Enclosed are my top 15 ranked heavyweights by 20-year intervals. The criteria for the

[JAB5239]

- -Except that George was retired by the time the 76 ratings were selected. Take it up with U fellow dummies at Ring, half of which are deep six by now.

Click on this link. Buy it....learn from it, and relish it. Use it to your advantage in simple minded things. Use it day in and day out to improve yourself.

https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Colin_Beveridge_Basic_Maths_For_Dummies?id=gjap55J-gygC

[Bundana]

- -No date other than March 77 given, ie George retired.

U Quack X?

How many dumbos can slobber on the head of a pinhead?

Look, the annual rankings of course included results up until the end of the year. That's why they are called ANNUAL ratings! They were published in the March issue the following year, for reasons already explained to you.

Take a look at The Ring's recent annual ratings, since they went online several years ago. Here it's explained, that the picks are made based on results available by the end of the year (December 31).

Also look at the 78 annual ratings - published in the March 79 issue:

https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/T..._Ratings:_1978

Here you will see, that Carlos Palomino is the welterweight champion - even though he was dethroned by Benitez on January 14! So why isn't this reflected in the March issue? Because the annual ratings are put together at the end of December - and therefore don't include results from January or February the following year.

It really isn't that difficult to understand - so why are you the only one here, who doesn't get it?

[Anthony342]

Look, the annual rankings of course included results up until the end of the year. That's why they are called ANNUAL ratings! They were published in the March issue the following year, for reasons already explained to you.

Take a look at The Ring's recent annual ratings, since they went online several years ago. Here it's explained, that the picks are made based on results available by the end of the year (December 31).

Also look at the 78 annual ratings - published in the March 79 issue:

https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/T..._Ratings:_1978

Here you will see, that Carlos Palomino is the welterweight champion - even though he was dethroned by Benitez on January 14! So why isn't this reflected in the March issue? Because the annual ratings are put together at the end of December - and therefore don't include results from January or February the following year.

It really isn't that difficult to understand - so why are you the only one here, who doesn't get it?

Because like most people you argue with online, he can't admit when he's wrong. Like those old people who can't stand it when they see kids having fun. They just have to ruin things for everyone else.

[Dr. Frank]

Enclosed are my top 15 ranked heavyweights by 20-year intervals. The criteria for the ranking as follows.

1 ) Head to head vs. the field, which is strictly my personal opinion. 40%

2 ) Resume of wins and losses, excluding losses that happened when a fighter was passed their prime. 30%

3 ) The distinction of the fighter as champion by beating top contenders in title matches if applicable. 20%

4 ) Historians input, which matters most to fighters, not on film. 10%
I will try to list each fighter only once, placing him closest to his prime years. I am also open to shifting the ratings a bit, as this is the 1st draft. So constructive feedback with explanations is most welcome.

1885-1905 Pioneer era: The transitional time between bare knuckles and London Prize-ring rules to Queensberry rules.

1.Jeffries
2.Fitzsimmons
3A. Jackson
3B. Corbett
5. Sullivan
6. Sharkey
7. Slavin
8. Ruhlin
9. Goddard
10. Griffin
11. Maher
12. Choynski
13. Hart
14. McCoy
15. O’Brien


1906-1925 Black and white filmed era:

1. Dempsey
2. Tunney
3. J Johnson
4. Langford
5. Wills
6. Jeanette
7. McVey
8. Willard
9. Greb
10. Gibbons
11. Burns
12. Miske
13. Godfrey
14. Norfolk
15. Smith

1926-1945 Great Depression to World War II: An era where war and the great depression in the USA hurt boxing. I have trouble with the bottom of this list, as the depth is rather thin.

1. Louis
2. Charles
3. Schmeling
4. M Baer
5. Carnera
6. Godfrey
7. Moore
8. Bivins
9. Schaff
10. Conn
11. *****
12. Pastor
13. Farr
14. Loughran
15. Galento

1946-1965 Golden age era:

1. Liston
2. Marciano
3. Patterson
4. Walcott
5. Charles
6. Johansson
7. Ray
8. Terrell
9. Machen
10. Folley
11. Williams
12. H. Johnson
13. Valdes
14. D Jones
15. Chuvalo




1966-1985: TV expansion to Cable and PPV: This era is loaded with talent.

1. Ali
2. Holmes
3. Foreman
4. Frazier
5. Norton
6. Witherspoon
7. Thomas
8. Quarry
9. Page
10. Coetzee
11. Shavers
12. Lyle
13. Cooney
14. Young
15. Weaver


1986-2003: 12 round era and super heavyweight era. This era had tremendous depth and a lot of talent.

1. Lewis
2. Holyfield
3. Tyson
4. Bowe
5. Ibeabuchi
6.Byrd
7. Moorer
8. Mercer
9. Douglas
10. Tua
11. Morrison
12. Bruno
13. Rhaman
14. Ruiz
15. McCall




2004-2024 – Eastern European dominance era. While this era is only half over, the nations producing the top talent has shifted. Once the iron curtain in Eastern Europe fell both the amateur and professional ranks have been dominated by Eastern Europeans. Only 2 Americans made the top ten. Since many of the below fighters career’s are over, and future talent in the amateurs will arrive, this list will likely look very different after the Klitshcko’s come 2026. It is possible young pros such as Joshua will rate in the next 4 years. Hopefully, we will all be here to debate it!

1A. V Klitschko
1B. W Kltischko
3. Povetkin
4. Joshua* Still active
5. Fury* Still active
6. Chagaev
7. Sanders
8. Ibragimov
9. Wilder * Still active
10. Haye
11. Adamek
12. Chambers
13. Brewster
14. Peter
15. Valuev


*** If Pulev beats Joshua, he's on the list ***

What a load of bollocks.

[Dr. Z]

She knows. She doesn't want to admit to being wrong. In the grand scheme of things it's no big deal, but some of us get tired of the nonsensical misinformation being thrown around to suit an agenda.

I'm going to avoid Queeny. She posts with spiked shoes.

[JAB5239]

I'm going to avoid Queeny. She posts with spiked shoes.

That is probably a good idea. That poster is renowned for making things up and not showing a shred of proof. Here's a few examples...

He saw the Pep-Robinson amateur fight on film. There is no film of it. I even checked with the International boxing research organization.

Lomachenko flew immediately to the Ukraine for should surgery after losing to Lopez. Loma's surgery was done in LA.

MIKE Tyson was on a bunch of experimental psychotropic drugs. Tyson was on Zoloft.

Lance Armstrong was forced to admit he cheated by the FBI. Armstrong is still talking about how and why he cheated in recent articles today.

Armstrong broke his shoulder and finished a race winning bronze. Armstrong actually broke his collarbone and was carted away in an ambulance never finishing the race.

These are just a few of his recent lies and misinformation.

[QueensburyRules]

That is probably a good idea. That poster is renowned for making things up and not showing a shred of proof. Here's a few examples...

He saw the Pep-Robinson amateur fight on film. There is no film of it. I even checked with the International boxing research organization.

Lomachenko flew immediately to the Ukraine for should surgery after losing to Lopez. Loma's surgery was done in LA.

MIKE Tyson was on a bunch of experimental psychotropic drugs. Tyson was on Zoloft.

Lance Armstrong was forced to admit he cheated by the FBI. Armstrong is still talking about how and why he cheated in recent articles today.

Armstrong broke his shoulder and finished a race winning bronze. Armstrong actually broke his collarbone and was carted away in an ambulance never finishing the race.

These are just a few of his recent lies and misinformation.

- -It's Biblical witnessing U swines gobbling up u pearl freebies.

[JAB5239]

- -It's Biblical witnessing U swines gobbling up u pearl freebies.

Biblical? You're again overshooting to cover your incompetence discussing a variety of topics. Tsk, tsk.

[QueensburyRules]

Look, the annual rankings of course included results up until the end of the year. That's why they are called ANNUAL ratings! They were published in the March issue the following year, for reasons already explained to you.

Take a look at The Ring's recent annual ratings, since they went online several years ago. Here it's explained, that the picks are made based on results available by the end of the year (December 31).

Also look at the 78 annual ratings - published in the March 79 issue:

https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/T..._Ratings:_1978

Here you will see, that Carlos Palomino is the welterweight champion - even though he was dethroned by Benitez on January 14! So why isn't this reflected in the March issue? Because the annual ratings are put together at the end of December - and therefore don't include results from January or February the following year.

It really isn't that difficult to understand - so why are you the only one here, who doesn't get it?

- -So Tubsy Lar buys the March 77 Ring and finds out he was first ranked for 76, so buzzed he buys the 78 rankings to find he weren't ever ranked in 77 when he first found out he was ranked is U Holy Grail?

How about ring rankings from 66 published in 77?

I'll try to be diplomatic here: All modern rankings use PREVIOUS results to update their ratings of the here and now publication date.

Ie: moving from traditional a$$ backward rankings to face first rankings to properly understand the immediacy of the here and now.

That insipid idioticracy is why Ring was circling the toilet before Oscar pulled them out to shine em up for credibility.

Poor Tubsy never got to see where he was ranked in the year he was in at the moment...priceless of course just like this Quack Z thread!

[JAB5239]

- -So Tubsy Lar buys the March 77 Ring and finds out he was first ranked for 76, so buzzed he buys the 78 rankings to find he weren't ever ranked in 77 when he first found out he was ranked is U Holy Grail?

How about ring rankings from 66 published in 77?

I'll try to be diplomatic here: All modern rankings use PREVIOUS results to update their ratings of the here and now publication date.

Ie: moving from traditional a$$ backward rankings to face first rankings to properly understand the immediacy of the here and now.

That insipid idioticracy is why Ring was circling the toilet before Oscar pulled them out to shine em up for credibility.

Poor Tubsy never got to see where he was ranked in the year he was in at the moment...priceless of course just like this Quack Z thread!

TROLL ALERT!!!!

You're not getting around the facts, Kickball.