Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[-CANE-]

Posted this to Hhascup on the p4p thread. Things got a little sidetracked over there by some kid.

Just me:
1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Dempsey
4. Foreman
5. Jeffries
6. Lewis
7. Langford
8. Rocky
9. Tyson
10 Frazier

I could easily swing Dempsey past Ali had the Wills fight not fallen through resulting in Jack wasting 3 yrs in Hollywood. Most excellent for his pocketbook however, and he should not be criticized for his choice given his situation and background.

Jeffries dominated his era from day one and fought anyone regardless of what the history books may bleat.

Sam is hard to rank because of his size, but was the dominant fighter and became the dominant heavy of his era and is probably the greatest, most fearless fighter ever, though some other greats may be better p4p fighters.

Rocky....Rocky!

Tyson, the youngest and most dominant and destructive heavy in history when in training with his original team. A tragedy too great for even Shakesphere to create for the stage.

Johnson would fall into the next tier. Just read the NYTimes report on the Jeffries fight. Jack says no way he's fighting Langford. John L picked Johnson BTW and I guess won some money. He say's he couldn't believe Jeffries could come back after so much time away and weight loss. Interesting character, John L.

I would add in I rank Holmes and Liston over Johnson too in the 2nd tier. Things fall apart the further back anyone tries to make a list of. So many variables.

Interesting list LRR, what criteria did you use when selecting the list and what carried the most weight, dominance,years reigned,defenses? Did you take into account who you think would beat who? Is it favourtism over certain styles of fighters? As a champion only Louis achieved more defenses than Holmes, surely on defences alone Holmes should be in the top10. I find it difficult to rate Langford who was great, because I've never really seen him and had a chance to compare against other fighters. What we know of fighters from that era is mainly what we have read, which is only someone's opinion. Very small as well and wouldn't have been able to compete with todays heavies no matter how tough.

[LondonRingRules]

Interesting list LRR, what criteria did you use when selecting the list and what carried the most weight, dominance,years reigned,defenses? .

** I believe you and Henry (Hhascup) have used specific career criteria, which is well considered, but more context of eras and fighters are needed. It can never be rocket science, but it can be the art of science.

If I base my list on who beats who than Tyson wins hand down. That shouldn't enter the equation since that's not a fact.

Holmes never fought Frazier or his peers except Norton and Ali at the end of their careers and even then Norton arguably beat him. Then Tyson has to clear out all the ABC champs Holmes wouldn't fight and obliterates Spinks and Holmes. Please don't compare Holmes to Louis. I give Larry a lot of credit for fighting on past Tyson, but he was no Foreman, no Louis. Let him head up the 2nd tier.

I don't like ranking Langford as a heavy. He's his own category and could have won a title from lightweight to heavy, the most unique fighter in history and the greatest in many respects. Same goes for Fitz to a lesser extent.

If I rely on film, then Ali really looks bad in many bouts with questionable outcomes. Langford won 200 bouts and has more bouts against HOF fighters than any fighter in history by a huge margin. Most were heavies, and he was contesting long past his best. He was the first KO specialist of the heavies on any scale.

Tunney appears on many of these lists, but he only had a handful of heavy bouts, sort of like MSpinks. They were LHs who stepped up and should be rated as LHs with the bonus. Same with Charles, very highly ranked as a LH, falls well back on a heavy career.

Corbett, Jackson, Johnson, and Jeffries were good sized men. John L and Sharkey were Rocky sized. Burns and Fitz were smallish middle types, but that was the history of boxing that big men were often clumsy in the ring, no different than today. Jeffries was certainly no virtuoso of grace, but Corbett and Jackson were highly praised. Johnson was praised on specific skills, not his grace.

The general rule of thumb is the rater tend to favor fighters of his era. I've worked hard to overcome that and have a good mix. If I have a bias it's 9 of 10 are sluggers, but that's the history of the division. Some could box pretty good when they wanted, so it's a wash.

In the end, anyone can have an opinion, but some are better considered than others. I just hate when certain fighters like Jeffries and Langford are dismissed, and being of this era, I'm more than tired of the endless Ali hype.

I disagree with Nat Fleischer in his evaluation of Ali, but in his letter I posted on the p4p thread you can see some early hysteria over Ali that pressured Fleischer through his last years. As soon as he dies, Ali just shoots up the ratings.

Liston is another fighter hard to rate. Same with Baer. Patterson, Corbett, Walcott, Holy, much easier for me to rank and put in the 2nd tier, great names all, but when you chose, someone has to follow, just like when two greats fight, one has to lose.

I really enjoy the history aspect though. Lot of stuff is forgotten and should be remembered and I change things up when someone has something I didn't know or forgot. That's how Louis became #1!

[-CANE-]

** I believe you and Henry (Hhascup) have used specific career criteria, which is well considered, but more context of eras and fighters are needed. It can never be rocket science, but it can be the art of science.

If I base my list on who beats who than Tyson wins hand down. That shouldn't enter the equation since that's not a fact.

Holmes never fought Frazier or his peers except Norton and Ali at the end of their careers and even then Norton arguably beat him. Then Tyson has to clear out all the ABC champs Holmes wouldn't fight and obliterates Spinks and Holmes. Please don't compare Holmes to Louis. I give Larry a lot of credit for fighting on past Tyson, but he was no Foreman, no Louis. Let him head up the 2nd tier.

I don't like ranking Langford as a heavy. He's his own category and could have won a title from lightweight to heavy, the most unique fighter in history and the greatest in many respects. Same goes for Fitz to a lesser extent.

If I rely on film, then Ali really looks bad in many bouts with questionable outcomes. Langford won 200 bouts and has more bouts against HOF fighters than any fighter in history by a huge margin. Most were heavies, and he was contesting long past his best. He was the first KO specialist of the heavies on any scale.

Tunney appears on many of these lists, but he only had a handful of heavy bouts, sort of like MSpinks. They were LHs who stepped up and should be rated as LHs with the bonus. Same with Charles, very highly ranked as a LH, falls well back on a heavy career.

Corbett, Jackson, Johnson, and Jeffries were good sized men. John L and Sharkey were Rocky sized. Burns and Fitz were smallish middle types, but that was the history of boxing that big men were often clumsy in the ring, no different than today. Jeffries was certainly no virtuoso of grace, but Corbett and Jackson were highly praised. Johnson was praised on specific skills, not his grace.

The general rule of thumb is the rater tend to favor fighters of his era. I've worked hard to overcome that and have a good mix. If I have a bias it's 9 of 10 are sluggers, but that's the history of the division. Some could box pretty good when they wanted, so it's a wash.

In the end, anyone can have an opinion, but some are better considered than others. I just hate when certain fighters like Jeffries and Langford are dismissed, and being of this era, I'm more than tired of the endless Ali hype.

I disagree with Nat Fleischer in his evaluation of Ali, but in his letter I posted on the p4p thread you can see some early hysteria over Ali that pressured Fleischer through his last years. As soon as he dies, Ali just shoots up the ratings.

Liston is another fighter hard to rate. Same with Baer. Patterson, Corbett, Walcott, Holy, much easier for me to rank and put in the 2nd tier, great names all, but when you chose, someone has to follow, just like when two greats fight, one has to lose.

I really enjoy the history aspect though. Lot of stuff is forgotten and should be remembered and I change things up when someone has something I didn't know or forgot. That's how Louis became #1!

Thanks for the reply, made interesting reading. I haven't dismissed Jeffries I had him at 13, but Langford due to his size and more importantly was never officially World Champion is dismissed, but agree with you that he was a terrific fighter throughout the weight divisions. I disagree with the Tyson statement I don't think he would be top if it were who would beat who, although he was capable of knocking anyone out. If fights were between 6-8 rounds then maybe I'd have Tyson top that way, but they weren't and even in his prime he was a 6-8 round fighter. He had trouble holding his concentration and got bored very easily letting his game plan slip in the later rounds.

Agree with you about Tunney and Charles, both were great boxers and probably underated but were better Light Heavies IMO.

Again I agree with the assesment of Liston, became champ but only reigned for a short time and never made a string of defenses, so on achievment he did very little but everyone knows what a great fighter he was. As much as I rate Ali, there will never be anyone like him and he was truly unique but I still can't quite accept the Liston fights. There is something very dodgy there.

Patterson is difficult to rate as well. He achieved more than Liston, he made several defenses reigned for a longer time than Liston and was the first man to regain the title, but the manor of his defeats and the competition of his title defenses doesn't do a great deal for him. Unlike Lennox Lewis who although lost twice by KO, proved in the rematches that they were flukes and he was the better fighter.

I have to disagree with you on Holmes, maybe I'm being biased because he was probably my favourite Heavyweight. He should have retired undefeated because IMO he won both fights against M.Spinks. Had he been given the decisions in them fights he would have retired 50-0 beating Marciano's record.
Holmes was underated and unfortunate that he came after Ali and ended up beating him badly when Ali should never have been in the ring. Holmes pleaded with the referee to stop the fight several times and took it easy on Ali as a mark of respect. Holmes was hated for this (beating Ali) he also upset a lot of people just before the Spinks fight. When someone mentioned him possibly equalling Marciano's record, Holmes said "Rocky, couldn't carry my jockstrap". Which didn't go down to well. Something about those 2 fights stinks as well. Mike Tyson is well known for his boxing knowledge and when he wasn't being an animal and the nice Mike was around, was articulate and honest in his assesments of fighters and fights, and after beating a 38 yr old Holmes said in the ring afterwards "Everyone knows Larry Holmes is a legend and if he was in his prime I wouldn't have stood a chance". Larry Holmes had a big mouth but could back up everything he said, he was also spot on with his assesment of Mike Tyson when he said (I can't remember the exact words, but something to this effect) "Mike Tyson will go down in history as a S.O.B and somewhere further down the line will destroy himself". Seems like Larry had a crystal ball.

[hhascup]

I really like your list BUT their really is no cut and dry way of doing this. I wish their was, BUT it's really fun trying. I have seen many ways, here's a few of them.

Back in 1963, a Boxing Mag. ran an article on all the Heavyweight Champions. They rated them on Power, Chin, Footwork, Jab, Hook, Right & Stamina.

Recently Bill Gray wrote a book called "Boxing Top 100" The Greatest Champions of All Time, he went by 29 different catagories.

These charts provide comparisons in four areas:

1. Age Comparison:
Beg: Age at which a fighter began his career.
End: Age at retirement.
PC: Age of fighter in his first championship fight.
LC: Age of fighter when he won his last championship fight.
LCP: Age of fighter when he fought his last championship fight.

2. Years Comparison
Car: Length of fighter's career.
Ch: Number of years a fighter was a champion.
TB: Span of time fighter engaged in title bouts.
VS: Span of time between first and last championship win.
%C: Percent of fighter's career as a champion.

3. Title Bouts Comparison
Tot: Number of title bouts.
W: Title bout victories.
W%: Won-lost percentage in title bouts.
#/Yr: Average number of title bouts fought per year.

4. Career Bouts Comparison
Tot: Career bouts.
KO: Career wins by knockout.
WD: Career wins by decision.
LKO: Career losses by knockout.
LD: Career losses by decision.
#/Y r: Average number of fights per year during career.


The entry directly below the fighter is Avg. Champ: These lines show the averaged production and vital statistics of all fighters in 29 categories. The last entry, 'Difference' is the summation of the champion's production against average. From this we can determine that any champion is above or below the established median of 700 champions by a factor of X.

The champion's charts show a career in a different way than the traditional review basis of wins, losses, and draws. Every fighter is analyzed in 29 categories and ranked against a 700 group median in each category. Here are the 29 categories and medians, and Sugar Ray Robinson's actualperformance compared to the medians.

..........................Robinson ……Median
1. Age at beginning of career: 19…19
2. Age at end of career: 44…33
3. Length (years) of career: 25…13
4. Age at time of first title bout win: 25…25
5. Age at time of last title bout win: 37… 27
6. Age at time of last championship fight: 40… 29
7. Total number of years fighter held a title: 12....2
8. Number of years a fighter engaged in championship fights: -- 15... 3
9. Number of title bouts won: 14 ...3
10. Number of title bouts fought: 22.... 5
11. Average number of title fights per year: 1.2 ...1.5
12. Percentage of career that the fighter was a champion: 52 ...14
13. Bouts to a decisio.n. (excludes no-decision bouts): 200... 57
14. Career wins by decision: 66 ...18
15. Career losses by decision: 18 ...4
16. Career wins by knockout: 109 ...26
17. Percentage of total wins by knockout: 55.... 46
18. Percentage of total losses by knockout: 5 ....33
19. Career won-lost percentage: 88 ...82
20. Title fights as a percentage of total career bouts: 11 ...9
21. Won-lost percentage in title bouts: 64 ....60
22. Number of years between first and last title bout win: 12 ...2
23. Number of years between first and last title fight: 15....3
24. Percent of career spent as a champion: 52 ...14
25. Number of titles won (includes titles regained): 6.... 3
26. Losses by knockout: 1.... 2
27. Net wins (total fights to a decision minus losses): 156 .....38
28. Average number of fights per year: 8 .....4.4
29. Failure to win in a title bout (includes draws): 8 ....2

[hhascup]

** I believe you and Henry (Hhascup) have used specific career criteria, which is well considered, but more context of eras and fighters are needed. It can never be rocket science, but it can be the art of science.

If I base my list on who beats who than Tyson wins hand down. That shouldn't enter the equation since that's not a fact.

Lets do it with Ali & Tyson: Remember it's when they fought Ali or Tyson that were going by.


1. Foreman 40-0-0 vs. Holmes 48-2-0
2. Frazier 30-1-0 & 32-2-0 vs. M. Spinks 31-0-0
3. Liston 35-1-0 & 35-2-0 vs. P. Thomas 29-1-1
4. Norton 30-1-0 & 37-3-0 vs. Berbick 32-4-1
5. Patterson 43-4-0 & 55-7-1 vs. Tubbs 24-1-0
6. Quarry 37-4-4 & 43-5-4 vs. J. Smith 19-5-0
7. Bonavena 46-6-1 vs. Tucker 35-0-0
8. Ellis 30-6-0 vs. Biggs 15-0-0
9. Folley 74-7-4 vs. Bruno 32-2-0 & 40-4-0
10. Terrell 38-4-0 vs. C. Williams 22-2-0
11. Chuvalo 34-11-2 & 66-17-2 vs. Tillis 31-8-0
12. Lyle 30-2-1 vs. Ruddock 24-1-1 & 24-2-1
13. Shavers 54-5-1 vs. Botha 39-1-0
14. Bugner 43-4-1 & 51-6-1 vs. M. Green 16-1-1
15. Bob Foster 49-5-0 vs. M. Frazier 16-1-0
16. Mac Foster 28-1-0 vs. Tillman 20-4-0
17. Mildenberger 49-2-3 vs. Stewart 26-1-0

I still feel that it would be Ali's opponents that would win most of these match-ups.

[-CANE-]

I really like your list BUT their really is no cut and dry way of doing this. I wish their was, BUT it's really fun trying. I have seen many ways, here's a few of them.

Back in 1963, a Boxing Mag. ran an article on all the Heavyweight Champions. They rated them on Power, Chin, Footwork, Jab, Hook, Right & Stamina.

Recently Bill Gray wrote a book called "Boxing Top 100" The Greatest Champions of All Time, he went by 29 different catagories.

These charts provide comparisons in four areas:

1. Age Comparison:
Beg: Age at which a fighter began his career.
End: Age at retirement.
PC: Age of fighter in his first championship fight.
LC: Age of fighter when he won his last championship fight.
LCP: Age of fighter when he fought his last championship fight.

2. Years Comparison
Car: Length of fighter's career.
Ch: Number of years a fighter was a champion.
TB: Span of time fighter engaged in title bouts.
VS: Span of time between first and last championship win.
%C: Percent of fighter's career as a champion.

3. Title Bouts Comparison
Tot: Number of title bouts.
W: Title bout victories.
W%: Won-lost percentage in title bouts.
#/Yr: Average number of title bouts fought per year.

4. Career Bouts Comparison
Tot: Career bouts.
KO: Career wins by knockout.
WD: Career wins by decision.
LKO: Career losses by knockout.
LD: Career losses by decision.
#/Y r: Average number of fights per year during career.


The entry directly below the fighter is Avg. Champ: These lines show the averaged production and vital statistics of all fighters in 29 categories. The last entry, 'Difference' is the summation of the champion's production against average. From this we can determine that any champion is above or below the established median of 700 champions by a factor of X.

The champion's charts show a career in a different way than the traditional review basis of wins, losses, and draws. Every fighter is analyzed in 29 categories and ranked against a 700 group median in each category. Here are the 29 categories and medians, and Sugar Ray Robinson's actualperformance compared to the medians.

..........................Robinson ……Median
1. Age at beginning of career: 19…19
2. Age at end of career: 44…33
3. Length (years) of career: 25…13
4. Age at time of first title bout win: 25…25
5. Age at time of last title bout win: 37… 27
6. Age at time of last championship fight: 40… 29
7. Total number of years fighter held a title: 12....2
8. Number of years a fighter engaged in championship fights: -- 15... 3
9. Number of title bouts won: 14 ...3
10. Number of title bouts fought: 22.... 5
11. Average number of title fights per year: 1.2 ...1.5
12. Percentage of career that the fighter was a champion: 52 ...14
13. Bouts to a decisio.n. (excludes no-decision bouts): 200... 57
14. Career wins by decision: 66 ...18
15. Career losses by decision: 18 ...4
16. Career wins by knockout: 109 ...26
17. Percentage of total wins by knockout: 55.... 46
18. Percentage of total losses by knockout: 5 ....33
19. Career won-lost percentage: 88 ...82
20. Title fights as a percentage of total career bouts: 11 ...9
21. Won-lost percentage in title bouts: 64 ....60
22. Number of years between first and last title bout win: 12 ...2
23. Number of years between first and last title fight: 15....3
24. Percent of career spent as a champion: 52 ...14
25. Number of titles won (includes titles regained): 6.... 3
26. Losses by knockout: 1.... 2
27. Net wins (total fights to a decision minus losses): 156 .....38
28. Average number of fights per year: 8 .....4.4
29. Failure to win in a title bout (includes draws): 8 ....2

Thanks Henry that was really interesting. There is a lot of criteria taken into account. It would be interesting to see how many of the Heavyweight Champions actually made it into the top 100. And who came out on top of all the Heavyweights. Out of interest what's your Top 10, and does it change or has it been the same for a while now?

[-CANE-]

Lets do it with Ali & Tyson: Remember it's when they fought Ali or Tyson that were going by.


1. Foreman 40-0-0 vs. Holmes 48-2-0
2. Frazier 30-1-0 & 32-2-0 vs. M. Spinks 31-0-0
3. Liston 35-1-0 & 35-2-0 vs. P. Thomas 29-1-1
4. Norton 30-1-0 & 37-3-0 vs. Berbick 32-4-1
5. Patterson 43-4-0 & 55-7-1 vs. Tubbs 24-1-0
6. Quarry 37-4-4 & 43-5-4 vs. J. Smith 19-5-0
7. Bonavena 46-6-1 vs. Tucker 35-0-0
8. Ellis 30-6-0 vs. Biggs 15-0-0
9. Folley 74-7-4 vs. Bruno 32-2-0 & 40-4-0
10. Terrell 38-4-0 vs. C. Williams 22-2-0
11. Chuvalo 34-11-2 & 66-17-2 vs. Tillis 31-8-0
12. Lyle 30-2-1 vs. Ruddock 24-1-1 & 24-2-1
13. Shavers 54-5-1 vs. Botha 39-1-0
14. Bugner 43-4-1 & 51-6-1 vs. M. Green 16-1-1
15. Bob Foster 49-5-0 vs. M. Frazier 16-1-0
16. Mac Foster 28-1-0 vs. Tillman 20-4-0
17. Mildenberger 49-2-3 vs. Stewart 26-1-0

I still feel that it would be Ali's opponents that would win most of these match-ups.

I shall give my predictions on these matchups.

1. Foreman 40-0-0 vs. Holmes 48-2-0 - Foreman KO2 Holmes
2. Frazier 30-1-0 & 32-2-0 vs. M. Spinks 31-0-0 - Frazier KO6 Spinks
3. Liston 35-1-0 & 35-2-0 vs. P. Thomas 29-1-1 - Liston KO10 Thomas
4. Norton 30-1-0 & 37-3-0 vs. Berbick 32-4-1 - Norton W12 Berbick
5. Patterson 43-4-0 & 55-7-1 vs. Tubbs 24-1-0 - Tubbs KO7 Patterson
6. Quarry 37-4-4 & 43-5-4 vs. J. Smith 19-5-0 - Quarry W12 Smith
7. Bonavena 46-6-1 vs. Tucker 35-0-0 - Bonavena W12 Tucker
8. Ellis 30-6-0 vs. Biggs 15-0-0 - Ellis W12 Biggs
9. Folley 74-7-4 vs. Bruno 32-2-0 & 40-4-0 - Folley KO9 Bruno
10. Terrell 38-4-0 vs. C. Williams 22-2-0 - Terrell KO8 Williams
11. Chuvalo 34-11-2 & 66-17-2 vs. Tillis 31-8-0 - Chuvalo W12 Tillis
12. Lyle 30-2-1 vs. Ruddock 24-1-1 & 24-2-1 - Lyle KO5 Ruddock
13. Shavers 54-5-1 vs. Botha 39-1-0 - Shavers KO4 Botha
14. Bugner 43-4-1 & 51-6-1 vs. M. Green 16-1-1 - Bugner W12 Green
15. Bob Foster 49-5-0 vs. M. Frazier 16-1-0 - B.Foster KO4 M.Frazier
16. Mac Foster 28-1-0 vs. Tillman 20-4-0 - M.Foster W12 Tillman
17. Mildenberger 49-2-3 vs. Stewart 26-1-0 - Mildenberger KO9 Stewart

[hhascup]

Thanks Henry that was really interesting. There is a lot of criteria taken into account. It would be interesting to see how many of the Heavyweight Champions actually made it into the top 100. And who came out on top of all the Heavyweights. Out of interest what's your Top 10, and does it change or has it been the same for a while now?

Mind changes some over the years because like Bert Sugar says, I listen to what other have to say.

This book has Robinson as #1 with 100 points:

1. Robinson 100
2. Moore 97.29
3. Armstrong 96.85
4. Duran 92.59
5. JC Chavez 90.55
6. Ali 89.43
7. Foreman 88.88
8. Saddler 87.08
9. Panama Al Brown 86.83
10. Ricardo Lopez 86.23
11. Louis 85.49

I have to leave now BUT I had Ali #1 for a long time now, followed by Louis.

[butterfly1964]

Posted this to Hhascup on the p4p thread. Things got a little sidetracked over there by some kid.

Just me:
1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Dempsey
4. Foreman
5. Jeffries
6. Lewis
7. Langford
8. Rocky
9. Tyson
10 Frazier

Why is Langford on the list, when Johnson is not and he beat Sam like a child when they both were at similar stages in their careers? Also Jeffries is too high. He was good for his time, but combination punching for him was virtually non-existant. Many ATG would pick him apart, IMO.

[LondonRingRules]

Why is Langford on the list, when Johnson is not and he beat Sam like a child when they both were at similar stages in their careers?

** Step away from the Koolaide.

Sam had a pretty good career fighting lightweights when he met Johnson having won 35 fights. Thereafter he goes on a tear, winning 165 more fights against heavyweights, 74 more than Johnson accumulated in the whole of his career. Sam won more than double what Johnson won.

Sam, hands down the better fighter with almost 50% more KOs than Johnson has wins. Johnson was big in stature, but small compared to Sam.