Top 20 heavyweights all time

[JAB5239]

You won't answer my questions which are directly related to you thread. So be it. CHECKMATE. I take it can not defend you own work. NO MAS you cry.

I never used an alt here. Stop lying, you nose is growing, Cowboy.

BTW, they fought in June 1967. If I got the date mixed up, so what. Why do you keep saying December 1967? That is weak Lot of questions.

Post your top 20 and we can talk. What I do know for a FACT is besides it being my opinion, it's fits the same opinion (Johnson being highly rated) of many top historians and trainers. Let me guess, they're all wrong and you're right, right? Let's see your list.

[The D3vil]

Ok and Tyson got beaten pillar to post by Buster Douglas who Holyfield beat up in a few rounds.

With Spinks, maybe Holyfield does, maybe he doesn't. Regardless, Holyfield almost always did better vs common opponents, and also battered Tyson himself and stopped him.

There's no comparison between the two to be honest.

In regards to drugs, we don't have solid, unequivocal proof that Holyfield was on them either. Just very suscpious findings. Mike Tyson is the poster boy for su****ion of PEDs anyway so it's neither here nor there.





Still possible. I just find it hard to believe that a guy who looks 32 at age 14 is really age 14 But it's irrelevant anyway to be honest.

It's documented that Tyson was partying on drugs & stripper with Bobby Brown the night before the Douglas fight.

Bobby wrote about it in his book. Not saying it completely absolves Mike, but let's not pretend that Tyson took the fight seriously, when he didn't.

And Holyfield isn't just "su****ious'.

ESPN LITERALLY caught him.

Nobody ever caught Tyson doing anything but weed & *******.

[IronDanHamza]

It's documented that Tyson was partying on drugs & stripper with Bobby Brown the night before the Douglas fight.

Bobby wrote about it in his book. Not saying it completely absolves Mike, but let's not pretend that Tyson took the fight seriously, when he didn't.

And Holyfield isn't just "su****ious'.

ESPN LITERALLY caught him.

Nobody ever caught Tyson doing anything but weed & *******.

Yeah I'm really not interested in excuses to be honest. He got battered by Buster Douglas. It's as simple as that. If Tyson wasn't prepared that's his problem.

They didn't catch him. The have the Evan Fields thing, which is obviously very suspect but it's not evidence that he used PEDs. He didn't fail any drug tests.

[Kid Cauliflower]

I don't rate on who may beat who. Charles resume at heavyweight is far better than the fighter you named. Corbett gets credit as the first scientific boxer, but outside of Sullivan who did he beat? Tunney has to few heavyweight fights for me to rate him. He was a fine boxer and rates highly p4p, but outside of his wi.s over a Dempsey who was off for three years, I just don't see it. Charles would certainly rank lower h2h, but that isn't probable, wins are.

You can have your opinion and hate mine, I'm OK with that. Rating fighters is very subjective, I just think this is the best way to do it.

The problem with a "Greatest" list not exclusively based on "who kicks whose ass," is that everyone weights each factor differently and nothing gets settled. He was not champion very long, his social impact was tremendous, he fought better guys than X did, he reigned a long time, he didn't fight Y, he sc****d by A but B knocked A out (triangle theory), and on and on.

But since the criteria in this particular poll are so wide, I took advantage by including innovation as one of my measures. Who had more influence on the art of boxing as we know it than Jim Corbett? Not saying he was the first guy to ever parry a punch or hit and get out. But he developed a scientific, defensively cognizant approach (mostly in isolation I think) much of which is still in wide use today, and is indeed the one who introduced it to the wider public and probably kept boxing from being banned anyway. To me there is no doubt Corbett had far more influence on his sport than any boxer dead or alive.

Now, would I be able to include Corbett on a top 20 who beats who list among all heavyweights? I wouldn't. Some heavyweights who were not champions in their own eras would likely beat earlier champions (and that works in reverse too).

Some heavyweight champions barely squeak onto a top 20 list. But if all heavyweights are included not just champs and the sole criterion is who kicks whose ass, they are not going to squeak on at all. I would sure have to include Norton, Charles and Walcott and probably Jefferies, though I might keep Bowe.

[JAB5239]

The problem with a "Greatest" list not exclusively based on "who kicks whose ass," is that everyone weights each factor differently and nothing gets settled. He was not champion very long, his social impact was tremendous, he fought better guys than X did, he reigned a long time, he didn't fight Y, he sc****d by A but B knocked A out (triangle theory), and on and on.

But since the criteria in this particular poll are so wide, I took advantage by including innovation as one of my measures. Who had more influence on the art of boxing as we know it than Jim Corbett? Not saying he was the first guy to ever parry a punch or hit and get out. But he developed a scientific, defensively cognizant approach (mostly in isolation I think) much of which is still in wide use today, and is indeed the one who introduced it to the wider public and probably kept boxing from being banned anyway. To me there is no doubt Corbett had far more influence on his sport than any boxer dead or alive.

Now, would I be able to include Corbett on a top 20 who beats who list among all heavyweights? I wouldn't. Some heavyweights who were not champions in their own eras would likely beat earlier champions (and that works in reverse too).

Some heavyweight champions barely squeak onto a top 20 list. But if all heavyweights are included not just champs and the sole criterion is who kicks whose ass, they are not going to squeak on at all. I would sure have to include Norton, Charles and Walcott and probably Jefferies, though I might keep Bowe.

This is a really great post. The only part I disagree with, and it more an observation than a disagreement, is the beginning and a who kicks who's ass list. Even those are subjective with a ton of variables.

[Kid Cauliflower]

This is a really great post. The only part I disagree with, and it more an observation than a disagreement, is the beginning and a who kicks who's ass list. Even those are subjective with a ton of variables.

Yeah, but at least you know what a man is talking about when he says greatest. It narrows that way down. No harm in having both kinds of lists. It would be interesting to see how the two would vary. I suspect WBW is just about everyone's main criterion anyway, but exclusivity would still have impact.

[Dr. Z]

Post your top 20 and we can talk. What I do know for a FACT is besides it being my opinion, it's fits the same opinion (Johnson being highly rated) of many top historians and trainers. Let me guess, they're all wrong and you're right, right? Let's see your list.

Well I did ask you my questions first. I will ask again. If you answer my questions, I will provide you a more detailed list than you posted. Of 50+ names.

Which historians alive have Johnson rate as high as you do? Any real names, not anonymous polls? Well...

Once again my questions which you have avoided are thus:




Lot of questions.

Why is Jack Johnson your top five? He lost vs. mature men in Klon***e, Griffin, , Choyski, and Hart. He lost to the best person he faced in his lineal title matches in Willard, did not give a title match to the best 3-5 men around ( Langford, Jeannette, McVey, McCarthy, and Smith ) and drew a lot. Yet he is in you top 5? Please explain.

Where would you place Usyk if he retried tomorrow?

Liston's resume of wins lesser than many people that you rate below him and he barley defend his title. So few title defense and a lower quality of wins, why is he rated this high?

I seldom see Tyson rated above Holyfield who beat him twice. Why do you do it?

[JAB5239]

Well I did ask you my questions first. I will ask again. If you answer my questions, I will provide you a more detailed list than you posted. Of 50+ names.

Which historians alive have Johnson rate as high as you do? Any real names, not anonymous polls? Well...

Once again my questions which you have avoided are thus:




Lot of questions.

Why is Jack Johnson your top five? He lost vs. mature men in Klon***e, Griffin, , Choyski, and Hart. He lost to the best person he faced in his lineal title matches in Willard, did not give a title match to the best 3-5 men around ( Langford, Jeannette, McVey, McCarthy, and Smith ) and drew a lot. Yet he is in you top 5? Please explain.

Where would you place Usyk if he retried tomorrow?

Liston's resume of wins lesser than many people that you rate below him and he barley defend his title. So few title defense and a lower quality of wins, why is he rated this high?

I seldom see Tyson rated above Holyfield who beat him twice. Why do you do it?

I clearly said in the opening post that if you're going to criticize my list at least post your own. So you did not ask first.

Why do historians have to be alive? Has the top 10 really changed that much in the past 30 years that these opinions would be irrelevant because a historian is no longer with us?

I've already explained my reasoning for my opinion on Tyson and Holyfields placement in this thread. All that said, let's get to it.

Nat Fleischer 1971 Johnson #1
Nigel Collins #6
Charlie Rose #2
Bert Sugar 2011 #3
Nate Loubet #4
Gilbert Odd #3
IBRO 2005 #3
IBRO 2019 #6
Teddy Atlas #3
John Duran #2
Mike Casey #4
Terry Connolly #3
Bill Brennan (former WBA president) #4
Tyson Bruce #4
Arthur Harris #4
Matt Hamilton #3
BBC sports #3
ESPN 2007 #4
Richard Obrien #5
Herb Goldman #6
Steve Farhood #3
Traci Callis #2

Add those up and divide it by the number of historians and Johnson's rank on average is 3.5.

Apparently I don't rank him high enough.

[IronDanHamza]

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Foreman
4 .Holmes
5. Holyfield
6. Lewis
7. Liston
8. Frazier
9. Johnson
10. Tyson

That would probably be my Top 10 but haven’t put much thought in to it.

[Dr. Z]

I clearly said in the opening post that if you're going to criticize my list at least post your own. So you did not ask first.

Why do historians have to be alive? Has the top 10 really changed that much in the past 30 years that these opinions would be irrelevant because a historian is no longer with us?

I've already explained my reasoning for my opinion on Tyson and Holyfields placement in this thread. All that said, let's get to it.

Nat Fleischer 1971 Johnson #1
Nigel Collins #6
Charlie Rose #2
Bert Sugar 2011 #3
Nate Loubet #4
Gilbert Odd #3
IBRO 2005 #3
IBRO 2019 #6
Teddy Atlas #3
John Duran #2
Mike Casey #4
Terry Connolly #3
Bill Brennan (former WBA president) #4
Tyson Bruce #4
Arthur Harris #4
Matt Hamilton #3
BBC sports #3
ESPN 2007 #4
Richard Obrien #5
Herb Goldman #6
Steve Farhood #3
Traci Callis #2

Add those up and divide it by the number of historians and Johnson's rank on average is 3.5.

Apparently I don't rank him high enough.

Most of these men are dead and in many cases did not live past the year of 1980. Atlas is a clown.

Steve Farhood is not. He is in the media and part of his list has to do with popularity. He is not a historian, rather he is well read.

I asked you why you think he is so high. Not for you to fetch a list of other names. Any one who knows how to use the web can do that 5th best of all time? Not a chance. He lost, and drew way to often and would be destroyed at heavyweight if he fought today. Again I asked for your reasoning. Not for dead men and media clowns like Atlas.

Again read what I said, you don't know what you talking about, said nothing on Liston, barely explained why Tyson is high

Why is Jack Johnson your top five? He lost vs. mature men in Klon***e, Griffin, , Choyski, and Hart. He lost to the best person he faced in his lineal title matches in Willard, did not give a title match to the best 3-5 men around ( Langford, Jeannette, McVey, McCarthy, and Smith ) and drew a lot. Yet he is in you top 5? Please explain.

Where would you place Usyk if he retried tomorrow?

Liston's resume of wins lesser than many people that you rate below him and he barley defend his title. So few title defense and a lower quality of wins, why is he rated this high?

I seldom see Tyson rated above Holyfield who beat him twice. Why do you do it