Classic Forum Collective Top 10 All-Time Heavyweights--POLL CLOSED!

I prefer Ring Magazine rankings because there are and have been several different sanctioning bodies whose rankings in general are worse than Ring's.

BI's would be a good source, but since those don't go back as far as Ring's, i prefer the Ring Mag's yearly ratings for consistency.

 

I have a list of every boxer that was ever rated by Ring Magazine from 1925 to 1995 PLUS all the heavyweights up to 2005. I list the boxer, weight Class(es), when they were 1st rated, when they were last rated, how many months each was rated and their best rating. Some day I will finish BUT with all the weight classes, it gets a lot harder. Right now I have 3471 different boxers rated.

 

Ok, well that's a fair opinion even if i disagree with it myself. These lists are very difficult to make, and i dont think anyone has had the same list as some1 else in the thread?.

 

What kind of bizarre world is this that Frazier and Holyfield are out of the Top 10? atsch


BTW: great job with the survey. Thanks!

 

It's a shame that Frazier didn't make the top 10 but everybody can't. The tabulated list so far is pretty solid. Holyfield being out is completely justified and fair. Who exactly does he deserve to be ahead of? Unless he can be placed in a spot the helps occupy 4 of the fighters to be 90's fighters. And with Frazier that would make 3 from the 70's. Domination eras, nevertheless but should 2 eras compose more than 50% of an ATG top 10 Heavyweight list? It's an interesting question to contemplate I guess.

 

Well.. if we go for an strict "who defeats who", Holyfield should be always ahead of Tyson. I don't want to open that can of worms again, but the historical fact is that an underdog Holyfield defeated Tyson.

Not "what if?" here, Holy made Tyson dance the drunk cha-cha

Regarding the 70's and 90's predominance in the list, well the 70s were truly the top era. However, one additional factor could be that people perhaps feel more attached to boxers they were able to see fighting "alive" and know well. Sometimes, it is kind of difficult to assess properly how good were fighters from many decades ago, so perhaps people feels more confortable sticking to what they know.

Incidentally, that could also explain why so many youngters seem to believe that Wlad is the best HW fighter ever :rofl

 

I don't know anybody who defines it as simply to just "who defeated who." Sure, that definitely says something about one fighter being ahead of another or what not but there are far too many factors. Holyfield was a warrior and has the best resume of any 90's fighters in my honest opinion. This may cost him in a way. He's 4 time Heavyweight champ. Unfortunately he has the steroid cloud over him. But that really doesn't hurt him too much. He didn't reign steadily and had too many shares of inconsistent performances. But you got a damn good point. Personally I feel Lennox is way too high on this list. I feel Holyfield is above him although Lewis beat him. Holyfield is favorite of mine but his my #11.

LoL we get it. And we were all proud of him lol. But seriously, Tyson reigned in the 80's and regained his title back mid 90's. Mostly his 80's dominations barely gets him in. I think Tyson is barely a top 10. I made a list where he previously didn't make it.

Agreed, but imagine if Frazier and Holyfield were on the list. 60% of the list would consist of fighters from two decades (Disregarding Tyson's early blossom). Basically, 6 fighters of the same generation. 4 of which fought in the 90's and 3 of which were from the mid-late 60's to mid 70's. Foreman for both the 70's/90's time period by the way.

Tis is true.

 

So Bowe should be ahead of Holyfield?

If it were going to be a h2h list it could never be judged like that, it would have to be the top 10/11/12 wot eva number, all against each other and then ranked so a win is 3pts a draw is 1 and a loss is 0.

 

1 Ali
2 Johnson
3 Dempsey
4 Louis
5 Liston
6 Holmes
7 Foreman
8 Lewis
9 Marciano
10 Frazier

 

Well, I said I was not going to open Tyson's can of worms again

Of course Bowe is not ahead of Holyfield, as Dejesus is not ahead of Duran. Even the best can struggle and be defeated by a lower contender.

Truly, this ATG list is not an strict h2h list. However, when assessing my ranking, a valid question is how good a fighter would be against others ATG, so there is still space for "Could X defeat Y?" hyphotesis.

In the case of Tyson-Holyfield we don't need to argue over fancy hyphotesis. It is very hard for me to find credible excuses for Tyson's defeat. The cold hard fact is that Holy outboxed a younger Tyson, and that weights a lot in my ATG list :deal

 

No need to open the can of worms!. i was just pointing out that thats not really a valid way of determining someones place on the top 10 list imo. As with many fighters styles make fights, Foreman beat Frazier twice. But i think that Frazier was the better fighter of the two and is the greater champion.

 

Observations:

1) I tallied poll like this a few years back on ESB. If I recall correctly, Charles finished a little ahead of Tunney; I think Tunney was about 15th or so. I think both were ahead of Walcott. It's striking that Charles, best as I can see, has gotten no mentions in this poll, while Walcott has gotten several. Tunney has dropped a bit.

2) Johnson 8x's the points for Jeffries? WTF? I mean, I don't have any problem with one being ahead of the other -- but eight-to-one?