Top 15 Greatest Heavyweights In History (Please Participate)

Explain yourself please.

I for myself can´t see how Holyfield or Tyson rank over Lewis at heavyweight.

 

Best rounds won to rounds lost ratio in the history of heavyweight boxing. Better than Ali or Holmes. Never down on the score cards after round three in any of his fights.

Never floored by a punch.

Highest KO % among heavyweight champions

Came back at age 37 with a near 4 year lay off with no warm up fights to take his title back.

 

That´s the only thing, I think should be counted. Ali or Holmes would have done the same as Vitali if they would have faced his mediocre opposition - outside of Lewis. If you go by statistics you must thinkg boxrec has the best ranking ever.

 

I don't like Box rec for older ranking statistics. How can a computer know when a fighter has grown old over night from a bad performace, or had inuries or issues outside the ring?

In sports a good big man usually beats a good small man. Vitlai is not big, he's huge. If he stood shoulder to shoulder vs. other past all time greats, some would quickly change their perspective, others would do so when they see that Vitali uses his size to the max in the ring, preventing smaller guys from landing on the outside.

PS: I have seen prime verisons of Ali and Holmes, two of the best boxers ever struggle with guys Vitali would not. It is possible that Vitlai is the hardest man to out point. He's active, he hits hard, and he,s not easy to hit cleanly either.

 

I agree with much of this post and I definitly can appreciate Vitali for what he does. Head to head he is very hard to beat. But h2h is pure speculation - I for myself think he is too unproven against top-noth opposition to have a clear oppinion on him, the Lewis fight however gives us an indication how it could be. However, I can´t rank fighters on speculation. Those lists are highly subjective and counting in speculation would make them even more disputable.

btw. I think you make too much out of size differences. It makes a difference but not as much as you seem to think.

 

I like Vitali ,but his opposition has been dire .
How many rounds you win and ko%, s dont mean much if you are fighting glorified journeyman.
I dont think Vitali is an alltime hitter, but he certainly can take a shot as Lewis landed some good punches ,and he stood up under them.
I picked Vitali to beat Peter ,and said so on here,Peter is a slow tub who throws looping puches that end up round the back of your head he has no defence, speed, jab, combinations or foot work ,add he did not train assidously, lacked stamina ,and you have a poor man's Micheal Grant.

 

Lewis's wins over Holyfield and Tyson came when they were both faded, and even the faded Holyfield put up a very strong effort in their second fight. If it wasn't for the robbery in the first fight, Holyfield could have very well gotten the decision the second time around.

Holyfield never got knocked out by an a-grade bum in his prime, and his quality of opposition i think is better than Lewis's. Tyson's record doesnt look that good on paper, at least compared to Lewis or Holyfield, but for a short while he was arguably the most badass guy that ever lived, and i can understand Tyson being ranked more highly than his record would suggest.

In my books it is Holyfield > Lewis > Tyson, with all in the top 15 heavyweights list.

 

Lewis was older than Tyson when they fought. Holyfield could not have gotten the decision in the second fight. It was close but clear. Holyfield came of a 5 fight winning streak before faving Lewis beating Cyzc, Tyson 2 times, Moorer and Bean. He was past it but not faded. :-(

Neither was Lewis. Both rahman and McCall were top contenders for quite a while. And Lewis beat both in rematches. Their quality of oppisition is very similar with Lewis beeing more consistent and more dominant.

I agree with that.

I disagree. See my posts up there.

 

I don't make boxing lists because my knowledge is simply not good enough.
You should take a leaf out of my book.

 

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

 

dempsey , charles , jeffries , frazier , marciano and jack johnson really stood a chance against tua , ibeabuchi , byrd and kirk johnson , and schmelling and norton too , of course.

 

Tua, Ibeabuchi, Byrd and Johnson have achieved nothing in an era of multiple belts, what does that tell you? Also my list isnt strictly head to head as that would be a worthless exercise, who really knows what would happen? Its more who they beat and what they achieved at the time. I think you should have a look at your list before you go insulting mine as its complete dog****.

 

It's pretty obvious people are using different criteria in constructing these lists, some head to head, some legacy, some longevity. It would be good to see these mentioned (or what mix of these are being used) along with each list. It may make people think harder and avoid these qualifications that are made without context.

 

Why as a HEAVYWEIGHT is Langford ahead of Harry Wills who won their series convincingly and was the top black heavyweight of that era and do Sonny Listons two wins over Floyd Patterson justify his ranking ahead of Frazier, Marciano and Holyfield?

 

talking about dog**** , only today my mum cleaned cat's turd outside of my appartment's door , i said it is dog**** , she said cat**** , anyway , your list reminds me of it , coincidence :huh ? :hey