Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[hhascup]

That site has been around for a long time. The ratings change every once in a while.

http://www.geocities.com/mgpaul2/

http://www.geocities.com/mgpaul2/ALL-TIME_LIST.htm

[-CANE-]

That site has been around for a long time. The ratings change every once in a while.

http://www.geocities.com/mgpaul2/

http://www.geocities.com/mgpaul2/ALL-TIME_LIST.htm

I saw from the date created it's been around for a few years, but had never come accross it before. Thanks for posting the link henry.

Check out the lineal championship that's interesting.

But the best thing was listing all the heavyweight fights in 1881 and then the end of year rankings by him based on their performances. He has done this for every year from 1881 upto 2005 I think. Not sure how accurate it is, I think I noticed a few discrepencies but all in all it is really interesting reading. I spent an hour just skimming through. It would take hours and hours to go through the whole lot properly.

[BKM-]

Don't mind me I just made a new list a while ago with a diffirent reasoning. I'll see if I can elaborate later.

1-Ali
2-Louis
3-Marciano
4-Holmes
5-Jeffries
6-Lewis
7-Tyson
8-Dempsey
9-Johnson
10-Foreman

[-CANE-]

Don't mind me I just made a new list a while ago with a diffirent reasoning. I'll see if I can elaborate later.

1-Ali
2-Louis
3-Marciano
4-Holmes
5-Jeffries
6-Lewis
7-Tyson
8-Dempsey
9-Johnson
10-Foreman

Be nice to know how you came to your conclusion. Also does it differ greatly from your last list.

[McGrain]

1 - Ali
2 - Louis
3 - Liston
4 - Lewis
5 - Johnson
6 - Jeffries
7 - Frazier
8 - Hollyfield
9 - Tyson
10-Holmes

[BKM-]

Yeah, I used a diffirent approach and I'd probably change it even more if I think about it.
What does it take to be champion? The drive and will. People just don't realise how hard it is to stay in shape and focused, staying unbeaten even in a less dominant era. For that reason I must put Marciano, Holmes and Jeffries up there. I might switch between Louis and Ali for #1. I should probably get rid of Lewis and Tyson since they didn't have the motivation troughout their careers. Well Lewis did, but his 2 losses he should'n't have had somewhat tarnished a great part of his legacy, because his record could have stayed with an 0. That should bring him lower just a little bit. I'll probably include Holyfield as well.

[-CANE-]

Yeah, I used a diffirent approach and I'd probably change it even more if I think about it.
What does it take to be champion? The drive and will. People just don't realise how hard it is to stay in shape and focused, staying unbeaten even in a less dominant era. For that reason I must put Marciano, Holmes and Jeffries up there. I might switch between Louis and Ali for #1. I should probably get rid of Lewis and Tyson since they didn't have the motivation troughout their careers. Well Lewis did, but his 2 losses he should'n't have had somewhat tarnished a great part of his legacy, because his record could have stayed with an 0. That should bring him lower just a little bit. I'll probably include Holyfield as well.

I think Lewis did have the drive and focus throughout his career and it was a long career as well. His 2 defeats were bad and he did lack the focus for both them fights but he did avenge them. But I think you have to include accomplishments in a greatest list and that surely puts him in the top4. But saying that I do agree that Lennox Lewis should have retired undefeated.

[Hawkins]

I think Lewis did have the drive and focus throughout his career and it was a long career as well. His 2 defeats were bad and he did lack the focus for both them fights but he did avenge them. But I think you have to include accomplishments in a greatest list and that surely puts him in the top4. But saying that I do agree that Lennox Lewis should have retired undefeated.

Let me ask a question, it pertains to Lennox but can be superimposed over any fighter. Do you think when someone is defeated by an inferior fighter that a rematch and subsequent victory totally erases it?

By that I mean, Lewis lost to Rahman..someone he was supposed to defeat. He came back and defeated Rahman in the rematch but does that totally erase the fact that he was defeated in the first place?

EDIT : Not a knock on Lennox, but a question using him as the example.

[-CANE-]

Let me ask a question, it pertains to Lennox but can be superimposed over any fighter. Do you think when someone is defeated by an inferior fighter that a rematch and subsequent victory totally erases it?

By that I mean, Lewis lost to Rahman..someone he was supposed to defeat. He came back and defeated Rahman in the rematch but does that totally erase the fact that he was defeated in the first place?

I don't think it totally erases it but almost say by 90-95 percent. He should never have lost the 2 fights that he did but he did avenge them.

I would have thought more of Tyson had he avenged his defeats against Douglas and even Holyfield.

I know it's not the same but Louis avenged his loss to Schmeling who was better opposition than McCall and Rahman but he was favourite for the 1st fight and should have won. He took a brutal beating but the way he totally dominated him in the rematch so emphatically totally erases it. I think anyone can have a bad night for whatever reason and if they can come back from it especially against who beat them then it almost wipes the defeat out.
Hope the response is o.k for you mate. I know what your probably thinking that I allways seem to get Lennox involved but I just think he gets a real bad rap and is underated by so many and not given the credit he deserves. I also realise he had his faults and do try not to nuthug him. It just annoys me when he is seemingly looked over when discussing the greats.

[Hawkins]

I don't think it totally erases it but almost say by 90-95 percent. He should never have lost the 2 fights that he did but he did avenge them.

I would have thought more of Tyson had he avenged his defeats against Douglas and even Holyfield.

I know it's not the same but Louis avenged his loss to Schmeling who was better opposition than McCall and Rahman but he was favourite for the 1st fight and should have won. He took a brutal beating but the way he totally dominated him in the rematch so emphatically totally erases it. I think anyone can have a bad night for whatever reason and if they can come back from it especially against who beat them then it almost wipes the defeat out.
Hope the response is o.k for you mate. I know what your probably thinking that I allways seem to get Lennox involved but I just think he gets a real bad rap and is underated by so many and not given the credit he deserves. I also realise he had his faults and do try not to nuthug him. It just annoys me when he is seemingly looked over when discussing the greats.

Not at all. It was just a generalized question. Since Lennox was the first name I saw it made me think of Rahman in relation to my question. I just asked because I've been doing alot of rethinking about the way I do my rankings and evaluations of fighters in the all-time scheme of things.

On one hand, I think it may erase the doubt but on the other hand a twinge of doubt still exists because fighter A lost to a fighter he shouldn't have lost to.

Same with Douglas-Tyson and many others. Would Tyson coming back and defeating Douglas have totally erased the cloud of Tyson-Douglas I? I'm just kind of iffy on the whole thing - is defeating a guy you were supposed to defeat, who had defeated you before, enough to totally erase the blemish from your record in the all-time scheme of things?