The 20 Greatest Cruiserweights of All-Time

[Syntax Error]

I'm staggered that Johnny Nelson can be at number 3 in any positve boxing list!

I'm someone that still wakes up in cold sweats when I think about his 'fights' with De Leon & Warring!

It just shows what a poor division it is in real terms, although the ironic things is that some of the greatest HWs of all time are in actual fact modern day CWs!!!!!

[Burning Desire]

I'm staggered that Johnny Nelson can be at number 3 in any positve boxing list!

I'm someone that still wakes up in cold sweats when I think about his 'fights' with De Leon & Warring!

It just shows what a poor division it is in real terms, although the ironic things is that some of the greatest HWs of all time are in actual fact modern day CWs!!!!!

Whats up bro ? Ice Cold here haven't seen you in ages.

[Syntax Error]

Whats up bro ? Ice Cold here haven't seen you in ages.

Hey, I'm OK.

I've just been frequenting other places recently.

I'm going to make sure I come on more often in future.

[crold1]

I'm staggered that Johnny Nelson can be at number 3 in any positve boxing list!

I'm someone that still wakes up in cold sweats when I think about his 'fights' with De Leon & Warring!

It just shows what a poor division it is in real terms, although the ironic things is that some of the greatest HWs of all time are in actual fact modern day CWs!!!!!

I didn't mean to inflict nightmares on you. My apologies.

[giacomino]

Not a terrible list but there is way too much reliance on a fighting having beaten another champion in an era in which every third fighter holds a belt. In addition, using that as a criteria doesn't make sense. For instance, what if a 25-year-old, in his prime fighter, beats a 40-year-old washed up former champion. That's the case in many of the examples used on this list

Also, the list forgot Marcelo Dominguez, who was the best cruiserweight in the world for a few years in the 90s, winning the title on the road and defending five times, including twice on the road in Europe. Lost his title to Gomez, who was far more dominating than any cruiserweight champion in history besides Holyfield.

Finally, Havnaa? Really? Miller, whose defenses rivaled Erdei's in terms of weak opposition? Rocchigiani? He was a German who relied on homecooking. No way he belongs ahead of Carl Thompson. After all, Thompson performed the miracle of outpointing Rocchigiani in Germany forchristsakes.
-

[crold1]

Not a terrible list but there is way too much reliance on a fighting having beaten another champion in an era in which every third fighter holds a belt. In addition, using that as a criteria doesn't make sense. For instance, what if a 25-year-old, in his prime fighter, beats a 40-year-old washed up former champion. That's the case in many of the examples used on this list

Also, the list forgot Marcelo Dominguez, who was the best cruiserweight in the world for a few years in the 90s, winning the title on the road and defending five times, including twice on the road in Europe. Lost his title to Gomez, who was far more dominating than any cruiserweight champion in history besides Holyfield.

Finally, Havnaa? Really? Miller, whose defenses rivaled Erdei's in terms of weak opposition? Rocchigiani? He was a German who relied on homecooking. No way he belongs ahead of Carl Thompson. After all, Thompson performed the miracle of outpointing Rocchigiani in Germany forchristsakes.
-

I've used similar stat platforms before for such lists and the 40 year old losing is always a flaw as is there not being a solve for the occasional bad decision.

Domiguez wasn't forgotten; he just didn't fare well. He fought five current/former/future titlists and picked up five losses against them. This list is primarily concerned with how the champions did against each other because given the age of the division, it's the easiest measuring stick.

[MatteoAlderson]

All rankings are subjective and its near impossible to make them objective. One thing is clear, Holyfield is number one. I disagree with the rest of the list. Al Cole is one of the division's better champions. He had wins over Nate Miller and Miller halted Orlin Norris's reign in the division, and Orlin was supposed to be the divisions savior. And the WBO wasn't even recognized as a real title in the ninties. Moorer had the WBO title in 1992 and just tossed it without any qualms and Zab had the WBO title in 2003 and tossed it like it was nothing. The list gives to much credence to the WBO champions in the ninties. Thats like crediting guys with defenses of the WBU title.

[The Hammer]

Cruiserweight has become a deeper, better division since they moved the weight limit up to 200.

[giacomino]

I've used similar stat platforms before for such lists and the 40 year old losing is always a flaw as is there not being a solve for the occasional bad decision.

Domiguez wasn't forgotten; he just didn't fare well. He fought five current/former/future titlists and picked up five losses against them. This list is primarily concerned with how the champions did against each other because given the age of the division, it's the easiest measuring stick.

Actually, Dominguez beat Nestor Giovannini, who was briefly the WBO cruiserweight champion. His losses to Nelson and Maccarinelli were when he was far past his prime. Kind of makes my point as to why I disagree with the "champions you beat" rankings. Maccarinelli would get credit for beating a nearly 37-year=old Dominiquez who had been fighting as a heavyweight for several years and was nearly a decade removed from being a top cruiserweight. Using such a measuring stick, think of all the mediocre fighters who would get credit for beating Ray Robinson or Roberto Duran at the end of their careers?
Dominguez was just one example of this. Fabrice Tiozza, although he lost to Hill, could very easily be in the top 10 list of, as the title sez, the "20 greatest cruiserweights of all time." Ignoring the fact that he beat McCallum, Eric Lucas, Silvio Branco and Michalczewski at light heavy, Tiozza outpointed your no, 18 Miller and then made four defenses before getting KO'd by Hill.

So, really, was, say, Jeff Lampkins your #14 and a career B-level contender who won a title in the 1980s and made one defense a better cruiserweight than Tiozza? Was Miller a better cruiserweight than Tiozza, who beat him for the title and made the same number of defenses?
,

[crold1]

All rankings are subjective and its near impossible to make them objective. One thing is clear, Holyfield is number one. I disagree with the rest of the list. Al Cole is one of the division's better champions. He had wins over Nate Miller and Miller halted Orlin Norris's reign in the division, and Orlin was supposed to be the divisions savior. And the WBO wasn't even recognized as a real title in the ninties. Moorer had the WBO title in 1992 and just tossed it without any qualms and Zab had the WBO title in 2003 and tossed it like it was nothing. The list gives to much credence to the WBO champions in the ninties. Thats like crediting guys with defenses of the WBU title.

The WBO wasn't recognized where Brett? In the U.S.? By HBO and Ring? Because their champs were filling arenas in Europe and publications like IBD and Boxing Monthly in the U.K. always listed WBO champs. I draw a line beyond them but they had good titlists and bad ones just like everyone else.