My latest ATG Heavyweight top 20

Bummy -

Your 1 & 2 placement is something I can never understand. I just can't see Louis above Ali. To me, it really is clear to Muhammad. I understand and respect dominance as a factor but does it really overhaul the pretty vast gulf in quality of resume? You've listed depth as one of your defining characteristics for your list. Given that this is the case, what does Louis really have to compete? Ali beat better fighters, looks every bit as good/better on film, has his own huge clutch of title defences and longevity. I don't see where Louis scores heavily enough to outweigh Ali's advantages under almost any criteria.

Marciano at 3 is fine to me, although I don't rate him that highly. I can see him almost anywhere from 3-11 without feeling to bad about it.

Dempsey at 4 is probably the one that would attract the most attention on the board right now if they were in the mood for a top 20. To me, this is odd. I've never understood Dempsey's positioning in a top 5 and I personally don't have him in the ten.

His resume is resonably deep, but not to the extent where he chistles out any of the other top champs I don't think. Head to head he looks great at his best, but better than Tyson? Better than Holmes? Nah, and if he did, it was by the tiniest of tiny margins. Not many great fighters beaten. Thrashed by the only one he met infact...poor championship run and a less than stellar, though pretty solid, pre-title run. This is in terms of all time ranking you understand. You say there was "never a heavyweight like him" and offer this as a reason for his high ranking - there was never one like Johnson before JOhnson and arguably never has been again. Ali. Liston. Jeffries for that matter.

Walcott at 5 is crazy to me. His best win is over a Charles who had already beaten him twice. I don't think he is more appealing as an overall package than someone like Sam Langford, never mind some of the guys you have below him.

Walcott found his level against Charles, who should arguably be above him anway. This does help explain your high ranking of Louis though (two wins over your #5) but it's a faulty premis IMO.


Lewis, Frazier, Holyfield, Tyson and Johnson are all OK by me. I quite like them. Foreman is ok too. Liston is very hard to rank, i'd see him higher personally. I think having Tunney above Johnson is a reach, but I think Tunney can reasonably be placed in that clutch.

Given your seeming bias towards dominance, Holmes seems very low to me. Given your ranking of Walcott, Charles is impossibly low - what about Walcott's resume makes him so much higher than Charles? What is it about his head to head ability that makes him the better HW given that Charles beat him twice when both were younger men? If you want to stand by your Walcott ranking I think logic dictates Charles's being bumped 4 slots at an absolute minimum.

Could I hear a little bit about your reasoning over Wills? I have him at #10ish, always above Dempsey.

 

Yeah, more than Schmeling's apparently who actually beat Louis.

Walcott isn't 5.