This issue can't get out of my head. How to gauge fighters and rank them? I've noticed that if we use some kind of criteria, the results won't be satisfying. Domination? Was Holyfield ever dominant like Louis? Title defences? How many Sonny Liston had and who did Jack Johnson fought? So I decided to rank 10 fighters basing on their biggest achievements and what impresses me the most in their careers. Some elements are unmeasurable. 1. Muhammad Ali - no comment needed 2. Joe Louis - no comment needed Now comes the fun part 3. Larry Holmes - 20 title defenses, 7 year reign, fought in talented division, great fights against Norton and Shavers, amazing comeback in the 90's. Great skills and size 4. Lennox Lewis - most dominant heavy of the 90's era, beat many talented fighters, won 2 times (for me) against past prime but game Holyfield, beat shadow of Tyson, beat every man he faced, great size and good skilss 5. Evander Holyfield - 4 time champion (5 if you consider robbery against SNV), beat Tyson x 2, immortal trilogy with Bowe, beat veteran Holmes and Foreman, warrior, amazing career in his 20's and great style adaptation in his 30's. 6. Sonny Liston - dominant pre title run in talented and deep era, destroyed Patterson x 2, good size and good skills 7. Joe Frazier - biggest victory and greatest performance in HW history (Ali I), trilogy with Ali, warrior, solid title reign 8. Jack Johnson - first black HW champion, the best of the dangerous black fighters of the beginning of the 20th century, dominant, medium title reign, great skills and great legacy 9. George Foreman - powerful heavyweight, destroyed past prime Frazier and Norton, slugfest with Lyle, amazing comeback in which regains his title after 20 years. 10. Mike Tyson - one of the greatest fighting machines ever, dominant in talented era, youngest HW champion ever, big legacy 11. Rocky Marciano - 49-0 wit 43 KO's, great legacy, his resume is difficult to gauge as he beat very good fighters in Walcott x2, Charles x2, Moore and past prime Louis. All of them were in strong 30's but can't say that they weren't legit. There is something missing that gives me the problem to put him in top 10 (and I really would like to see him there) 12. Jack Dempsey - great legacy, medium plus title reign and good pre title run, innovative, killer instincts. If he would beat Tunney at least once, Willis and Greb he would be a top 10 lock. 13. Harry Wills - greatest black fighter after Jack Johnson, very good resume but is he a top 10? 14. Jim Jeffries - very difficult for me to rank, he had very good resume, big legacy and retired unbeaten 15. Ezzard Charles - wonderful fighter, overachiever at HW, very good and deep resume, top 10? So we have 15 fighters and I think that all of them could be in HW top 10. I'm focusing on the positive achievments. So that's why Frazier is above Foreman, Holyfield (who lost many times) over Marciano. I've problem ranking fighters with great legacies like Johnson, Marciano or Dempsey. I feel that they should be in top 10 but from the other side there is something lacking in their resumes. I would like to see your top 10 with short explanation like I did. I would like to see what are other people ranking methods, what are they looking at in fighters general achievments or career and what impresses them the most.
I don´t have no list. I don´t believe in them, the only thing they are there for is fun. But I think a few things are obvious, at least to me. 1. Ali and Louis are either one or two, like you have it. Personally, I like Louis over Ali but this has more to do with my dislike of Ali´s personality than anything else. 2. Marciano is nearly as much above the rest of the field as Ali and Louis are above him. I don´t expect anybody or even most to agree with me but just think about this: Marciano is the only hw to retire undefeated, how big this is was highlighted in the recent thread about him, he is only one of two hw champs who beat every rank contender he faced, the other one is Lennox Lewis, his weakest title defence was a number 2 contender. I think only Joe Louis and perhaps Jim Jeffries come close to this number - I ignore fighters with only 1 defence like Max Schmeling here. I think the critizism due to him fighting older fighters is blown out of proportion. All four, Louis, Walcott, Charles, Moore, of them were the top dogs of the division outside of Marciano and he beat them, he went 6-0 with 5 KOs against them. Who comes close to this dominance? Tyson in the 80s perhaps? Look at all this in its entirety and I think it´s clear where I come from. 3. Certain fighters have to be on that list due to their unique achievements and legacys. Those are Jeffries, Johnson and Foreman. Many people critizise Jeffries for fighting smaller man. They are right. But, he spent nearly all of his career fighting ranked fighters, won the title very early and had a very dominant reign. Despite the few fights he had overall, his resume in terms of ranked fighters is very deep. Him avoiding Jack Johnson was discussed here more than enough. I don´t think he avoided him, the window for their fight wasn´t big and Johnson, while beeing clearly the best challenger, wasn´t standout enough to create a big enough gate to go against a the unwritten rules of his time and to risk his legacy and standing. His resume, domincance and legacy as beeing "the epitome of manliness" and probably the highest though of hw champ of all time makes him a lock for the Top10 IMO. You might say Johnson lacks the title reign and yes, he does. But look at his reign as black hw champ and what he did before he won his title. He already did his best work before. If he wouldn´t have become the champ, he would have been Harry Wills before Harry Wills. Johnson overall has a very good resume, was very dominant during his best time, has the longevity and the legacy of beeing a fighter who did it his way - not forgetting beeing the first black hw champ. Foreman winning the title 20 years apart and beeing the oldest hw champ is enough to put him there IMO. Yeah, he his resume isn´t the deepest but at the very top it´s very good with wins over Frazier (2x) and Norton. 4. The two best hws of modern times. Larry Holmes and Lennox Lewis. Both have the longevity (edge to Holmes), both have the dominance (about equal), both have good resumes (edge Lewis). Additionally Holmes came close to Louis´ record (20 compared to 25 title defences) and Marciano´s (48-1 compared to 49-0) while Lewis, like Marciano, beat every ranked contender he faced. Big legacies. Those are the ones I think are locks, and obvious ones, for the Top10. The last spots could be filled with Frazier, Holyfield, Wills, Langford, Tyson. The ons on your list I can´t see in the Top20 are Liston, Dempsey and Charles.
The question is were they as good as paper says? 50's were exciting era but not that good. Charles and Walcott were wonderful fighters. Moore was preparated good and in gas despite being almost 40. Louis was way past prime. I miss a fighter on Rocky's resume like Cleveland Williams, Elmer Ray or Tucker - big, big puncher. Someone to prove that Rocky didn't fought "small" heavies. I think that Liston has better resume than Marciano. Dempsey...he is a tough cookie. Love him but his title reign was dissapointing. Charles is a top 15 HW for me - good resume, great skills, fought everybody.
IMO they were better than the paper says. Especially Archie Moore who has a deep enough resume at hw to qualify for a Top20. Louis was past prime but higher ranked than Marciano when they fought and still a Top3-5 hw at the time. Very good win. Is it Marciano´s fault that the punchers couldn´t qualify to fight him? He fought only 1 time not the number one challenger when he was champ, he fought the number two instead. Joe Louis was old but no small heavy and still had his punch. No way is Liston´s resume better. How? Marciano beat a Top2, two Top20 and an argauble Top20 hw. Liston beat one Top20, arguably Top15 hw. You can say Marciano´s opponents were past it, I would argue only Louis was really past prime, the others were still close to or even right in it. And I would say Liston had a trmendous style and size advantage over his opponent. I have a poster of Patterson-Liston I hanging here, with their tale of the tape. You are saying Marciano fought small hws? Well, Liston was bigger than Marciano and his best win is over a fighter smaller than Marciano´s best wins. At the very top Marciano has a clearly better resume. In the end .... when Marciano faced ATGs he beat them, no matter what. When Liston did, he only won when he had a tremendous advantage over them. Dempsey is awesome. Really. But he lacks like everything need to be Top10. He is one of the guys who would do better h2h than on the more objective criterias. Charles can be ranked there, I think others deserve it more - like Patterson or Schmeling but you can say it´s just me beeing a fan of those two
But this top2 heavy was waaay past prime. Patterson is indeed top 15-20 HW As I said earlier I think that Charles and Walcott were slightly past their prime but still very good fighters. I don't see why we should give Marciano better ranking because he didn't had size advantage. His rivals weren't much bigger than him though. Cleveland Williams and Valdes were bigger than Sonny. Mike DeJohn and probably Summerlin were the same size. Liston knocked them all out. It depends how do you think of Patterson. Lately I'm giving some more recognition. He was about the same size as Rocky. Liston had deeper resume, fought the best of the 50's and early 60's. Patterson x 2 Machen - great, great fighter Folley - good puncher, decent boxer, top challenger for years Valdes - past prime though DeJohn - good puncher, don't think that Cockell, Vingo or Matthews are much better scalps Williams x2 - one of the biggest punchers ever Bethea - ranked opponent Harris - ranked opponent, similar to LaStarza I heard that Westphal was #4 but couldn't find who ranked him that high and why so I don't count him Marciano: Walcott x2 Charles x2 Moore Louis Layne LaStarza x 2 (?) Having fighters like Machen and Folley on resume means to me more than beating LaStarza, Matthews, Vingo, past prime Louis. And I can't forget that Rocky's best wins are over former middleweights and light heavyweights. Only Walcott was heavyweight for the bast part of his career. Machen would be much better recognised if he didn't fought in Liston's and Patterson era. And there also was Ingo with his right hand. I believe that he would be a title holder if he boxed in late 40's early 50's. And ATG's like Charles and Moore had their status mostly because of their careers in lower divisions.
That's interesting. I think that Lennox's wins over Holyfield are greater than Marciano's over Walcott and Charles. Rocky defeated them in more expolsive way. But still those are 4 good wins for Marciano and 2 (draw was a robbery) for Lewis. I wouldn't count Tyson, he was more shot than Louis. Holyfield is much more legit at HW than Ez and JJW. And Lennox has really deep resume.
Still good enough to be a contender and a Top3-5 hw. I don´t give Marciano a better ranking but I say if you say Marciano´s best wins over past prime fighters you have to take into account that Liston´s best wins were over a much smaller fighter with a big style disadvantage. You can´t just look at one fighters negative and another fighters positive. I´m one of the biggest fans of Patterson on here. And no it does not depend on Patterson. Even when you rank him as positivly as you can, those two wins won´t outweigh wins over Charles, Walcott and Moore, who all three at least close to Patterson. No. Past prime Louis is at least as good as the Machen and Folley wins, as is Layne IMO. He was thought of very high at the time. Liston fought more contenders but he doesn´t have the better wins. Most likely the best wins of those two fighters, their best ten wins in order for me: 1. Patterson I 2. Walcott I 3. Charles I 4. Charles II 5. Patterson II 6. Moore 7. Walcott II 8. Machen 9. Folley 0. Louis But you have no problem forgetting that Liston did something Marciano never did: losing. You can forget that Liston after winning the title lost it nearly immediatly and wasn´t able to redeem himself? I don´t even want argue that calling Charles a mw and Moore a lhw in this case is just soo wrong. Holyfield probably was only a cw too. :roll: So, first you say Charles is a contender for the Top10 hws at all time and a lock for the Top15 and now you say he had his status mostly because he of his career at lower weightclasses. Well, what is it? You can´t have to both ways. Look into Moore´s hw record, it´s very impressive. Better than those of Ken Norton, Vitali Klitschko and other fighters like that. His success at a lower weightclass certainly helped but even without it he is very close if not a real atg. And sorry, something that "would have been" or you think "might have been" is a bad criteria for ranking a fighter.
Interesting question. I would rank them like this: 1. Walcott I 2. Holyfield I 3. Holyfield II 4. Charles I 5. Charles II 6. Walcott II 7. Louis 8. Tyson
That says much of that era Thats completly irrevelant. Were Walcott and Charles as good as in the late 40's? No. But still they were good fighters. Just like Holyfield against Lewis. You say like Liston had size advantage against his rivals like Klitschkos or Lewis. He was big but not overwhelming big. As I said earlier: Liston fought bigger fighters than him, and they werent just many inches and lbs- Big Cat x2 and Valdes. That's your opinion bodhi, I don't agree nice idea: 1. Patterson 2. Walcott I 3. Charles I 4. Patterson II 5. Charles II 6. Machen 7. Moore 8. Walcott II 9. Folley 10. Louis I know alot what happened in Clay/Ali fights and post them. That's why I may look at Liston a little more friendly I think. So I focus more on his prime years. And I don't think that Rocky would be unbeaten if he fought Sonny's opposition. Holyfield was a elite heavyweight for 10 years and top 10 for 15. Moore HW rivals mostly were just over 175 lbs. How can you compare that with Bowe, Foreman, Tyson? I'm a fan of Charles and I consider him a top 15 HW. But you can't forget all his great wins at MW (Moore) and LHW. Many of those fightrers later tried their best at HW. And also I meant that to be a top HW at that time Charles had to survive many ring wars and scars before.
Top 10 Heavyweights of all time: 1. Nikolay Valuev 2. Eddie Chambers 3. Chuck Wepner 4. Tony Galento 5. Pete Rademacher 6. Brian London 7. Henry Tillman 8. Don Cockell 9. Marvin Hart 10. Lee Savold
or.... 1. Muhammad Ali 2. Joe Louis 3. Jack Johnson 4. Larry Holmes 5. George Foreman 6. Evander Holyfield 7. Mike Tyson 8. Jack Dempsey 9. Rocky Marciano 10. Joe Frazier
Or it says much about Joe Louis. Just as irrelevant as the age of Charles, Walcott, Moore and Louis. You seem to not get my point. My point is not actually Liston´s size advantage but you picking the negatives and positives as you like. Either you take all the negatives or all the positives of both fighters or none. And yes, beating a fighter you have a style and size advantage over diminished the worth of that win, as does facing a past prime fighter. And you still say Liston has more depth? See, that´s the point. You take speculation about what a fighter perhaps would have done in one era and only look at the positives of the other fighter. Because you want to rank him high. That´s not objective, that´s all I say. If a fight happens at hw it´s a hw fight. If those fighters fight at hw they are hws. And yes, I rank Moore higher than Bowe. And what has this to do when looking at their hw careers? Sorry, either a fighter has a career at hw that is good enough to rank them Top15 or they don´t. You can´t say he is a Top15 hw but, well, he really was a former mw/lhw.