Top 100 Heavyweights

Nice list.
Where is James J. Braddock?
Tommy Burns with 11 title defense, in one belt era must be in top 100.

 

Why on earth you put Tyson above Holmes, but the true question is.. WHY THE HELL HOLMES NOT IN THE TOP 5?

Why on earth Schmeling not top 20?

As much as I love Machen, he didn't do enough to earn this spot. Should've been Folley.

James Broad, Phil Jackson, washed up Dokes, declining James Smith and an ancient Greg Page does not put this high.

Why is he that high? Again, who did he beat? Williams, Thomas and Tilis was f*cking old. Winning against a washed up Ruddock. His best win is probably only Foreman and Joe Hipp. That two alone can't make you this high.

Why is he this high? Who did he beat? A decent cruisewright champ ST Gordon and Eddie Lopez and that's probably it. Lyle was washed up. Ken Norton was old and Jimmy Young was already fading at that point.

Bob Satterfield should be higher, somewhere 60-50. He beat a handful of contenders including Nino Valdes, Johnny Summerlin, John Holman 2x, Lee Oma, Julio Mederos, Elkins Brothers and Bob Baker. Can't see why he should be lower than Gerry Cooney and speaking of Cooney.

OH MY GOODNESS, Why Weaver this low? He's one of the best boxers of the 80's and you put him at #88? He beat Bernardo Mercado, James Tilis, John Tate, Gerrie Coatzee, Carl Williams and he arguably beaten a prime Dokes in their 2nd bout. Idk man, I feel like your list is terrible of being truly honest. Guys like Ruddock, Cooney, Morrison, etc shouldn't be higher than this guy.

Truthfully, I think your list is far from perfect. Don't worry take your time and think about it

 

This list requires a lot of time to create and it's hard to be consistent all the time. That said, I see quite a lot of problems with this list.

Why Quarry so high? What makes him higher than Schmeling or Bowe?

Schmeling outside of top 25 doesn't make any sense. I know I can be biased, but he has arguably the greatest win in HW history and his resume is full of wins against quality HWs of his era. Seriously, Harold Johnson over him is insane to me.

Having Lyle ahead of Sharkey also is quite strange. Who did Lyle exactly beat?

Byrd below Bruno and Tua? Why? Tua accomplished very little in his career.

Fitzsimmons this low is quite shocking. Seriously, what's the reasoning for having likes of Bruno, Tua or Pastor over Bob? Fitzsimmons is a lock top 25.

Loughran should be much higher, his HW resume is arguably better than Moore's.

Morrison shouldn't reach top 100 at all.

Neither should Chuvalo.

Lastarza this high is also questionable, 1950s bias?

I also see no 1890s fighters. I mean, Sullivan is a must have. Peter Jackson, Joe Goddard, Peter Maher should all be inside top 60.

 

PAR EXCELLENCE !
Very glad you didn't put John L Sullivan in there.
However, while i think Bowe do not really deserve to be in the top 10 (which is a bit sad knowing the talent he had.) having him at 32# is a bit harsh.
Oh and you can call me crazy, but i don't think Wladimir Klitschko should be in the top 10.
Otherwise, Great List!!!

 

I wouldn't call it terrible. His exact criteria hasn't even been stated.

I think he's basically got the right names in the top 12 (under a variety of criteria) which is a decent selling point. It would get bloody hard as you progressed down the list after a certain number.

 

Yeah terrible might be a bit too harsh but at the same time I can't see this list as a good one either. I'll just say that it needs a LOT of improvement.

 

Why in the hell is Sonny Liston #5 and Holyfield #11 ????

I don't get the bootlicking for that can crusher.

 

Tommy Morrison is way too high. He shouldn't be on the list, but anyway ...
He's above guys like Mike Weaver, Buster Douglas?
He's above Ray Mercer who absolutely destroyed him?
He's above Trevor Berbick?
That's crazy.

 

Also, why is Gerrie Coetzee so many places above Weaver and Tate, the two men who beat him in his backyard when he was in his prime??
There's no way on earth he should be above Weaver.
You could perhaps make some case based on resume to have him above Tate (I wouldn't) but even then it would have to be closer.

 

I could go on.

But I appreciate the effort. Good list (although the ordering needs a lot of work).

 

I wouldn't have him inside top 20, but he definitely should be ahead.

Based on what exactly? Schmeling has much better resume, beat better fighters and is more accomplished. I don't see any reason to rank Quarry higher.

Because they are famous enough? They accomplished nothing relevant in their careers. Even their top wins are weak and they have no depth in their resume. They also lost to some horrible fighters in their primes.

Shouldn't this kind of list be as objective as possible? If you feel uncomfortable with pre-20s figthers, just exclude all of them. It makes no sense to rank Johnson and Jeffries this high, but having Fitzsimmons outside of top 40 and not ranking Maher or Goddard at all.

He was a good fighter, but he didn't deserve to be this high. His resume is thin, he made his name of giving Foreman and Ali tough fights but neither of them was in their absolute primes anymore.