williams, Machen and
Folley - i have switched them a bit, i think it's more balanced now.

My problem with Willard is that he beat and old and unmotived Johnson under conditions that in no way
reflect those of boxing for the vast majority of the 20th century - it's a dead certain he would've
lost to that same fat, old Johnson had he fought under 15, or even 20 rounds rules. Other than that,
his resume is razor thin and on film he looks very bad. I don't think top80 is unreasonable and i'd
pick many of other top80'ers to beat him.

I moved Cooney down. Calling Rahman, McCall one-hit wonders is severely cutting them short. Both had
fine wins in addition to wins over someone who many rank in the top5, virtually everyone in the top10.
Douglas' resume is shorter outside of Tyson, but still.

Ruiz, love him or hate him (probably the latter), he ranked in the top5 for four years and a few
additional years in the top10. He belongs.


Old Fogey:
I wanted to add Harold Johnson but forgot. As you can read above, he's ranked now, in the top60.


Here is the new list:


1-10
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Johnson

11-20
Riddick Bowe
Jack Dempsey
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Bob Fitzsimmons
Floyd Patterson


21-30
Oliver McCall
Ingemar Johansson
Max Schmeling
Elmer Ray
Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry
Jimmy Young
Archie Moore
Joe Jeannette
David Tua

31-40
Max Baer
Gene Tunney
Sam Mcvey
Tim Witherspoon
Jimmy Ellis
Hasim Rahman
Chris Byrd
Pinklon Thomas
Primo Carnera
Ike Ibeabuchi

41-50
Michael Spinks
John Ruiz
Jack Sharkey
Buster Douglas
Ron Lyle
Tom Sharkey
Donovan Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno
Eddie Machen
Tommy Loughran


51-60
Michael Moorer
Michael Dokes
Harold Johnson
Tommy Morrison
Bob Baker
Rex Layne
George Godfrey
Arthuro Godoy
Jimmy Bivins
Corrie Sanders


61-70
Tony Tucker
Zora Folley
Roland LaStarza
Lee Murray
Bob Pastor
Gerry Cooney
Oleg Maskaev
Trevor Berbick
Marvin Hart



71-80
Tony Tubbs
Tami Mauriello
Cleveland Williams
Harry Greb
Billy Miske
Larry Gains
Mike Weaver
Fred Fulton
Jess Willard
Turkey Thompson
Ernie Terrel


81-89
Lou Nova
Luis Firpo
Shannon Briggs
Paulino Uzcudun
Harry Matthews
Ernie Shavers
Bob Satterfield
Jack Renault
Clarence Henry
Tommy Farr

90-99
Gus Ruhlin
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Greg Page
Tommy Burns
Jimmy Braddock
Joe Choynski
Buddy Baer
Lee Savold
Larry Donald

[mattdonnellon]

IMO ray, tua, bruno, satterfield, henry , sanders way too high. layne, baker, murray, carnera too high also. tunney too low.godfrey and terrel as well. A lot of critism? Not at all. I like your list, the IMO is the important bit. I have a list somewhere and if i can find it, I'll post it. Consensus? I doubt it but great fun!

[Muchmoore]

I find it interesting that some you rate Harry Wills higher than Max Schmeling.

:huh

[mattdonnellon]

1 m ali
2 j louis
3 l holmes
4 l lewis
5 r marciano
6 g foreman
7 j johnson
8 j dempsey
9 j frazier
10 m tyson

11 e holyfield
12 s liston
13 j jeffries
14 g tunney
15 r bowe
16 k norton
17 v klitscho
18 b fitz
19 s langford
20 m schmeling

21 e charles
22 j walcott
23 j corbett
24 j sharkey
25 p jackson
26 h wills
27 j young
28 j jeanette
29 s mcvey
30 g godfrey

31 t witherspoon
32 m baer
33 f patterson
34 g quarry
35 a moore
36 i johansson
37 j ellis
38 m spinks
39 r lyle
40 j l sullivan

41 j willard
42 t burns
43 w klitscho
44 j doughlas
45 p maher
46 t sharkey
47 t gibbons
48 e terrell
49 e martin
50 m hart


51 j bivins
52 k norfolk
53 h greb
54 t tubbs
55 p carnera
56 t tucker
57 k mccoy
58 j clarke
59 j goddard
60 l mccarty

61 f slavin
62 e shaver
63 i ikebuchi
64 d tua
65 m moorer
66 g ruhlin
67 j choynski
68 j braddock
69 b conn
70 t loughran

71 r mercer
72 c byrd
73 g smith
74 e machen
75 z folley
76 g cooney
77 e ray
78 o mccall
79 m dokes
80 o bonavena

81 b miske
82 b pastor
83 p j o'brien
84 h johnson
85 j dillon
86 t farr
87 l firpo
88 f childs
89 g coetzee
90 p thomas

91 m weaver
92 t berbick
93 j tate
94 j bugner
95 h cooper
96 g chuvalo
97 j root
98 l gains
99 j smith
100 f bruno

Using the called for criteria Klitschos(2), Goddard, Slavin, Childs, Jackson, Sullivan have to go. Maybe Maher and Corbett also.And just looking at my own list Harold Johnson is too low and where is Gunboat Smith on your list? Damn hard too do when everytime you look at your own list you revise it!
My nine subs to suit the criteria are;

cl williams
g carpentier
b levinsky
e schaaf
a godoy
s ferguson
g gardner
d jones
D ruddock

Ps I think Povetkin will crack this list big time-think solid skills and great work-rate.

[Muchmoore]

I agree with most of the link, but McCall is wayyyyyy too high. Top 50 at best.

[mattdonnellon]

Actually a consensus top 100 is possible if we take all the top 100 you get and allocate points from 100 to 1(from the top, ie no 1=100) and total them up. however the lists need to be in full order, ie not 0-10, 11-20 etc.

[SuzieQ49]

1-10
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield- i sure hope to god u dont rate him at 3, I dont think he belongs in top 10
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Johnson

* overall nice

11-20
Riddick Bowe
Jack Dempsey
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Bob Fitzsimmons- way too high, he had a style of a bareknuckler
Floyd Patterson

* nice picks

21-30
Oliver McCall- WAY WAY to high, glorified sparring partner
Ingemar Johansson
Max Schmeling
Elmer Ray
Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry
Jimmy Young
Archie Moore
Joe Jeannette
David Tua

* nice list overall outside of mccall

31-40
Max Baer
Gene Tunney
Sam Mcvey
Tim Witherspoon
Jimmy Ellis- way to high, doesnt rate over ernie terell machen folley
Hasim Rahman
Chris Byrd- way to high, not better than folley and machen
Pinklon Thomas- good pick
Primo Carnera- way to high, doesnt rate well h2h
Ike Ibeabuchi

41-50
Michael Spinks- how? he ducked tony tucker like the plague
John Ruiz- way to high, i like ruiz but hes not top 50 material
Jack Sharkey
Buster Douglas
Ron Lyle
Tom Sharkey
Donovan Ruddock- nice choice
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno- too high, huge stamina issues. tubbs much better
Eddie Machen- higher
Tommy Loughran


51-60
Michael Moorer
Michael Dokes- good pick
Harold Johnson- very good pick, should be a little higher though
Tommy Morrison- way to high, glass chin he was not world class.... a toughman contestant was all he was. morrison was a joke
Bob Baker- very very interesting pick and I like it, baker could fight at his best and he beat a lot of good depth
Rex Layne- good pick, rex at his best was a tough cookie
George Godfrey- too low, he belongs in the top 30. hall of famer
Arthuro Godoy- way to high
Jimmy Bivins- like the pick
Corrie Sanders- o god super southpaw in the top 60 despite not being rated in the top 10 during he first 13 years of his career? he beat exactley one ring magazine top 10 contender in his life


61-70
Tony Tucker- too low, should be above spinx
Zora Folley- too low, folley was A level talent, he was better than eddie machen. say what u want about his chin, the man was a gifted boxer.
Roland LaStarza- Ok, but above nino valdez and henry? no way
Lee Murray- very good pick
Bob Pastor
Gerry Cooney
Oleg Maskaev- LOL ARE U SERIOUS? u might as well put lance whitaker in ur top 50! LMAO LMAO maskaev was a joke, he was a 2 fight wonder
Trevor Berbick
Marvin Hart



71-80
Tony Tubbs - should be higher
Tami Mauriello
Cleveland Williams- should be much higher, as adressed below.
Harry Greb
Billy Miske
Larry Gains- nice pick, could be higher
Mike Weaver- nice pick could be higher
Fred Fulton
Jess Willard
Turkey Thompson- good pick
Ernie Terrel- too low.. terell belongs much higher, he beat very good competiton and was a top technician in his prime with an awesome jab at 6'6


81-89
Lou Nova
Luis Firpo
Shannon Briggs- o dear god, briggs was god awful and beat no one
Paulino Uzcudun
Harry Matthews- doesnt deserve it
Ernie Shavers
Bob Satterfield
Jack Renault
Clarence Henry- I cant believe how low he is, adressed below
Tommy Farr

90-99
Gus Ruhlin
Leroy Haynes- I LOVE THIS PICK!!! THANK YOU
Nino Valdes- sickening how low he is, he should be much higher, especially the turkeys u have over him
Greg Page- He had A level talent, maybe a higher ranking?
Tommy Burns
Jimmy Braddock
Joe Choynski
Buddy Baer- I think he could be higher
Lee Savold- He doesnt deserve it harry bobo is a good choice
Larry Donald- THE WORST PICK ON THE LIST, this guys a joke




my major disagreements


- Harry Kid Mathews over nino valdez? is that a joke? mathews was a well managed protected overhyped white heavyweight who accomplished close to nothing at heavyweight....at 179lb he stood little to no chance against a 6'3 210lb boxer puncher like nino valdez...cockell beat mathews 3 times, who valdez wiped the floor with. i know u don think highly of nino valdez, but he was a # 1 rated contender, and viewed as a threat to marciano. Cus Damato refused to give a title shot to the # 2 rated 33 year old valdez in 1957-58 out of fear. would he have beaten rocky? no way, but he was a threat..and certainly a major threat to patterson. valdez holds numerous wins over good heavyweight contenders throughout the 1950s and one great dominating win over ezzard charles in 1953. He also gave archie moore a very close fight in 1955 after moore had wiped the floor with henry and baker. On Film, Valdez had a powerful long sharp left jab, two fisted knockout power, and good skills for a big man. he defintley deserves to rate higher than 92, and certainly higher than kid mathews!



Clarence Henry 89? O dear god, what happened? Henry is in the international boxing hall of fame, and was viewed by the papers as the absolute best next to walcott, charles, marciano during the era. You have bob satterfield and bob baker both ranked well ahead of him, and henry went 3-0 with 2 BRUTAL knockouts against both of them!!! On film Henry is a gifted superb boxer puncher with electrifying handspeed, and lightning like power. he would have made a very formidable challenger for charles in his title reign, and would have been a very tough opponent for joe louis and rocky marciano in 1951(fights that almost came off)....... henry went blind after the beating he got from archie moore, and thats why he lost to hurricane jackson and slade...the man was blind! but in his prime he is one of the most underated fighters. I believe he rates well within the top 60


I would replace lee savold with Harry Bobo, a much better bigger fighter


like the Lee Q Murray pick One of the best heavyweight contenders of louis era. Ray Arcel called him the divisons best puncher next to louis. Murray was a 6'3 210lb Puncher and he was a consistent top 5 rated ring magazine contender throughout the 40s. He held claim to Interim heavyweight champion recognized by Ohio and Maryland Commissions courtesty of a big 8 round TKO of top contender 6'4 220lb harry bobo. the papers viewed murray as a huge threat to louis, and an elite level fighter. Murray beat jimmy bivins twice, and according to the papers should have gone 3-2 against bivins if not for a big robbery in the 2nd fight. You have Bivins in your top 60, and I believe Murray accomplished just as much, but is the better more dangerous heavyweight h2h against the rest of the field with his size and power and toughness. murray belongs in the top 60

I dont believe lastarza rates over henry and valdez. He in fact DUCKED both of them according to an article I have, and he accomplished far less for the era than they did. henry and valdez beat much better opposition, were much more proven against the era, and they have alot more to offer than lastarza does h2h

C williams should be much higher. he has a rare combination of handspeed mobility and knockout power that few big men in history had. he was also tough as nails and extremley feared. he beat better competition than you think too.......for a man who was so avoided.

Larry Donald in the top 100? o dear god, Donald has NEVER EVER been rated in the top 10 by ring magazine , never EVER beat a ring magazine top 10 contender and u have him in the top 100 and not a consistent ring magazine elite fighter like lee q murray?


Replace Donald with bonavena or chuvalo

[OLD FOGEY]

reading over these posts--Harry Matthews--good fighter but basically a lightheavy like Gibbons--I think he should be dropped from the list.

Lee Savold--Well, Savold was rated 7 times between 1939 and 1950. He defeated his first ranked fighter in 1936 and defeated his last ranked fighter in 1950. He defeated, by my count, 14 fighters who appeared in the Ring yearly rankings. Savold was certainly an in and outer but he fought more good men and defeated more good men over a longer period than most on this list. I think he deserves a spot in the 90's.

Melio Bettina--Bettina was actually the #1 contender in 1944. Defeated Tiger Jack Fox, Gunnar Barlund, Red Burman, Pat Valentino, Jimmy Bivins, Harry Bobo (2), Gus Dorazio, Lou Brooks, Buddy Walker, Curtis Sheppard, and Eddie Blunt. I think he should be in the top 100.

I also think Chuvalo and Bonavena should be on this list somewhere.

I would take Matthews, Donald, and Briggs off.

[Loewe]

I don´t understand why people rank Bowe that highly, the only thing of note was edging the smaller Holyfield two times. That´s not enough to be an atg :bart

[mattdonnellon]

One thing I notice in an overview of the lists, we all favor some era a little bit more than others. I lean more to the 1890-1910's than most, SuzieQ to the 50's(and size) and ChrisP to the later years. I'm not saying we are wrong but it's good to be aware!

[mattdonnellon]

Having some time i evaluated ChrisP's list(revised) and my own.
There are glaring dissimilarities.
he has 23 fighters on his list that I havent;
Rahman(top 40)
Ruiz(t50)
morrison
baker
layne
sanders
lastarza
murray
maskaev
mauriello
fulton
thompson
nova
briggs
uzcuden
matthews
satterfield
renault
haynes
valdez-I should have him, I think
page
b baer
savold
and Donald.
So I agree with 77 of his!
And to match that I have 23 that are not on his list, starting with Tommy Gibbons at 42 and
Ed Martin(44)
norfolk
mccoy
Jeff Clarke
nccarty
conn
Gunboat Smith
bonavena
O'Brien
dillon
coetzee
tate
bugner
cooper
chuvalo
root
bonecrusher
carpentier
levinsky
ferguson
gardner and
Doug Jones.
So altogether we agree on only 54.(Some consensus!)
It can also be seen that I favor the early periods and lightheavy-cum-heavyweights while Chris goes for the fifties and the last couple of decades. Alls fair in love and boxing.

[SuzieQ49]

Matt Donnollen, I lean toward the 40s-80s heavyweights as a whole, yes defintley

[Loewe]

Matt Donnollen, I lean toward the 40s-80s heavyweights as a whole, yes defintley

80s? Outside of Tyson and Holmes the 80s were as bad as today´s.

[ChrisPontius]

I'm surprised that i forgot about Bonavena and Chuvalo, they obviously belong.


I put Bonavena in the top50, at the cost of Morisson. Chuvalo in top90, at the cost of Matthews. Had
to switch a few.


Matt Donnellon, your comments are obviously appreciated, but i think you're leaning very heavily, as
you say yourself, towards lightheavyweights and what i would consider otherwise lesser accomplished
fighters. Carpentier, Levinsky, Fergusson, Cooper, Bonecrusher, Gardner, Tate, Coetzee, Doug Jones,
etc all had very marginal achievements at heavyweight.

It's a pain to insert new names because if the new one enters, say, the top70, one
needs to move down to 80, then one to 90, and then one out of the top100.
So i'd like to ask you to pick your 3 best fighters (i.e. biggest disagreements), where you want
them and why. Compare their accomplishements with those of the 9 potentially neighbouring fighters.


SuzieQ, i know you like the 40's but since i'm looking for a consensus, i am not going to implement
most changes that you would have. You want to move guys like C. Williams and Henry up, but others
want them lower. Also i have to call you on a few statements, i.e. you argue that Williams had a
unique combination of handspeed, size and power and that he was ducked by contemporaries. And that's
fair enough, but if you replace the name "Williams" by "Sanders", the statement is equally true, but
you want to rate him much lower. Again, many will agrue with you or against you. I have removed
Matthews however.


New list:



1-10
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Johnson

11-20
Riddick Bowe
Jack Dempsey
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Bob Fitzsimmons
Floyd Patterson


21-30
Oliver McCall
Ingemar Johansson
Max Schmeling
Elmer Ray
Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry
Jimmy Young
Archie Moore
Joe Jeannette
David Tua

31-40
Max Baer
Gene Tunney
Sam Mcvey
Tim Witherspoon
Jimmy Ellis
Hasim Rahman
Chris Byrd
Pinklon Thomas
Primo Carnera
Ike Ibeabuchi

41-50
Michael Spinks
John Ruiz
Jack Sharkey
Buster Douglas
Ron Lyle
Tom Sharkey
Donovan Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno
Eddie Machen
Tommy Loughran


51-60
Michael Moorer
Michael Dokes
Harold Johnson
Oscar Bonavena
Bob Baker
Rex Layne
George Godfrey
Arthuro Godoy
Jimmy Bivins
Corrie Sanders


61-70
Tony Tucker
Zora Folley
Roland LaStarza
Lee Murray
Bob Pastor
Gerry Cooney
Oleg Maskaev
Trevor Berbick
Marvin Hart
Tommy Morrison


71-80
Tony Tubbs
Tami Mauriello
Cleveland Williams
Harry Greb
Billy Miske
Larry Gains
Mike Weaver
Fred Fulton
Jess Willard
Turkey Thompson
Ernie Terrel


81-89
Lou Nova
Luis Firpo
Shannon Briggs
Paulino Uzcudun
George Chuvalo
Ernie Shavers
Bob Satterfield
Jack Renault
Clarence Henry
Tommy Farr

90-99
Gus Ruhlin
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Greg Page
Tommy Burns
Jimmy Braddock
Joe Choynski
Buddy Baer
Lee Savold
Larry Donald

[SuzieQ49]

SuzieQ, i know you like the 40's but since i'm looking for a consensus, i am not going to implement
most changes that you would have. You want to move guys like C. Williams and Henry up, but others
want them lower. Also i have to call you on a few statements, i.e. you argue that Williams had a
unique combination of handspeed, size and power and that he was ducked by contemporaries. And that's
fair enough, but if you replace the name "Williams" by "Sanders", the statement is equally true, but
you want to rate him much lower. Again, many will agrue with you or against you. I have removed
Matthews however.



So how could you possibly have bob baker and especially bob satterfield rated over clarence henry?


btw, most posters here have said to move clarence henry UP from # 89, a horribly low ranking. name me one poster who claimed henry does not deserve a 89 ranking? I understand perhaos you dont know alot about the man(not many do), but I can assure you that the papers considered clarence henry by far the best heavyweight out there next to louis, marciano, charles, walcott of the era. John Garfield has spoken EXTREMLEY high on clarence henry many times.


Satterfield was blasted away in ONE round by henry, i have the fight..yet u have satterfield over henry?


baker went 0-2 vs henry getting knocked out in the first competitive fight, and losing nearly all 10 rounds in the rematch!!! yet u have baker 35 spots ahead???

you also have rex layne ahead, and though rex accomplished more.....I think layne would have got his ass kicked by clarence henry. on a side note, how is lastarza going to beat henry? I can't see how roland's going to beat him in any way. henry is much faster sharper more powerful than roland.



though u might not want to hear this, Al Weill ducked Clarence Henry. A fight between # 3 rated henry and # 1 rated marciano could have been made in late 1951 as a final eliminator, but Weill was scared to lose rockys # 1 rating, and instead decided to duck henry and instead chose a washed up fat slow unrated lee savold. Would henry have beaten marciano? No, but it would have been one of marcianos toughest fights.


lastly, I see you have decided to not move nino valdez up which i find suprising considering he dominated a man in your top 20, and he was a # 1 rated contender 2 times during his career. At 6'3 215lb, he had a sharp long left jab which pulverized opponents......and he had two fisted knockout power. surely that rates him well on a h2h scale?

[SuzieQ49]

I put Bonavena in the top50

wait bonavena in the top 50? over Zora Folley who boxed his ears off with ease? the bonavena who couldnt beat a skilled boxer if his life depended on it?

I think you should switch morrison with clarence henry......and put bonavena in at 89. that would be rational. I will never stop hounding you about clarence henry. LoL.



whether or not you agree with me on clarence henry(not a big deal) I am interested to hear why you believe baker deserves to be 35 spots ahead of clarence henry, and why satterfield deserves a rating over clarence henry?




btw like ur list overall

[Quick Cash]

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Sonny Liston
6. Mike Tyson
7. George Foreman
8. Rocky Marciano
9. Joe Frazier
10. Jack Johnson

11. Evander Holyfield
12. Jack Dempsey
13. James Jeffries
14. Jersey Joe Walcott
15. Harry Wills
16. Riddick Bowe
17. Vitali Klitschko
18. Wladimir Klitschko
19. Peter Jackson
20. Max Schmeling

21. Floyd Patterson
22. Ingemar Johansson
23. Joe Jeannette
24. Jimmy Bivins
25. Eddie Machen
26. Jerry Quarry
27. Sam McVea
28. Ike Ibeabuchi
29. Max Baer
30. Ken Norton

31. Zora Folley
32. Tim Witherspoon
33. Cleveland Williams
34. Jimmy Young
35. Tony Tucker
36. James Douglas
37. Primo Carnera
38. Elmer Ray
39. Ron Lyle
40. Ray Mercer

41. David Tua
42. Jimmy Ellis
43. Jack Sharkey
44. George Godfrey
45. Frank Bruno
46. Clarence Henry
47. Tom Sharkey
48. James Corbett
49. Oscar Bonavena
50. Tommy Morrison

51. Earnie Shavers
52. Donovan Ruddock
53. Pinklon Thomas
54. Ernie Terrell
55. Roland LaStarza
56. Chris Byrd
57. Buddy Baer
58. Rex Layne
59. Fred Fulton
60. Bob Satterfield

61. Michael Moorer
62. Gerry Cooney
63. Jim Braddock
64. Ruslan Chagaev
65. Lee Q Murray
66. Nikolay Valuev
67. Buster Mathis
68. Trevor Berbick
69. Bob Baker
70. Nino Valdes

71. Mike Weaver
72. Mike DeJohn
73. Oliver McCall
74. Bob Cleroux
75. George Chuvalo
76. Andrew Golota
77. Joe Bugner
78. Oleg Maskaev
79. John Ruiz
80. Hasim Rahman

81. Bob Pastor
82. Turkey Thompson
83. Jameel McCline
84. Tony Tubbs
85. Shannon Briggs
86. Samuel Peter
87. Tommy Burns
88. Mac Foster
89. Thad Spencer
90. Tami Mauriello

91. Greg Page
92. John Tate
93. Henry Cooper
94. Joe Choynski
95. Tommy Farr
96. Nathan Mann
97. Gerrie Coetzee
98. Michael Dokes
99. Carl Williams
100.Jess Willard

I made what I view as fair adjustments in ranking fighters fighting under different rulesets. This was only recently rounded out so it is still a working list of sorts. Jackson, Patterson, and Norton were all moved down fairly recently, and I had Baer at a substantially higher standing up until recently.

I'm also contemplating Johansson's place in the list. I wonder if there is case for putting him below Machen, a man he knocked out in a single round.

[SuzieQ49]

Wow QuickCash I really like the list. my only strong objection is vitali klitscko at 17. but it seems to me u got most of the eras right, including the 1950s a difficult era to rate. baker and valdez do belong aside eachother, layne and lastarza are rated accordingly, and henry is rated the highest at 46. STRONG JOB! other than a few minor disagreements and one major disagreement, i really like the list

[OLD FOGEY]

wait bonavena in the top 50? over Zora Folley who boxed his ears off with ease? the bonavena who couldnt beat a skilled boxer if his life depended on it?

I think you should switch morrison with clarence henry......and put bonavena in at 89. that would be rational. I will never stop hounding you about clarence henry. LoL.



whether or not you agree with me on clarence henry(not a big deal) I am interested to hear why you believe baker deserves to be 35 spots ahead of clarence henry, and why satterfield deserves a rating over clarence henry?




btw like ur list overall

Bonavena lost to Folley in what? His 9th fight? Actually, Bonavena later defeated an aging Folley. I don't really know which one of these two I would rate higher.

Henry should be ahead of Baker and Satterfield. Layne is another matter. For whatever reason, Henry lost to Johnson and Moore when he moved up to fight the really top men. Layne defeated Walcott, and also Charles in a disputed decision. For me, accomplishment trumps potential.

[Loewe]

Wow QuickCash I really like the list. my only strong objection is vitali klitscko at 17. but it seems to me u got most of the eras right, including the 1950s a difficult era to rate. baker and valdez do belong aside eachother, layne and lastarza are rated accordingly, and henry is rated the highest at 46. STRONG JOB! other than a few minor disagreements and one major disagreement, i really like the list

Vitali, Wladimir and Bowe ahead of Patterson, Schmeling, Jeanette, McVey, Jackson? Ibeabuchi at 28?

[Quick Cash]

Vitali, Wladimir and Bowe ahead of Patterson, Schmeling, Jeanette, McVey, Jackson? Ibeabuchi at 28?

If those are your only major objections, then I would say that we are mostly in agreement. It is a list of 100 after all.

I think a lot of people here will agree with me on my opinion on Patterson. He simply was not an elite heavyweight no matter how you slice it. Wlad, Vitali, and Bowe are closer to that category hence the rating.

The problem I have is that it gets increasingly trifling towards the middle, and practically moot and futile towards the end. I don't think a true consensus can be achieved, to be perfectly honest.

[SuzieQ49]

Bonavena lost to Folley in what? His 9th fight? Actually, Bonavena later defeated an aging Folley. I don't really know which one of these two I would rate higher.

Bonavena got knocked down twice and decisioned by another Jimmy Ellis.... who was not that good.



Speaking of the Folley fight, Folley was already well past his prime by 1965 when he knocked down and won every single round against bonavena. Bonavena was 8-0... but within months he would go on to beat Gregorio peralta and george chuvalo. The folley loss was the ONLY "legit" loss bonavena had between the start of his career and frazier I, so this is a very impressive win for a well over the hill folley.

[Marciano Frazier]

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Sonny Liston
6. Mike Tyson
7. George Foreman
8. Rocky Marciano
9. Joe Frazier
10. Jack Johnson

11. Evander Holyfield
12. Jack Dempsey
13. James Jeffries
14. Jersey Joe Walcott
15. Harry Wills
16. Riddick Bowe
17. Vitali Klitschko
18. Wladimir Klitschko
19. Peter Jackson
20. Max Schmeling

21. Floyd Patterson
22. Ingemar Johansson
23. Joe Jeannette
24. Jimmy Bivins
25. Eddie Machen
26. Jerry Quarry
27. Sam McVea
28. Ike Ibeabuchi
29. Max Baer
30. Ken Norton

31. Zora Folley
32. Tim Witherspoon
33. Cleveland Williams
34. Jimmy Young
35. Tony Tucker
36. James Douglas
37. Primo Carnera
38. Elmer Ray
39. Ron Lyle
40. Ray Mercer

41. David Tua
42. Jimmy Ellis
43. Jack Sharkey
44. George Godfrey
45. Frank Bruno
46. Clarence Henry
47. Tom Sharkey
48. James Corbett
49. Oscar Bonavena
50. Tommy Morrison

51. Earnie Shavers
52. Donovan Ruddock
53. Pinklon Thomas
54. Ernie Terrell
55. Roland LaStarza
56. Chris Byrd
57. Buddy Baer
58. Rex Layne
59. Fred Fulton
60. Bob Satterfield

61. Michael Moorer
62. Gerry Cooney
63. Jim Braddock
64. Ruslan Chagaev
65. Lee Q Murray
66. Nikolay Valuev
67. Buster Mathis
68. Trevor Berbick
69. Bob Baker
70. Nino Valdes

71. Mike Weaver
72. Mike DeJohn
73. Oliver McCall
74. Bob Cleroux
75. George Chuvalo
76. Andrew Golota
77. Joe Bugner
78. Oleg Maskaev
79. John Ruiz
80. Hasim Rahman

81. Bob Pastor
82. Turkey Thompson
83. Jameel McCline
84. Tony Tubbs
85. Shannon Briggs
86. Samuel Peter
87. Tommy Burns
88. Mac Foster
89. Thad Spencer
90. Tami Mauriello

91. Greg Page
92. John Tate
93. Henry Cooper
94. Joe Choynski
95. Tommy Farr
96. Nathan Mann
97. Gerrie Coetzee
98. Michael Dokes
99. Carl Williams
100.Jess Willard

I made what I view as fair adjustments in ranking fighters fighting under different rulesets. This was only recently rounded out so it is still a working list of sorts. Jackson, Patterson, and Norton were all moved down fairly recently, and I had Baer at a substantially higher standing up until recently.

I'm also contemplating Johansson's place in the list. I wonder if there is case for putting him below Machen, a man he knocked out in a single round.
No Ezzard Charles? Even in the top 100?!?!

[Mendoza]

My comments on a few picks

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Sonny Liston
6. Mike Tyson
7. George Foreman
8. Rocky Marciano
9. Joe Frazier
10. Jack Johnson

11. Evander Holyfield
12. Jack Dempsey
13. James Jeffries
14. Jersey Joe Walcott >>A bit high
15. Harry Wills
16. Riddick Bowe
17. Vitali Klitschko >> Props to you
18. Wladimir Klitschko >>props to you
19. Peter Jackson
20. Max Schmeling

21. Floyd Patterson
22. Ingemar Johansson
23. Joe Jeannette >>>A tad high
24. Jimmy Bivins >>>Way too high
25. Eddie Machen
26. Jerry Quarry
27. Sam McVea
28. Ike Ibeabuchi
29. Max Baer
30. Ken Norton

31. Zora Folley >>Too high
32. Tim Witherspoon
33. Cleveland Williams >>Too high
34. Jimmy Young
35. Tony Tucker
36. James Douglas
37. Primo Carnera
38. Elmer Ray
39. Ron Lyle
40. Ray Mercer

41. David Tua
42. Jimmy Ellis
43. Jack Sharkey
44. George Godfrey
45. Frank Bruno
46. Clarence Henry
47. Tom Sharkey
48. James Corbett >>Too low
49. Oscar Bonavena
50. Tommy Morrison

51. Earnie Shavers
52. Donovan Ruddock
53. Pinklon Thomas
54. Ernie Terrell
55. Roland LaStarza >>>Way too high. Maybe top 90-100
56. Chris Byrd
57. Buddy Baer >>Should not rate
58. Rex Layne
59. Fred Fulton >>>Way too high
60. Bob Satterfield >>Should not rate

61. Michael Moorer
62. Gerry Cooney
63. Jim Braddock
64. Ruslan Chagaev
65. Lee Q Murray >>>Too high/
66. Nikolay Valuev
67. Buster Mathis >>Should not rate
68. Trevor Berbick
69. Bob Baker
70. Nino Valdes

71. Mike Weaver
72. Mike DeJohn >>>Should not rate
73. Oliver McCall
74. Bob Cleroux >>should not rate
75. George Chuvalo >>>Should not rate
76. Andrew Golota >>>Should not rate
77. Joe Bugner
78. Oleg Maskaev
79. John Ruiz
80. Hasim Rahman

81. Bob Pastor
82. Turkey Thompson
83. Jameel McCline >>Shpold not rate
84. Tony Tubbs
85. Shannon Briggs
86. Samuel Peter
87. Tommy Burns
88. Mac Foster
89. Thad Spencer
90. Tami Mauriello >>Should not rate

91. Greg Page
92. John Tate
93. Henry Cooper >>Should not rate
94. Joe Choynski
95. Tommy Farr
96. Nathan Mann >>Should not rate
97. Gerrie Coetzee
98. Michael Dokes
99. Carl Williams
100.Jess Willard

I made what I view as fair adjustments in ranking fighters fighting under different rulesets. This was only recently rounded out so it is still a working list of sorts. Jackson, Patterson, and Norton were all moved down fairly recently, and I had Baer at a substantially higher standing up until recently.

I'm also contemplating Johansson's place in the list. I wonder if there is case for putting him below Machen, a man he knocked out in a single round.

Overall pretty solid.

[SuzieQ49]

65. Lee Q Murray >>>Too high/

Mendoza I would love for you to explain why Lee Q Murray being rated at # 65 is too high a ranking? Ray Arcel called Murray the best puncher of the 1940s next to louis. Murray was 6'3 210lb, he beat oustanding competiton and was Recognized Interm heavyweight champion by maryland and Ohio commissions during world war II. He was a consistent highly rated member of Ring Magazine.







Cleveland Promoter Believes





Murray Can Take Joe Louis





BY JACK CUDDY





NEW YORK, Dec. 7—(UP)—



Larry Atkins of Cleveland, America's second ranking prizefight promoter, believes that Lee. Q. Murray, big Connecticut negro, is the most dangerous potential threat to Sgt. Joe Louis' heavyweight crown. "If the war wuz to end tomorrow,"says promoter Atkins,"I'd say the man most likely to lick Louis wuz Lee Q. Murray." This Atkins' praise of Murray was so entirely unexpected that a startled reporter inquired of the visiting Cleveland entrepreneur last night, "how come you boost, Murray, when he almost'ruined Jimmy Bivins, your meal, ticket, last week?" Atkins, a youngish, broadshouldered, black-haired chap of 41, fixed the reporter with steely eyes, and remonstrated,'In our Cleveland promotions,we have no meal tickets. We have cards. A Cleveland fighter is a card as long as he can lick anybody we bring in. When he loses to an outsider, the outsider becomes the card."In the case of Murray vs. "Card" Bivins of Cleveland, promoter Atkins was doubly fortunate. Little Bivins won an unpopular 10-round decision over Murray last Wednesday night, after Murray had the Cleveland negro staggering about the ring and dripping with gore. The fans booed the-decision so long, and so lustily that a re-match was as necessary as if by royal command. They'll tangle, again in late February — after both principals recover from their wounds. Atkins, who in four short years changed Cleveland from one of the country's worst fight cities into a promoter's paradise, said, "I knew Murray was a good fighter before I matched him'with Bivins. But during the first two rounds, I thought Murray would ruin me. He never let loose with a punch. Disgustedly, I left my seat at the ringside, and walked to the rear of the arena. But Murray was just mouse-trapping his man. He knew Bivins was a cutie and he was sucking him in. Bivins left himself open in the third round, and Murray hit him. Bivins rolled with that right-hand punch to the chin; but the force was so terrific that Bivins wasn't the same for the rest of the fight.

[SuzieQ49]

No Ezzard Charles? Even in the top 100?!?!


No. Charles was down 30 times in his career, and lost 25 times. He was a mauling brawler type with less than average power who would not due well against the big men in other eras.

[mattdonnellon]

Denver Ed Martin was a top class, tall, skilled HW. He beat the likes of Armstrong, McVey,Griffin, Klondike, Childs, Ferguson-all top men at the time, the type of men that Jack Johnson's pre-title fame was built on.He handled Ruhlin with ease while his sparring partner.
Gunboat Smith too was skilled and a hard hitter. For about 5-6 years he was near the top of the Hw ladder and beat loads of top contenders, Flynn, Moran, Willard, Wells, Levinsky, Ross, Morris, Pelkey, Coffey oh and one Sam Langford.
now I'll eat my hat if they are not better resumes than ;
Matthis-Chuvalo and ?
Buddy Baer-best win was inflicting the last of 26 defeats on Galento.
Mac Foster-best win was ...ah...ah...
Bob Satterfield-lost to loads of average fighters at his peak.
Bob Baker-lost to almost every good fighter that he met near their peak.
Uzcuden-Losses near peak to Petersen, King Levinsky,Walker, Risko and more.
Briggs- nearly beat ancient George and Botha?
Savold-His gallant loss to Marciano was his FORTIETH defeat!
Thompson-win over a green Ray and Murray his best efforts.
Murray-only Thompson(see above)and a lone split win over Bivins merit here.
There are many more but surely Martin and Gunboat achieved more in their time that the above?

[mattdonnellon]

I dont get this obsession on size eg saying so-and-so was 6-3 and 220 pounds or whatever. Surely we are judging these fighters on their accomplishments otherwise lets just measure them all up, remember Turkey Thompson beat Abe Simon!

[SuzieQ49]

O man I forgot about denver ed martin! cannot believe he is left off!

[SuzieQ49]

I dont get this obsession on size eg saying so-and-so was 6-3 and 220 pounds or whatever. Surely we are judging these fighters on their accomplishments otherwise lets just measure them all up, remember Turkey Thompson beat Abe Simon!

thompson weighed what 210lb?? thats not small weight wise. sure he was a midget, but not a midget in weight(or power) for that matter LOL



Murray-only Thompson(see above)and a lone split win over Bivins merit here.

Matt Donollen I love your opinions and think your extremley knowledgeabl,e far more so than myself. but I think ur missing a few here.


Murray beat Jimmy Bivins 2x, Turkey Thompson, Harry Bobo, Buddy Walker, Al Hart, Lou Brooks, Perk daniels 2x, hatchetman sheppard 5x, and a spectacular come from behind victory over 6'6 clayton worlds. All of these men outside of worlds, were in the Ring Magazine top 10 when Murray beat them. Murray held claim to Interim heavyweight champion during world war II because of his victory over bobo.


I know your not big on size, but I do think size is relevance...to see how the fighters would do against the modern big men. Murray beat 6'1 225lb al hart, 6'4 220lb harry bobo, and 6'6 clayton worlds.

[OLD FOGEY]

Bonavena got knocked down twice and decisioned by another Jimmy Ellis.... who was not that good.



Speaking of the Folley fight, Folley was already well past his prime by 1965 when he knocked down and won every single round against bonavena. Bonavena was 8-0... but within months he would go on to beat Gregorio peralta and george chuvalo. The folley loss was the ONLY "legit" loss bonavena had between the start of his career and frazier I, so this is a very impressive win for a well over the hill folley.

Look. I think it is a weak argument to consider Bonavena ready to tackle an experienced contender like Folley, who was still rated #1 two years later.

And this was also the viewpoint at the time. Even the radio talk show guys had guests on who lamented the state of boxing when a fighter as inexperienced as Bonavena was pushed into a Madison Square Garden main event against a top contender like Folley.

[SuzieQ49]

Perhaps experience over youth....but I do believe Bonavena was a fast rising prospect when 33 year old folley took him down.

[mattdonnellon]

Of course size is an important asset as weight can be as well as speed, experience, courage, power, timing, attitude, punch resistance, management, life circumctances and a host of other things that you all know as well as me.The point is that in an exercise such as this , all these have contrived to give us the men and the records that we are evaluating. To-day I watched a clip of Larry Gains against Carnera and marvelled at the boxing brain and skills that he used against a much bigger opponent. I could argue that these are the attributes needed against the bigger, heavier men of to-day and cite Byrd, toney, jones, Spinks, Holyfield etc.
I'm willing to accept that Lee Q Murray may be better than I'm allowing him and he'd be high up on anyone's punchers list but he lost too many times for me to rate him as high as you do, especially without marque wins like say Moorer, Ray, Fulton, Gunboat, McCall, Doughlas had ,to shore up their otherwise average run of good, but not great wins(a la Murray IMO). I think any fighter in the top all-time list of 200 Hw's were decent, top-class fighters and it often comes down to the quality of the opposition and ultimatedly how we rate their period. I don't rate the 1940-50's that high, SuzieQ does and it's his perogative and he may be just as right(or even rightER!) than me.
I respect everyone that can put to-gether a top 100 list that is coherent and makes sense ,as all of the lists here do.

[mattdonnellon]

[quote=SuzieQ49]thompson weighed what 210lb?? thats not small weight wise. sure he was a midget, but not a midget in weight(or power) for that matter LOL]

Thompson was around (A ROUND!) 186 when he met Simon and gave him 70 pounds and about 71/2 inches in height but mea culpa, he didn't beat Abe, it was a draw.

[OLD FOGEY]

Denver Ed Martin was a top class, tall, skilled HW. He beat the likes of Armstrong, McVey,Griffin, Klondike, Childs, Ferguson-all top men at the time, the type of men that Jack Johnson's pre-title fame was built on.He handled Ruhlin with ease while his sparring partner.
Gunboat Smith too was skilled and a hard hitter. For about 5-6 years he was near the top of the Hw ladder and beat loads of top contenders, Flynn, Moran, Willard, Wells, Levinsky, Ross, Morris, Pelkey, Coffey oh and one Sam Langford.
now I'll eat my hat if they are not better resumes than ;
Matthis-Chuvalo and ?
Buddy Baer-best win was inflicting the last of 26 defeats on Galento.
Mac Foster-best win was ...ah...ah...
Bob Satterfield-lost to loads of average fighters at his peak.
Bob Baker-lost to almost every good fighter that he met near their peak.
Uzcuden-Losses near peak to Petersen, King Levinsky,Walker, Risko and more.
Briggs- nearly beat ancient George and Botha?
Savold-His gallant loss to Marciano was his FORTIETH defeat!
Thompson-win over a green Ray and Murray his best efforts.
Murray-only Thompson(see above)and a lone split win over Bivins merit here.
There are many more but surely Martin and Gunboat achieved more in their time that the above?

I don't think it is fair to say Elmer Ray was green when he lost to Thompson. He had about 34 fights and had beaten top men such as Obie Walker and Otis Thomas.

Savold lost 40 times, but he also won 93 times, more than almost anyone on this list. His winning percentage at 93-40-3 is better after all than Jimmy Young at 34-19-2 and Young is in the top 30. Jimmy Braddock and Mike Weaver also had poorer winning percentages than Savold. You made a big pitch for Denver Ed Martin, but he won only 23 of 39 fights.
The case for Savold is that he was besting rated fighters from the mid-thirties into the fifties, a record for longevity matched by only a few contenders.

[Marciano Frazier]

I don't think it is fair to say Elmer Ray was green when he lost to Thompson. He had about 34 fights and had beaten top men such as Obie Walker and Otis Thomas.
I think Walker- at least at that stage- and Thomas are pretty dubious in terms of status as "top men," at least if we're talking about the world class level. Per boxrec, Ray was on a 15-0-1 streak going into the Thompson fight, but with only 8 knockouts (a 50% knockout average) and was going the distance with the likes of Phil Johnson and George Fitch (who he later mowed down in short order). His wins over Savold, Walcott and Charles didn't come until over three years after his fights with Thompson. Ray may not have been "green" per se, but I think he was substantially short of his peak.

Savold lost 40 times, but he also won 93 times, more than almost anyone on this list. His winning percentage at 93-40-3 is better after all than Jimmy Young at 34-19-2 and Young is in the top 30. Jimmy Braddock and Mike Weaver also had poorer winning percentages than Savold. You made a big pitch for Denver Ed Martin, but he won only 23 of 39 fights.
The case for Savold is that he was besting rated fighters from the mid-thirties into the fifties, a record for longevity matched by only a few contenders.
I think Savold has a case, but would probably leave him out, myself.
Savold did best some contenders, but I believe he lost substantially more than he won against their ilk, and he never really beat a great fighter or a championship-tier one. If he'd managed a win over, say, Conn, Bivins, Ray, Louis or Marciano, then he'd have a better case, I think. Young and Braddock had better "big" wins than Savold, and each had a short-but-sweet run where they were consistently besting name opposition.

[OLD FOGEY]

I think Walker- at least at that stage- and Thomas are pretty dubious in terms of status as "top men," at least if we're talking about the world class level. Per boxrec, Ray was on a 15-0-1 streak going into the Thompson fight, but with only 8 knockouts (a 50% knockout average) and was going the distance with the likes of Phil Johnson and George Fitch (who he later mowed down in short order). His wins over Savold, Walcott and Charles didn't come until over three years after his fights with Thompson. Ray may not have been "green" per se, but I think he was substantially short of his peak.


I think Savold has a case, but would probably leave him out, myself.
Savold did best some contenders, but I believe he lost substantially more than he won against their ilk, and he never really beat a great fighter or a championship-tier one. If he'd managed a win over, say, Conn, Bivins, Ray, Louis or Marciano, then he'd have a better case, I think. Young and Braddock had better "big" wins than Savold, and each had a short-but-sweet run where they were consistently besting name opposition.

1. Checking through the Ring rankings, Ray had only 5 victories over fighters who were ever ranked in the yearly ratings by Ring Magazine--Leroy Haynes, Otis Thomas, Lee Savold, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles--He had beaten Haynes and Thomas before he fought Thompson. Thomas was the #9 contender in 1940. He won a fight in early 1941 and then was inactive for a year, dropping out of the rankings, before losing to Ray. Ray's big wins were in the future, but truthfully, he did not fight that many top men. Thomas was certainly one of his better opponents.

2. Savold's record, as best as I can tell, was 17 wins and 19 losses against men ranked by Ring Magazine in their yearly rankings. That is actually pretty impressive. He defeated Ford Smith (2), Erv Sarlin, Solly Krieger, Lou Brooks, Lou Nova (2), Johnny Flynn, Lem Franklin (2), Nate Bolden, Tony Musto, Gus Dorazio, Joe Baksi, Bob Garner, Buddy Walker, and Bruce Woodcock. In comparision, for example, Buddy Baer, whom few question as a top 100 heavyweight, had only 4 wins against 5 losses against ranked Ring heavyweights. Buddy defeated Abe Simon, Nathan Mann, and Tony Galento, as well as edging an 8 round newspaper decision over Savold. Given that his "victory" over Savold was a newspaper verdict, I would consider Savold as having by far the better resume in quality as well as quantity.

No heavyweight contender defeated Louis, Marciano, or Conn, and Savold fought Bivins and Ray at their peaks--In fact, he fought everyone except Louis at their peak.

I guess it is question of how much longevity and the depth of opposition beaten matter, without that one big marquee victory.

[mattdonnellon]

tHE PROBLEMS WITH sAVOLD ARE TWOFOLD;
1) HE HAD NO MARQUE WINS AND
2) HIS LOSSES ARE SPREAD FAIRLY EVENLY THROUGHOUT HIS LONG CAREER.
Having said that, I'd rate him over Buddy anytime for the reasons you stated.
If the list was on longevity or the number of rated fighters beaten Savold would sail in, but for me it's about acco,plishments(mainly) with a little sprinkling of peak ability. My beef with Savold, Baer,Thompson etc. isnot that its crazy to include them but that ,say, Gunboat and Denver Ed had better claim.
Old fogey wrote;
You made a big pitch for Denver Ed Martin, but he won only 23 of 39 fights.
Ed probably had many more fights but anyway he had only 9 recoprded losses but look at the quality.
Johnson(2)
mcvea(3)-he also beat Sam
Armstrong(2)-part of a long series that Martin edged.
wills
Cowler-about 7 years after Ed's last serious fight.

[Arka]

No. Charles was down 30 times in his career, and lost 25 times. He was a mauling brawler type with less than average power who would not due well against the big men in other eras.

Hmmm....didn't most of his losses come when he was old and shot?
I'll have to check out his fights again.

[Mendoza]

Mendoza I would love for you to explain why Lee Q Murray being rated at # 65 is too high a ranking? Ray Arcel called Murray the best puncher of the 1940s next to louis. Murray was 6'3 210lb, he beat oustanding competiton and was Recognized Interm heavyweight champion by maryland and Ohio commissions during world war II. He was a consistent highly rated member of Ring Magazine.

Murray was never a champion. He lost 17 times, including several matches to journeyman. He was also KO'd early a few times. Top 100? No way.

Could Murray punch? Sure, but there are many punchers who were better not on a top 100 list.

[Quick Cash]

No Ezzard Charles? Even in the top 100?!?!

Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore are the top two light heavyweights ever in history. I don't rate fighters twice.

[OLD FOGEY]

tHE PROBLEMS WITH sAVOLD ARE TWOFOLD;
1) HE HAD NO MARQUE WINS AND
2) HIS LOSSES ARE SPREAD FAIRLY EVENLY THROUGHOUT HIS LONG CAREER.
Having said that, I'd rate him over Buddy anytime for the reasons you stated.
If the list was on longevity or the number of rated fighters beaten Savold would sail in, but for me it's about acco,plishments(mainly) with a little sprinkling of peak ability. My beef with Savold, Baer,Thompson etc. isnot that its crazy to include them but that ,say, Gunboat and Denver Ed had better claim.
Old fogey wrote;
You made a big pitch for Denver Ed Martin, but he won only 23 of 39 fights.
Ed probably had many more fights but anyway he had only 9 recoprded losses but look at the quality.
Johnson(2)
mcvea(3)-he also beat Sam
Armstrong(2)-part of a long series that Martin edged.
wills
Cowler-about 7 years after Ed's last serious fight.

I don't see Martin edging Armstrong--He won one decision in five fights with Armstrong. Two were no decisions. The first one I don't know much about--the second saw Martin survive 6 knockdowns. The other two fights were knockouts by Armstrong. I think Armstrong had the better of the series.

Martin's record--after a ko loss to Armstrong in 1899, he goes on a 16 bout streak with 14 victories and two ND's to Armstrong. This is his basic top run, ending with a defeat to Johnson, and ko's by Armstrong and McVea. Martin rallied to edge a ten rounder against McVea and he would also win a six against the aged Frank Childs, but two more ko losses to McVea about ended his career. He was a top man for two or three years at most.

Savold actually also had a 14 bout winning streak which included ko's of Lou Nova, Lou Brooks, and Buddy Knox, ending with a loss to Tony Musto whom he beat in a return.

I would say Martin has the biggest marquee win, the 10 round decision over the teenage Sam McVea, but McVea stopped him on three other occasions. Savold defeated 7 men who were rated in the top five heavyweights by The Ring at one time or another--decisioning Joe Baksi and Gus Dorazio, and ko'ing Lou Nova (2), Lem Franklin (2), Johnny Flynn, Buddy Walker, and Bruce Woodcock.

My own take on these two. Savold was stopped 10 times in 137 fights (1 to 13.7)--Martin 8 times in 39 fights, more than 1 in 5. I think Savold would probably have ko'd Martin if they had fought and it is very arbitrary to say Martin reached a higher peak than Savold. Savold definitely defeated many more good men over a much longer period of time.

[mattdonnellon]

The fact that you include a win over Lee Brooks(who was never much good anyway) in only Brook's 10th fight after 5 months a pro shows how thin your argument is.
Savold was very durable(much more so than Martin, whoes weak body cost him dear) and had a longer career near the top but on every other level he looses out.
I named Martin's conquerers but look at who beat Lee. Withers, Bobo, Musto, Blunt,Fitzpatrick, Muscato, damn it Al Hoosman whitewashed him! Cant think of any top hw that lost as many to average fighters.These guys dont beat Martin, they are his Ike Hayes, Yank Kenny, Fred Russel's. Savold has some good wins as you point out but if anything the McVea(an outstanding teenager) Armstrong, Griffin, Childs, Klondike wins and his good showing with a peak Johnson top that.v

[ChrisPontius]

I've added Matt Donnellon's suggestions of Denver Ed Martin, Gunboat Smith, at the cost of Gus Ruhlin and Buddy Baer.

I've moved Savold up a bit, just like Clarence Henry.

SuzieQ, I don't see why Valdes should move up. He had one great win over a prime Charles (refused a rematch), but lost pretty much every other time he stepped up, and those who beat him (Moore, Baker, Johnson, Satterfield, Henry, Machen, Folley) all are ranked above him, so his assessment seems fair. His record against the current top100 is something like 1-8. He's lucky to even make the top100 if you ask me, but hey it's a consensus list, your vote got him in there in the first place. :p


Lastly, Jack Renault also moved up a bit. His resumes is more than solid and he was a top guy for quite a few years, but unfortunately the man is overlooked often.



If anyone disagrees let me know.



New list:



1-10
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Johnson

11-20
Riddick Bowe
Jack Dempsey
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Bob Fitzsimmons
Floyd Patterson


21-30
Oliver McCall
Ingemar Johansson
Max Schmeling
Elmer Ray
Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry
Jimmy Young
Archie Moore
Joe Jeannette
David Tua

31-40
Max Baer
Gene Tunney
Sam Mcvey
Tim Witherspoon
Jimmy Ellis
Hasim Rahman
Chris Byrd
Pinklon Thomas
Primo Carnera
Ike Ibeabuchi

41-50
Michael Spinks
John Ruiz
Jack Sharkey
Buster Douglas
Ron Lyle
Tom Sharkey
Donovan Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno
Eddie Machen
Tommy Loughran


51-60
Michael Moorer
Michael Dokes
Harold Johnson
Oscar Bonavena
Bob Baker
Rex Layne
George Godfrey
Arthuro Godoy
Jimmy Bivins
Corrie Sanders


61-70
Tony Tucker
Zora Folley
Roland LaStarza
Lee Murray
Bob Pastor
Gerry Cooney
Oleg Maskaev
Trevor Berbick
Marvin Hart
Tommy Morrison


71-80
Tony Tubbs
Tami Mauriello
Cleveland Williams
Harry Greb
Clarence Henry
Larry Gains
Jack Renault
Fred Fulton
Jess Willard
Turkey Thompson
Ernie Terrel


81-89
Lou Nova
Luis Firpo
Shannon Briggs
Paulino Uzcudun
Billy Miske
Ernie Shavers
Bob Satterfield
Mike Weaver
George Chuvalo
Tommy Farr

90-99
Denver Ed Martin
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Greg Page
Tommy Burns
Jimmy Braddock
Joe Choynski
Gunboat Smith
Lee Savold
Larry Donald

[Mendoza]

I've added Matt Donnellon's suggestions of Denver Ed Martin, Gunboat Smith, at the cost of Gus Ruhlin and Buddy Baer.

I've moved Savold up a bit, just like Clarence Henry.

SuzieQ, I don't see why Valdes should move up. He had one great win over a prime Charles (refused a rematch), but lost pretty much every other time he stepped up, and those who beat him (Moore, Baker, Johnson, Satterfield, Henry, Machen, Folley) all are ranked above him, so his assessment seems fair. His record against the current top100 is something like 1-8. He's lucky to even make the top100 if you ask me, but hey it's a consensus list, your vote got him in there in the first place. :p


Lastly, Jack Renault also moved up a bit. His resumes is more than solid and he was a top guy for quite a few years, but unfortunately the man is overlooked often.



If anyone disagrees let me know.



New list:



1-10
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Johnson

11-20
Riddick Bowe
Jack Dempsey
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Bob Fitzsimmons
Floyd Patterson


21-30
Oliver McCall
Ingemar Johansson
Max Schmeling
Elmer Ray
Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry
Jimmy Young
Archie Moore
Joe Jeannette
David Tua

31-40
Max Baer
Gene Tunney
Sam Mcvey
Tim Witherspoon
Jimmy Ellis
Hasim Rahman
Chris Byrd
Pinklon Thomas
Primo Carnera
Ike Ibeabuchi

41-50
Michael Spinks
John Ruiz
Jack Sharkey
Buster Douglas
Ron Lyle
Tom Sharkey
Donovan Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno
Eddie Machen
Tommy Loughran


51-60
Michael Moorer
Michael Dokes
Harold Johnson
Oscar Bonavena
Bob Baker
Rex Layne
George Godfrey
Arthuro Godoy
Jimmy Bivins
Corrie Sanders


61-70
Tony Tucker
Zora Folley
Roland LaStarza
Lee Murray
Bob Pastor
Gerry Cooney
Oleg Maskaev
Trevor Berbick
Marvin Hart
Tommy Morrison


71-80
Tony Tubbs
Tami Mauriello
Cleveland Williams
Harry Greb
Clarence Henry
Larry Gains
Jack Renault
Fred Fulton
Jess Willard
Turkey Thompson
Ernie Terrel


81-89
Lou Nova
Luis Firpo
Shannon Briggs
Paulino Uzcudun
Billy Miske
Ernie Shavers
Bob Satterfield
Mike Weaver
George Chuvalo
Tommy Farr

90-99
Denver Ed Martin
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Greg Page
Tommy Burns
Jimmy Braddock
Joe Choynski
Gunboat Smith
Lee Savold
Larry Donald

While the list is fine, I have a few questions where I can learn a thing or two from your answers.


Why did the following fighters make the cut:


Tami Mauriello

Harold Johnson

Lou Nova

Bob Baker

Rex Layne

Jack Renault

Bob Satterfield

I think there are better options out there, but I want to learn why you like them where they are.

[ChrisPontius]

While the list is fine, I have a few questions where I can learn a thing or two from your answers.


Why did the following fighters make the cut:


Tami Mauriello

Harold Johnson

Lou Nova

Bob Baker

Rex Layne

Jack Renault

Bob Satterfield

I think there are better options out there, but I want to learn why you like them where they are.

First of all, i'm looking for a consensus list, so not all of those were necessarily my picks, although for the fighters mentioned i think they belong.

Here is why.

Tami Mauriello - started his heavyweight campaign in the early 40's with a very good win/loss ratio, including wins over Pastor, Burman, Savold (2x), Nova, Oma 2x and only three losses, two close ones to Bivins, and one to Oma which twice was avenged. After that loss to Oma, he went on a 15 fight winning streak, with his last one a knockout victory over 25-0 Bruce Woodcock, giving him the #1 contender status.
Annual ratings:

1942: Mauriello #2 contender
1943: Mauriello #2 contender
1944: Mauriello #2 contender
1945: Mauriello #2 contender
1946: Mauriello #1 contender

So that's five years of being ranked in the yearly top2! He did not really recover from the knockout Joe Louis gave him (still haven't seen that one on film), but damnit that was one hell of a run! One of Louis' better wins.
I bet you can't find many fighters in the top80 that were ranked in the top2 for five consecutive years. If it was my own list, i'd move him up instead of down.


Harold Johnson - This man is very underappreciated, probably because he was a lightheavyweight. But his accomplishments are nothing to overlook - he was miles, no, lightyears ahead of guys like Gibbons en Miske, who are over highly ranked because they lost to a legend.

Johnson beat Moore (top30, though he also lost 4 times to him), Godoy, Bivins (top60), Satterfield 2x(top90), Charles (top20), Valdes (top100), Machen (top50), Henry (top80) and Doug Jones. That's a pretty impressive list, and i don't think a rating of top50 is unfair given the rating of the men he beat.


Lou Nova - has wins over Farr (top90), Max Baer 2x (top40) and several fringe contenders. His resume is significantly shorter than the former two mentioned, so i guess he could move down from where he is now, which is top90.


Bob Baker - was ranked in the ring top10 for six years, two of in the top5. He went 25-0 with a win over Bivins, before being stopped by Henry. He went on to beat Wallace, Layne 3x and Valdes 2x. He did have his fair share of losses though. I ranked him based on the fact that he was in the top10 for quite an extended amount of time, but if you think top50 is too high, let me know. I think a few spot lower would not be unreasonable.


Rex Layne - was 34-1 when he ran into Marciano, which was quite a battle from which he never really recovered. He was ranked in the top5 for two years and in the top10 one other year. He beat Walcott (top20), Charles (top20) and Thompson(top80) and Satterfield (top90). With the exception of Thompson, they were in their primes when he beat them. He is ranked in the top50 and while he has a good amount of losses, he has better wins than most in the top50.


Jack Renault - highly overlooked because he was an ignored contender during Dempsey's reign and perhaps ignored by Dempsey's management after he gave him a tough time during sparring. He knocked out Fulton (top80) and Floyd Johnson, while beating Godfrey (top60) on points and also losing one to him. His prime was short but sweet. He was ranked in the top5 twice and once in the top10. Note that the rankings started at 1924: he probably made the top10 in 1923 and arguably 1922 as well.
He is in the top80 and i believe he belongs. If anything, Godfrey could move down a few spots.


Bob Satterfield - was erratic, but did have several good wins, including Oma, Harold Johnson (top50), Baker (top50), Williams (top80, was 31-1) and Valdes (top100). Given his pletoria of losses, i could understand moving him down (he is currently in the second-lowest slot), but a guy like Gunboat Smith also has tons of losses between his wins, and he's ranked as well.



If you would like to see changes, please be specific on who must move up or down, by how much, and at the cost of whom.

[Marciano Frazier]

While the list is fine, I have a few questions where I can learn a thing or two from your answers.


Why did the following fighters make the cut:


Tami Mauriello

Harold Johnson

Lou Nova

Bob Baker

Rex Layne

Jack Renault

Bob Satterfield

I think there are better options out there, but I want to learn why you like them where they are.
I would agree that Nova, Baker, Layne, Renault and Satterfield are debatable inclusions (not ridiculous, but debatable), but Johnson definitely belongs, and probably Mauriello as well.

You agree that, say, Clarence Henry, Eddie Machen, Ezzard Charles and Arturo Godoy belong on the list, right? Johnson beat all of those guys. He beat top heavyweights all the way from Godoy to Baker to Henry to Valdes to Satterfield to Charles clear up to Machen in the early '60s. He's a shoe-in for the top 100 heavyweights.

Mauriello was not a great fighter, but he was a consistent heavyweight elite for a solid four years in '42 to '46, finishing among the top two contenders every year. He beat most of the staple ranked heavyweights of that period multiple times, and was never stopped in his 75+ fights before Louis did him in for the title.

[Marciano Frazier]

1. Checking through the Ring rankings, Ray had only 5 victories over fighters who were ever ranked in the yearly ratings by Ring Magazine--Leroy Haynes, Otis Thomas, Lee Savold, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles--He had beaten Haynes and Thomas before he fought Thompson. Thomas was the #9 contender in 1940. He won a fight in early 1941 and then was inactive for a year, dropping out of the rankings, before losing to Ray. Ray's big wins were in the future, but truthfully, he did not fight that many top men. Thomas was certainly one of his better opponents.
Yes, noting again that Haynes was shot and Thomas was coming off a layoff- the Savold, Walcott and Charles fights were all of Ray's wins over currently-active, prime, viable top fighters, and did, as I say, all come over three years after his fights with Thompson. When this is taken in conjunction with the fact that his general results also improved post-Thompson- pre-Thompson, he was, as I say, coming up with about a 50% knockout average against mediocre to poor opposition, while in his next few dozen fights post-Thompson, he progressed to winning more and more knockouts earlier and earlier, until in 1946 he posted a run of 17 knockouts in a row (including the Savold KO) with only one going beyond five rounds- then I think it is fair to say that Ray looks to have improved substantially over the three years between his fights with Thompson and his fights with Savold/Walcott/Charles.

2. Savold's record, as best as I can tell, was 17 wins and 19 losses against men ranked by Ring Magazine in their yearly rankings. That is actually pretty impressive. He defeated Ford Smith (2), Erv Sarlin, Solly Krieger, Lou Brooks, Lou Nova (2), Johnny Flynn, Lem Franklin (2), Nate Bolden, Tony Musto, Gus Dorazio, Joe Baksi, Bob Garner, Buddy Walker, and Bruce Woodcock. In comparision, for example, Buddy Baer, whom few question as a top 100 heavyweight, had only 4 wins against 5 losses against ranked Ring heavyweights. Buddy defeated Abe Simon, Nathan Mann, and Tony Galento, as well as edging an 8 round newspaper decision over Savold. Given that his "victory" over Savold was a newspaper verdict, I would consider Savold as having by far the better resume in quality as well as quantity.

No heavyweight contender defeated Louis, Marciano, or Conn, and Savold fought Bivins and Ray at their peaks--In fact, he fought everyone except Louis at their peak.

I guess it is question of how much longevity and the depth of opposition beaten matter, without that one big marquee victory.
I think another problem that people have here, although it hasn't been articulated, is that Savold not only doesn't have a "marquee win," he doesn't really even have a "marquee struggle." That is, with Buddy Baer, for example, although he doesn't have a marquee win either, the way he had a prime Joe Louis down and hurt and was competitive with him still lends him credit as a guy who was at least a threat to elite, "marquee" fighters. On the other hand, Savold was pretty much crushed in all of his encounters with fighters of this mold; Bivins and Conn decisioned him pretty easily, Ray obliterated him, and he wasn't competitive in being ground down against either Louis or Marciano. If he had at least managed to score a knockdown or take one of those guys to a split decision or somesuch, people would be more liable to view him as an elite fighter. Also, most of the wins you list for him above were over fringe-level guys- I'd say I'm fairly well-versed in the era, but I wouldn't even have remembered that guys like Ford Smith and Solly Krieger ever made the annual top 10, and although they were a step more influential, the likes of Tony Musto and Johnny Flynn are far from awe-inspiring names on one's resume as well. Only a few of those guys were what you'd call "staple" top 10 fighters.

Savold's results against ranked fighters follow a pretty consistent pattern; he was dominated by cream-of-the-crop fighters (Bivins, Conn, Ray, Louis, Marciano), won and lost his share against second-tier guys (Nova, Baksi, Mauriello, Baer, Woodcock), and got the better of fringe-contender-level opposition (Musto, Flynn, Smith, etc.). His outstanding longevity and resulting depth-of-opposition do set him apart as a noteworthy contender, but I also think his ugly win-loss record and lack of any wins or competitive performances against top-drawer opponents make a solid argument for keeping him outside of this list.

[OLD FOGEY]

I would agree that Nova, Baker, Layne, Renault and Satterfield are debatable inclusions (not ridiculous, but debatable), but Johnson definitely belongs, and probably Mauriello as well.

You agree that, say, Clarence Henry, Eddie Machen, Ezzard Charles and Arturo Godoy belong on the list, right? Johnson beat all of those guys. He beat top heavyweights all the way from Godoy to Baker to Henry to Valdes to Satterfield to Charles clear up to Machen in the early '60s. He's a shoe-in for the top 100 heavyweights.

Mauriello was not a great fighter, but he was a consistent heavyweight elite for a solid four years in '42 to '46, finishing among the top two contenders every year. He beat most of the staple ranked heavyweights of that period multiple times, and was never stopped in his 75+ fights before Louis did him in for the title.

I don't think Layne is an arbitrary inclusion. Not many men have victories over two lineal champions who were close to their peak. I would consider top victories the first criteria, myself, and Layne's top victories stand up to most.

[Loewe]

1-10
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Johnson

11-20
Riddick Bowe
Jack Dempsey
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Bob Fitzsimmons
Floyd Patterson


21-30
Oliver McCall
Ingemar Johansson
Max Schmeling
Elmer Ray
Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry
Jimmy Young
Archie Moore
Joe Jeannette
David Tua

31-40
Max Baer
Gene Tunney
Sam Mcvey
Tim Witherspoon
Jimmy Ellis
Hasim Rahman
Chris Byrd
Pinklon Thomas
Primo Carnera
Ike Ibeabuchi

41-50
Michael Spinks
John Ruiz
Jack Sharkey
Buster Douglas
Ron Lyle
Tom Sharkey
Donovan Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno
Eddie Machen
Tommy Loughran


51-60
Michael Moorer
Michael Dokes
Harold Johnson
Oscar Bonavena
Bob Baker
Rex Layne
George Godfrey
Arthuro Godoy
Jimmy Bivins
Corrie Sanders


61-70
Tony Tucker
Zora Folley
Roland LaStarza
Lee Murray
Bob Pastor
Gerry Cooney
Oleg Maskaev
Trevor Berbick
Marvin Hart
Tommy Morrison


71-80
Tony Tubbs
Tami Mauriello
Cleveland Williams
Harry Greb
Clarence Henry
Larry Gains
Jack Renault
Fred Fulton
Jess Willard
Turkey Thompson
Ernie Terrel


81-89
Lou Nova
Luis Firpo
Shannon Briggs
Paulino Uzcudun
Billy Miske
Ernie Shavers
Bob Satterfield
Mike Weaver
George Chuvalo
Tommy Farr

90-99
Denver Ed Martin
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Greg Page
Tommy Burns
Jimmy Braddock
Joe Choynski
Gunboat Smith
Lee Savold
Larry Donald
green = should be higher

red = should be lower

[OLD FOGEY]

Yes, noting again that Haynes was shot and Thomas was coming off a layoff- the Savold, Walcott and Charles fights were all of Ray's wins over currently-active, prime, viable top fighters, and did, as I say, all come over three years after his fights with Thompson. When this is taken in conjunction with the fact that his general results also improved post-Thompson- pre-Thompson, he was, as I say, coming up with about a 50% knockout average against mediocre to poor opposition, while in his next few dozen fights post-Thompson, he progressed to winning more and more knockouts earlier and earlier, until in 1946 he posted a run of 17 knockouts in a row (including the Savold KO) with only one going beyond five rounds- then I think it is fair to say that Ray looks to have improved substantially over the three years between his fights with Thompson and his fights with Savold/Walcott/Charles.


I think another problem that people have here, although it hasn't been articulated, is that Savold not only doesn't have a "marquee win," he doesn't really even have a "marquee struggle." That is, with Buddy Baer, for example, although he doesn't have a marquee win either, the way he had a prime Joe Louis down and hurt and was competitive with him still lends him credit as a guy who was at least a threat to elite, "marquee" fighters. On the other hand, Savold was pretty much crushed in all of his encounters with fighters of this mold; Bivins and Conn decisioned him pretty easily, Ray obliterated him, and he wasn't competitive in being ground down against either Louis or Marciano. If he had at least managed to score a knockdown or take one of those guys to a split decision or somesuch, people would be more liable to view him as an elite fighter. Also, most of the wins you list for him above were over fringe-level guys- I'd say I'm fairly well-versed in the era, but I wouldn't even have remembered that guys like Ford Smith and Solly Krieger ever made the annual top 10, and although they were a step more influential, the likes of Tony Musto and Johnny Flynn are far from awe-inspiring names on one's resume as well. Only a few of those guys were what you'd call "staple" top 10 fighters.

Savold's results against ranked fighters follow a pretty consistent pattern; he was dominated by cream-of-the-crop fighters (Bivins, Conn, Ray, Louis, Marciano), won and lost his share against second-tier guys (Nova, Baksi, Mauriello, Baer, Woodcock), and got the better of fringe-contender-level opposition (Musto, Flynn, Smith, etc.). His outstanding longevity and resulting depth-of-opposition do set him apart as a noteworthy contender, but I also think his ugly win-loss record and lack of any wins or competitive performances against top-drawer opponents make a solid argument for keeping him outside of this list.

Fair enough. You make a strong and balanced argument.

Still, being rated 7 times in 12 years, and defeating seven men who were ranked in the top five heavyweights at one time or another--Baksi and Dorazio by decision, Nova, Franklin, Flynn, Walker, and Woodcock by knockout--is a good showing against the second tier fellows which few other contenders can match.

[OLD FOGEY]

The fact that you include a win over Lee Brooks(who was never much good anyway) in only Brook's 10th fight after 5 months a pro shows how thin your argument is.
Savold was very durable(much more so than Martin, whoes weak body cost him dear) and had a longer career near the top but on every other level he looses out.
I named Martin's conquerers but look at who beat Lee. Withers, Bobo, Musto, Blunt,Fitzpatrick, Muscato, damn it Al Hoosman whitewashed him! Cant think of any top hw that lost as many to average fighters.These guys dont beat Martin, they are his Ike Hayes, Yank Kenny, Fred Russel's. Savold has some good wins as you point out but if anything the McVea(an outstanding teenager) Armstrong, Griffin, Childs, Klondike wins and his good showing with a peak Johnson top that.v

Brooks is on my list because he was rated. Now someone like Kid Riviera wasn't ever rated, but went 29-9 and beat Elmer Ray, Pat Comiskey, Sid Peaks, Abel Cestac, Johnny Shkor, Omelio Agramonte, and Billy Gilliam. Obviously a dangerous opponent. Eddie Blunt was never rated, but beat Leroy Haynes, Jack Trammell, Jorge Brescia, Al Gainer, Abe Simon, Tony Musto, Buddy Baer, and Nathan Mann. Obviously a dangerous opponent. Al Hoosman was an undefeated fighter until he lost to Savold in their first match, having won all 15 or all 26 of his matches depending on the source.

The bottom line comparing Savold with Martin. Martin beat his first good opponent in 1900. His beat his last good opponent in 1904. If he didn't lose to second-tier fighters it was mainly because he stopped fighting top men for the most part in his middle twenties. He beat no one of substance, unless you count the mediocre if famous Victor McLaglen, after 1904. Savold was consistently fighting up to 10 or so fights a year for 15 or so years against top or at least rated competition.

[Mendoza]

First of all, i'm looking for a consensus list, so not all of those were necessarily my picks, although for the fighters mentioned i think they belong.

Here is why.

Tami Mauriello - started his heavyweight campaign in the early 40's with a very good win/loss ratio, including wins over Pastor, Burman, Savold (2x), Nova, Oma 2x and only three losses, two close ones to Bivins, and one to Oma which twice was avenged. After that loss to Oma, he went on a 15 fight winning streak, with his last one a knockout victory over 25-0 Bruce Woodcock, giving him the #1 contender status.
Annual ratings:

1942: Mauriello #2 contender
1943: Mauriello #2 contender
1944: Mauriello #2 contender
1945: Mauriello #2 contender
1946: Mauriello #1 contender

So that's five years of being ranked in the yearly top2! He did not really recover from the knockout Joe Louis gave him (still haven't seen that one on film), but damnit that was one hell of a run! One of Louis' better wins.
I bet you can't find many fighters in the top80 that were ranked in the top2 for five consecutive years. If it was my own list, i'd move him up instead of down.


Harold Johnson - This man is very underappreciated, probably because he was a lightheavyweight. But his accomplishments are nothing to overlook - he was miles, no, lightyears ahead of guys like Gibbons en Miske, who are over highly ranked because they lost to a legend.

Johnson beat Moore (top30, though he also lost 4 times to him), Godoy, Bivins (top60), Satterfield 2x(top90), Charles (top20), Valdes (top100), Machen (top50), Henry (top80) and Doug Jones. That's a pretty impressive list, and i don't think a rating of top50 is unfair given the rating of the men he beat.


Lou Nova - has wins over Farr (top90), Max Baer 2x (top40) and several fringe contenders. His resume is significantly shorter than the former two mentioned, so i guess he could move down from where he is now, which is top90.


Bob Baker - was ranked in the ring top10 for six years, two of in the top5. He went 25-0 with a win over Bivins, before being stopped by Henry. He went on to beat Wallace, Layne 3x and Valdes 2x. He did have his fair share of losses though. I ranked him based on the fact that he was in the top10 for quite an extended amount of time, but if you think top50 is too high, let me know. I think a few spot lower would not be unreasonable.


Rex Layne - was 34-1 when he ran into Marciano, which was quite a battle from which he never really recovered. He was ranked in the top5 for two years and in the top10 one other year. He beat Walcott (top20), Charles (top20) and Thompson(top80) and Satterfield (top90). With the exception of Thompson, they were in their primes when he beat them. He is ranked in the top50 and while he has a good amount of losses, he has better wins than most in the top50.


Jack Renault - highly overlooked because he was an ignored contender during Dempsey's reign and perhaps ignored by Dempsey's management after he gave him a tough time during sparring. He knocked out Fulton (top80) and Floyd Johnson, while beating Godfrey (top60) on points and also losing one to him. His prime was short but sweet. He was ranked in the top5 twice and once in the top10. Note that the rankings started at 1924: he probably made the top10 in 1923 and arguably 1922 as well.
He is in the top80 and i believe he belongs. If anything, Godfrey could move down a few spots.


Bob Satterfield - was erratic, but did have several good wins, including Oma, Harold Johnson (top50), Baker (top50), Williams (top80, was 31-1) and Valdes (top100). Given his pletoria of losses, i could understand moving him down (he is currently in the second-lowest slot), but a guy like Gunboat Smith also has tons of losses between his wins, and he's ranked as well.



If you would like to see changes, please be specific on who must move up or down, by how much, and at the cost of whom.

Intersting case for Mauriello. I can buy that one.

Still not sold on Satterfield, Renault, or Nova.

I take it modern fighters don't make the cut? IMO, guys like Brewster, McCall, Rhaman, Tua, both K-bros, Chagaev, and maybe Ibragimov or Valuev are better than the above names you made a case for.

If you want to go old school, Corbett, Jackson, Slavin, and Sullivan belong over them too.

[Marciano Frazier]

Intersting case for Mauriello. I can buy that one.

Still not sold on Satterfield, Renault, or Nova.

I take it modern fighters don't make the cut? IMO, guys like Brewster, McCall, Rhaman, Tua, both K-bros, Chagaev, and maybe Ibragimov or Valuev are better than the above names you made a case for.

If you want to go old school, Corbett, Jackson, Slavin, and Sullivan belong over them too.
His standards for the list are in the first post- he's not including guys who are still active and near the top or who were finished before 1900.

[Big Ukrainian]

I've added Matt Donnellon's suggestions of Denver Ed Martin, Gunboat Smith, at the cost of Gus Ruhlin and Buddy Baer.


21-30
Oliver McCall
Ingemar Johansson
Max Schmeling
Elmer Ray
Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry
Jimmy Young
Archie Moore
Joe Jeannette
David Tua




McCall way too high. Buster Douglas was an undisputed and linear HW champion, McCall never was. And don't forget that Douglas beat McCall.

McCall's best wins: Lewis, Seldon, Akinwande, Damiani (well, he hardly beat 45-years old Holmes. Also he KO'd Maskaev - it was Oleg's 7th pro fight)

Douglas: Tyson, McCall :good, Berbick, Page (also James beat Cobb and Mike Williams)

I think Douglas must rank higher on your list than McCall

[OLD FOGEY]

Intersting case for Mauriello. I can buy that one.

Still not sold on Satterfield, Renault, or Nova.

I take it modern fighters don't make the cut? IMO, guys like Brewster, McCall, Rhaman, Tua, both K-bros, Chagaev, and maybe Ibragimov or Valuev are better than the above names you made a case for.

If you want to go old school, Corbett, Jackson, Slavin, and Sullivan belong over them too.

About Nova, he was very respected in his own day. I remember reading that Ray Arcel thought he had an excellent chance of beating Joe Louis, but Nova seemed to freeze in the fight. Nova was only a 13-5 underdog against Louis, tying Walcott in his SECOND fight with Louis as the shortest odds against Louis except for Schmeling as a 9-5 dog in 1938. The two stoppages of Max Baer are strong marquee wins.

That loss to Galento pulls Nova down a bit, but Galento seems to have been allowed by the ref to throw away the rule book.

[mattdonnellon]

Interesting debate and I'll cut to the chase;
Sanders
Briggs
Thompson
Satterfield
Baker
Murray
do not belong.

[ChrisPontius]

Interesting debate and I'll cut to the chase;
Sanders
Briggs
Thompson
Satterfield
Baker
Murray
do not belong.

Sorry Matt but you've made your contribution. Obviously i appreciate the feedback and discussion, but i can't keep making adjustments from one person, or the list would go from one personal list to another, instead of a consensus list.

[mattdonnellon]

I'm outa here!

[kenmore]

I'm surprised that i forgot about Bonavena and Chuvalo, they obviously belong.


I put Bonavena in the top50, at the cost of Morisson. Chuvalo in top90, at the cost of Matthews. Had
to switch a few.


Matt Donnellon, your comments are obviously appreciated, but i think you're leaning very heavily, as
you say yourself, towards lightheavyweights and what i would consider otherwise lesser accomplished
fighters. Carpentier, Levinsky, Fergusson, Cooper, Bonecrusher, Gardner, Tate, Coetzee, Doug Jones,
etc all had very marginal achievements at heavyweight.

It's a pain to insert new names because if the new one enters, say, the top70, one
needs to move down to 80, then one to 90, and then one out of the top100.
So i'd like to ask you to pick your 3 best fighters (i.e. biggest disagreements), where you want
them and why. Compare their accomplishements with those of the 9 potentially neighbouring fighters.


SuzieQ, i know you like the 40's but since i'm looking for a consensus, i am not going to implement
most changes that you would have. You want to move guys like C. Williams and Henry up, but others
want them lower. Also i have to call you on a few statements, i.e. you argue that Williams had a
unique combination of handspeed, size and power and that he was ducked by contemporaries. And that's
fair enough, but if you replace the name "Williams" by "Sanders", the statement is equally true, but
you want to rate him much lower. Again, many will agrue with you or against you. I have removed
Matthews however.


New list:



1-10
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Johnson

11-20
Riddick Bowe
Jack Dempsey
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Bob Fitzsimmons
Floyd Patterson


21-30
Oliver McCall
Ingemar Johansson
Max Schmeling
Elmer Ray
Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry
Jimmy Young
Archie Moore
Joe Jeannette
David Tua

31-40
Max Baer
Gene Tunney
Sam Mcvey
Tim Witherspoon
Jimmy Ellis
Hasim Rahman
Chris Byrd
Pinklon Thomas
Primo Carnera
Ike Ibeabuchi

41-50
Michael Spinks
John Ruiz
Jack Sharkey
Buster Douglas
Ron Lyle
Tom Sharkey
Donovan Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno
Eddie Machen
Tommy Loughran


51-60
Michael Moorer
Michael Dokes
Harold Johnson
Oscar Bonavena
Bob Baker
Rex Layne
George Godfrey
Arthuro Godoy
Jimmy Bivins
Corrie Sanders


61-70
Tony Tucker
Zora Folley
Roland LaStarza
Lee Murray
Bob Pastor
Gerry Cooney
Oleg Maskaev
Trevor Berbick
Marvin Hart
Tommy Morrison


71-80
Tony Tubbs
Tami Mauriello
Cleveland Williams
Harry Greb
Billy Miske
Larry Gains
Mike Weaver
Fred Fulton
Jess Willard
Turkey Thompson
Ernie Terrel


81-89
Lou Nova
Luis Firpo
Shannon Briggs
Paulino Uzcudun
George Chuvalo
Ernie Shavers
Bob Satterfield
Jack Renault
Clarence Henry
Tommy Farr

90-99
Gus Ruhlin
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Greg Page
Tommy Burns
Jimmy Braddock
Joe Choynski
Buddy Baer
Lee Savold
Larry Donald

Joe Bugner would have beaten Bonavena and Chuvalo handily, and he would have beaten many of the other men on your list, too. I say Bugner should be rated no less than 70th to 80th of all time.

Why have you left the Klitschkos out?

[ChrisPontius]

Joe Bugner would have beaten Bonavena and Chuvalo handily, and he would have beaten many of the other men on your list, too. I say Bugner should be rated no less than 70th to 80th of all time.

Okay, i've included Bugner again, but wouldn't you say top70 is a bit high? The list goes on accomplishment, not potential (i.e. he would've beaten Bonavena and Chuvalo). His best wins are an old Ellis, Mac Foster who lost to every decent fighter at that point and Cooper who wasn't all that to begin with.

In addition to that, various other posters had him no higher than top90 if i remember correct.

Which fighter would you like to have removed from the list? Here is the top90 and 100:

81-89
Lou Nova
Luis Firpo
Shannon Briggs
Paulino Uzcudun
Billy Miske
Ernie Shavers
Bob Satterfield
Mike Weaver
George Chuvalo
Tommy Farr

90-99
Denver Ed Martin
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Greg Page
Tommy Burns
Jimmy Braddock
Joe Choynski
Gunboat Smith
Lee Savold
Larry Donald



Why have you left the Klitschkos out?
Read the rules on the first page. I'm only counting fighters active between 1900 and 1999, although i do take accomplishments outside of that into account if one spends a good amount of time between former mentioned limits. I didn't include currently active boxers, either (not counting officially active but not going to achieve anything anymore, like Holyfield and Tua).

[kenmore]

Okay, i've included Bugner again, but wouldn't you say top70 is a bit high? The list goes on accomplishment, not potential (i.e. he would've beaten Bonavena and Chuvalo). His best wins are an old Ellis, Mac Foster who lost to every decent fighter at that point and Cooper who wasn't all that to begin with.

In addition to that, various other posters had him no higher than top90 if i remember correct.

Which fighter would you like to have removed from the list? Here is the top90 and 100:

81-89
Lou Nova
Luis Firpo
Shannon Briggs
Paulino Uzcudun
Billy Miske
Ernie Shavers
Bob Satterfield
Mike Weaver
George Chuvalo
Tommy Farr

90-99
Denver Ed Martin
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Greg Page
Tommy Burns
Jimmy Braddock
Joe Choynski
Gunboat Smith
Lee Savold
Larry Donald



Top 70 may be a bit high for Bugner, now that I think about it. But I still think he belongs in the all-time top 100. I believe that the good, big guys of the '70s onward would tend to beat the good, smallish guys of the middle and early 20th century (not always, but often enough).

As for ratings philosophy, I guess you and I think differently. I rank guys on an all-time basis based on how good they were. In other words, I rate them on the basis of who-beats-who in the ring.

As for who I would like to see removed from your list, that's asking too much. A lot of these guys -- especially the ones dating from the early 20th century -- I simply haven't seen enough film footage to know how they deserve to rate on an all-time basis. In many cases, adequate film footage doesn't exist, or not enough of it exists.

[SuzieQ49]

Still hadvnt answered me pontius how could bob satterfield and bob baker possibly be rated above clarence henry?

how could bob baker possibly be rated 35 spots over clarence henry?

[mattdonnellon]

I know I'm not supposed to say any more but I just noticed NO BILLY CONN but we got Pastor and Savold...

[OLD FOGEY]

I know I'm not supposed to say any more but I just noticed NO BILLY CONN but we got Pastor and Savold...

Hush!

[My dinner with Conteh]

Bugner way too high in Top 70, he's lucky to make the Top Ton itself. Is Henry Cooper in there? He certainly should be above Bugner

[JohnThomas1]

Chris, i don't think Dokes quality of wins is good enough to be ranked where he is/higher than certain others. Tho they have some shitty losses, i think Weaver and Page have a better quality of wins. His best win, his only top shelf win, was a very tainted KO of Weaver who came back and edged him in the rematch according to the majority of experts. Cooney is another i might rank differently. His best ever win/wins, devastating fashion or not, are quite thin.

Let me know what you think.

[ChrisPontius]

Loewe:

I've moved Quarry down to promote Baer as you had them, and Ruiz up for Ibeabuchi, Hart up to demote Dokes, Braddock up and Firpo down.

Big Ukranian:

I can see where you're coming from, but it should be noted that Holmes, old or not, was a legit top10 contender after beating Mercer. And Maskaev, while he had only 6 pro fights, was already very good (he beat 21-0 Miroshnichenko in his pro debut), and not only that, but McCall stopped him
in the first round. A peak David Tua (top30 here), needed 11 rounds to stop him only one year later. A good win. McCall is one of those guys who learnt on the job and improved after his early losses.


That said, i did move Douglas up.


SuzieQ:

Like i said, this list has a resolution of 10 spots, i.e. there is no such thing as being "35" spots higher than someone. It goes per ten.

That aside: Satterfield (top90) in fact IS lower than Henry (top80). Baker is in the top60. I agree that Henry should rank higher than both of them, no idea why he is higher. I swapped their respective places.


Kenmore:

I've added Bugner (top100), at the cost of Larry Donald.


Dinner:

I've added Cooper (top80), i've gone over his record again and it's actually better than i remembered. Ranked in the ring top5 for three years and in the top10 for six years.


JohnThomas:

Dokes has more wins than just the Weaver TKO (even if it was suspicious). He beat Young in 1979 (still ranked in the top5), Cobb in 81 (ranked in the top10), and then Weaver who was #2 (with Dokes being #1).

I know that Weaver is a great guy to root for and who gave Holmes one hell of a fight, but what is HIS best win? Tate? Coetzee? Those were good wins, but on the flipside: he lost an awful lot of fights, not just early but during any stage of his career, although he did improve since the Holmes fight. But
i think Dokes' consistency against lesser opponents is praiseworthy, considering Weaver didn't come close to doing that.

However, Weaver was ranked in the top5 for three years based on the former mentioned wins until Dokes ruined the party, and since this is a consensus list, i'll move him up to the top70. If you think he should be higher or Dokes lower, let me know and a bit more details on why. :good


On Cooney:
I moved him down. I'm actually surprised it took this long for someone to think he's rated too high.

I thought he was.:D




That makes the new list to:


1-10
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Johnson

11-20
Riddick Bowe
Jack Dempsey
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Bob Fitzsimmons
Floyd Patterson


21-30

Ingemar Johansson
Max Schmeling
Elmer Ray
Ken Norton
Oliver McCall
Max Baer
Jimmy Young
Archie Moore
Joe Jeannette
David Tua

31-40
Jerry Quarry
Gene Tunney
Sam Mcvey
Tim Witherspoon
Buster Douglas
Hasim Rahman
Chris Byrd
Pinklon Thomas
Primo Carnera
John Ruiz

41-50
Michael Spinks
Ike Ibeabuchi
Jack Sharkey
Jimmy Ellis
Ron Lyle
Tom Sharkey
Donovan Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno
Eddie Machen
Tommy Loughran


51-60
Michael Moorer
Marvin Hart
Harold Johnson
Oscar Bonavena
Clarence Henry
Rex Layne
George Godfrey
Arthuro Godoy
Jimmy Bivins
Corrie Sanders


61-70
Tony Tucker
Zora Folley
Roland LaStarza
Lee Murray
Bob Pastor
Ernie Terrel
Oleg Maskaev
Trevor Berbick
Michael Dokes
Tommy Morrison


71-80
Tony Tubbs
Tami Mauriello
Cleveland Williams
Harry Greb
Bob Baker
Larry Gains
Jack Renault
Fred Fulton
Jess Willard
Turkey Thompson
Henry Cooper



81-89
Lou Nova
Jimmy Braddock
Gerry Cooney
Paulino Uzcudun
Billy Miske
Ernie Shavers
Bob Satterfield
Mike Weaver
George Chuvalo
Tommy Farr

90-99
Denver Ed Martin
Shannon Briggs
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Greg Page
Tommy Burns
Luis Firpo
Joe Choynski
Gunboat Smith
Lee Savold
Joe Bugner

[OLD FOGEY]

Chris--I like that you put Cooper and Bugner on your list, and flipping Henry and Baker was a good idea.

[Loewe]

I still don´t agree with some picks like Bowe over Schmeling or Tyson in the Top10 but consensus does not mean everybody agrees on everything. Overall it´s okay :good

[Unforgiven]

I never thought Chris Byrd was much of a fighter, I'm very surprised when I see people rate him in the top 30 heavyweights of all-time.

Wladimir Klitschko absolutely battered him twice, and Ibeaubuchi beat him up, crushed him in 5 rounds. I thought he got a gift against Fres Oquendo, and the win over Golota was disputable too. He got a bit lucky aginst Vitali klitschko, let's be honest.

Other than that, he outboxed Tua (his best win by far) and an ancient Holyfield (which somehow warranted him a "world title").
Byrd held a couple of paper titles, was quite inactive with the IBF title, and generally defended against second-rate also-rans - fres O, J.mccline, TOSWilliamson (who Joe Mesi had obliterated), and looked ordinary often.

I'm real trying to see what was impressive about Byrd to put him as high as the top 30, but I cant see it.

As a boxer, even Tony Tubbs impressed me more. And I dont think Tubbs was a legend by any means.

[Loewe]

I never thought Chris Byrd was much of a fighter, I'm very surprised when I see people rate him in the top 30 heavyweights of all-time.

Wladimir Klitschko absolutely battered him twice, and Ibeaubuchi beat him up, crushed him in 5 rounds. I thought he got a gift against Fres Oquendo, and the win over Golota was disputable too. He got a bit lucky aginst Vitali klitschko, let's be honest.

Other than that, he outboxed Tua (his best win by far) and an ancient Holyfield (which somehow warranted him a "world title").
Byrd held a couple of paper titles, was quite inactive with the IBF title, and generally defended against second-rate also-rans - fres O, J.mccline, TOSWilliamson (who Joe Mesi had obliterated), and looked ordinary often.

I'm real trying to see what was impressive about Byrd to put him as high as the top 30, but I cant see it.

As a boxer, even Tony Tubbs impressed me more. And I dont think Tubbs was a legend by any means.

Byrd and Ruiz are the best hws between Lewis and Wlad, you could even make an argument that either one is the best hw after 2000 before Lewis and only behind Wlad. that should count for something.

[ChrisPontius]

I still don´t agree with some picks like Bowe over Schmeling or Tyson in the Top10 but consensus does not mean everybody agrees on everything. Overall it´s okay :good

What is your reasoning for Schmeling higher?


Schmeling has several first round KO losses to lesser fighters. He does have good wins over Risko and Uczudun, and of course the great Joe Louis. His win over Sharkey is a bit questionable as it is a DQ, but i read (haven't seen it) that he got the better of Sharkey in the rematch, despite losing the verdict.
Baer (top30) also knocked him out and Hamas during his prime.

Bowe arguably lost to Tubbs, but other than that, he was dominant over decent fighters and beat Holyfield 2 out of 3. I think they're close, but is there a compelling reason why Schmeling should be higher?


p.s. any pick on tonight's fight?

[Loewe]

What is your reasoning for Schmeling higher?


Schmeling has several first round KO losses to lesser fighters. He does have good wins over Risko and Uczudun, and of course the great Joe Louis. His win over Sharkey is a bit questionable as it is a DQ, but i read (haven't seen it) that he got the better of Sharkey in the rematch, despite losing the verdict.
Baer (top30) also knocked him out and Hamas during his prime.

Bowe arguably lost to Tubbs, but other than that, he was dominant over decent fighters and beat Holyfield 2 out of 3. I think they're close, but is there a compelling reason why Schmeling should be higher?


p.s. any pick on tonight's fight?
Hm, I think if Sylvester can take advantage of Sturms mistake of standing stationary in his highguard instead of using his feet when under pressure he wins. If not Sturm wins. It will be a competative and entertaining fight. I take some risk and say: Sylvester TKO9 Sturm. But I may be biased because I´m a fan of Sylvester and dislike the arrogant Sturm.

Schmeling has one 1st round TKO loss at his record against Gipsy Daniels shortly before he went from lhw to hw indicating that he had some weight problems then. He has another second round and a 4th round loss to lesser fighters early in his career. But other than that he only lost to Joe Louis early. Do you really hold early career losses against him - especially when they happened at lhw and not hw what we are talking here?
All accounts I read said that Schmeling was the better fighter than Sharkey in their second fight. Even Gunboat Smith, the ref ot that fight, admitted that in "In this corner".
The Baer fight was also highly competative and about even before the last round. It also should be mentioned that most people think that this was Baer in his career best performance.
Schmeling lost to Hamas but beat him shortly after rather easily.
Schmeling also beat Walker, Young Stribling and Neusel other than the guys you already mentioned.
Schmeling has a much deeper resume than Bowe. Take Schmeling´s and Bowe´s Top10 wins and Schmeling comes out on top rather easily imo.

[Russell]

As a boxer, even Tony Tubbs impressed me more. And I dont think Tubbs was a legend by any means.

And Tubb's accomplished more then Byrd did... how?

Answer - He Didn't.

A guy who turned pro at super middle weight going to a draw with a a hot Andrew Golota is nothing to be ashamed of.

Not to mention Byrd beat a Tua that weighed 12 less pounds then he did in his losing effort against Lennox Lewis. A motivated and in-shape Tua.

Also, Byrd beat Evander a year before Toney got to him. Another solid win for Byrd.

Call him lucky or whatever you'd like to against Vitali, but he went 9 rounds with a guy who just wiped his ass with the second best heavyweight in the world over the course of the same amount of rounds at the age of nearly 40.

Byrd made said fighter miss so damned badly he hurt himself. Yeah, empty victory for Byrd, of course. :lol:

Byrd being a top 30 heavyweight isn't absurd in the least.

[Unforgiven]

Byrd and Ruiz are the best hws between Lewis and Wlad, you could even make an argument that either one is the best hw after 2000 before Lewis and only behind Wlad. that should count for something.

I dont think Byrd was any more "the best" than several other Hws of the time.
I've yet to see a convincing argument explaining what he did to get such acclaim.

[Loewe]

I dont think Byrd was any more "the best" than several other Hws of the time.
I've yet to see a convincing argument explaining what he did to get such acclaim.

Look at his resume and compare at to the others of this era and you see the light.

[Big Ukrainian]

I dont think Byrd was any more "the best" than several other Hws of the time.
I've yet to see a convincing argument explaining what he did to get such acclaim.

But you have to agree that Byrd must be ranked higher than Tua. Byrd clearly outpointed Tua, and Tua never held world title (unlike Byrd, who was WBO and IBF world champion).

[Unforgiven]

Look at his resume and compare at to the others of this era and you see the light.

I know who he fought in the era.

I thought he was gifted that win over Fres Oquendo in 2003, and I didn't think Oquendo was a top 10 contender at the time.

I didn't have DeVaryl Williamson in my top 10 contenders when they fought either.

McCline was borderline, (most people wouldn't have had him in the top 10) and most people thought him a lazy and mediocre heavyweight.

Byrd is given a lot of credit for fighting big heavyweights but it's not just me who noted that the ones he beat usually weren't the guys rated highest in the world. Byrd was always given allowances because he was naturally smaller and couldn't punch, and the reckoning is way over-compensation when he ends up being rated among the 30 best heavyweights ever.

Yes, he beat Tua. Yes, he beat an ancient (40 year old, awful-looking)Holyfield. And, yes, he beat Vitali back in '99.
The Tua win was the most impressive. But I daresay many guys from the past might have had the wits to outbox Tua. But I give him credit for last 12 rounds against such a puncher.

But he only drew with Golota. Wladimir Klitschko thrashed him twice, and Ibeaubuchi smashed him in 5 rounds.

[Unforgiven]

But you have to agree that Byrd must be ranked higher than Tua. Byrd clearly outpointed Tua, and Tua never held world title (unlike Byrd, who was WBO and IBF world champion).

I dont put much stock in those world titles, but, yes, Byrd deserves over Tua.
i thought Tua was outboxed by Rahman too, but then again he did better against Ike than Byrd did, and his win over Oquendo was far more legit IMO.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Dinner: I've added Cooper (top80), i've gone over his record again and it's actually better than i remembered. Ranked in the ring top5 for three years and in the top10 for six years.


Good one Chris. He was actually the Number One contender with one of the organisations for a short period (around 1961) too. He had a few good wins- Folley, Mildenberger. He was certainly our best of the late 50s to early 70s.


I think my most confusing one now would be McCall's high placing. Great thread nonetheless.

[Loewe]

Hm, I think if Sylvester can take advantage of Sturms mistake of standing stationary in his highguard instead of using his feet when under pressure he wins. If not Sturm wins. It will be a competative and entertaining fight. I take some risk and say: Sylvester TKO9 Sturm. But I may be biased because I´m a fan of Sylvester and dislike the arrogant Sturm.

The highlighted part happened. :D Sturm fought his best fight in years. Sylvester was also good but Sturm´s superior speed, skill and jab made the difference - I even cheered a bit for him in the last rounds. Good fight, look forward to a rematch :D
card:
118-110
118-110
119-109

On a sidenote, I f*cking hate Ploog - the commentator of the fight - he was so biased in his commentary for Sturm. He never even mentioned a good scene of Sylvester and hyped everything sturm did. Very very annoying.

[Russell]

So Tua slaughters Ruiz and a past prime Moorer in 1... But Byrd makes Tua look idiotic and hurts him to the body even but gets no credit, where as those two wins of Tua's are vaunted and cheered?

[Unforgiven]

So Tua slaughters Ruiz and a past prime Moorer in 1... But Byrd makes Tua look idiotic and hurts him to the body even but gets no credit, where as those two wins of Tua's are vaunted and cheered?

I know you cant be directing that at me, since I never vaunted or cheered those two wins.
I'd just like to re-iterate I give Byrd credit for beating Tua - a lot of credit, Tua's a dangerous guy - and would rank Byrd above Tua.

When it comes to the 30 greatest heavyweights of all-time, neither of them is close. In my opinion.

[Marciano Frazier]

Byrd and Ruiz are the best hws between Lewis and Wlad, you could even make an argument that either one is the best hw after 2000 before Lewis and only behind Wlad. that should count for something.
Heard of a fellow by the name of Vitali Klitschko?

[Loewe]

Heard of a fellow by the name of Vitali Klitschko?

And what did he do that was better what Ruiz and Byrd did? they beat better opponents than Vitali - who imo is alongside Tua and Ibeabuchi the most overated hw of the last 30 years.

[Mendoza]

And what did he do that was better what Ruiz and Byrd did? they beat better opponents than Vitali - who imo is alongside Tua and Ibeabuchi the most overated hw of the last 30 years.

This is a joke, right? Vitlai is much better than Ruiz or Byrd. You are aware that Tua and Ibeabuchhi who you called over rated did in fact badly KO both Ruiz and Byrd.

[Loewe]

This is a joke, right? Vitlai is much better than Ruiz or Byrd. You are aware that Tua and Ibeabuchhi who you called over rated did in fact badly KO both Ruiz and Byrd.

Sure but did they have a better resume? Nope, they do not. Tua may have a similar but neither Ibeabuchi or Klitschko should be rated highly bceause of their resume.
Wlad on the other hand is on the egde of becoming an atg and top20 hw. He tops both Ruiz and Byrd resume-wise.

[Mendoza]

Sure but did they have a better resume? Nope, they do not. Tua may have a similar but neither Ibeabuchi or Klitschko should be rated highly bceause of their resume.

Wlad on the other hand is on the egde of becoming an atg and top20 hw. He tops both Ruiz and Byrd resume-wise.

You walked into a clean hook on that one--calling Tua and Ibeabuchi over rated, while saying Ruiz and Byrd were better.

Vitlai has a fine resume. His was champion by Ring magazine ( something neither Ruiz, nor Byrd was ), owns the all time KO%, was never floored by a punch, and has the best rounds won to rounds lost ratio in the history of heavyweight champions never being down on the score cards after 3 rounds

In addition, Vitlai has an ATG comeback, taking nearly 4 years off, over coming an injury, and pasting the #2 heavy in the world to win back a belt at age 37. Give the man some props, Vitlai should rate as top 20 right now.

I do agree with you that Wlad is there / almost there too.

[Loewe]

You walked into a clean hook on that one--calling Tua and Ibeabuchi over rated, while saying Ruiz and Byrd were better.

Vitlai has a fine resume. His was champion by Ring magazine ( something neither Ruiz, nor Byrd was ), owns the all time KO%, was never floored by a punch, and has the best rounds won to rounds lost ratio in the history of heavyweight champions never being down on the score cards after 3 rounds

In additon, Vitlai has an ATG comeback, taking nealry 4 years off, over coming an injury, and pasting the #2 heavy in the world to win back a belt at age 37. Give the man some props, Vitlai should rate as twop 20 right now.

I do agree with you that Wlad is there / almost there too.

Hook? My chin is iron, I didn´t even feel it :lol:
And what has that to do with resume :huh

Those 5 guys I would rank like this:
Byrd
Ruiz
Tua
Vitali
Ibeabuchi

Byrd and Ruiz would most likely make my Top40, Tua and Vitali my Top50, and Ibeabuchi maybe narrowly make the Top100. All purely on resume. If you take h2h into account than it may look different. I don´t do because that´s too much specualtion for my liking.

[fists of fury]

Those 5 guys I would rank like this:
Byrd
Ruiz
Tua
Vitali
Ibeabuchi



What has Byrd done to receive such a lofty ranking? Agreed on Ibeabuchi, but I don't know how you can rank Vitali lower than Byrd, Ruiz or Tua.

[Mendoza]

Hook? My chin is iron, I didn´t even feel it :lol:
And what has that to do with resume :huh

Those 5 guys I would rank like this:
Byrd
Ruiz
Tua
Vitali
Ibeabuchi

Byrd and Ruiz would most likely make my Top40, Tua and Vitali my Top50, and Ibeabuchi maybe narrowly make the Top100. All purely on resume. If you take h2h into account than it may look different. I don´t do because that´s too much specualtion for my liking.
You don't like Vitlai. You felt nothing because you fail to see what you wrote was foolish even after I poitned it out. Whatever.

What does resume mean to you?

Vitlai is 6-2 in world title fights. I think that is a bit better record wise then Ruiz or Byrd if you choose to define legacy that way.

Head to head, Vitlai is much better and would be favored to defeat either Ruiz or Byrd. And like I said before in terms of ring records, Vitlai dwarfs both Ruiz and Byrd.

[Loewe]

What has Byrd done to receive such a lofty ranking? Agreed on Ibeabuchi, but I don't know how you can rank Vitali lower than Byrd, Ruiz or Tua.

Well, let´s compare their Top5 wins:

Byrd:
Tua
Holyfield
Vitali
Williamson
McCline

Ruiz:
Holyfield
Rahman
Golota
Johnson
Tucker

Tua:
Ruiz
Moorer
Rahman
Maskaev
Izon/Oquendo

Vitali:
Peter
Williams
Donarld
Johnson
Sanders

Imo Ruiz, Byrd and Tua beat better fighters than Vitali.

[Loewe]

You don't like Vitlai. You felt nothing because you fail to see what you wrote was foolish even after I poitned it out. Whatever.

What does resume mean to you?

Vitlai is 6-2 in world title fights. I think that is a bit better record wise then Ruiz or Byrd if you choose to define legacy that way.

Head to head, Vitlai is much better and would be favored to defeat either Ruiz or Byrd. And like I said before in terms of ring records, Vitlai dwarfs both Ruiz and Byrd.

I don´t like Vitali? I think the Klitschko´s are the best rolemodels we had in the hw scene since Patterson. We should be glad that we have them. Yeah I like Wlad more than Vitali but from all the hws at the moment I would ony pick Chagaev above Vitali in terms of liking outside of Wlad of course.

Ruiz and Byrd beat the better opponents. I agree h2h Vitali would beat Ruiz and Byrd and yeah his accomplishments are quite good but what do these records mean if they are accomplished largely against inferior opposition? Not as much anymore imo.

You are a nuthugger of Vitali, I´m not a fan but I like him and at least try to be objective. The Klitschkos are hated because of guys like you who overate them.

[JohnThomas1]

We need to get together and raise Super Greg into the next ten!!!!

[fists of fury]

Well, let´s compare their Top5 wins:

Byrd:
Tua
Holyfield
Vitali
Williamson
McCline

Ruiz:
Holyfield
Rahman
Golota
Johnson
Tucker

Tua:
Ruiz
Moorer
Rahman
Maskaev
Izon/Oquendo

Vitali:
Peter
Williams
Donarld
Johnson
Sanders

Imo Ruiz, Byrd and Tua beat better fighters than Vitali.

It's a matter of opinion, but listing an ancient Holyfield as one of Byrd's best wins isn't saying much. He was also lucky to get the nod over the limited Oquendo and also against a rusty Golota. He was dominated by Wlad and losing handily against Vitali until the shoulder injury. The Tua win was good though.

Ruiz has done alright, but that devastatingly quick knockout loss to Tua really hurts him, as well as losing badly to Roy Jones, a much smaller man.


Tua has the best top 5 wins so far, but was a fairly limited if very powerul fighter overall. Still, I can't see Vitali struggling too much with the likes of Rahman or Maskaev, as Tua did. (Speculative, I know)

Vitali's competition hasn't been great admittedly, but he's only lost twice and once was due to injury. The other loss was to Lennox Lewis, and there's no shame in that.

[Loewe]

It's a matter of opinion, but listing an ancient Holyfield as one of Byrd's best wins isn't saying much. He was also lucky to get the nod over the limited Oquendo and also against a rusty Golota. He was dominated by Wlad and losing handily against Vitali until the shoulder injury. The Tua win was good though.

Ruiz has done alright, but that devastatingly quick knockout loss to Tua really hurts him, as well as losing badly to Roy Jones, a much smaller man.


Tua has the best top 5 wins so far, but was a fairly limited if very powerul fighter overall. Still, I can't see Vitali struggling too much with the likes of Rahman or Maskaev, as Tua did. (Speculative, I know)

Vitali's competition hasn't been great admittedly, but he's only lost twice and once was due to injury. The other loss was to Lennox Lewis, and there's no shame in that.

Well, thing is the other three competed for a longer time at the top and fought better opponents. You may lose more if you do so but imo that does not count against you but is an indication of your will to fight the best.

I agree with Tua having the best wins though.

Also neither of the three ever avoided anyone, Ruiz and Byrd even tried to get a fight with Lennox while knowing they had no chance. And we all know of the story of Vitali - yeah, he is injury prone but his comeback gives me a bit of a sour taste when I look at the farce then.

[Mendoza]

It's a matter of opinion, but listing an ancient Holyfield as one of Byrd's best wins isn't saying much. He was also lucky to get the nod over the limited Oquendo and also against a rusty Golota. He was dominated by Wlad and losing handily against Vitali until the shoulder injury. The Tua win was good though.

Ruiz has done alright, but that devastatingly quick knockout loss to Tua really hurts him, as well as losing badly to Roy Jones, a much smaller man.

Tua has the best top 5 wins so far, but was a fairly limited if very powerul fighter overall. Still, I can't see Vitali struggling too much with the likes of Rahman or Maskaev, as Tua did. (Speculative, I know)

Vitali's competition hasn't been great admittedly, but he's only lost twice and once was due to injury. The other loss was to Lennox Lewis, and there's no shame in that.

Loewe doesn't seem to mention the above facts. Ruiz was Ko'd in 18 seconds, lost 2x to blow up middles ( drug tests or not ), beat Johnson vs DQ ( who Vital took out in two rounds ), beat an in the tank Rhaman, and a very old Holyfield. I suppose Ruiz beat Golota via close margin, but Golota still has not won a big fight.

Vitlai is far and away better than Ruiz.

[Loewe]

Loewe doesn't seem to mention the above facts. Ruiz was Ko'd in 18 seconds, lost 2x to blow up middles ( drug tests or not ), beat Johnson vs DQ ( who Vital took out in two rounds ), beat an in the tank Rhaman, and a very old Holyfield. I suppose Ruiz beat Golota via close margin, but Golota still has not won a big fight.

Vitlai is far and away better than Ruiz.

Oh, Vitali is better I never would doubt that but Ruiz has the better resume and where Vitali underachieved Ruiz overachieved. Also Ruiz has better longevity at the top. Why don´t you mention these things?

[Mendoza]

Oh, Vitali is better I never would doubt that but Ruiz has the better resume and where Vitali underachieved Ruiz overachieved. Also Ruiz has better longevity at the top. Why don´t you mention these things?

Better longevity at the top? How about Ruiz had Don King and got too many chances. I think that explains it.

In addition, didn't Ruiz lose two fights to fringe contender types in Kobozev and Nicholson? I think so. Vitlai never lost to a non-ranked fighter, and his two defeats are injury related when he was up on points. Neither Lewis nor Byrd wanted any part of the re-match. If Vitlai had Don King, I tend to think he re-matches Byrd.


BTW, If Vitlai beats either Valuev or Chagaev, who have beaten Ruiz, would you change perspective?

[Loewe]

Better longevity at the top? How about Ruiz had Don King and got too many chances. I think that explains it.

In addition, didn't Ruiz lose two fights to fringe contender types in Kobozev and Nicholson? I think so. Vitlai never lost to a non-ranked fighter, and his two defeats are injury related when he was up on points. Neither Lewis nor Byrd wanted any part of the re-match. If Vitlai had Don King, I tend to think he re-matches Byrd.


BTW, If Vitlai beats either Valuev or Chagaev, who have beaten Ruiz, would you change perspective?

If Vitali goes on and beats good competition for sure. Can´t see him going on for long with his age and injury history though. I wish him luck and hope he and his brother get it on after one of them beat Valuev.
Yesterday there was a short message to the press from Vitali - who also spoke for his brother - that they intend to force a fight with Valuev but that they haven´t decided who will fight him.

The thing is you are a fan and trying to twist everything to rank Vitali as high as possible but fact is he had a lackluster career considering his talent and he has not done enough to be ranked above Ruiz, Byrd and Tua yet.

[mattdonnellon]

I thinkk you guys should re-read what Chrispontius set out when he made the thread;

"1. Only fighters who fought between 1900 and 1999 are allowed. However, when a fighter spent part of his career outside of this time, i.e. in the 2000's or during the 1800's, the accomplishments during that time are to be taken into account. Why this seemingly inconsistent rule? Because all other fighters are judged on their entire career, so it would be unfair to judge those on the edge on a few fights on their end/start of their careers.

Boxers post-2000 are excluded because many haven't finished their careers yet, and it is a general rule of human psychology that a boxer's standing will rise several years after they retired. So, for a fair measurement, they're left out.

Pre-1900 is excluded because documentation on them (complete records, film) does not compare to those of the 20th century, and the rules of boxing were much different back then from what it was during most of the 20th century.


2. I'm looking for a general consensus here where many will disagree, so if you think one fighter should be top80 instead of top90, don't bother. The difference between top20 and top30 is obviously larger, but from there on things are becoming hard to separate. Top80 is only a bit lower than top60, even if there's 20 fighters between them.


3. Currently active fighters who spent part of their career in the 90's are excluded, unless it's clear they're not going to accomplish anything anymore.

So, for instance, Tua will be judged on his entire career despite part of that being in the 2000's. Officially he is still active, but it's not likely he'll achieve anything big in the future, so he's allowed to be on. The same goes for Holyfield and Ruiz. Jeffries had quite some fights before the 1900's and they are included because he was active as a champ in the 1900's. The Klitschko's however, were active in the 90's but are still active today and hence are not included. Corbett is excluded because he fought almost exclusively in the 1800's."

[Mendoza]

If Vitali goes on and beats good competition for sure. Can´t see him going on for long with his age and injury history though. I wish him luck and hope he and his brother get it on after one of them beat Valuev.
Yesterday there was a short message to the press from Vitali - who also spoke for his brother - that they intend to force a fight with Valuev but that they haven´t decided who will fight him.

The thing is you are a fan and trying to twist everything to rank Vitali as high as possible but fact is he had a lackluster career considering his talent and he has not done enough to be ranked above Ruiz, Byrd and Tua yet.


Vitlai looked fresh, and younger than his age. He can go on for a while. For at least two more fights, I think. Vitlai is dominating force in the ring. Whether I am a fan or not means little, the facts are the facts. I can't see many fighters in history stopping Vitlai or out boxing him. He's that good.

I saw that Valuev might fight Klitschko K-2 promotions will have to offer Valuev a lot of money, say 3 times what he will make in his next fight for Valuev to risk it. If the fight happens, Vitlai will beat Valuev badly, shutting him out on the cards, and stopping him....then picking up the Ruiz, and Chageav names on Valuev's resume.


Also, I am not ruling out a Lewis comeback either.

[Loewe]

Vitlai looked fresh, and younger than his age. He can go on for a while. For at least two more fights, I think. Vitlai is dominating force in the ring. Whether I am a fan or not means little, the facts are the facts. I can't see many fighters in history stopping Vitlai or out boxing him. He's that good.

Yeah Vitali looked fresh and young but he was in there with a fighter who was not able to push him to his limit. chagaev and Valuev would be harder opponents. They would push him hard and I still have some doubts concerning his injuries.

The thing is Vitali never proved it against the very best. The only time was against a fat, untrained, past his prime fighter and he got stopped - also he looked good in there. I never pick unproven fighters over proven ones.

I saw that Valuev might fight Klitschko K-2 promotions will have to offer Valuev a lot of money, say 3 times what he will make in his next fight for Valuev to risk it. If the fight happens, Vitlai will beat Valuev badly, shutting him out on the cards, and stopping him....then picking up the Ruiz, and Chageav names on Valuev's resume.

Well, I think the fight comes of next year. I also think Valuev will fight Vitali since he may think he is the easier opponent. After that one I really hope the brothers get it on and I can see this happen. There would be huge money in it.

Also, I am not ruling out a Lewis comeback either.

I hope he does not.

[SuzieQ49]

Head to head, Vitlai is much better and would be favored to defeat either Ruiz or Byrd

Bryd TKO 10 Vitali Klitschko

[Loewe]

Bryd TKO 10 Vitali Klitschko

Would you have favoured Byrd in a rematch shortly after their first fight?

[ChrisPontius]

Would you have favoured Byrd in a rematch shortly after their first fight?

If you take the average of SuzieQ's and Mendoza's opinion on Vitali, you'll get a balanced view. :lol:

[Loewe]

If you take the average of SuzieQ's and Mendoza's opinion on Vitali, you'll get a balanced view. :lol:

Yeah, I know. those two are a bit like fire and water, as if they are married :lol:

btw. seen my reply on your Bowe-Schmeling question before this Klitschko-mess?

[ChrisPontius]

Yeah, I know. those two are a bit like fire and water, as if they are married :lol:

btw. seen my reply on your Bowe-Schmeling question before this Klitschko-mess?
I just read it. I think Schmeling could move to the top20 (it is a consensus list after all), but i think many will complain if Bowe goes down to top30.

My suggestion is moving Fitzsimmons (it's a heavyweight list, not pound for pound) down to top30 to promote Schmeling to the top20. How about that?

[Loewe]

I just read it. I think Schmeling could move to the top20 (it is a consensus list after all), but i think many will complain if Bowe goes down to top30.

My suggestion is moving Fitzsimmons (it's a heavyweight list, not pound for pound) down to top30 to promote Schmeling to the top20. How about that?

Well, I could live with that also I think Fitz is nearer to a Top20 hw than Bowe.

[ChrisPontius]

Why is that? Fitz twice lost to the best heavyweight he faced (in fact, the only good heavyweight that was over 200lbs), while Bowe is 2-1 against Holyfield, who is regarded about as high as Jeffries.

He went 1-1 against Sharkey (who is top50), and it should be noted that Sharkey was past his best when Fitz beat him after being down in the first; Sharkey's record afterwards until retirement was 1-3-1.
He did beat Corbett and Maher twice, but other than that, he twice lost to Jeffries and beat a few journeymen/fringe contenders. I'm not sure if that's top20 material.

[Loewe]

Why is that? Fitz twice lost to the best heavyweight he faced (in fact, the only good heavyweight that was over 200lbs), while Bowe is 2-1 against Holyfield, who is regarded about as high as Jeffries.

He went 1-1 against Sharkey (who is top50), and it should be noted that Sharkey was past his best when Fitz beat him after being down in the first; Sharkey's record afterwards until retirement was 1-3-1.
He did beat Corbett and Maher twice, but other than that, he twice lost to Jeffries and beat a few journeymen/fringe contenders. I'm not sure if that's top20 material.
Well, Fitz wouldn´t be in my top20 either but i would put him in there before Bowe. Jeffries I´d put between 4 and 7 and Holyfield just outside the top10, so I don´t regard Holy as high as Jeffries.

[Mendoza]

Loewe says: Yeah Vitali looked fresh and young but he was in there with a fighter who was not able to push him to his limit. chagaev and Valuev would be harder opponents. They would push him hard and I still have some doubts concerning his injuries.

I don't think Chagaev who is pretty short with short arms and average feet could press or coutner Vitlai. Chagaev edged Valeuve with speed, smarts and coutner punching. This would not work at all with Vitlai.



I don't think Valuev who is slow and lacks big time power could push Vitlai or win a round from him. Vitlai would paste either Chagaev or Valuev, and either take their will or knock them out.


The thing is Vitali never proved it against the very best. The only time was against a fat, untrained, past his prime fighter and he got stopped - also he looked good in there. I never pick unproven fighters over proven ones.

I disagree 100%. You can prove yourself win, lose or draw. Every lineal champion lost to someone not as good as Lewis was with the exception of Marciano who never fought anyone as good as Lewis was to begin with.



Vitlai took the fight on 10 days notice, while prepping for a 10 round match, yet he easily out boxed Lewis, up 4-2 on all three cards, and had Lewis hurt, tired, also cut, and winded. You cannot say what happens in round seven. Vitlai proved how much he had left the moment he learned the fight was being stopped.

Vs Byrd, Vitlai proved he could be well ahead of a tricky southpaw boxer with one good working arm. If not for the torn shoulder, Vitlai wins easily.

So again, I disagree. Vitlai proved plenty vs Lewis and Byrd. The fact that neither man would re-match Vitlai also speaks volumes.


Well, I think the fight comes of next year. I also think Valuev will fight Vitali since he may think he is the easier opponent. After that one I really hope the brothers get it on and I can see this happen. There would be huge money in it.


Vitlai vs Wlad for charity might happen one day. Just do not expect anything besides a good sparring session.

[Marciano Frazier]

Well, let´s compare their Top5 wins:

Byrd:
Tua
Holyfield
Vitali
Williamson
McCline

Ruiz:
Holyfield
Rahman
Golota
Johnson
Tucker

Tua:
Ruiz
Moorer
Rahman
Maskaev
Izon/Oquendo

Vitali:
Peter
Williams
Donarld
Johnson
Sanders

Imo Ruiz, Byrd and Tua beat better fighters than Vitali.
You are perhaps correct that Byrd and Tua have very slightly better resumes than Vitali in terms of who they beat. But do you base your historical standings entirely on resume? Through most any other comparison, Vitali is quite a bit better than them. It isn't as though Byrd and Ruiz have legendary, awe-inspiring resumes- by your own estimation, wins over guys like an old, badly-over-the-hill Holyfield and a washed-up Tony Tucker make their top fives. These guys' resumes consist largely of disputed split decisions and clinch-fests where officials gave them the necessary nudge to get the "W"s on their win columns. Unlike Byrd and Ruiz, Vitali's "wins" are all fights he actually won. Vitali was recognized by RING magazine as champion for a reason- he was head-and-shoulders better than the rest of the post-Lewis field, at least before Wlad pulled himself together and rose to dominance. Which of the two brothers will ultimately prove superior is still hard to say at this point, although, of course, if one is judging solely by resume, Wlad leads by a country mile.

[Loewe]

I don't think Chagaev who is pretty short with short arms and average feet could press or coutner Vitlai. Chagaev edged Valeuve with speed, smarts and coutner punching. This would not work at all with Vitlai.

I don't think Valuev who is slow and lacks big time power could push Vitlai or win a round from him. Vitlai would paste either Chagaev or Valuev, and either take their will or knock them out.

Well, we disagree here. Vitali was in there with a punching bag in his last fight. Peter did nothing. And this may hide weaknesses Vitali has gained through inactivity. Chagaev wouldn´t be as easy to hit as Peter, he would be able to close the gap. Not to mention Chagaev has the faster hand, is a southpaw and has a great trainer with Christian Timm - who is as successful as Sdunek even so hes 30 years younger and was the disciple of Sdunek for quite a time, so he knows everything Sdunek could come up with.

Valuev would be a problem for Vitali alone with his size, jab and stamina. Valuev is no easy fight for anyone in the division. And like I said I think Peter´s poor performance might have made Vitali look better than he really is at the moment.


I disagree 100%. You can prove yourself win, lose or draw. Every lineal champion lost to someone not as good as Lewis was with the exception of Marciano who never fought anyone as good as Lewis was to begin with.

Yes you can, I agree. But you don´t got what I meant. You can´t prove yourself with one fight. All those other guys proved themselves against many good contenders. Vitali has only one fight to prove himself. He had other fighters who were contenders but compare them to the opponents of the best of the last generation for example. They don´t stand up to them.


Vitlai took the fight on 10 days notice, while prepping for a 10 round match, yet he easily out boxed Lewis, up 4-2 on all three cards, and had Lewis hurt, tired, also cut, and winded. You cannot say what happens in round seven. Vitlai proved how much he had left the moment he learned the fight was being stopped.

Vs Byrd, Vitlai proved he could be well ahead of a tricky southpaw boxer with one good working arm. If not for the torn shoulder, Vitlai wins easily.

Lewis was 37 years old, past his prime, untrained, fat and prepared for a different fighter and by the six round the tide turned clearly in his favour. He found his mark and started to hit Vitali consistently with his uppercuts. And Vitali did not outbox Lennox easily. Where did that come from?


So again, I disagree. Vitlai proved plenty vs Lewis and Byrd. The fact that neither man would re-match Vitlai also speaks volumes.

Well, Lewis was not prime by far. Yeah, he proved something against him. But I don´t think a fight against a prime Lewis would have looked like their actual one.
Byrd was in a huge size disadvantage what resulted in a style disadvantage. That´s a bit similar to Hearns-Duran.


Vitlai vs Wlad for charity might happen one day. Just do not expect anything besides a good sparring session.

Well, we´ll see. Vitali said he would fight his brother for all 4 titles.

[Loewe]

You are perhaps correct that Byrd and Tua have very slightly better resumes than Vitali in terms of who they beat. But do you base your historical standings entirely on resume? Through most any other comparison, Vitali is quite a bit better than them. It isn't as though Byrd and Ruiz have legendary, awe-inspiring resumes- by your own estimation, wins over guys like an old, badly-over-the-hill Holyfield and a washed-up Tony Tucker make their top fives. These guys' resumes consist largely of disputed split decisions and clinch-fests where officials gave them the necessary nudge to get the "W"s on their win columns. Unlike Byrd and Ruiz, Vitali's "wins" are all fights he actually won. Vitali was recognized by RING magazine as champion for a reason- he was head-and-shoulders better than the rest of the post-Lewis field, at least before Wlad pulled himself together and rose to dominance. Which of the two brothers will ultimately prove superior is still hard to say at this point, although, of course, if one is judging solely by resume, Wlad leads by a country mile.

Well, yeah Vitali was more dominant but he lacks the longvity Ruiz, Byrd and to a degree Tua had at the top. Those fought at the top for a longer period of time than Vitali and imo this counts for a lot. Their accomplishments are quite similar, dominance goes to Vitali but resume, longevity and over-/underachieving goes to Ruiz/Byrd.

Imo Vitali has no chance of catching his brother. Wlad unified, has the far better resume and longevity, the same dominance and is on the edge of becoming a top20 hw.

[Mendoza]

Loewe Well, we disagree here. Vitali was in there with a punching bag in his last fight. Peter did nothing. And this may hide weaknesses Vitali has gained through inactivity. Chagaev wouldn´t be as easy to hit as Peter, he would be able to close the gap. Not to mention Chagaev has the faster hand, is a southpaw and has a great trainer with Christian Timm - who is as successful as Sdunek even so hes 30 years younger and was the disciple of Sdunek for quite a time, so he knows everything Sdunek could come up with.

Vitlai made Peter into a punching bag with skills, and power. He busted him up, and took his will. No one else could do this vs Peter to date. Give Vitlai some credit. You're a closet hater in this respect.

I know Chagaev well, he's gun shy vs hitters. Chagaev barely edged a slower Virchis ( Some thinkg Virchis won ) and Valuev. He beat them with counters and speed, which would not work vs a fighter Vitlai's size and ability because Vitlai would use his range, reflexes, and counters well himself.


Valuev would be a problem for Vitali alone with his size, jab and stamina. Valuev is no easy fight for anyone in the division. And like I said I think Peter´s poor performance might have made Vitali look better than he really is at the moment.

I don't think Valuev would be a problem. In truth, Valuev lost to Larry Donald on points, which is a fighter Vitlai dominated and Knocked out. I would bet the house Vitali would either TKO Valuev or win via wide margin on the cards. Again, give credit, Vitlai is extremely hard to out box. No man has ever been up on the cards vs him after 3 rounds, or won three clean rounds by all three judges. This is because Vitlai is very big, has good reflexes, throws lots of punches, and put the pressure on his man. Again, you fail to see what I'm talking about.


Lewis was 37 years old, past his prime, untrained, fat and prepared for a different fighter and by the six round the tide turned clearly in his favour. He found his mark and started to hit Vitali consistently with his uppercuts. And Vitali did not outbox Lennox easily. Where did that come from?
Lewis was trained. He was shot at 37? Didn't he have a career best performance vs Rhaman in the 2nd fight? I think so. Lewis was not shot. He was simply in there vs the best live body he ever faced. Yes--Vitlai offered far more than a shot Tyson or a fading Holyfield. Vitlai did out box Lewis 4-2 on all three cards. I beleive Lewis was tired after 6 rounds. In addtion, Lewis turned down a re-match because he knows he would not get lucky the 2nd time around.



Well, we´ll see. Vitali said he would fight his brother for all 4 titles.

If you take that seriously, then your way out there. I do not see the two fighting for all the belts in a real match.

[Loewe]

Vitlai made Peter into a punching bag with skills, and power. He busted him up, and took his will. No one else could do this vs Peter to date. Give Vitlai some credit. You're a closet hater in this respect.

I know Chagaev well, he's gun shy vs hitters. Chagaev barely edged a slower Virchis ( Some thinkg Virchis won ) and Valuev. He beat them with counters and speed, which would not work vs a fighter Vitlai's size and ability because Vitlai would use his range, reflexes, and counters well himself.

I don't think Valuev would be a problem. In truth, Valuev lost to Larry Donald on points, which is a fighter Vitlai dominated and Knocked out. I would bet the house Vitali would either TKO Valuev or win via wide margin on the cards. Again, give credit, Vitlai is extremely hard to out box. No man has ever been up on the cards vs him after 3 rounds, or won three clean rounds by all three judges. This is because Vitlai is very big, has good reflexes, throws lots of punches, and put the pressure on his man. Again, you fail to see what I'm talking about.

Where did I say Chagaev or Valuev would beat Vitali? I never did write anything like that. I said they would pressure him and push him far more than Peter. This would expose us some weaknesses of him that were hided in the Peter fight due to Peter´s poor performance.
Yeah, sure I´m a hater. Great argument there.
Btw. ever heard of styles make fights? Because Vitali beat Donald and Donald had a close fight with Valuev, vitali beats Valuev. For sure, great logic :patsch


Lewis was trained. He was shot at 37? Didn't he have a career best performance vs Rhaman in the 2nd fight? I think so. Lewis was not shot. He was simply in there vs the best live body he ever faced. Yes--Vitlai offered far more than a shot Tyson or a fading Holyfield. Vitlai did out box Lewis 4-2 on all three cards. I beleive Lewis was tired after 6 rounds. In addtion, Lewis turned down a re-match because he knows he would not get lucky the 2nd time around.

so, I wrote now that Lewis was shot. Strange, I can´t read that anywhere. I said he was past his prime which is a fact. I said he was untrained which was visible with the tyre of fat around his hips. Those things are just facts.
Sure, did Vitali offer more but he also fought an inferior Lewis.
And, no Lewis turned not down a rematch because he was afraid but because he 37 years old, past his prime and had no desire to fight anymore. Maybe that´s what he took out of his fight with Vitali.
And yeah Lewis was tired that´s why he won the last two rounds :good btw. did I meantion that he was untrained?


If you take that seriously, then your way out there. I do not see the two fighting for all the belts in a real match.

Well, may be you are in for a surprise.

[Mendoza]

Loewe :Where did I say Chagaev or Valuev would beat Vitali? I never did write anything like that. I said they would pressure him and push him far more than Peter. This would expose us some weaknesses of him that were hided in the Peter fight due to Peter´s poor performance.
Yeah, sure I´m a hater. Great argument there.


Btw. ever heard of styles make fights? Because Vitali beat Donald and Donald had a close fight with Valuev, vitali beats Valuev. For sure, great logic .

Chagaev would not be able to pressure Vitlai round after round. Chagaev does not pressure good fighter with ability. He more or less picks his shots. Chagaev is even shorter than Peter, and is really limited in reach. In additon, Chagaev's stmaina and punch out put is nothing special in the mid to late rounds. Pressure Vitlai you say? Ha. Chagaev might do a little better than Peter. That's about as far as I'll go.

The Donald fight proves a boxer with a good jab and mobility beats Valuev, and Valuev lost to an older Donald. The Ruiz matches to a lesser degree show the same thing.

If Vitlai ever fights Valuev or Chagaev, I'd like to bet you, and rest assured you lose. Good, keep your thoughts that these two are tests. It will be interesting to see if you discredit them IF Vitlai meets them and beats them. For the record, I think Gomez beat Valuev if they meet, and Vitlai might fight Gomex next.

[Loewe]

Chagaev would not be able to pressure Vitlai round after round. Chagaev does not pressure good fighter with ability. He more or less picks his shots. Chagaev is even shorter than Peter, and is really limited in reach. In additon, Chagaev's stmaina and punch out put is nothing special in the mid to late rounds. Pressure Vitlai you say? Ha. Chagaev might do a little better than Peter. That's about as far as I'll go.

The Donald fight proves a boxer with a good jab and mobility beats Valuev, and Valuev lost to an older Donald. The Ruiz matches to a lesser degree show the same thing.

If Vitlai ever fights Valuev or Chagaev, I'd like to bet you, and rest assured you lose. Good, keep your thoughts that these two are tests. It will be interesting to see if you discredit them IF Vitlai meets them and beats them. For the record, I think Gomez beat Valuev if they meet, and Vitlai might fight Gomex next.

I think I expressed a bit wrong. With pressure I don´t mean Chagaev pressures him like a pressure fighter but pushes him to his limit. You underate Chagaev quite a bit. I won´t discredit Chagaev or Valuev if he fights them. I never thought much of Peter and I said so before the fight, I also said that Vitali would beat Peter if he has anything left. I thought Peter would do a bit better and Vitali would do a bit better but overall I expected a similar fight to what happened if Vitali had anything left.

Donald is a whole different fighter to Vitali. Far more fundemantal and basic. And he had faster hands than the Vitali of the Peter fight. They are not comparable.

Bet what? Firstly, I don´t make bets. Secondly, i won´t pick either one to beat Vitali. but i think both would give him stiff tests.

Gomez has a chance of beating Valuev due to workrate, I agree, but again styles make fights.

[The Phenom]

David Tua is too high.Tyson should be ahead of Holmes.

[Loewe]

Tyson should be ahead of Holmes.

Why?

[Mendoza]

Loewe I think I expressed a bit wrong. With pressure I don´t mean Chagaev pressures him like a pressure fighter but pushes him to his limit.

You underate Chagaev quite a bit. I won´t discredit Chagaev or Valuev if he fights them. I never thought much of Peter and I said so before the fight, I also said that Vitali would beat Peter if he has anything left. I thought Peter would do a bit better and Vitali would do a bit better but overall I expected a similar fight to what happened if Vitali had anything left.

I agree, you expressed it a bit wrong. Pressuring the other fighter to me is being aggressive, leading and making the fight. Chagaev does not fight that way; moreover, he is an opportunistic type.

I do not under rate Chagaev at all. In fact, I said he could have been champion in weaker eras, and rates as a solid #2-4 in just about any era. I also beleive Chagaev is a top 100 heavyweight, and his best years are still ahead of him.

If you watch Chagaev, he is not the type to press and tire the other person out late, because he does not throw many punches. Vitlai throws more punches. Chagaev has very short arms, and he's much shorter in stature compared to Vitlai. I'm telling you, Chagaev's problem is the same problem Ibragimov had with Wlad. That is to say, he has zero chance of winning as an out fighter. The problem is compounded because Vitlai has better / faster feet, and Chagaev isn't the type to take risks...not vs Ruiz, Skelton, or Valuev. If Chagaev pressed it more, maybe he stops one of these guys.

While I do think Chagaev has fast hands and good power, it is unlikely one or two big shots from Chagaev would do anything but swing a round his way vs Vitlai.


Donald is a whole different fighter to Vitali. Far more fundemantal and basic. And he had faster hands than the Vitali of the Peter fight. They are not comparable.

Fundamentally, Valuev has problems vs a good jab. Donald had one. So did Ruiz, and they landed and scored on Valuev who is not fast. Vitlai's jab is better than anyone Valuev has faces, and he can combo off it, or throw it going backwards or circling.


Bet what? Firstly, I don´t make bets. Secondly, i won´t pick either one to beat Vitali. but i think both would give him stiff tests.

This is where we disagree. I think Vitali would win a wide decision, 10 rounds to 2, or TKO either Valuev or Chagaev. I think Lewis, Byrd, and Donald are better pure boxers than either Valeuv and Chagaev. Do we agree here? Is so take note none of the quality boxers Vitlai fought won more than 2 consensus rounds vs him. So how exactly would Valuev or Chagaev be a stiff test for Vitlai?


Gomez has a chance of beating Valuev due to workrate, I agree, but again styles make fights.

Maybe, but Gomez isn't fighting Valuev next. He is Vitlai's mandatory unless step aside money can be given to Gomez.

[Marciano Frazier]

If you take the average of SuzieQ's and Mendoza's opinion on Vitali, you'll get a balanced view. :lol:
:lol:

[Marciano Frazier]

Why is that? Fitz twice lost to the best heavyweight he faced (in fact, the only good heavyweight that was over 200lbs), while Bowe is 2-1 against Holyfield, who is regarded about as high as Jeffries.

He went 1-1 against Sharkey (who is top50), and it should be noted that Sharkey was past his best when Fitz beat him after being down in the first; Sharkey's record afterwards until retirement was 1-3-1.
He did beat Corbett and Maher twice, but other than that, he twice lost to Jeffries and beat a few journeymen/fringe contenders. I'm not sure if that's top20 material.
While I agree that Bowe belongs in the top 20 and Fitzsimmons doesn't, let me point out that Fitzsimmons' "loss" in the first Sharkey fight was a controversial DQ in which he had put Sharkey down with what many believed to be a clean body shot.

[ChrisPontius]

While I agree that Bowe belongs in the top 20 and Fitzsimmons doesn't, let me point out that Fitzsimmons' "loss" in the first Sharkey fight was a controversial DQ in which he had put Sharkey down with what many believed to be a clean body shot.

I heard something fishy about that as well, but i think he's ranked well where he is.


If anyone wants any major changes in the list, suggest them now (and who has to go down as a consequence), because i think everyone has read it so if no one replies, the list becomes final.

[My dinner with Conteh]

What's McCall's ranking at the mo?

[OLD FOGEY]

Chagaev would not be able to pressure Vitlai round after round. Chagaev does not pressure good fighter with ability. He more or less picks his shots. Chagaev is even shorter than Peter, and is really limited in reach. In additon, Chagaev's stmaina and punch out put is nothing special in the mid to late rounds. Pressure Vitlai you say? Ha. Chagaev might do a little better than Peter. That's about as far as I'll go.

The Donald fight proves a boxer with a good jab and mobility beats Valuev, and Valuev lost to an older Donald. The Ruiz matches to a lesser degree show the same thing.

If Vitlai ever fights Valuev or Chagaev, I'd like to bet you, and rest assured you lose. Good, keep your thoughts that these two are tests. It will be interesting to see if you discredit them IF Vitlai meets them and beats them. For the record, I think Gomez beat Valuev if they meet, and Vitlai might fight Gomex next.

Questions for you, Mendoza.

Questions I would ask of any champion and I would be interested in your answers.

Other than Vitali himself, who were the top five heavyweights active while Vitali was active? How many did he fight? How many did he defeat?

What can he do before he retires to give a stronger answer to these questions?

[ChrisPontius]

What's McCall's ranking at the mo?
McCall is in the top30. Now i remember you thinking he was ranked too high. I've dropped him down to the top40, promoting Tunney to top30. If you object let me know. Here is the new list:

Edit: i posted the wrong list. Now it should be good:


1-10
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Johnson

11-20
Riddick Bowe
Jack Dempsey
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Max Schmeling
Floyd Patterson


21-30

Ingemar Johansson
Bob Fitzsimmons
Elmer Ray
Ken Norton
Gene Tunney
Max Baer
Jimmy Young
Archie Moore
Joe Jeannette
David Tua

31-40
Jerry Quarry
Oliver McCall
Sam Mcvey
Tim Witherspoon
Buster Douglas
Hasim Rahman
Chris Byrd
Pinklon Thomas
Primo Carnera
John Ruiz

41-50
Michael Spinks
Ike Ibeabuchi
Jack Sharkey
Jimmy Ellis
Ron Lyle
Tom Sharkey
Donovan Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno
Eddie Machen
Tommy Loughran


51-60
Michael Moorer
Marvin Hart
Harold Johnson
Oscar Bonavena
Clarence Henry
Rex Layne
George Godfrey
Arthuro Godoy
Jimmy Bivins
Corrie Sanders


61-70
Tony Tucker
Zora Folley
Roland LaStarza
Lee Murray
Bob Pastor
Ernie Terrel
Oleg Maskaev
Trevor Berbick
Michael Dokes
Tommy Morrison


71-80
Tony Tubbs
Tami Mauriello
Cleveland Williams
Harry Greb
Bob Baker
Larry Gains
Jack Renault
Fred Fulton
Jess Willard
Turkey Thompson
Henry Cooper



81-89
Lou Nova
Jimmy Braddock
Gerry Cooney
Paulino Uzcudun
Billy Miske
Ernie Shavers
Bob Satterfield
Mike Weaver
George Chuvalo
Tommy Farr

90-99
Denver Ed Martin
Shannon Briggs
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Greg Page
Tommy Burns
Luis Firpo
Joe Choynski
Gunboat Smith
Lee Savold
Joe Bugner

[Mendoza]

Questions for you, Mendoza.

Questions I would ask of any champion and I would be interested in your answers.

Other than Vitali himself, who were the top five heavyweights active while Vitali was active? How many did he fight? How many did he defeat?

What can he do before he retires to give a stronger answer to these questions?

Top 5 while Vitlai was active from 1996-2008? Lewis, His brother, and Byrd are three. The other two are hard to peg. Pick from the mix of Tyson, Peter, Sanders, Moorer, or Holyfeild.

Once again, Vitlai never made his legacy on washed up big names, such as Tyson or Holyfield in the 00's, but he could have. For example, I happen to think Sanders had more left in the 00's than either Tyson or Holyfield, and you could argue the same for Peter. If Tyson defeated Danny Williams, Vitlai was going to fight him next, and surely Vitlai wins...IMO faster than Lewis did vs Tyson.

While Lewis and Byrd did win, come on we know Byrd was lucky, and Lewis did not intend to give Vitlai a re-match, not even for $18,000,000.00 on the table for him. IMO, Vitlai proved himself on his two technical losses, and creamed everyone else.

I think Vitlai should fight either Valuev next, or Chagaev. I would prefer Valuev, and if that fight happens, I expect Vitlai to win via wide UD or TKO. Valuev might be lucky to win more than 2 rounds. If neither of these matches can be made, then Gomez, then a big name after that.

On this ranking business, I think Vitlai should be top 20 for sure, either legacy or head to head, and to be frank, I'm not sure how many old timers pre-Liston would have much of a chance to defeat him.

[Loewe]

McCall is in the top30. Now i remember you thinking he was ranked too high. I've dropped him down to the top40, promoting Tunney to top30. If you object let me know. Here is the new list:


1-10
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Johnson

11-20
Riddick Bowe
Jack Dempsey
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Bob Fitzsimmons
Floyd Patterson


21-30
Gene Tunney
Ingemar Johansson
Max Schmeling
Elmer Ray
Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry
Jimmy Young
Archie Moore
Joe Jeannette
David Tua


:admin you wanted correct that. :|

[Loewe]

Top 5 while Vitlai was active from 1996-2008? Lewis, His brother, and Byrd are three. The other two are hard to peg. Pick from the mix of Tyson, Peter, Sanders, Moorer, or Holyfeild.

Once again, Vitlai never made his legacy on washed up big names, such as Tyson or Holyfield in the 00's, but he could have. For example, I happen to think Sanders had more left in the 00's than either Tyson or Holyfield, and you could argue the same for Peter. If Tyson defeated Danny Williams, Vitlai was going to fight him next, and surely Vitlai wins...IMO faster than Lewis did vs Tyson.

While Lewis and Byrd did win, come on we know Byrd was lucky, and Lewis did not intend to give Vitlai a re-match, not even for $18,000,000.00 on the table for him. IMO, Vitlai proved himself on his two technical losses, and creamed everyone else.

I think Vitlai should fight either Valuev next, or Chagaev. I would prefer Valuev, and if that fight happens, I expect Vitlai to win via wide UD or TKO. Valuev might be lucky to win more than 2 rounds. If neither of these matches can be made, then Gomez, then a big name after that.

On this ranking business, I think Vitlai should be top 20 for sure, either legacy or head to head, and to be frank, I'm not sure how many old timers pre-Liston would have much of a chance to defeat him.

Yeah Lewis was afraid of Vitali ... sure ... that guy was old then and on the slide. Accept it, he retired because he was old and didn´t want to become a washed up former great landing on the record of some bums like so many other old time champs.

I also think Ruiz should be top5. He´s definitly above guys like Sanders, Peter, Tyson for that time frame.

[ChrisPontius]

:admin you wanted correct that. :|

I thought you wouldn't notice. ;)

[ChrisPontius]

I accidentally posted an old list. I edited my post on page 11, it should be fixed now.

[OLD FOGEY]

Chris--I hate to bug you at this point, but looking at your list, I would have one major criticism. Jack Sharkey shouldn't be in the forties. He should be in the twenties. I posted on him in the fantasy thread with Baer. He had one of the most impressive resumes of any heavyweight champion. Of his 55 fights, 41 were against men who appeared in the Ring's yearly rankings, and a couple of others, such as Floyd Johnson and Homer Smith, probably would have if the ranking began prior to 1924. He defeated a slew of top and very dangerous men, and certainly fought the very best men, black as well as white--beating Wills, Schmeling, Carnera, Loughran, Godfrey, Stribling, Delaney, etc.

Your four highest rated heavyweights who were in their primes between the mid-teens and the late forties are Wills, Dempsey, Schmeling, and Louis. Sharkey fought them all and split even. And he was beating Dempsey until he was fouled. Not bad.

I would move him into the twenties and drop Tua or Jeannette into the thirties and drop Ruiz into the forties.

[ChrisPontius]

Chris--I hate to bug you at this point, but looking at your list, I would have one major criticism. Jack Sharkey shouldn't be in the forties. He should be in the twenties. I posted on him in the fantasy thread with Baer. He had one of the most impressive resumes of any heavyweight champion. Of his 55 fights, 41 were against men who appeared in the Ring's yearly rankings, and a couple of others, such as Floyd Johnson and Homer Smith, probably would have if the ranking began prior to 1924. He defeated a slew of top and very dangerous men, and certainly fought the very best men, black as well as white--beating Wills, Schmeling, Carnera, Loughran, Godfrey, Stribling, Delaney, etc.

Your four highest rated heavyweights who were in their primes between the mid-teens and the late forties are Wills, Dempsey, Schmeling, and Louis. Sharkey fought them all and split even. And he was beating Dempsey until he was fouled. Not bad.

I would move him into the twenties and drop Tua or Jeannette into the thirties and drop Ruiz into the forties.
Okay, i've moved a few names. I put Sharkey in the top30, though. I think top20 goes far - but if more people want him there than i'll put him there.

New list:


1-10
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield
Joe Louis
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Jack Johnson

11-20
Riddick Bowe
Jack Dempsey
James Jeffries
Sonny Liston
Harry Wills
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Max Schmeling
Floyd Patterson


21-30

Ingemar Johansson
Elmer Ray
Bob Fitzsimmons
Ken Norton
Gene Tunney
Jack Sharkey
Max Baer
Jimmy Young
Archie Moore
Jerry Quarry

31-40
David Tua
Oliver McCall
Joe Jeannette
Tim Witherspoon
Buster Douglas
Hasim Rahman
Chris Byrd
Pinklon Thomas
Primo Carnera
John Ruiz

41-50
Michael Spinks
Ike Ibeabuchi
Sam Mcvey
Jimmy Ellis
Ron Lyle
Tom Sharkey
Donovan Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Frank Bruno
Eddie Machen
Tommy Loughran


51-60
Michael Moorer
Marvin Hart
Harold Johnson
Oscar Bonavena
Clarence Henry
Rex Layne
George Godfrey
Arthuro Godoy
Jimmy Bivins
Corrie Sanders


61-70
Tony Tucker
Zora Folley
Roland LaStarza
Lee Murray
Bob Pastor
Ernie Terrel
Oleg Maskaev
Trevor Berbick
Michael Dokes
Tommy Morrison


71-80
Tony Tubbs
Tami Mauriello
Cleveland Williams
Harry Greb
Bob Baker
Larry Gains
Jack Renault
Fred Fulton
Jess Willard
Turkey Thompson
Henry Cooper



81-89
Lou Nova
Jimmy Braddock
Gerry Cooney
Paulino Uzcudun
Billy Miske
Ernie Shavers
Bob Satterfield
Mike Weaver
George Chuvalo
Tommy Farr

90-99
Denver Ed Martin
Shannon Briggs
Leroy Haynes
Nino Valdes
Greg Page
Tommy Burns
Luis Firpo
Joe Choynski
Gunboat Smith
Lee Savold
Joe Bugner

[Ezzard]

Please help. I've scanned the list but can't seem to find Jim Corbett.

I know Tua is an internet legend but no way should he be above Quarry, Witherspoon, Jeanette.

I'd put Liston in the top 10 and drop Tyson. Close though... Possibly Dempsey for Marciano...

[OLD FOGEY]

Chris--You put Jack Sharkey where I wanted him. I guess I didn't write clearly enough. I meant to say he should be in the twenties group (21-30). I think that top 20 would be too high also.

[Ezzard]

What interests me is that we have a solid enough knowledge of the top men... I mean the top 30 are pretty set... But then we have a clutch of guys from 70s,80s and 90s... Mostly good contenders... Makes me realise how hard it is to gauge the abilities of contenders from the past.

[Big Ukrainian]

Chris, I think Moorer must be ranked a bit higher - he was HW champion twice.

[ChrisPontius]

Chris, I think Moorer must be ranked a bit higher - he was HW champion twice.

Where would you have him? He was HW champion only once and list his title on his first defence to a and old Foreman who shouldn't have been ranked and didn't beat a live contender since the 70's.

The Holyfield win was very good, as were wins over Schulz and Botha. But he did lose the rematch with Holyfield, lost in 20 something seconds to Tua (okay, somewhat past his best) and he was this close to getting stopped by Cooper. What on his resume makes you think he should be higher than top50?


Please help. I've scanned the list but can't seem to find Jim Corbett.

I know Tua is an internet legend but no way should he be above Quarry, Witherspoon, Jeanette.

I'd put Liston in the top 10 and drop Tyson. Close though... Possibly Dempsey for Marciano...


Corbett isn't on the list because i only included boxers who spend most of their careers between 1900 and 2000 (Fitzsimmons is a borderline case).


As for Tua being an Internet legend, exactly what did Witherspoon, Quarry and Jeanette do to prove themselves so clearly better ? Witherspoon, like Tua, had a relatively short prime, but i don't see how his career was so much better. Both lost to the champion - Witherspoon gave a much better account of himself, but still. Tua's 17 second destruction of Ruiz (top50) is better than anything Witherspoon ever did, and he didn't lose by first round knockout to a mediocre contender in Smith, either.

As far Quarry, he has a lot of good wins, but lost to the top men (Ali, Frazier), and a couple of times to lesser foes (Chuvalo, i know fishy, but loss is a loss, Machen and Ellis). I don't see how he is significantly better than Tua.

As for Jeannette, he has a lot of good wins, but also got a lot of opportunities to do so.

[Ezzard]

Understand the Corbett omission...

Tua was 1 dimensional, often enough in the HWs... Witherspoon and Quarry were fine boxers. I enjoyed Tua's fights but how quick or not he beat someone is not necesarily that important. He was a KO artist, that's how he won his fights, Tim and Jerry were not.

On one hand you downgrade Quarry taking on all-comers and losing too many times and then on the other you disregard Jeanette for taking on all-comers and so having better wins.

I appreciate where you're coming from on Jeanette but it does seem a bit harsh to talk about opportunity when he never even got a shot at the title or the top white fighters. Also, in today's era where the best fighters rarely face one another I think we should be more genrous with those who actually did face one another.

[mcvey]

I think you should start again, Frazier shouldn't be in the top 50 !:lol:

[ChrisPontius]

Understand the Corbett omission...

Tua was 1 dimensional, often enough in the HWs... Witherspoon and Quarry were fine boxers. I enjoyed Tua's fights but how quick or not he beat someone is not necesarily that important. He was a KO artist, that's how he won his fights, Tim and Jerry were not.

On one hand you downgrade Quarry taking on all-comers and losing too many times and then on the other you disregard Jeanette for taking on all-comers and so having better wins.

I appreciate where you're coming from on Jeanette but it does seem a bit harsh to talk about opportunity when he never even got a shot at the title or the top white fighters. Also, in today's era where the best fighters rarely face one another I think we should be more genrous with those who actually did face one another.

I don't quite agree, but it's still a consensus list, so i moved Tua to top40, and Quarry gets his place in the top30. If you think Jeannette deserves that spot more than Quarry does, then let me know. :good

I edited the changes in the above-posted list to not spam the site.

[ChrisPontius]

I think you should start again, Frazier shouldn't be in the top 50 !:lol:

This is a consensus list, not a list for Frazier-bashing-men who go to Thailand for "special needs". :twisted:

[mattdonnellon]

I liked Quarry a lot but he lost too many to be top 30, he is generally slightly overated. Peak or near peak losses to Machen, Chuvalo, Ellis hurt him big tine AT THIS LEVEL. Also the draw with Patterson but I'm sure he is top 50.

[mcvey]

This is a consensus list, not a list for Frazier-bashing-men who go to Thailand for "special needs". :twisted:
All right I will make up a rival list for old perverts. PS Did you get the Thrilla In Manila Documentary in your Flat land? Joe looks in pretty bad shape physically and financially ,damn shame if ever a fighter deserved the fruits of his wars its him.

[ChrisPontius]

All right I will make up a rival list for old perverts. PS Did you get the Thrilla In Manila Documentary in your Flat land? Joe looks in pretty bad shape physically and financially ,damn shame if ever a fighter deserved the fruits of his wars its him.

Haven't seen it yet, they don't show anything boxing related here outside of a few fights on Eurosport. Fortunately, i can watch most via the Internet or German channels which i can receive. There are few boxers who live a comfortable, healthy life past 50 years of age, and Frazier is not one of them.

[mcvey]

Mendoza I would love for you to explain why Lee Q Murray being rated at # 65 is too high a ranking? Ray Arcel called Murray the best puncher of the 1940s next to louis. Murray was 6'3 210lb, he beat oustanding competiton and was Recognized Interm heavyweight champion by maryland and Ohio commissions during world war II. He was a consistent highly rated member of Ring Magazine.







Cleveland Promoter Believes





Murray Can Take Joe Louis





BY JACK CUDDY





NEW YORK, Dec. 7—(UP)—



Larry Atkins of Cleveland, America's second ranking prizefight promoter, believes that Lee. Q. Murray, big Connecticut negro, is the most dangerous potential threat to Sgt. Joe Louis' heavyweight crown. "If the war wuz to end tomorrow,"says promoter Atkins,"I'd say the man most likely to lick Louis wuz Lee Q. Murray." This Atkins' praise of Murray was so entirely unexpected that a startled reporter inquired of the visiting Cleveland entrepreneur last night, "how come you boost, Murray, when he almost'ruined Jimmy Bivins, your meal, ticket, last week?" Atkins, a youngish, broadshouldered, black-haired chap of 41, fixed the reporter with steely eyes, and remonstrated,'In our Cleveland promotions,we have no meal tickets. We have cards. A Cleveland fighter is a card as long as he can lick anybody we bring in. When he loses to an outsider, the outsider becomes the card."In the case of Murray vs. "Card" Bivins of Cleveland, promoter Atkins was doubly fortunate. Little Bivins won an unpopular 10-round decision over Murray last Wednesday night, after Murray had the Cleveland negro staggering about the ring and dripping with gore. The fans booed the-decision so long, and so lustily that a re-match was as necessary as if by royal command. They'll tangle, again in late February — after both principals recover from their wounds. Atkins, who in four short years changed Cleveland from one of the country's worst fight cities into a promoter's paradise, said, "I knew Murray was a good fighter before I matched him'with Bivins. But during the first two rounds, I thought Murray would ruin me. He never let loose with a punch. Disgustedly, I left my seat at the ringside, and walked to the rear of the arena. But Murray was just mouse-trapping his man. He knew Bivins was a cutie and he was sucking him in. Bivins left himself open in the third round, and Murray hit him. Bivins rolled with that right-hand punch to the chin; but the force was so terrific that Bivins wasn't the same for the rest of the fight.

I don't know where I would put Murray but he makes the cut, wins over Bivins,Sheppard,Bobo,Walker , Thompson and stopping Lowry dropping him 7 times ,get him in my 100.

[mcvey]

I know you cant be directing that at me, since I never vaunted or cheered those two wins.
I'd just like to re-iterate I give Byrd credit for beating Tua - a lot of credit, Tua's a dangerous guy - and would rank Byrd above Tua.

When it comes to the 30 greatest heavyweights of all-time, neither of them is close. In my opinion.
BYrd's best win is over Tua ,who can't handle boxers.Byrds big name wins are a 36 year old Golota who NEVER beat a rated contender had 3 fights in 4 years his last two wins being over nobodies. And a 40 year old Holyfield. BYrds win over Vitaly is tainted as it was an injury retirement in a fight the Ukrainian was winning.Top 50 heavyweight is kind.

[SuzieQ49]

Louis was fed to the wolves early on. Jack Kranz was an undefeated 13-0. Al Delaney was 17-1. Adolph Wiater was 16-1(very close fight. Louis said he bloodied up his nose)..these are not easy guys to face in ur 4th, 6th, and 7th pro fights.

[SuzieQ49]

woops wrong thread sry