My top 20 heavyweights of all time

On expert opinion. I just happened this morning to stumble onto an article quoting several acknowledged experts from a Ring Magazine article on the Patterson-Liston 1962 match prior to the match. These four men are among those who always vote on these lists some are so impressed by.
--------------------------------------------------------

Nat Fleischer

"Considering the contrasting styles, clouting vs. shiftiness and Liston's performance against Eddie Machen, who went the limit of 12 rounds with him, my vote goes to Patterson."

Dan Daniel

"Patterson will retain the title with a knockout around the tenth."

Sam Taub

"I feel that Patterson's speed will be too much for Liston to handle. Floyd moves too fast and punches too fast for the flat-footed challenger. I feel the champion will knock out Liston."

Jack Hurley

"Liston may be bigger and heavier and very impressive looking. But he is too slow, for one thing, and he is flat-footed. The champion will keep his title."
------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't want to put these fellows down. These are about as good a list of four experts as you could get. It just shows the limitation of expert opinion when it can actually be tested in the real world.

 

I can say without question Klitschko fought and defeated far bigger, stronger, faster heavyweights than Moore did and that I feel Klitschko would have easily knocked Archie out. Head to head. I can say that quite a few of the larger fighters Klitschko fought and defeated would have defeated many of the lower tier names of SQ/LJ's list even if they were not as good P4P ..

What say you ? Would you pick Moore over Vitali ?

 

Great factual post.

These guys are like weathermen lol. Their job is to dissect a fight/fighters, but they still make terrible predictions.

That's why I put much more value in what a fighter has accomplished than H2H fantasy match-ups.

 

I do think they are wrong. The guy had 20 fights. I need a much bigger sample size to judge on than 20 fights. That (longevity) needs to be taken into consideration.

 

Hey - I love that you put Wlad in the Top 5, but I just don't think he is there yet. I currently have him in the top 10. If he unifies the WBC belt and defends it as well as all the other belts by defeating the top guys in the division (e.g. - Wilder, Pulev, Fury, Jennings, etc.) then he will be # 3 on my list. He needs to have 5 more successful defenses to do this (67-3) with 21 consecutive title defenses and champion for more than 10 years will put him a notch below Louis and Ali.

1) Louis
2) Ali
3) Marciano
4) Lewis
5) Johnson
6) Dempsey
7) Holmes
8) Foreman
9) Tyson
10) Wlad *If he retires today*
11) Frazier
12) Liston
13) Holyfield
14) Jeffries
15) Vitali
16) Charles
17) Walcott
18) Schmeling
19) Langford
20) Patterson

 

Okay. I certainly understand where you are coming from.

We just don't share any common ground to compare our evaluations.

As I have posted before, I think it very possible a mediocre NFL team of today with a losing record might be too much for the great NFL teams of the past like the Browns of the fifties, the Packers of the sixties, or the Steelers of the seventies. NFL players have gotten so much bigger. But that doesn't make them historically "greater" in any sense meaningful to me. And I have read several books listing the greatest NFL teams, and none into any kind of h2h evaluations to prop up modern teams. These teams are almost always evaluated on the basis of how they performed against other teams of their own eras.

I see two weaknesses of any h2h criteria. One, it boils down to guesswork and guesswork even by "experts" can prove wrong-note my post above on this thread on the expert opinion prior to the Patterson-Liston fight in 1962. Two, even if I were inclined to toss in the modern size factor, the use of drugs to alter the body (which were not available in the old days) ruins any fair comparison.

**bottom line--I guess my bent is as a historian although I would not grant myself the title of a historian, but I look at things that way.

***Now what do I think of a Vitali versus Moore comparison? Well, one thing I would notice is that both of them failed against their best opponents. Moore with Charles, Marciano, and Patterson (he was so old against Ali I would pass on that fight) and Vitali against Byrd and Lewis. Moore clearly beat better fighters at his lower weight (Harold Johnson). His heavyweight victims for all the way some build them up were the second-string guys. That pretty much sums up Vitali also. I think both fit at best into the 26 to 50 range of top heavyweights, if not actually a bit lower.

 

Here's a rough list of mine, though it changes frequently

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Larry Holmes
5. Lennox Lewis
6 George Foreman
7. Evander Holyfield
8. Joe Frazier
9. Mike Tyson
10. Wladimir Klitschko
11. Jack Johnson
12. Sonny Liston
13. Riddick Bowe
14. Floyd Patterson
15. Ezzard Charles
16 Joe Walcott
17. Jack Dempsey
18. Jim Jeffries
19. Vitali Klitschko
20. Ken Norton

 

Uh...Do you have a problem with the name "Jack"?

 

I will give you your due on the Klitschko question, you clearly outlined what they would have to do to get a higher ranking, and gave it to them when they did it.

Your position was clearly sincere.

 

Jack Johnson's rating is all over the board depending on who you talk to. I've seen people rate him as high as #3 while others have him as low as 20. I have him at #11 which I believe to be fair. Jack Dempsey doesn't belong anywhere near the top 10. defending a title only 6 times in 7 years, while sitting on the crown defenseless for three of those years and failing to meet his best contender. The early career losses he suffered doesn't help him much, and I've never thought highly of his opposition either.

 

Vitali blows Moore out. Its a mismatch. I think Vitali fought a few blown up cruiser's. Hide and Norris come to mind. They lasted a combined three rounds.

 

Ed,

Nat F blasted Ali after he first lost to Frazier, saying he wasn't a top ten all time great. Keep in mind, Ali had not beaten Frazier, Foreman, or Norton when the survey was taken. So at that point in time, he was lucky to rank. Nat also voted in the McCallum survey, and had Johnson #1.

The McCallum survey ( taken in the 1960's ) was a concusses among those in the business and familiar with the fighters. Since we do not have 95% of the fights pre 1930 on film, you have to give it some weight. More weight than any single historian.. I believe 12 men were in the panel.

One thing that jumps out is man of the time felt Louis was very good, just not quite as great as a few before. And those voting were born around the same time Louis was. He was there generation. The same thing goes for Marciano, who was considered a solid champion by the black and white Press, but not quite as great as a few before him. But things have changed. Lack of film has dulled the greatness of many of the fighters from yesteryear. But with Louis and Marciano, there is plenty of film for the next generation to enjoy.

 

:deal THIS!

 

A couple of observations:

The idea of Louis and Ali being the top two in some order, seems to fall on fertile ground here.

Opinions vary enormously here on how Marciano stacks up head to head, but people generally seem to be prepared to back him up on his resume.

Larry Holmes has a much higher rating than he had in his own time, so longevity clearly carries currency here.

Wladamir Klitschko seems to be well regarded on the classic forum, perhaps because his resume has the key attributes, that they look for in a historical great.