My tiered all time heavyweight ratings

Enclosed are my top 15 ranked heavyweights by 20-year intervals. The criteria for the ranking are 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. Paying attention to when and how they happened. 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. Some fighters might straddle between the eras.

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

1.Jeffries
2.Fitzsimmons
3A. Jackson - No film in the ring, only walking around.
3B. Corbett
5. Sullivan - Mock sparring and hitting a bag only
6. Sharkey
7. Slavin - No film
8. Ruhlin
9. Goddard - No film
10. Maher - Was filmed, never saw him
11. Choynski - filmed in sparring only
12. Hart - No film on
13. McCoy - Was filmed in the ring, spars with Corbett
14. O’Brien
15 Griffin - No film

1906-1925 Black and white filmed era:

1. Dempsey
2. Tunney
3. J Johnson
4. Langford
5. Wills
6. Jeannette
7. McVey
8. Willard
9. McCarty - No film of, I think
10. Greb - Training clips only
11. Gibbons
12. Burns
13. Miske - No film on, I think
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. Schmeling
3. M Baer
4. Carnera
5. Godfrey
6. J Sharkey
7. Bivins
8. Schaff
9.. Conn
10. Hamas
11. Pastor
12. Farr
13. Loughran
14. Galento
15. Nova

1946-1965 Golden age era:

1. Liston
2. Marciano
3. Patterson
4. Walcott
5. Charles
6. Johansson
7. Moore
8. Ray - No film on, only a radio broadcast
9. Terrell
10. Machen
11. Folley
12. Williams
13. H. Johnson
14. Valdes
15. D Jones



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. Lyle
10. Page
11. Coetzee
12. Shavers
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 mostly over, the nations producing the top talent have shifted. Once the iron curtain in Eastern Europe fell, both the amateur and professional ranks have been dominated by Eastern Europeans. Only 3 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 when 2024 once the era closes. Hopefully, we will all be here to debate it!

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


2025-2049 - If my guess is right I'd call it Super Heavyweight dominance! I hope we are all there to talk about it. For those inserted at a sneak peak in the time line, check out my thread of top 15 Heavyweight prospects. It's loaded with talent.


Not rated yet. Joyce, Hrgovic, and Jarololv. Three " super heavyweights."
who, unless I miss my guess will rate. The game has shifted again. From here on in, every Heavyweight from here on in will be greater the 6 feet 210+ pounds with at least a 76 " reach. Well-- there may be one or two exceptions. We shall see. I reserve the right to tinker with list and will with good feed back.

** Special thanks to Entaowed and MattDonnellon for helping me edit the list.

 

Thanks. I've never seen a list like it and its tough to compare era's. There are bound to be disagreements in the details but that's all part of the fun and I've learned to embrace good feedback.

The modern heavyweight prospect these days is about 6'5" 245 -250 pounds and has far more skill than histories previous giants. They are 2-3 weight classes bigger and may belong in a tier of their own. It's getting harder so say the average top ten contender from 1900's - 1950's could compete with the new modern day heavyweights top ten heavyweights.

The new era might be called the Super Heavyweight era 2025-2049, as men under 6'1" and 215 pounds with less than a 76" reach need not apply. There is so many of them. Check my top 15 heavyweight prospect list in the general forum page 1173 here.

[url]https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/cruiserweight-and-heavyweight-thread.515742/page-1173[/url]

OR pro boxing needs to create a super heavyweight division.

 

Is it really a thinner resume? Tunney only lost once and unlike Johnson fought the better comptition near or in their primes. Often! Men like Gibbons, Dempsey, Greb and Loughran were better than White hopes + Jim Battling Johnson Jack gave title shot to. Were they not? I think so. Tunney's record is excellent. There was little difference between heavyweights and light heavyweight back then, save Willard who was really big and Wills who was pretty big but Johnson lost to one and didn't fight the other.

That leaves Johnson's pre title work. The Burns win is nice but he was 168 pounds. A 150 ish and 20 year old Sam Langford with little experience at heavyweight, an 0-3 Joe Jeannette who was still learning on the job when he fought Jack, and the inexperienced and teenage Sam Mcvey. I'm not as impressed as others are at such a resume, but then again I look closer at such things. Now that I have pointed them out you too can change perspective. And the your have to take a look at his multiple losses , and draws to men the size that Tunney beat. I was impressed with Johnson more in the days of pre Internet / its early infancy when it was harder to research. I do respect all opinions especially a historian on a particular fighter/fighters because I tend to learn the most from them. On film Tunney really impresses.

There is little difference between a 4 and 5 in an era, besides Fury and Usyk might actually fight each other on day. Ask me then who is better and ranks higher! Usyk to me has the better skills, work rate, stamina, defesne and chin. Fury has the better size and power, but not by the much on the power. A fight between the two is fascinating. I slight favor Usyk right now, but it has to be soon.

 

Wow, you ask a lot. Vitali Klitschko fought 10 ring ranked magazine contenders at the time he fought them, going 8-2. Few have a better winning percentage in history. Okay maybe Holmes and Louis do. But his amount of title wins on the list is almost as good as his brother's and his defeats look better on paper and in fights, and fewer in number. I use Ring Magazine ranked contenders as my gold standard because their ratings of contenders is general excellent and it applies to all eras 1920-2022+. In a strictly head to head comparison I favor Vitali, but being brothers they never fought. I don't go into details on anyone but I do have a unique article as to why he is ranked where his in. Historians have read it that don't post here or the internet and have said some complementary things.

Tunney is excellent an under appreciated in my opinion because he lacks a historical following to a degree, but take out the noise and he has a good resume beating many hall of fame fighters. I think he is 10-1 vs HOF opponents. He really does a number on Dempsey winning 18 of 20 rounds, and Jack Dempsey though being a bit older say 32-33, was not that old. Tunney could rate even higher but he retired young. Back then, heavyweight competed below 200 pounds and could be say up to 168 in Joe Louis day, and even below that weight in Sullivan day. So 150 was big enough at heavyweight back then. That is not the case today and it might shock you to learn thats since 1990 their only one elite level points win against modern day super heavyweights in the prime! Just one. I'll post the article here...maybe when time time right. The game has changed if we are being honest hence the tier ratings via eras.

I place John L where he is because he didn't fight many good contenders in Jackson, Slavin, Goddard, ect...Some being his fault, others were not. And upon careful observation he lost the Cardiff fight! And his wins over the much smaller Burke and MaCaffery were full of fouls. All three opponents lasted the distance and all three were quality opponents by the standard of the era. His legendary power just does not jump out to me vs. known quality contenders. And he took while to win some matches in his youth. I rate him where I think he belongs.

Who says Corbett's record was 11-4? Box rec? I use Wikipedia ring record which is edited by historians. It's excellent. They list a ton of more fights and are finding more every year. Corbett record vs hall opponents and overall record is excellent. It currently stands at 24-4-3.

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Corbett[/url]

The eras don't line up perfectly and I don't profess to know to all, so if your can make a cases for a fighter I omitted in the era, please do. I will consider it and perhaps edit the list. I do my best to place each men in a time line where he is known best and only list him once.

 

Well yeah, but to be technical Mcvey too was green and young ( a teenager less then 11 record fights ), Langford was young ( 20 and have very little experience at heavyweight and says he was 140 ish pounds ) Fergusson was not good enough to rate, as Jeffries and being in-active / old and Fitzsimmons were one being shot and hurt / old.

Tunney's competition is far better, Dempsey was not that OLD, Greb for some of those fights was in his prime. At least not to the degree of Jack's opponents. Johnson got em' coming up very young and green and going very old, and in some cases injured. At least for his most famous opponents! That is how I see it and I'm not talking about his numerous losses or draw to his opponents in or near their prime which Tunney has next to none of them!

Cheers.