Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[Hawkins]

3>Number of times they became champion (Factual)

Thanks for showing me your lists. I actually think its cool the system you have devised. Let me pose a question tho'. When you say number of times they become champion do you make a distinction between lineal champion and belt-holder or does it all rate the same?

[-CANE-]

Thanks for showing me your lists. I actually think its cool the system you have devised. Let me pose a question tho'. When you say number of times they become champion do you make a distinction between lineal champion and belt-holder or does it all rate the same?

I'm afraid it all rates the same. What do you think should I use just lineal?

It could get difficult because in the case of Lennox Lewis on his 1st title win which was given to him. I did count this as actually winning the title because Bowe throwing the belt in the trashcan and denying him victory. But couldn't this in a strange sort of way count as a lineal title. I know he didn't beat the man who beat the man but the W.B.C title was really the lineal belt and Bowe vacated it so Lewis's victory over Ruddock in my eyes counts as winning the title although at the time it was an eliminator. Nobody knew Bowe was gonna back down from the agreement made by all 4 fighters. Also what happens when someone retires as in the case of Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano and someone fights for the vacant title is that considered lineal I presume it is and if so Lewis beating Ruddock is the same thing or is it not?

Anyway I'll stop rambling and paste how I scored each fighter.
Any input on this would be gratefully received.

Thought I ought to let you all know how I scored each category and what points they all got.

1>Total years reigned = 5 points for every year
2>Total number of defenses = 5 points for every defense
3>Times champion = 10 points for every time they became champion, +2 points for every year since they won their first title, until winning 2nd title. e.g George Foreman won the title twice giving him 20points, he won his 1st title in 1973 and his 2nd in 1994 a gap of 21 years giving him a further 42 points.
4>Quality of opposition = A=20 points, B=10 points and C=5 points (Of course this is subjective and my opinion)
5>Impact on the sport = A=20 points, B=10 points and C=5 points (Again this is subjective and my own opinion)

Here is how the fighters scored

1> Muhammed Ali,8 yrs,19 def,3 time champ,A QofOpp,A Impact = 233 points
2> Joe Louis,12 yrs,25 def,1 time champ,B,A = 225 points
3> Lennox Lewis,9 yrs,14 def,3 time champ,A,C = 168 points
4> Larry Holmes,7 yrs,20 def,1 time champ,A,C = 160 points
5> Evander Holyfield,7 yrs,7 def,4 time champ,A,C = 145 points
6> Mike Tyson,5 yrs,10 def,2 time champ,A,A = 145 points
7> George Foreman,2 yrs,3 def,2 time champ,A,A = 127 points
8> Joe Frazier,5 yrs,9 def,1 time champ,A,B = 110 points
9> Jack Johnson,7 yrs,6 def,1 time champ,B,A = 105 points
10>Rocky Marciano,4 yrs,6 def,1 time champ,A,A = 100 points
11>Jack Dempsey,7 yrs,5 def,1 time champ,B,A = 100 points
12>Floyd Patterson,6 yrs,6 def,2 time champ,C,C = 97 points
13>James J. Jeffries,5 yrs,6 def,1 time champ,A,B = 95 points
14>Tommy Burns,2 yrs,11 def,1 time champ,C,C = 85 points
15>Ezzard Charles,2 yrs,8 def,1 time champ,C,B = 75 points
16>Sonny Liston,2 yrs,2 def,1 time champ,B,B = 50 points

[LondonRingRules]

Some so called fans cannot seem to do this for some reason

** OK, going to have to break out the heavy artillery here to scatter the pants fans from those in the know.

1. Langford 200 wins-130 KOs, 58 HOFers fought. Nobody else close or even in the same county. Prefer not to rank Sam as a heavy since that limits him. I prefer the greatest fighter ever, but what better tool to scatter the pants fans.

2. Louis- Mowed down every possible fighter they could scrape up for 12 yrs of title fights, KOing almost ever contender and most certainly what few controveries he ever had. Third most fights and KOs on this list. Ushered in a new era of sports and civil rights.

3. Ali- The Greatest not the GREATEST, but good enough to put together some legacy fights against great HOFers. Arguably the most talented fighter in history and one of the toughest who helped internationalize boxing and define a new era.

4. Dempsey- Made modern boxing the biggest draw in sports and his style stood the test of time with many great champions using it with success. A KO artist in the dreary ND era. 4th in wins and KOs on this list.

5. Foreman- did what no man ever did the previous 100+ yrs of Queensbury rules, plus had a dadgummed good prime to boot to add to his comeback. More wins and KOs than everyone but Langford.

6. Jeffries- fighting and knocking out black and white contenders from his pro inception. The first invincible, bulletproof heavy. Retired undefeated with nothing but pretenders to his title. A tremendous natural talent and physical speciman over a century later.

7. Lewis- Gave us some beloved failures to humanize him and preceeded to dominate the best era of heavyweight boxing in the 90s, sending the best to safer regions of the division. Beat every man he faced, a huge boxer/puncher who retired with his title.

8. Rocky- 49-0, 43KO is enough.

9. Tyson- Arguably the best peak prime fighter in history, does something no heavy has ever done in the previous century of Queensbury rules, and may never do again in spite of only reaching 50% of his potential.

10. Frazier- Arguably beat the best fighter who ever showed up to lose a title fight. Trip hammer left hook and relentless pace was shortlived due to health problems, but you could set a watch and collect your winnings by him at his best.

Cheers now chaps.........

[Hawkins]

I'm afraid it all rates the same. What do you think should I use just lineal?

It could get difficult because in the case of Lennox Lewis on his 1st title win which was given to him. I did count this as actually winning the title because Bowe throwing the belt in the trashcan and denying him victory. But couldn't this in a strange sort of way count as a lineal title. I know he didn't beat the man who beat the man but the W.B.C title was really the lineal belt and Bowe vacated it so Lewis's victory over Ruddock in my eyes counts as winning the title although at the time it was an eliminator. Nobody knew Bowe was gonna back down from the agreement made by all 4 fighters. Also what happens when someone retires as in the case of Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano and someone fights for the vacant title is that considered lineal I presume it is and if so Lewis beating Ruddock is the same thing or is it not?

Anyway I'll stop rambling and paste how I scored each fighter.
Any input on this would be gratefully received.

Thought I ought to let you all know how I scored each category and what points they all got.

1>Total years reigned = 5 points for every year
2>Total number of defenses = 5 points for every defense
3>Times champion = 10 points for every time they became champion, +2 points for every year since they won their first title, until winning 2nd title. e.g George Foreman won the title twice giving him 20points, he won his 1st title in 1973 and his 2nd in 1994 a gap of 21 years giving him a further 42 points.
4>Quality of opposition = A=20 points, B=10 points and C=5 points (Of course this is subjective and my opinion)
5>Impact on the sport = A=20 points, B=10 points and C=5 points (Again this is subjective and my own opinion)

Here is how the fighters scored

1> Muhammed Ali,8 yrs,19 def,3 time champ,A QofOpp,A Impact = 233 points
2> Joe Louis,12 yrs,25 def,1 time champ,B,A = 225 points
3> Lennox Lewis,9 yrs,14 def,3 time champ,A,C = 168 points
4> Larry Holmes,7 yrs,20 def,1 time champ,A,C = 160 points
5> Evander Holyfield,7 yrs,7 def,4 time champ,A,C = 145 points
6> Mike Tyson,5 yrs,10 def,2 time champ,A,A = 145 points
7> George Foreman,2 yrs,3 def,2 time champ,A,A = 127 points
8> Joe Frazier,5 yrs,9 def,1 time champ,A,B = 110 points
9> Jack Johnson,7 yrs,6 def,1 time champ,B,A = 105 points
10>Rocky Marciano,4 yrs,6 def,1 time champ,A,A = 100 points
11>Jack Dempsey,7 yrs,5 def,1 time champ,B,A = 100 points
12>Floyd Patterson,6 yrs,6 def,2 time champ,C,C = 97 points
13>James J. Jeffries,5 yrs,6 def,1 time champ,A,B = 95 points
14>Tommy Burns,2 yrs,11 def,1 time champ,C,C = 85 points
15>Ezzard Charles,2 yrs,8 def,1 time champ,C,B = 75 points
16>Sonny Liston,2 yrs,2 def,1 time champ,B,B = 50 points

What if, when rating championship reigns you assigned say a 5 point total to a lineal championship and say 2 to just a belt-holder. It might be easier to make a distinction like that but I'm not sure because I haven't given it a great deal of thought.

At anyrate, I think your system is extremely well thought out. Personally I've never even thought of or considered doing something like this. Good job man.

Have you ever considered rating the quality of opposition for each champion? By that I mean dig up some ratings and assign point totals for each rating of the top-ten? Or would that be way too much work? That may make things a little easier than being subjective because I know how hard that can be at times.

Something like -

5 points for another champion.
5 points for #1 contender
4 points for #2 contender etc.

Anyways just an idea. It would be a pain in the ass tho' to try and dig up ratings for all those guys.

On a sidenote alot of my friends use some kind of simulator to deduce their lists but personally I don't subscribe to that theory of ratings. I'd rather do the work myself and see where the chips fall.

Hawk

[Hawkins]

9. Tyson- Arguably the best peak prime fighter in history, does something no heavy has ever done in the previous century of Queensbury rules, and may never do again in spite of only reaching 50% of his potential.

Just curious, how did you come to this conclusion? He never beat anyone close to an elite heavyweight fighter. He got his butt handed to him by Buster Douglas who never beat anyone of any substance before or after. And a supposed washed-up Holyfield had Mike for lunch.

Edit : I think your list is great. Not trying to say otherwise. Just curious as to why you think that.

[-CANE-]

What if, when rating championship reigns you assigned say a 5 point total to a lineal championship and say 2 to just a belt-holder. It might be easier to make a distinction like that but I'm not sure because I haven't given it a great deal of thought.

At anyrate, I think your system is extremely well thought out. Personally I've never even thought of or considered doing something like this. Good job man.

Have you ever considered rating the quality of opposition for each champion? By that I mean dig up some ratings and assign point totals for each rating of the top-ten? Or would that be way too much work? That may make things a little easier than being subjective because I know how hard that can be at times.

Something like -

5 points for another champion.
5 points for #1 contender
4 points for #2 contender etc.

Anyways just an idea. It would be a pain in the ass tho' to try and dig up ratings for all those guys.

On a sidenote alot of my friends use some kind of simulator to deduce their lists but personally I don't subscribe to that theory of ratings. I'd rather do the work myself and see where the chips fall.

Hawk

You have some really good ideas maybe if I got the time I could try this. But even the rankings of all the organizations are subjective and corrupt at times.
Someone has to choose who is ranked where so it is still subjective isn't it?

[Hawkins]

You have some really good ideas maybe if I got the time I could try this. But even the rankings of all the organizations are subjective and corrupt at times.
Someone has to choose who is ranked where so it is still subjective isn't it?

Maybe you could go by the Ring Magazine rankings so as not to have to be torn between the different alphabet rankings. There used to be a site that had all the Ring Magazine rankings back to the 1930's. I'll see if I can find it.

[-CANE-]

** OK, going to have to break out the heavy artillery here to scatter the pants fans from those in the know.

1. Langford 200 wins-130 KOs, 58 HOFers fought. Nobody else close or even in the same county. Prefer not to rank Sam as a heavy since that limits him. I prefer the greatest fighter ever, but what better tool to scatter the pants fans.

2. Louis- Mowed down every possible fighter they could scrape up for 12 yrs of title fights, KOing almost ever contender and most certainly what few controveries he ever had. Third most fights and KOs on this list. Ushered in a new era of sports and civil rights.

3. Ali- The Greatest not the GREATEST, but good enough to put together some legacy fights against great HOFers. Arguably the most talented fighter in history and one of the toughest who helped internationalize boxing and define a new era.

4. Dempsey- Made modern boxing the biggest draw in sports and his style stood the test of time with many great champions using it with success. A KO artist in the dreary ND era. 4th in wins and KOs on this list.

5. Foreman- did what no man ever did the previous 100+ yrs of Queensbury rules, plus had a dadgummed good prime to boot to add to his comeback. More wins and KOs than everyone but Langford.

6. Jeffries- fighting and knocking out black and white contenders from his pro inception. The first invincible, bulletproof heavy. Retired undefeated with nothing but pretenders to his title. A tremendous natural talent and physical speciman over a century later.

7. Lewis- Gave us some beloved failures to humanize him and preceeded to dominate the best era of heavyweight boxing in the 90s, sending the best to safer regions of the division. Beat every man he faced, a huge boxer/puncher who retired with his title.

8. Rocky- 49-0, 43KO is enough.

9. Tyson- Arguably the best peak prime fighter in history, does something no heavy has ever done in the previous century of Queensbury rules, and may never do again in spite of only reaching 50% of his potential.

10. Frazier- Arguably beat the best fighter who ever showed up to lose a title fight. Trip hammer left hook and relentless pace was shortlived due to health problems, but you could set a watch and collect your winnings by him at his best.

Cheers now chaps.........

A lot of good points there LRR. Disagree with the order but so what, we are never all gonna agree all the time.

I'm only including champions and Langford as good as he was never was champ, but a great nonetheless.

You're not as big a Tyson NUTHUGGER as I expected, thought you'd have him higher. But I agree with what Hawkins just said he never beat an elite heavyweight only a washed up Larry Holmes.

I don't think he was the best PRIME fighter but I do think he was the most spectacular and impressive looking which was partly his explosive relentless style but mainly due to the lack of competition.

[-CANE-]

Maybe you could go by the Ring Magazine rankings so as not to have to be torn between the different alphabet rankings. There used to be a site that had all the Ring Magazine rankings back to the 1930's. I'll see if I can find it.

That would be really useful if you could.

[LondonRingRules]

Just curious, how did you come to this conclusion? He never beat anyone close to an elite heavyweight fighter. He got his butt handed to him by Buster Douglas who never beat anyone of any substance before or after. And a supposed washed-up Holyfield had Mike for lunch.

** Funny, but last I checked, Tyson beat more future, current, or former heavy champions in history, yet you say he never beat an elite heavy.

You seem to be stuck on failures, so by default would rank Marciano as the best, if, IF you were following a uniform logic. I doubt you are, but at any rate I only rank Tyson 9th because of balancing his success with failure.