Redefined Greatest Heavyweight Ever List

BEST FOR FOREVER.... 1. Muhammad Ali 2. George Foreman 3. Evander Holyfield 4. Larry Holmes 5. Joe Louis 6. Joe Frazier 7. Lennox Lewis 8. Mike Tyson 9. Rocky Marciano 10. Sonny Liston 11. Wladimir Klitschko 12. Ezzard Charles 13. Gene Tunney 14. Jack Dempsey 15. Vitali Klitschko 16. Jack Johnson 17. Michael Spinks 18. Jersey Joe Walcot 19. Riddick Bowe 20. Chris Byrd huh? The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

Thanks MHT and yeah, Norton was close to being in my top 20, his win over Ali is great but that's offset but many off nights and never truly winning the heavyweight crown.

That is an interesting but rather well made list. There's some names that I would have at different positions and in terms of Byrd, I would have Norton replace him but other than that, all the names that are needed are present. Your piece on Liston is well written and obviously well researched. There is no doubt about Liston's place among the all time legends of our sport, however the Ali era started and the man who would rule for a thousand years was pushed aside. Ali didn't just beat Liston, he humiliated him and took his soul.

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/images/liston-sonny-66.jpg http://www.boxing.com/images/sized/images/articles/liston_patterson-530x317.jpg http://www.boxing.com/images/sized/images/articles/Liston62Se-530x317-530x317.jpg

Sonny Liston So, in choosing which write up to first post here, I thought I'd go with the man who was one of the most enigmatic fighters to ever hold the heavyweight crown, as well as one of the most feared. I present Sonny Listion. Heavyweight Enigma The life and death of Sonny Liston are crowded in mystery and myth, when was he born? Was it really 1932 in Arkansas or 1928 or somewhere in between or earlier or later? There are no birth records for the brutal champion, he could have been anybody and anytime, anywhere. His death is just as much a puzzle, he was found dead by his wife and may have been in that state for a week or more. Did he overdose? Was something or someone else involved? We may never know, he died as he was born, covered in a shroud of distrust. But it's his boxing career I want to look at. There was a time when Liston was regarded as the most feared heavyweight on the planet. However, what people tend to overlook is the fact that he was a very good amateur heavyweight with a solid bedrock of boxing skills. He beat the likes of Julius Griffin and Ed Sanders, leading amateurs on the American scene. Sadly the amateur career never lead to an Olympic games but it didn't matter, Liston turned professional in 1953 with a blistering knockout. It wouldn't all be plain sailing though, as he was often taken the distance and lose a split decision to journeyman Marty Marshall. But the talent was there and his jab, thrown with that fearsome left hand was an offensive tool. As time progressed, Liston would beat Marshall in a rematch and go on various KO streaks, stopping guys in brutal fashion, his jab, his left hook and his booming right were all immensely powerful. Eventually the division was waking up to Liston and a win over mike DeJohn propelled Liston into the biggest fight of his career thus far, against perennial heavyweight hopeful, Clevelan Williams. Williams towered over Liston but he was stopped within 3 rounds. Liston's superior reach had been effective, managing to create adequate space and then pummeling Williams with left hooks and straight rights. It wasn't all easy going, as Williams managed to bloody Liston a bit but even Big Cat couldn't withstand the assault. By the end of the decade, it was pretty obvious that Liston was the best heavyweight not named Floyd Patterson but the fight was difficult to make, even the then President of the USA got involved, citing Liston's ties to organised crime. But Liston would not be stopped, he annihilated Williams in a rematch and won 4 of his next 5 fights by stoppage. This included names like Zora Folley, one of the most highly regarded heavies on the planet. It wasn't just that Liston was winning and beating the top contenders of the day, it was how he was doing it. He effectively cleared out the division and finally, government or no government, there was nowhere for Patterson, the youngest champion ever, to run. The Ring magazine once described Liston as a slow but heavy handed hitter, their exact words being "...the fists move with the languor of motoring royalty or as if passing through a gaseous envelope more dense than air." But for all his lack of speed, Liston could hit hard and he could cut the ring off, which worked perfectly against the quicker Patterson. He had nowhere to go, he couldn't move out of the way of the bombs that Liston was dropping that night. He was a favourite that night and rightfully so but what he did to Patterson shocked the boxing world and lead to an immediate rematch. The same result followed. Having spent 3 years clearing out the division, Liston could finally lay claim to the heavyweight crown. Sadly, we all know what followed, two drubbings at the hands of Muhammad Ali and the slow decline into irrelevance. Having said that, we should not forget when Liston ruled the world, he did it the hard way, having to fight almost every relevant challenger of the 50s and the early 60s but even that wasn't enough. He knew that the only way to earn a title shot in front of an audience that was often repulsed by him, he would have to win impressively. The destruction of the division that followed was and still is thrilling to watch. There's a reason why Ali, an accomplished amateur with a decent pro record was thought to be too insignificant. In fact, those losses are so difficult to digest that many modern fans still believe the fights were a fix. How could the devil be beaten by a skinny kid from Louisville? In terms of my list, Liston is ranked 10th because he was a proven ATG, many point at his record and only see Patterson and Ali but they don't see Williams, Folley, Harris and Valdes. Top contenders who Liston made look like children. He fought one top contender after another, biding time for his title shot and when he got it, he was declared the best without a shadow of a doubt. It took the greatest heavyweight ever to dethrone him and that speaks volumes. Opponents, championships, skill set and entertainment value were all factors and I think the above does a decent job of describing that, who doesn't love a good a great KO artist. But relevance in the division and impact on the history of the sport are also important and Liston is one of the most important champions ever. In his prime, maybe only Dempsey was more feared in the pre-Foreman/Tyson age. Liston was champion when being heavyweight king meant you were the biggest name in the sport. Those are all factors we have to consider when making objective lists of the great names in any sport.

Also, Johnson has a great resume. I dare anybody sceptical to look up Jack Johnson's resume and delve into who his opponents were ;) :lol1:

Always thought he was a good boxer, he was really slick and great on the defence and countering. It would take a real skilled tactician to beat him like Holmes or Louis or Ali and I can't see anyone else doing it. In his prime George Foreman could only be defeated by Ali, Louis and maybe Holmes but probably not. I don't think Johnson could beat him so I have him higher. Also, Johnson has a great resume.

interesting thought, why do you think that? my list wasnt h2h altho that had a part to play but you make a good list, name that sticks out is jack johnson, why is he so high? Always thought he was a good boxer, he was really slick and great on the defence and countering. It would take a real skilled tactician to beat him like Holmes or Louis or Ali and I can't see anyone else doing it. In his prime George Foreman could only be defeated by Ali, Louis and maybe Holmes but probably not. I don't think Johnson could beat him so I have him higher.

I think Holyfield should be ahead of Foreman. interesting thought, why do you think that? This is my head to head greatest heavyweights list. 1. Muhammmad Ali 2. Joe Louis 3. George Foreman 4. Larry Holmes 5. Jack Johnson 6. Sonny Liston 7. Joe Frazier 8. Mike Tyson 9. Evander Holyfield 10. Lennox Lewis my list wasnt h2h altho that had a part to play but you make a good list, name that sticks out is jack johnson, why is he so high?

This is my head to head greatest heavyweights list. 1. Muhammmad Ali 2. Joe Louis 3. George Foreman 4. Larry Holmes 5. Jack Johnson 6. Sonny Liston 7. Joe Frazier 8. Mike Tyson 9. Evander Holyfield 10. Lennox Lewis

I should have phrased that differently. I obviously don't mean how nice he was as a person, but rather what he did as a person for black people etc. Laced Up let's say you are right about Muhammad Ali with our conversation the other night and he was a great person who did lots of good things for people etc right... I think what Greg House is saying is that ANY out of ring considerations have no bearing on where they should rank on a boxing toplist. And that's a no brainer. It's a toplist for "boxing performance" not for the quality of any of their entrepreneurial skills or anything but what happens in the ring!

Yeah, because that's so important in these kind of lists... :pat: I should have phrased that differently. I obviously don't mean how nice he was as a person, but rather what he did as a person for black people etc.

Thanks for that well thought out observation Greg House. I am glad you touched on that point too about modern limit division fighters rehydrating and putting on before the actual fight too. When we see olden days HW's that were CW sized, that's exactly how big they were at fight night. When we see a CW fight like Mormeck vs Bell for instance, they only need to make 200lbs at weigh in. In terms of the actual event itself they often weigh 210, to 215lbs, about the same weight as Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali except much more athletic and leaner! The modern Cruiserweights would not only be considered HW's back in those days, on fight night they ARE HW's even in OUR times! Expressing even further why many of these boxers should rightfully be compared with the contemporary Cruisers as well. When we do this we can see modern CW's are much faster, much stronger, much more athletic. Of course a modern superheavyweight boxer is going to appear to have a lower workrate, a more challenging stamina, to be slower on average, to have less fights, they don't even play in the same league!

Shocking list. But the reason I commented was because of the ridiculous statement above. Marciano and Dempsey had determination and 2 handed power so could beat anyone? Marciano and Dempsey have not 1 single decent real HW win, let alone a KO of one, between them. They could barely even box, just maulers. And they are not even real HW's. They are cruisers or sub-cruisers and cannot be compared at all to what we today call "HW". Were any professional HW boxer somehow be allowed to face such a boxer as Marciano or Dempsey, they would knock them straight out, and walk through their punches as if it was a pillow fight. And for all your self-promotion as a great trainer and evaluater, you actually include such boxers on a HW toplist? Utter fool! :lol1: He is right about this. A LOT people are biased with this subject about old timers but not with current fighters. When Cunningham moved up in weight after reigning the cruiserweight division for years, he faced Tyson Fury and got stopped and many people here were dismissive about the credibility of that fight being a "good victory" because Steve was "only a cruiserweight" and not a "real heavyweight". Also when Vitaly destroyed Adamek I believe it was Larry Merchant or someone like that who complained about the fight and said something like: "Cruiserweight Vs Super Heavyweight, of course he had no chance" But when we talk about these old timers, from the black and white era that weighed around 180 pounds, we are supposed to believe that they would be able to beat Lewis or K bros? You people are delusional. They were just people, not superheroes. Also Andre Ward is the P4P Nº2 in the world and also rehidrates himself on fight night to the same weight that those lightheavyweights from the past. How many of you think that he could beat Lebedev or Huck by clinching and bulling them to a decision? Somehow I don't think many of you would consider him a favourite in those fights. And that's just cruiserweight, we are not even touching heavyweight. Size matters in boxing, that's why we have 17 divisions! In the past, a lot of lightheavyweights moved up in boxing and manage to get into the top 10 heavyweights in the ring magazine rankings. Some of them weren't really that successful at their original divisions (they weren't special on a pound for pound level) but they managed to get into those rankings anyway. How many people here think that Andre Ward (P4P Nº2 in the world) could pull that one off in these day and era? Suddenly the "weak" heavyweight division doesn't look that weak ...

Well, there are quite a few videos of Jack Johnson's fights, but my reasoning for ranking him highly is a mix of resume, skills, longevity, out of the ring persona et al. He was a great champion and a good man. Yeah, because that's so important in these kind of lists... :pat:

why isn't pulev on the list?

I think Holyfield should be ahead of Foreman.

It wont allow me to give you anymore green K yet Cyclone.. But it's definitely warranted! ;)

Let me assure you that I personally watched enough fights of the so called "golden age of heavyweight boxing" (the 1960s and 1970s) to be UTTERLY UNIMPRESSED. Those boxers were NOTHING SPECIAL. The greatness of heavyweights of the 1960s and 1970s is an ILLUSION FABRICATED by the iconization industry, fame factory, mythology mill of the USA in the 1960s and 1970s the lack of global competition (the Soviet bloc was FORBIDDEN to box professionally) The heavyweight boxing of the "golden age" was mainly a local contest comparable to the European heavyweight title (EBU) nowadays. All the achievements in those times are either pretty worthless or at least highly doubtful. The golden boys had far less power than modern American boxers, they were much slower, they were less muscular and athletic than modern boxers. There is NOTHING remotely impressive about these "golden boys". It's 90% hype and 10% truth. In fact you could take nearly all of the myths of the good-old-time fetishists and expose them for what they are: Ridiculous exaggerations. Whether it's Sonny Liston's supposedly "phenomenal jab" or "Muhammad Ali's reflexes" or whatever… it's all lies or blatant exaggerations. Sonny Liston's jab was one of the slowest you'd ever see. Ali's reflexes are non-existent (he gets hit even by the slowest punches). It's all mythology. Half of Klitschkos opponents would have ruled the 1970s. Sam Peter would be undisputed world champ. Chris Arreola, too. Tony Thompson would an be awe inducing giant. Eddie Chambers and David Haye would be the fastest boxers the world has ever seen. Just to name a few random boxers off the top of my head from recent times. I would like to hear some of the JUSTIFICATIONS for some of these toplists compiled! That would be more worthy than the worthless compilations of them which contain boxers who either have no business being on a HW toplist, or a toplist at all! You know damn well that you wont hear any reason on why those fighters you mentioned wont stand a chance the typical response of the brainwashed fan would just be "Hahahahaha are you serious" or possibly some insult without anything because the social norm of boxing 'historians' seems to be you can't question anything from 40 to 70 years ago. There is no reason behind it, I think a lot of fans who follow the history of boxing build their opinion off of these so called historians of boxing, all I ask of these people wanting to follow boxing from the past is for them to make up their own opinion. Watch the fights yourself, decide for yourself and for god sake make your own opinion! Its like having the MLS and having a good couple of footballers in that league and all of sudden turning around and saying that this league is clearly the best ever knowing fine well that your team doesn't compete in any of the major footballing event AKA Champions league or Europa league, so it can't be tested. That's the same thing with boxing back then, it wasn't as popular as it is now. I stand by and say guys like Ali, Louis, Frazier, Norton, Willie Pep and so and so on have played a vital role on making this sport as popular as it is but to say they would dominate anyone from any era is just absolute nonsense. Some would come into an era and do the business but it'd be a lot more competitive to what they're use to that is just the facts.

Let me assure you that I personally watched enough fights of the so called "golden age of heavyweight boxing" (the 1960s and 1970s) to be UTTERLY UNIMPRESSED. Those boxers were NOTHING SPECIAL. The greatness of heavyweights of the 1960s and 1970s is an ILLUSION FABRICATED by the iconization industry, fame factory, mythology mill of the USA in the 1960s and 1970s the lack of global competition (the Soviet bloc was FORBIDDEN to box professionally) The heavyweight boxing of the "golden age" was mainly a local contest comparable to the European heavyweight title (EBU) nowadays. All the achievements in those times are either pretty worthless or at least highly doubtful. The golden boys had far less power than modern American boxers, they were much slower, they were less muscular and athletic than modern boxers. There is NOTHING remotely impressive about these "golden boys". It's 90% hype and 10% truth. In fact you could take nearly all of the myths of the good-old-time fetishists and expose them for what they are: Ridiculous exaggerations. Whether it's Sonny Liston's supposedly "phenomenal jab" or "Muhammad Ali's reflexes" or whatever… it's all lies or blatant exaggerations. Sonny Liston's jab was one of the slowest you'd ever see. Ali's reflexes are non-existent (he gets hit even by the slowest punches). It's all mythology. Half of Klitschkos opponents would have ruled the 1970s. Sam Peter would be undisputed world champ. Chris Arreola, too. Tony Thompson would an be awe inducing giant. Eddie Chambers and David Haye would be the fastest boxers the world has ever seen. Just to name a few random boxers off the top of my head from recent times. I would like to hear some of the JUSTIFICATIONS for some of these toplists compiled! That would be more worthy than the worthless compilations of them which contain boxers who either have no business being on a HW toplist, or a toplist at all!