I see many rank him in their top 5 heavyweights all time, which I suppose I can understand in terms of cultural significance. In terms of being cultural icons, the top boxers of all time would have to be him, Dempsey, Louis and Ali. What he did for the African American community, being a proud, successful black man in his time should never be forgotten. But in terms of resume and head to head, I have many, many fighters ahead of him. I could honestly probably list at least 20, maybe 30 heavyweights who I would easily favour in a bout. Atgs like Louis and Ali would make him look silly in my opinion. For my personal top 10, I just wouldn’t have a spot for him. Is this foolish of me?
This is just my feeling. I usually have him around 8-10 on my list. I would say it's pretty reasonable to have him between 4 - 13. I think a ranking in there perfectly aligns with where he should be based on his career. If you have him 1-3, you might be slightly overrating him, and focusing too much on his cultural significance. If you have him 13-20, I believe you're underrating him some. If you have him outside your top 20, I believe you're really underrating him, and you might need to reevaluate your criteria.
I don't necessarily think so, no. I've said this before, but in my opinion the Heavyweights across history haven't been anywhere near as good as the great fighters from other divisions. I think Ali and Louis are locks for the top two spots. After that, it would be very hard to leave Holmes out of a top ten, and based on his consistently high (if not spectacular) scores across my rating criteria, I tend to have him at number three. Then you've got Foreman and Lewis. Certainly some holes in their records, but I suspect most would have a hard time leaving them out. But after that? It all starts getting pretty arbitrary and the gaps separating the usual suspects are very, very small, I feel. Put it this way, there are about four or five Heavyweights who are generally given legendary or top ten status, but whose resumes are actually very spotty and questionable, which you just don't get at Light-Heavyweight, Welterweight or Lightweight, which I think are the three really outstanding historical weight classes. So no, I don't necessarily think leaving Johnson out of your top ten is a totally untenable or unreasonable view. Albeit I guess it also depends, to a degree, on who you DO put in there.
I haven’t sat down and made a list, but I would probably see him just outside the top 10, even if I’m a little suspect of how he’d do against the other greats in a head to head. Does it make sense that there are people I believe would best him, but I would rank him higher than them? Sonny Liston comes to mind if your looking for an example.
It’s interesting that boxing’s marquee division might have the least talent if you really look at it. I have Ali number one and Louis who is so close at number two I don’t have a problem with those that swap them. I think Holmes should be a top 5 lock. It’s a pity some people focus on vilifying him for the Ali fight and then relish in his defeat at the hands of Tyson later, ignoring the legendary career in between those two fights. Foreman and Lewis probably make the top 10, even if they accomplished the same things in other divisions they wouldn’t be.
Everybody has their criteria and what they're a little biased towards. Some people favor quality of resume, other favor championship reign, other like weight jumping to prove p4p status, others like h2h and value that the most. We have posters here who rank based mostly on h2h. In the end, it's your criteria and how you choose to apply it is all your own. For example, Money May didn't spend much time at 140, and his resume is very thin there... so if we're doing a top 10 at 140... He won't have much to draw upon... but I rate him highly h2h at that weight, and thus that might put him up higher on my list than others who are going by achievements at that weight.
Mayweather and his place in history are intriguing to me. I’m curious, where do you rank him all time?
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion,there are many , including some well known boxing people ,[Manny Steward for one,]who do not give him good chances against modern heavies. Others such as Eddie Futch put him in jointly the top 3 of all time alongside Ali & Louis. You pays your money and takes your choice!
From what of seen of boxing in his era, the dominant strategy seemed to be gazelle punching into the clinch, then throwing rabbit punches. Boxing has evolved too much.
It is certainly not foolish, but I will still disagree. I weight resume more heavily than head to head, when assessing a fighters ranking. You have to put more weighting upon what a fighter actually did, than what you think they might have done in another era. Johnson is obviously very strong on longevity, dominance, and sheer number of wins over elite opponents. Even if you are going on head to head, it is hard to write of a defensive specialist.
