Ring Magazine's 20 Greatest Heavyweights (1998)

[Barn]

Corbett should arguably make Top 20.

[Joeyzagz]

Does Lewis win over Holyfield & Tyson (both well past it) also blind people to Lewis?

I consider Lennox's rematches with Mccall and Rahman much more important to his legacy than the Holyfield/Tyson fights.

How many boxers can bounce back from a KO loss at age 35? In any weight class?

Most are not psycologically equipped to deal with a loss like that, but Lennox finished Rahman a round quicker in the rematch at age 36. Lennox belongs in the top 5 All-time.

[BigStereotype]

Many, many fighters my friend. Greb, Langford, Ross, McLarnin, Charles, Armstrong etc., etc..

At heavyweight I'd say Louis, Langford, Charles, maybe Lennox.

The thread is greatest heavyweights though. In my opinion greatness should be judged by resume and longevity first, than by consistency. Holy's biggest downfall has always been his inconsistency. Catch him on the right night and he was a beast. On other nights he was letting fighters like Cooper and Vaughn Bean hang with him while he was prime. Thats knocks his standing down for me. I have him about 8 or 9, O'd have to check. Funny thing is, when I first started posting on AOL in 1999 I had Holy 3rd on my list. Scott is right, those two fights with Tyson blinded people to many of Evanders shortcomings.

Couldn't say for Langford or Charles, but Joe Louis and Lennox Lewis? Really? Holyfield has so many wins over so many great fighters. I don't necessarily agree that he's number three all time, but he has an amazing resume.

[JAB5239]

Couldn't say for Langford or Charles, but Joe Louis and Lennox Lewis? Really? Holyfield has so many wins over so many great fighters. I don't necessarily agree that he's number three all time, but he has an amazing resume.

Joe Louis' resume is sorely underrated because of the term "bum of the month club". I would argue Louis' resume against any heavyweight but Ali. He easily has one of the best heavyweight champions resumes in history if you do the research.

Lewis resume is very close to Holyfields in my opinion and his h2h win has to be taken into consideration when evaluating the legacy of each.

[IronDanHamza]

Not the worst list I've seen to be honest, some interesting choices but I've seen alot worse. When was this list done?

[Great John L]

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Evander Holyfield
4.George Foreman
5.Larry Holmes
6.Rocky Marciano
7.Sonny Liston
8.Joe Frazier
9.Jack Johnson
10.Jack Dempsey
11.Ezzard Charles
12.Jim Jeffries
13.Jersey Joe Walcott
14.Mike Tyson
15.Gene Tunney
16.Harry Wills
17.Sam Langford
18.John L. Sullivan
19.Max Schmeling
20.Max Baer

Thoughts?

Why is Max Baer in the top 20? He was a very good fighter, I'm not denying that. But why not Corbett, the founder of modern American boxing, one of the most textbook and scientific of heavyweights? Foreman is WAY too high and overrated on this list as is Holyfield. Dempsey and Johnson should both be above Liston and Frazier. Tunney and Tyson should go above Walcott and Charles. Both did more and better at Heavyweight. Walcott was a ham and egger for a large portion of his early career, and lost most of the title fights he was in, so I think Tunney should go above him due to an overall better record and consistent career. Only one loss in 60 fights to ATG Greb which was reversed 4 times and beating Demspey in two of the biggest mega fights in the history of boxing. I think Tyson should go above Charles. He was a complete fighter, and was more natural and meaningful in the Heavyweight division than Charles was.

Ali at #1 and Louis at #2, common but not my choice and I don't mind it. I think Holyfield should be in 11-15 and not 10 personally, and if in the top 10, definitely not number 3. It's hard to classify Holmes, because you have one group that says he's underrated and one that says he's overrated.

[Barn]

Why is Max Baer in the top 20? He was a very good fighter, I'm not denying that. But why not Corbett, the founder of modern American boxing, one of the most textbook and scientific of heavyweights? Foreman is WAY too high and overrated on this list as is Holyfield. Dempsey and Johnson should both be above Liston and Frazier. Tunney and Tyson should go above Walcott and Charles. Both did more and better at Heavyweight. Walcott was a ham and egger for a large portion of his early career, and lost most of the title fights he was in, so I think Tunney should go above him due to an overall better record and consistent career. Only one loss in 60 fights to ATG Greb which was reversed 4 times and beating Demspey in two of the biggest mega fights in the history of boxing. I think Tyson should go above Charles. He was a complete fighter, and was more natural and meaningful in the Heavyweight division than Charles was.

Ali at #1 and Louis at #2, common but not my choice and I don't mind it. I think Holyfield should be in 11-15 and not 10 personally, and if in the top 10, definitely not number 3. It's hard to classify Holmes, because you have one group that says he's underrated and one that says he's overrated.

What is your choice for No. 1 and No. 2?

[Barn]

Why is Max Baer in the top 20? He was a very good fighter, I'm not denying that. But why not Corbett, the founder of modern American boxing, one of the most textbook and scientific of heavyweights? Foreman is WAY too high and overrated on this list as is Holyfield. Dempsey and Johnson should both be above Liston and Frazier. Tunney and Tyson should go above Walcott and Charles. Both did more and better at Heavyweight. Walcott was a ham and egger for a large portion of his early career, and lost most of the title fights he was in, so I think Tunney should go above him due to an overall better record and consistent career. Only one loss in 60 fights to ATG Greb which was reversed 4 times and beating Demspey in two of the biggest mega fights in the history of boxing. I think Tyson should go above Charles. He was a complete fighter, and was more natural and meaningful in the Heavyweight division than Charles was.

Ali at #1 and Louis at #2, common but not my choice and I don't mind it. I think Holyfield should be in 11-15 and not 10 personally, and if in the top 10, definitely not number 3. It's hard to classify Holmes, because you have one group that says he's underrated and one that says he's overrated.

That wasn't at Heavy-Weight though his previous 60 fights have nothing to do with this list in my opinion.

[Barn]

Not the worst list I've seen to be honest, some interesting choices but I've seen alot worse. When was this list done?

It was done in 1998.

[IronDanHamza]

It was done in 1998.

Ahhh thanks don't know how i missed the title lol That would explain Holyfield being so high i guess.