The BoxingScene History Section Consensus Heavyweight Rankings

[Steak]

A few months ago we put together an idea to at least attempt to make a Consensus All-Time Heavyweight rankings. There were 8 of us partaking in it to see how it came out. It took awhile to get everyone's list plus i was to tally them up and I was gone for abit. Anyways here it is....hopefully we can conduct an even better, more encompassing one in the near future.

8 voters

Consensus Heavyweight Rankings

1. Muhammad Ali - 65 pts
2. Joe Louis - 62 points
3. Jack Johnson - 36 points
4. Lennox Lewis - 35 points
5. Jack Dempsey - 31 points
6. George Foreman - 21 points
7. Mike Tyson - 19 points
8. Rocky Marciano - 18 points
9. Joe Frazier - 17 points
10. Sonny Liston - 16 points




Roll Call for a new list:

I'll make the clarion call again.. anyone who wants to join in just say so here. What you'll need to do is provide a top 15 list of your all-time heavyweight rankings. When we get enough, and no one else wants to contribute, we'll tally the consensus.

this is an awful list. Dempsey and Jack Johnson rated so highly, but no mention of Larry Holmes or Evander Holyfield? and If Jack Johnson is rated #3, Harry Wills ought to be at least in the top ten, since the guy beat pretty much everyone that Johnson beat.

what Dempsey did to become #5 is beyond me. I know you didnt make the list yourself, but the final rankings were pretty weird after the top two.

[them_apples]

A few months ago we put together an idea to at least attempt to make a Consensus All-Time Heavyweight rankings. There were 8 of us partaking in it to see how it came out. It took awhile to get everyone's list plus i was to tally them up and I was gone for abit. Anyways here it is....hopefully we can conduct an even better, more encompassing one in the near future.

8 voters

Consensus Heavyweight Rankings

1. Muhammad Ali - 65 pts
2. Joe Louis - 62 points
3. Jack Johnson - 36 points
4. Lennox Lewis - 35 points
5. Jack Dempsey - 31 points
6. George Foreman - 21 points
7. Mike Tyson - 19 points
8. Rocky Marciano - 18 points
9. Joe Frazier - 17 points
10. Sonny Liston - 16 points




Roll Call for a new list:

I'll make the clarion call again.. anyone who wants to join in just say so here. What you'll need to do is provide a top 15 list of your all-time heavyweight rankings. When we get enough, and no one else wants to contribute, we'll tally the consensus.

I can't believe there is that many people that count out Holyfield, yet put Johnson so high on the list.

Other than that it's a good list.

[them_apples]

this is an awful list. Dempsey and Jack Johnson rated so highly, but no mention of Larry Holmes or Evander Holyfield? and If Jack Johnson is rated #3, Harry Wills ought to be at least in the top ten, since the guy beat pretty much everyone that Johnson beat.

what Dempsey did to become #5 is beyond me. I know you didnt make the list yourself, but the final rankings were pretty weird after the top two.

Totally agree,

[Hawkins]

Well to be fair, it's hard to get a truly encompassing view with so few voters. With more people involved the more controverial placings even out and arent as prevalent.

[Steak]

Well to be fair, it's hard to get a truly encompassing view with so few voters. With more people involved the more controverial placings even out and arent as prevalent.

makes sense. the problem is that almost anyone can be biased. and at the same time, different fans have different criteria for how they rank fighters.

some people like to say, 'who on their best night would beat the rest' in hypothetical matchups. this kind of makes a real mess out of the rankings for various reasons.

then some people like to say 'its who you beat that matters'. but at the same time, not all heavyweight eras are equal. so you cant simply ask who beat the most top ten opposition, because then youll get heavyweight champions who dominated extremely weak eras at the top of the list.(which is no good)

so you have to do a little bit of both. which is why many peoples' rankings end up such a mess.
imo, a good way to find out what eras were better than others is longevity. for example, Holyfield is now what...46 or 47? and with his style+the amount of punishment he took you would have thought he would be totally shot at 40(and thats being generous). and yet here he is, getting robbed against top 5 competition 7 years later in today's era. I think its fairly safe to say that overall, Holyfield's era was much more talented than the present day.

but maybe thats just me.

[ßringer]

For what it's worth, here's my top 15 list...........

1.) Joe Louis
2.) Muhammad Ali
3.) Larry Holmes
4.) Jack Johnson
5.) George Foreman
6.) Jack Dempsey
7.) Joe Frazier
8.) Rocky Marciano
9.) Evander Holyfield
10.) Lennox Lewis
11.) Mike Tyson
12.) Sonny Liston
13.) Sam Langford
14.) Jersey Joe Walcott
15.) Floyd Patterson

[them_apples]

makes sense. the problem is that almost anyone can be biased. and at the same time, different fans have different criteria for how they rank fighters.

some people like to say, 'who on their best night would beat the rest' in hypothetical matchups. this kind of makes a real mess out of the rankings for various reasons.

then some people like to say 'its who you beat that matters'. but at the same time, not all heavyweight eras are equal. so you cant simply ask who beat the most top ten opposition, because then youll get heavyweight champions who dominated extremely weak eras at the top of the list.(which is no good)

so you have to do a little bit of both. which is why many peoples' rankings end up such a mess.
imo, a good way to find out what eras were better than others is longevity. for example, Holyfield is now what...46 or 47? and with his style+the amount of punishment he took you would have thought he would be totally shot at 40(and thats being generous). and yet here he is, getting robbed against top 5 competition 7 years later in today's era. I think its fairly safe to say that overall, Holyfield's era was much more talented than the present day.

but maybe thats just me.

Holyfield fought in the best era bar the 1970's. He's got longevity, opponent quality and the fact that he moved up in weight (p4p skills) all going for him. You would think he'd make at least the top 5.

[Poet682006]

makes sense. the problem is that almost anyone can be biased. and at the same time, different fans have different criteria for how they rank fighters.

some people like to say, 'who on their best night would beat the rest' in hypothetical matchups. this kind of makes a real mess out of the rankings for various reasons.

then some people like to say 'its who you beat that matters'. but at the same time, not all heavyweight eras are equal. so you cant simply ask who beat the most top ten opposition, because then youll get heavyweight champions who dominated extremely weak eras at the top of the list.(which is no good)

so you have to do a little bit of both. which is why many peoples' rankings end up such a mess.
imo, a good way to find out what eras were better than others is longevity. for example, Holyfield is now what...46 or 47? and with his style+the amount of punishment he took you would have thought he would be totally shot at 40(and thats being generous). and yet here he is, getting robbed against top 5 competition 7 years later in today's era. I think its fairly safe to say that overall, Holyfield's era was much more talented than the present day.

but maybe thats just me.

I would say that Holyfield's era (the 90s) was the second best ever after the 70s.

Poet

[Hawkins]

I think lots of people hold the Lewis fights, and the Bowe losses, over his head as being viewed as a knock against his legacy. Nevermind the fact that he was 37 at the time and had been through countless wars....you could possibly make a case for the Bowe losses considering how he ended up I guess.

More to the point, he gets credit for dominating in era of men alot bigger than him. To me thats what puts him in the ATG catergory.

[ßringer]

I think lots of people hold the Lewis fights, and the Bowe losses, over his head as being viewed as a knock against his legacy. Nevermind the fact that he was 37 at the time and had been through countless wars....you could possibly make a case for the Bowe losses considering how he ended up I guess.

More to the point, he gets credit for dominating in era of men alot bigger than him. To me thats what puts him in the ATG catergory.

Likewise.

It's a hard task for a man with a small build like Evander to move up from Cruiserweight to Heavyweight.

And building the type of record he did against the competition he faced, is damn near unheard of.