Top 15 Greatest Heavyweights In History (Please Participate)

I don't get how people can put Tyson above Lewis.I just can't see it being justified. His rise was amazing and being heavyweight champ at such a young age is a great achievemeent but his legendary 'prime' that people go on about so much ended when he was 24.

Lewis beat everybody out there except for Bowe (who would rather throw his belt in the bin than face Lewis again). He didn't get enough credit at the time by most fans, even being boo'd after beating Klitschko (which I thought was a disgrace from the fans) but I think in about 20 years when people look back he'll be remembered for what he was.

 

Holyfield > Lewis > Tyson. Still, they all belong to the top15.

 

And Byrd

 

I don't have a ranked list presently but, chronologically: Sullivan, Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Marciano, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis.

I'm a bit short of time, but I'll get back to this post with reasons.

-----

[Edit, Jan 24, 2010] Can't prove that all of the above are more deserving than Peter Jackson, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Wills, Walcott, Charles or Bowe.

-------

[Edit: 1/25/10]
I go on H2H speculation, longevity as a top heavyweight, and consistency during period as a top heavyweight.

For H2H, I consider: 1) how boxer would do against other greats a) time-machined into his day from their own era; b) if they'd been born into his day and developed in a way analogous to how they developed in their own time; 2) how boxer would do against other greats a) time-machined into their day from his own era; b) if he'd been born into their day and developed in a way analogous to how he developed in his own time.

I think Lennox Lewis would do well enough in the Time-machine scenarios, but am not as sure about the 'born together' scenarios. I think John L Sullivan would do well in the 'born together' scenarios, but struggle when time-machined. I think '02-'05 Jeffries would be a beast on a 'born into Jeffries day' basis, but might have some trouble on a 'Time-machined into others times' basis. Ect., ect, ect ......

 

Tyson ranking above Lewis has more to do with Tyson's dominance holding more weight than Lewis's longevity. Remember Lewis's reign was from 1999-2003. So even though he won the WBC belt in 1993 as a result of Bowe dropping it in the trash, he was not really considered the Champion much like Mike Weaver holding a belt during Holmes reign or John Ruiz during Lewis's reign. Lewis was simply a top flight contender for most of the 90s.

Tyson's 1986-1990 was simply better than Lewis's 1999-2003. Tyson unifying the belts individually to dispel any notion that may have arose in "what ifs" holds significant value as it has not been replicated since he's done it. Not only was Tyson beating the beltholders but he was also beating the guys that they beat to get the belts. So when he reigned he was unequivocally the baddest man on the planet as he was unequivocally undisputed.

Lewis relevant for a long period of time but until 1993-1999 he was never regarded as the man to beat. Holyfield was, Tyson was, Bowe was, but Lewis-Not yet. You make a good case that Lewis could be ranked ahead Tyson which some will agree with but there's no case good enough to suggest that Tyson cannot be ranked ahead of Lewis.


My Top 15
1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. George Foreman
7. Mike Tyson
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Joe Frazier
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Sonny Liston
12. Jack Dempsey
13. Jim Jeffries
14. Ezzard Charles
15. Floyd Patterson

 

I personaly think that Sam Langford should rank inthe lower half of the top 10 or just outside it.

I also think that Bob Fitzsimmons would have to make your top 20 by most criteria.

 

I don't think you can look at age in a vacuum like that. I think boxers only have a certain amount of fights in them. There is only so much punishment the human body can take. Some fighters peak early in life, some later. Tyson was truly a freak, hence why he was called a "man-child". Furthermore, some styles start to fade at an earlier age than others. Tyson had a style that relied heavily on speed and reflex, and this type of fighter usually starts to slow down in their very early 30's. So Tyson has both of those things working against him when looking at age--not only did he start incredibly early, but he was the type of fighter that has a short career as well.

Now I'm not saying this is why he lost at the age of 24, which was clearly a lack of concentration and discipline. But I'm just saying.

 

Personaly I rank Lewis higher but I can see why people might not. Dominance counts for something even if it is over a short period.

However, if you do rate Tyson higly I would certainly challenge you if you did not rate Terry McGovern highly for the same reasons.

 

No arguments from me :good
I beleive Dempsey made those remarks ,referring to his fledgling career ,when he was managed by "John The Barber" a flesh pedlar,who coaxed him into fighting John Lester Johnson ,who broke several of his ribs.
By the time Dempsey was in his prime ,Langford was several years past his, I would not have bet on Sam then.

 

Dempsey obviously held Langford in high regard.

He gave money to Langford when he was old and blind.

 

No one is a bigger fan of William Harrison Dempsey than myself.
BUT___________________________________

I have to wonder, speculate ,ponder, whatever,was he slightly racist,????
He stated he would not defend against a black man.
He slated Louis at every opportunity.
He backed several "whitehopes", including HEIN TEN HOFF, REX LAYNE.
AGAINST THAT,he paid for FEAB WILLIAMS funeral.


























FEAB WILLIAMS= GEORGE GODFREY, just checking you are awake :good

 

I am awake.

I would say that Dempsey might be considered racist today, but kind of in the same way as my grandma.

He had grown up in an environment where those atitudes were rife and tact was not a high priority.

He basicaly took people as he found them, and the offensivley orientated Langford and Godfrey were much more sympathetic to him that the octopus Wills.

On a side note he was one of the first "experts" to identify Muhamad Ali's potential. He called him a bigger and faster version of Gene Tunney.

 

Holyfield at heavyweight is not greater than Lewis.

 

based on ability, accomplishments against contemporaries, greatness during prime and a factor of longevity, with a spice of head to head consideration, no active fighters considered (including Holyfield)...

1. Joe Louis
2. Clay/Ali
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Larry Holmes
5. Michael Tyson
6. George Foreman
7. Jack Dempsey
8. Rocky Marciano
9. John L. Sullivan
10. Sam Langford
11. Charles Liston
12. Joe Frazier
13. Jim Jeffries
14. Jack Johnson
15. Jersey Joe Walcott