Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[StarshipTrooper]

It's hard to believe nobody has picked up on the list yet.

I did and I pointed out just how ridiculous half the list was LOL!

Poet

[LondonRingRules]

So what your saying is whatever I post is wrong and then your gonna educate me. I never criticized your list just said I disagreed and already your talking about giving me a lecture when you haven't seen my list.

Or have I misinterpreted what you meant?

** Well, it does look that way.

You want me to justify my list when you won't reveal your own. Without your's as a comparison, it sorta becomes a one sided talking point about my list.

Unlike the self sectioned off loon who has me on ignore as he tracks down and soils himself when he discovers my posts on this site, I don't blow a gasket everytime I see a list differing from mine. At the end of the day, each of us is using a differing criteria of what is or ain't great.

Go back and see the various #1s alone, Johnson, Louis, Ali, Rocky, Dempsey, Tyson, even Holmes on occasion.

Now, if there was some Grand Poohbah who issued out the final definitive list with an order that all dissenters be shot where they stand, we wouldn't have this thread and discussion now would we?

[Colin McMillan]

** Well, it does look that way.

You want me to justify my list when you won't reveal your own. Without your's as a comparison, it sorta becomes a one sided talking point about my list.

Unlike the self sectioned off loon who has me on ignore as he tracks down and soils himself when he discovers my posts on this site, I don't blow a gasket everytime I see a list differing from mine. At the end of the day, each of us is using a differing criteria of what is or ain't great.

Go back and see the various #1s alone, Johnson, Louis, Ali, Rocky, Dempsey, Tyson, even Holmes on occasion.

Now, if there was some Grand Poohbah who issued out the final definitive list with an order that all dissenters be shot where they stand, we wouldn't have this thread and discussion now would we?

Here is my list, let's go through each and discuss.

1> Muhammed Ali
2> Joe Louis
3> Lennox Lewis
4> Larry Holmes
5> Evander Holyfield
6> Mike Tyson
7> George Foreman
8> Joe Frazier
9> Jack Johnson
10>Rocky Marciano

[LondonRingRules]

Here is my list, let's go through each and discuss.

1> Muhammed Ali
2> Joe Louis
3> Lennox Lewis
4> Larry Holmes
5> Evander Holyfield
6> Mike Tyson
7> George Foreman
8> Joe Frazier
9> Jack Johnson
10>Rocky Marciano

** Jack Johnson was considered the gold standard for some 6 decades by scribes and historians who had seen so many eras. Dempsey, Jeffries, and Louis had their advocates, but I'm talking about general consensus here all the way through Ali's prime.

Most didn't rate Ali, and in fact, Ali becomes a johnny come lately thief in the nite once a convergence of Nat Fleischer's and many other scribe's death with Ali's stunning upset of Foreman. Ali comes from last in the pack to leader of the pack with modern assessments of those who never saw the old timers in action to compare.

Since I never see any post Ali fighter rated over him, it follows that they cannot be better than him, thus striking Lewis, Holmes, Holy, Tyson, Rocky and Frazier from the top with Ali if I adhere to those who actually had a chance to review the entire pantheon rather than a narrow slice of modern day fighters.

Now, we're close on Louis who I understand may have overtaken Ali in recent rankings in a semblence of redress. I could entertain moving him up, but again, those that saw all these fighters in action tended to hold the guys I rank in high esteem and Louis seldom made their cut at the top.

Johnson in his day was nigh on invincible, toying with opponents at will until bored when they were dispatched with the suddeness of lightning strikes. That he threw fights like Sonny did against young Clay for self protection shouldn't be held against him.

1. Jack Johnson
2. Jim Jeffries
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. Jack Dempsey
5. James J. Corbett
6. Joe Louis
7. Sam Langford
8. Gene Tunney
9. Max Schmeling
10. Rocky Marciano

So, other than Louis and Johnson, the similarities in our lists end. Jeffries was invincible until beat by Johnson and both beat Fitz. Fitz of course, tell me what other fighter in history had to face down both Corbett and Wyatt Earp who was armed, knowing he could be shot dead on the spot for knocking out Corbett with what Earp regarded as an illegal body shot?

Dempsey's record stands on it's own, coming from the world's most forgotten backwater to become the first millionaire heavy and greater sporting legend than Babe Ruth in the day. Corbett beat the legend Sullivan and a bit hard done up at having to go with a draw as darkness closed in around he and Jackson. Surely no one needs an intro to Sam Langford. Schmeling maybe a bit of an odd duck, but wins over prime Sharkey and Louis and doing as a foreigner in a strange land when Germans had a disasterous public image speaks for itself.

Rocky, 49-0, 43 KO........nuff.......

[Colin McMillan]

** Jack Johnson was considered the gold standard for some 6 decades by scribes and historians who had seen so many eras. Dempsey, Jeffries, and Louis had their advocates, but I'm talking about general consensus here all the way through Ali's prime.

Most didn't rate Ali, and in fact, Ali becomes a johnny come lately thief in the nite once a convergence of Nat Fleischer's and many other scribe's death with Ali's stunning upset of Foreman. Ali comes from last in the pack to leader of the pack with modern assessments of those who never saw the old timers in action to compare.

Since I never see any post Ali fighter rated over him, it follows that they cannot be better than him, thus striking Lewis, Holmes, Holy, Tyson, Rocky and Frazier from the top with Ali if I adhere to those who actually had a chance to review the entire pantheon rather than a narrow slice of modern day fighters.

Now, we're close on Louis who I understand may have overtaken Ali in recent rankings in a semblence of redress. I could entertain moving him up, but again, those that saw all these fighters in action tended to hold the guys I rank in high esteem and Louis seldom made their cut at the top.

Johnson in his day was nigh on invincible, toying with opponents at will until bored when they were dispatched with the suddeness of lightning strikes. That he threw fights like Sonny did against young Clay for self protection shouldn't be held against him.

1. Jack Johnson
2. Jim Jeffries
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. Jack Dempsey
5. James J. Corbett
6. Joe Louis
7. Sam Langford
8. Gene Tunney
9. Max Schmeling
10. Rocky Marciano

So, other than Louis and Johnson, the similarities in our lists end. Jeffries was invincible until beat by Johnson and both beat Fitz. Fitz of course, tell me what other fighter in history had to face down both Corbett and Wyatt Earp who was armed, knowing he could be shot dead on the spot for knocking out Corbett with what Earp regarded as an illegal body shot?

Dempsey's record stands on it's own, coming from the world's most forgotten backwater to become the first millionaire heavy and greater sporting legend than Babe Ruth in the day. Corbett beat the legend Sullivan and a bit hard done up at having to go with a draw as darkness closed in around he and Jackson. Surely no one needs an intro to Sam Langford. Schmeling maybe a bit of an odd duck, but wins over prime Sharkey and Louis and doing as a foreigner in a strange land when Germans had a disasterous public image speaks for itself.

Rocky, 49-0, 43 KO........nuff.......

Rocky came before Ali not after.

It seems to me you base your opinions on what all the old time historians say about these fighters, and you criticize others because they have never seen the old timers and they only rate the modern day fighters because that's all they have seen.

Try looking at the fighters themselves and the quality of opposition they fought and beat that was available at the time.

Obviously it's easier to rate modern fighters higher as there is more footage and the footage is much better.

I hold Jeffries in high esteem myself, but you say he was invincible but in how many fights and what quality of opposition.

I wouldn't rank Langford at heavy but he was an all time great but not at heavyweight.

Tunney was mainly a light heavyweight, and if he had fought at heavyweight a lot more I'm sure he could of reigned for a long time. Marvelous boxer, tough as hell. But not a top 10 heavyweight when you consider his achievments at the weight.

As for Corbett,Fitzsimmons and Schmeling all very good fighters but top 10 all-time don't even go there.

[The Iron Man]

** I'd say much of your criteria has little to do with being a great heavy.

If you go and look at the champions, you couldn't find a more disparate grouping of personalities, physical specimans, or styles. Moreover, there are very few top shelf physical specimans who seemingly enjoy every natural physical attribute who become champion.

Most of those guys tend to fall out from lack of discipline, opportunity, injury, or weaknesses in their mental makeup.

Joe Louis is generally accorded recognition as best heavy ever, yet in comparison to so many other heavies he's quite unremarkable physically, looking like some young guy you could pick up off the street today who hadn't put on a bunch of American fat yet.

As long as boxing lacks a Bill James to create an innovatative relative rating system to rank fighters like he did for baseball, these lists end up as beauty contests where rank bias rules. At any rate, I tend to think boxing greatness remains something not quite quantifiable, something mysterious, thus the wide variety of fighter types.

Wlad seems to have been a recent hot topic with one innocent poster putting him at 20th, creating a outcry from the usual piddling suspects.

He would rank near the top of all the categories on your list save a couple. In fact, if all the champs in their primes were suddenly pulled out of one of their best ever training camps and required to compete in the decathalon, he'd be the favorite and likely winner. Decathletes have traditionally been a yardstick for best all around athletic honors.

A liitle guy like Sam Langford would fall short on your list in many categories in spite of being the greatest fighter in history and arguably the best ever heavyweight, completely dominating a very good era.

Since I rank both Sam and Wlad and nobody can come up with a good reason why I shouldn't without dribbling down their chins or blowing out their backsides, the list should properly be considered a fluid talking point. I doubt the usual suspects are anticpating the changes in the sport that will render the typical top lists seen today as quaint as Nat Fleischer's famed list.

Chinese and Russians will be dominating the heavy lists and the new usual modern fanboy suspects will be rubbishing some good American heavies, making up nonsense to rationalize their views, completely lacking any context.

I really disagree with what you have said, the criteria of my list has very little to do with physical attributes. Its more to do with technical skill, you maybe stronger but it doesn't mean u have a better jab or hook. The other half is more about achievements, I'm not even sure you read throughout the criteria based on the comments you have made.

You say my criteria has little to do with being a great heavyweight! i find that shocking, look through them again:
Agility
Power
Jab
Speed
Explosiveness
Chin
Stamina
Heart
Defense
Reign
no. defense
opposition
Impact
Achievements

How in the world are these not attributes/achievements of a great heavy!. What else can they be based on? height? weight? why not base how great they are by using the tale of the tape? really i struggle to see a valid point there.

you also said this
"Most of those guys tend to fall out from lack of discipline, opportunity, injury, or weaknesses in their mental makeup."

Yes that's true, and that is why these fighters are not "great".

You keep saying how fighters from a certain time were physically different, that really had no effect on the scoring either and for power it was based on the power they showed in there time.

I also don't think the klitschko brothers would score highly on this list either, especially in the last few points.

I don't think this is the defining list and yes there are many other ways to score the greatest heavy but this is no way void or a useless way.

[The Iron Man]

Here is my list, let's go through each and discuss.

1> Muhammed Ali
2> Joe Louis
3> Lennox Lewis
4> Larry Holmes
5> Evander Holyfield
6> Mike Tyson
7> George Foreman
8> Joe Frazier
9> Jack Johnson
10>Rocky Marciano

Very nice list! One that i almost totally agree with!

This is my personal list, its not the one i got from the criterea i stated a few pages before. Just one on totally how i feel.

1.Muhammed Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Larry Holmes
4.Mike Tyson
5.Lennox Lewis
6.Evander Holyfield
7.Joe Frazier
8.Jack Johnson
9.Jack Dempsey
10.George Foreman

[Southpawkiller]

I agree wit most of the picks except lewis..he only beat tyson when he was shot and sc****d past an aging evander holyfield. Also klitcho was beating him i his last fight and he chose to retire instead of a rematch he didn fancy. Also foreman in my opinion shud b higher up the list than fraizer a he destroyed fraizer in their match

[Colin McMillan]

I agree wit most of the picks except lewis..he only beat tyson when he was shot and sc****d past an aging evander holyfield. Also klitcho was beating him i his last fight and he chose to retire instead of a rematch he didn fancy. Also foreman in my opinion shud b higher up the list than fraizer a he destroyed fraizer in their match

Lewis beat an old Tyson and Holyfield, but he was old himself when he fought them, he was avoided by everyone until he got the titles and they wanted what he had, that and a huge payday.

He beat an impressive list of challengers and only Ali fought and beat better quality.

[The Iron Man]

Lewis was like a "fine wine" as he said himself. He got better with age, the draw decision with holyfield was a joke, imo he won both of those fights clearly. I dont even look at the fight against tyson just like i dont look at Marcianos win over louis, tyson was finished at that age and lewis wasnt its not about age its about there ability at that age and tysons had significantly decreased.
Foreman did beat fraizer but that was a total miss match for frazier styles wise, and frazier taking a re-match shows what heart he had. You could look at there fights against Ali frazier did what foreman couldnt do. But as a whole i see frazier as a better champion and a more skilled fighter, his achievements were probably greater than foremans aswell (apart from becomming the oldest champ).