Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[Wiley Hyena]

So Wiley, did you manage to check out my new list and how it has changed and how the scoring was done, want to know your opinion on this

Yes...Very nice list. My list is above, so I disagree as to the order of some of the fighters, but your list is well considered IMO. Standards that I have additionally are Impact on the Culture, and, Overall Talent. Perhaps it would be easy to lump Impact on the Culture in with Impact on the Sport, but Overall Talent is something that I think should be considered. It is somewhat subjective, but it's impossible to totally dispense with it, IMO. Cheers.

[The Iron Man]

When i have time ill do a spread sheet of my own, taking into account all the things we have spoken about. Should be interesting once we get the results

[Brassangel]

But the very fact that you [Wiley] have agreed with my statement(s) concerning the variables of each champion within each era proves that their impact on the sport is relative. Their impact is so different, whether good or bad, that they would all deserve an "A" unless someone has a personal bias towards (or against) a particular fighter; or, the fighter had very little true impact on the sport, such as Lennox Lewis.

Far too many variables create a very messy chalkboard when trying to develop an accurate formula for determining a champion's impact; some of which may be unfair to others. The fact that television was around for half of them and not for others, while some still had to be shown only on pay-per-view, some on closed circuit, some during allegedly "down" eras, etc. A boxers' popularity, which greatly affects their impact, is bad for determining how great they are. Just because Muhammad Ali was loved by the people of Africa, does not aid in his being one of the best "boxing champions" of all-time. Just because Germany hated Joe Louis, does not mean that he wasn't one of the greatest of all-time. Rocky Marciano went undefeated through, what some consider to be a down time in the heavyweight division, and so his impact wasn't felt until it was seen in hindsight. That should affect his greatness. Can you see why this is an awkward category?

[Wiley Hyena]

But the very fact that you [Wiley] have agreed with my statement(s) concerning the variables of each champion within each era proves that their impact on the sport is relative. Their impact is so different, whether good or bad, that they would all deserve an "A" unless someone has a personal bias towards (or against) a particular fighter; or, the fighter had very little true impact on the sport, such as Lennox Lewis.

Far too many variables create a very messy chalkboard when trying to develop an accurate formula for determining a champion's impact; some of which may be unfair to others. The fact that television was around for half of them and not for others, while some still had to be shown only on pay-per-view, some on closed circuit, some during allegedly "down" eras, etc. A boxers' popularity, which greatly affects their impact, is bad for determining how great they are. Just because Muhammad Ali was loved by the people of Africa, does not aid in his being one of the best "boxing champions" of all-time. Just because Germany hated Joe Louis, does not mean that he wasn't one of the greatest of all-time. Rocky Marciano went undefeated through, what some consider to be a down time in the heavyweight division, and so his impact wasn't felt until it was seen in hindsight. That should affect his greatness. Can you see why this is an awkward category?

I understand what you're saying. But, when talking about boxing history, impact on the sport and culture is something that has to be accounted for. Many times "impact" can be negative. Impact is impact. Kind of like Time's Man of the Year. Sometimes, the man of the year is a bad guy. In boxing, popularity is however the most significant factor because it tends to influence young people and young boxers.

[-CANE-]

Yes...Very nice list. My list is above, so I disagree as to the order of some of the fighters, but your list is well considered IMO. Standards that I have additionally are Impact on the Culture, and, Overall Talent. Perhaps it would be easy to lump Impact on the Culture in with Impact on the Sport, but Overall Talent is something that I think should be considered. It is somewhat subjective, but it's impossible to totally dispense with it, IMO. Cheers.

I shall as you and others have pointed out try adding overall talent, it will need to be broken down into different categories, such as heart, speed, power etc. Of course this is subjective and everyone's opinion differs greatly. But in doing this the whole concept now changes, I did originally when constructing the list say that this was only to find the greatest champions in the division on achiements only. In taking the suggestions of everybody else on board it will be greatest heavyweights overall, taking everything into account, such as achievments, ability, impact etc etc. So the title of the list has to change. Maybe that's where alot of confusion comes in and while everyone's list is different. For instance Wiley said my list was well constructed but his still differs from mine, but that's because of the criteria. If we were going to go on achievments, and you all (Wiley,Brass,LRR,IronMan,Sterling,Lubutheimmortal, etc etc) did your list on that and that only then everyone's list would be very similar. I think done that way there are 4 heavyweights that stand out at the top. The top 2 would alway's be Ali and Louis in whatever order, but they stand out above everyone else. Next comes 3rd and 4th and again 2 more heavyweights stand out above all the others, that being Holmes and Lewis again any order you want. I think if you all were honest and went only one what they achieved as champions, total defenses and years reigned and how many times they became champion then the above 4 mentioned heavyweights are the top 4 every time. I think that's why most of you are disagreeing with the list because you are taking other factors,criteria into account which you are all entitled to do, but the list isn't then greatest heavies on achievment alone, which I did state mine was on numerous occasions. So I believe I have found the greatest champions in the division on achievment, because most of the criteria was factual and you cant argue with that. So I will now try to incorporate all the suggestions made by everyone else into the equation, and quite clearly with there being so much subjective criteria everyone's list will probably differ greatly. I urge everyone to try doing their own list, and to try both types on achievment only, and then taking into account everything for an overall greatest list. If everyone done this I believe done on achievment we should all have pretty much the same top10, maybe slightly different order, but the top4 should always be the 4 I mentioned earlier (Ali,Louis,Lewis and Holmes). Taking everything into account then yes we probably have a lot more variation on the top10 and they will be a lot different from everyone elses. So please take time out and do the list both ways and see what you come up with, and then let me know.

[WelshDevilRob]

I have now done my research on 16 champions to start off with.
I have taken into account their achievments as champions and done my list accordingly. Just because I have someone at no16 it doesn't mean I don't think they were not better or could not beat the fighters above them. This list is greatest champions on what they acheived and how they affected the sport. I have taken the following as my criteria:-
1>Total years as champions (Factual)
2>Number of defenses (Factual)
3>Number of times they became champion (Factual)
4>Quality of opposition (Subjective)
5>Impact on the sport (Subjective)

I have devised my own system for scoring points in each of the 5 catagories as fair as I could and then added up the points to find the greatest champion.
I was surprised at how my list had changed from the original.

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

My new greatest list of heavyweight champions:- (I will use the same system for the champions I have not yet included and will update my list at a later date)

1> Muhammed Ali
2> Joe Louis
3> Lennox Lewis
4> Larry Holmes
5> Evander Holyfield
6> Mike Tyson (scored same as Holyfield, but his 2 losses give EH 5th spot)
7> George Foreman
8> Joe Frazier
9> Jack Johnson
10>Rocky Marciano
11>Jack Dempsey (scored same as Marciano, but RM unbeaten so gets 10th)
12>Floyd Patterson
13>James J. Jeffries
14>Tommy Burns
15>Ezzard Charles
16>Sonny Liston

Great to see Lennox Lewis so high, Hurricane. Though Sonny Liston should be higher

[-CANE-]

Great to see Lennox Lewis so high, Hurricane. Though Sonny Liston should be higher

Yeah as a fighter I agree, he would have beat some of the people that were higher on the list, but this list is just done on what they achieved or accomplished while they were champion and how many times they became champion. From the feedback of other posters, other criteria should be taken into consideration, such as overall talent, unifying titles, youngest and oldest champions in which case I'm sure Sonny would move up the list.

[Wiley Hyena]

Great to see Lennox Lewis so high, Hurricane. Though Sonny Liston should be higher

Here, I disagree that Lewis is top 10, for reasons I've explained in detail before. Not dissin Lewis, I really respect him. He just doesn't get there IMO. If he made a comebact to recapture a championship, then his status would have to be reevaluated.

[-CANE-]

Here, I disagree that Lewis is top 10, for reasons I've explained in detail before. Not dissin Lewis, I really respect him. He just doesn't get there IMO. If he made a comebact to recapture a championship, then his status would have to be reevaluated.

Why doesn't Lewis make your top10 then Wiley, is this because you are taking a lot more criteria into consideration other than just achievments while they were champion, because as I said just above if we are trying to find the greatest champions just on achievment only, no. of defenses, years reigned and how many times they won the title then Lewis is in the top4, because these criteria are factual and you can't argue with that. Or do you try and find the greatest champions overall as fighters, taking into account what they achieved,level of competition,impact,overall ability etc. I would really like it if you and others explained fully the exact criteria you use and what you consider more important and do you have a way of trying to score for each of the criteria, which makes it easier when trying to place the fighters in a certain order. Do you consider who would beat who when trying to compile the list.

I really would be very interested in not just seeing everyone's list, but to have it explained as to how and why a certain individual places fighters, what criteria they use, do they give a score or what.

Sorry to keep going on and asking the same things, but I would like to see where everyone rates fighters on just achievments alone on one list and then a second including what ever criteria they choose, and how it was done.

There is nothing I enjoy more in boxing discussions than Heavyweight boxing and it fascinates me, why one person rates one fighter high and not another.
Does favouritism come into it

[LondonRingRules]

I really would be very interested in not just seeing everyone's list, but to have it explained as to how and why a certain individual places fighters, what criteria they use, do they give a score or what.

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.