The Rings Top 20 2017 All Time Heavyweights!

Sullivan deserves in because of his contribution to boxing. He was arguably hw boxings originator. More than anyone single fighter, it might not have existed without him. Few (though some) would argue Dempsey's resume would warrant a top 10 ATG, it's his historical impact in further popularizing the sport that gets him in, just like Sullivan.

 

I respect Futch immensely. However, like all the olds he can suffer from the rose-tinted glasses. And it's not like I rate Johnson at 25. He usually comes in around 10 on my lists. However, I want to hear from people who endorse this list, or who rank Johnson at number 3 on their own lists, which of his heavyweight results bring them to this conclusion?

I have the same to ask of those who rank Tunney in the top 15.

 

So now we're doing top 10 lists based on h2h?

 

Clearly the guys who voted for that list never considered: H2H, longevity, legacy. Nor did they take into account losses that fighters may have had. I'm glad to see Marciano that high, but in all honestly H2H I dunno if he does too well in a Top 10. Ditto for Johnson and Dempsey, I doubt that they'd do too well against modern superheavies.

 

I like how Lewis, who beat both Holyfield and Tyson, doesn't manage to surpass them on that list

 

I feel that I have addressed that question already.

It is not one or two great wins, but a lot of very good wins over a period of 13 years.

 

Yup

 

what were their criteria for assembling this ranking? Just "who's your top ten" and nothing
more detailed as in "in their prime" or "against other ATG's"?

 

Not a terrible list but I do strongly disagree with some parts of it. No way I think you can rank Tyson higher then Holyfield and surely not Lewis. Don't think Marciano should be above a bunch of people especially Holmes. The rest isn't t bad I'm not one for putting guys from the early 1900s and 1800's in my top ten but some do.

 

Maybe those who voted thought that the fact that both Holyfield and Tyson were past their best when Lewis beat them , should be taken into account?

 

It is always risky.

If you say "Joe Louis" most people have a pretty clear idea what Joe Louis was.

If you say "Jim Jeffries" then a certain amount of interpretation n is involved.

 

Very true, thats how I see it. Louis is the heavyweight from the furthest back who I include in my top ten. When I watch Joe Louis I see supreme skills that look like they would be successful in any era. When I see footage from heavyweights in the early early 1900's the footage isn't good enough to really interpret as well as the boxing looks much different. I have to have seen a fighter in a couple fights before I can rank him in my top ten.

 

That is basically Frank Loiterzo's policy.

He once said that Jeffries might have beaten two of his top ten in the same night, or he might have lost to people like Michael Dokes.

 

I rank Tyson about 6 higher than Holyfield. Tyson dominated a mini era. Holyfield didn't. His main claim to fame was beating some guys he lost to first and beating a past prime Tyson. Never got why he was rated so highly. If Holts wins over Tyson means he should be ranked above Tyson, Bowes should put him over Holy, but it doesn't and shouldn't work like that. I have Holy around 16-18.

 

It would be interesting to see the criteria and weightings used to determine the scores in this list of ratings. I can only think there is a strong leaning towards historical context; the politics and cultural significance they had; their influence on the sport (and sport in general), and how they were perceived in their time etc.

I am sure there are other factors involved, such as level of opposition and legacy; just with perhaps a lesser weighting.

For example, when Johnson appears in a Top-Whatever-The-Number list, it often leaves people perplexed, wondering why he is rated so highly but then, apart from what Johnson was having to face down sociologically, he was, at the same time, radically changing the way in which the sport of Boxing was conducted and perceived.

The reign of Louis also had cultural significance, as did Ali and those great Heavyweights, who would be forever riveted to his name (Liston, Frazier and Foreman).

Tyson being placed above Lewis and Holyfield does seem a little odd at first but, if you consider Tyson's dramatic bursting onto the scene; the impact he had on the Boxing world, as well as him being a consistent mainstream news media item, it all becomes a bit clearer.

I'm not agreeing that this is the best way to put a list of this type together and I'd like to know how they compiled it. But it's not hugely controversial, in any event.