Bill Caplan's 20 greatest heavyweights

Yeah, I make my legacy/resume influenced about equally by 1. Impact on both the sport and society on the whole 2. Period of dominance 3. Great "wins" and 4 H2H (Its generally a separate category but you can't remove it altogether).

Sullivan is often considered the first "sports star" and he really paved the way for hw boxing to become huge, so he's near the very top in #1. Very good in #2 as well. 3 and 4 not so much, but his impact on the sport is too much to leave off the top 10.

 

Enclosed are my top 15 ranked heavyweights by 20-year intervals. The criteria for the ranking 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. 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. So constructive feedback with explanations is most welcome.

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

1.Jeffries
2.Fitzsimmons
3A. Jackson
3B. Corbett
5. Sullivan
6. Sharkey
7. Slavin
8. Ruhlin
9. Goddard
10. Griffin
11. Maher
12. Choynski
13. Hart
14. McCoy
15. O’Brien


1906-1925 Black and white filmed era:

1. Dempsey
2. Tunney
3. J Johnson
4. Langford
5. Wills
6. Jeanette
7. McVey
8. Willard
9. Greb
10. Gibbons
11. Burns
12. Miske
13. Godfrey
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. Charles
3. Schmeling
4. Walcott
5. M Baer
6. Carnera
7. Godfrey
8. Moore
9. Bivins
10. Schaff
11. Conn
12. Hamas
13. Pastor
14. Farr
15. Loughran

1946-1965 Golden age era:

1. Liston
2. Marciano
3. Patterson
4. Johansson
5. Ray
6. Terrell
7. Machen
8. Folley
9. Williams
10. H. Johnson
11. Valdes
12. D Jones
13. Chuvalo
14. Layne
15. Cooper


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. Page
10. Coetzee
11. Shavers
12. Lyle
13. C00ney
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. Morrer
8. Mercer
9. Douglas
10. Tua
11. Morrison
12. Bruno
13. Rhaman
14 McCall
15. Ruiz.



2003-( ratings are of 2015 ) 2026 – Eastern European dominance era. While this era is only half over, the nations producing the top talent has shifted. Once the iron curtain in Eastern Europe fell both the amateur and professional ranks have been dominated by Eastern Europeans. Only 2 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 the Klitshcko’s come 2026. It is possible young pros such as Joshua will rate in the next 4 years. Hopefully, we will all be here to debate it!

1A. V Klitschko
1B. W Kltischko
3. Povetkin
4. Chagaev
5. Sanders
6. Ibragimov
7. Haye
8. Adamek
9. Chambers
10. Brewster
11. Peter
12. Valuev
13. Gomez
14. Solis
15. Pulev


*On deck to be rated if they keep up the good work Fury, Joshua, Parker, Ortiz, Kuzman, plus the 2016 Olympic class*

 

Thanks! I change my rankings now and then, I used to judge Holmes pretty harshly but he has grown on me lately.

I can understand people not ranking Wlad, I mean, there are a lot thing not to like, his boring, style, lack of quality opponents, bad losses early on etc. But the man ruled the divison for ten years, facing all comers. That makes him a peer of Holmes and Lewis, who had their own faults, but achieved a similar a dominance.

As you probably realize, I put great importance on long term dominance, as I feel it is the most unbiased way to rank fighters. If I gave more weight to quality wins, I would put Foreman and Holyfield before all three.

 

I'd have 8 of those in mine, the exceptions being Johnson and Marciano.

 

:good seems a fair way of rating the heavies.

 

Ali fought 8 guys on that list. Wlad K is the only guy there to fight Zero.

 

Yes, Primo scores high for winning the title by knockout and defending it two times against worthy contenders. He lost his title on his feet too although his ankle was broke.

Whilst a lot of his barnstormer fights were not Primo himself was for real. He just wasn't as good as Max Baer on a good night or Joe Louis. No shame in that. Sharkey, Schaff, Laughran, uzcudun and Walter Neusel were the guys to beat when primo beat them. Its a good enough resume worthy of #20.

 

Very good post:good

A minor quibble is that I like Marciano over Liston because he defined his own era where as Liston only shared his with Ingo and Floyd. a lot of unproven stuff has to be assumed to rate Sonny that high. Otherwise I like your post a lot.:good

 

I see your point. I feel Liston sharing eras with Ingo+Floyd is comparable (only in some ways) to Bowe and Tyson not fighting Lewis, or in their primes anyway. Although we can't say decisively that these 2 avoided Lennox, we have a fair amount of evidence that point towards yes and many like to give him the benefit of the doubt. Don't think there's any doubt Liston was the best heavyweight of his era

 

And Mendoza, I'm sorry but please tell me what Jersey Joe Walcott did before 1946 that deserves a ranking of number 4?

 

Thanks.

Berbick and Williams would have made the list if I extended it a few spots. Berbick's performance vs Holmes and Tyson were really bad, that kept him off. Willaims didn't do well vs Tyson either, but he did vs. Holmes. Berbick I think is in my top 100 the last time I wrote one.

Regarding the rankings of timelines, it's best to rate the man, not the era and strategies used in his time. If he was athletic and had the requiem for success future decades. Size, power, speed, stamina, weight, and chin always matter. Some old timers had many of these attributes in the spades but are harshly judged do to the technique of their times.

For example, take a trained Revolutionary war soldier. He's meat vs the same soldier with the same weapons vs. a trained WW I soldier. Out there in the field in rows, he's not going to win vs trench warfare tactics. However, I see no reason why the Revolutionary man couldn't learn them. So an old timer I think would look much more modern if he as around today. Conversely, a modern fighter if born in 1910 would look more like those who fought in 1910. To me, this makes sense.

 

Walcott fought between 1930-1956. After looking at him, he did his best work from 1946-1953. You are correct.

Perhaps the lack of depth in the 1926 to 1945 timeline had something to do me placing him there?

Darn, I'll have to move Cooper out of 1946-1965, and put a new person in for 1926-1945. UK fans might not be happy. Now you're on the hook to nominate someone! I'm thinking Galento for now.


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. Charles
3. Schmeling
4. M Baer
5. Carnera
6. Godfrey
7. Moore
8. Bivins
9. Schaff
10. Conn
10. Hamas
12. Pastor
13. Farr
14. Loughran
15. ???

The good news is Walcott stays at #4.

 

Thanks. if you're making a top 50 or 100 list, feel free to use the data. I don't think I missed anyone special, but there always room to disagree between the spots I placed them.

 

I don't feel like you've justified his placing to me, not that that should be your aim. Another criticism would be Marciano fought no one (I think) on the list and in the era You've rated him.

Sorry to come across as an ass I do appreciate you replying though