How would you rate these heavyweights?

Personaly, in no paricular order:

- Muhammad Ali
- Joe Louis



- Larry Holmes
- Lennox Lewis
- George Foreman
- Joe Frazier
- Rocky Marciano
- Harry Wills
- Sam Langford
- Jack Dempsey
- Jack Johnson
- Sonny Liston
- Mike Tyson

 

I guess it comes down to depth/results.

In terms of depth of resume, Louis and Ali have no peers on the list apart from Langford and Wills. When you take into account their dominance vs their respective fields, there is nothing to touch them. So Louis and Ali are in a class apart, but the others are all pretty much interchangeable.

When you get beyond the top two, all the fighters on the list have something that gives their resume a case. Johnson and Holmes have their long standing dominance, Frazier Foreman and Lewis have their quality of wins, Dempsey Liston and Tyson have their destructive rampages, Langford and Wills have their absurd depth of opposition.

 

Agree almost fully......the only thing is that I wouldn´t put Wills, Langford and Liston in the same tier as the others, they would be placed in a separated one......

 

Agreed.

I would include Sullivan, Jeffries, Tunney and Holyfield on your list. As you find out about more heavyweights, you'll find it's not easy to draw a line between 'great' and 'very good'.
I put Louis and Ali on top because they were to boxing what Walter Johnson was to pitching: brilliant at their best and with very well sustained careers. Johnson has an argument along those lines, too. I do think that Johnson was a fine performer especially 1907-1910, and was a fine boxer for about 13 years, 1902-1915.
I think, basically, you (the big_unit) will need to consider boxers prime abilities, their longevity and consistency as fine boxers, and how to consider the years coming up and fading out when they were not-quite-top boxers. You'll need to look at performance in light of opposition -- no one can decide who's around in their time, but we can ask, 'Did they treat them like we'd expect a great fighter to treat them?'
You'll need to consider the boxers willingness to fight the best, and develope some attitude regarding the considerable impact of individual and societal racism. You'll also need to consider the impact of boxing's legal status in its impact on match making and the interuption of contests. (Adam Pollack's books (especially his book on Sullivan) will give you a great feel for the impact of the legalities of the time; another good book in this regard is Clay Moyle's excellent bio. on Sam Langford, particularly the chapters dealing with Langford's Australia fights against Sam McVey, which often were influenced by legal displeasure at any sort of infighting, or even body punching from outside).
You may wish to consider how the boxer was helped or hindered by the state of the sport in his time, and how they may or may not have prospered in other eras, i.e, their adaptability.
You may find that you think a boxer X, at his actual best, may have beaten a boxer Y from another era, yet suspect that, if they had come along in the same period, Y may have triumphed. Or maybe X would have (in your opinion) have triumphed in X's time, and Y in Y's time.
Generally -- and pardon me if I'm a bit Aristotelian -- you can consider a boxers natural gifts, their dedication in developing themselves, the environment of their time, their actual powers and skills, and what they did with their abilities.
Finally, you may find, when comparing some or even msot greats, find that the 'markers' of greatness do not necessarily favor the same fighter.

 

H2H

Tier 1

Ali
Holmes
Lewis
Tyson
Wlad

Tier 2

Louis
Foreman
Liston

Tier 3

Frazier
Marciano
Johnson

Tier 4

Dempsey
Wills
Langford