My latest heavyweight ranking is as follows: Ok, this time I've weighted it as follows: 2 points for every year they were champion 6 points for every fighter they faced in the top 10 7 points for every fighter they faced in the top 5 8 points for every fighter they faced who was the highest ranked at the time 9 points for beating "the man" 4 points for beating someone who was or would become "the man" Boxer Points total Louis 260 Ali 255 Johnson 134 Holmes 133 Charles 127 Langford 126 Lewis 125 Jeanette 105 Walcott 102 Holyfield 102 Marciano 99 Patterson 97 Jeffries 88 Sullivan 84 Tyson 84 Dempsey 80 Frazier 75 Sharkey 74 Liston 70 Bae r69 W. Klitschko 68 Mcvea 62 Schmelling 58 Fitzsimmons 56 Wills 54 V.Klitschko 54 Hart 52 Corbett 50 Tunney 44 Foreman 44 Willard 36 Carnera 36 Bowe 35 M. Spinks 29 Braddock 26 Burns 22 Douglas 21 L. Spinks 21 Briggs 18 Johanneson 17 Rahman 15 Moorer 9
Spinks was two years removed from having robbed an old Larry Holmes. He was more proven than Carpentier at heavy but it's arguable whether it was really a better win imo. As for the others you mentioned, don't really see much of a difference really.
Have you thought about doing a list like this for other weight divisions? I dare say you'd come up with some surprising and odd-sounding conclusions.
don't blame me, I just played around with the point system. Of course it isn't subjective so H2H or perceived quality doesn't come into play. simply based on what someone did during their era against the best ranked fighters
my actual ATG heavyweight list (taking everything into account etc) Louis Ali Rocky Liston Johnson Foreman Holmes Lewis Dempsey Holyfield Frazier Tyson Jeffries Langford Fitzsimmons Sullivan Charles Walcott Wills Jeanette
haha to complete my reserach on every lineal champ plus notable contenders for just the heavyweight division took about 5 days (luckily I have 2 weeks off work due to easter holidays :hey) so I just don't have the tiume to compile anything similar.
I think I'd have Manny Pacquiao and Matthew Saad Muhammad in mine before I'd have Aaron Pryor and Victor Galindez.
Im not going to sit and sift through that titanic sized list of boxers, sweet_hipsterist. But there are many guys on their with so-so resumes, and many guys on there who look like absolute dog**** on film. And there are many guys not in that list that should be. Was Ali in there, for one?:huh You talk about dominance so much, he was the dominant force across lightweight to welterweight, for the 2nd half of the 90's. Picking up scalps of fellow greats JC Chavez and Whitaker. I feel he deserved the nod by 3 rounds over Trinidad. The Mosley fights couldve gone either way also. He fought an astounding level of competition right upto MW, always holding his own. He had no business being in the ring with Hopkin's Light Heavy ass, but he hold his own. Most will not agree, but past his prime i believe he just nicked the Mayweather Jr fight. There arent many fighters in history who fought such world class opposition throughout his career. There arent many fights with wins over fellow ATG's.
- When are people going to realize that there is no place for a mention of JC Chavez in any post extolling the virtues of Oscar De La Hoya??? Those wins were worth nothing. - Oscar didn't hold his own. He got knocked out by a single shot.
but Dempsey's win over a 3 years retired, 35+ year old, incredibly limited even in his prime, Willard, is one of the most celebrated victories of all time?
What are you talking about? :huh I was talking about Oscar De La Hoya, how the hell could you read "Oscar" and think I said "Jack Dempsey"??? :nut
Its a comparison, *****. A relative one here. As it is generally lauded as one of the greatest wins of all time. And Dempsey made this guy's list, whereas Hoya didnt.