Top 15 Greatest Heavyweights In History (Please Participate)

A 39 yr old Holmes who's last two fights vs Spinks were losses and had been retired the best part of two years is better than prime Vitali?

Infact, everyone you listed has me scratching my head but esp Holmes.

Please tell me you're kidding.

 

I posted an unranked list, and some rationale, post #20.

Here's my ranked list.

------

My current top-15 Alltime Heavyweights.

Differences of one or two or even three ranking spots shouldn't be taken to express a decisive opinion.

guilalah

---------

Guilalah’s
TOP FIFTEEN ALLTIME HEAVYWEIGHTS
Ranked Feb 1st, 2010
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. James J. Jeffries
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. John L. Sullivan
7. Larry Holmes
8. Jack Johnson
9. Gene Tunney
10. Joe Frazier
11. Evander Holyfield
12. Mike Tyson
13. George Foreman
14. Lennox Lewis
15. Sonny Liston

Honorable Mentions: Peter Jackson, James J. Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, Sam Langford, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Riddick Bowe.

 

1. Ali

2. Louis

3. Holmes

4. Lewis

5. Marciano

6. Dempsey

7. Johnson

8. Tyson

9. Frazier

10. Foreman

11. Liston

12. Jeffries

13. Holyfield

14. V. Klitchsko

15. Charles

 

Considering that 5 out of the 6 old-timers are no longer alive, then yes I agree they would struggle to beat the modern journeymen. After all, it's hard to fight from a coffin.

 

Are you being sarcastic or serious?

 

What has Gene Tunney done at HW to warrant a ranking above Frazier, Holyfield, Tyson, Foreman, Lewis and Liston?

While we're at it what has Jack Dempsey done to get the same?

 

This list only goes back to the Joe Louis era, as I find comparisons before that to be too problematic.


1 Ali
2 Louis
3 Lewis
4 Foreman
5 Marciano
6 Holmes
7 Liston
8 Tyson
9 Frazier
10 Patterson
11 Walcott
12 Charles
13 Norton
14 Holyfield
15 Klitschko (Vitali)

 

Again the question to those guys ranking Vitali Klitschko in the Top15 and above his brother: on what criteria are you doing so? Other than h2h I just see none.

 

One possible reason is that he fought and competed well with an ATG in Lewis. Hw also doesn't have the embarrasing losses that Wlad has.
I get the point that Wlad has a better WINNING resumee, though.

 

A far better winning resume. And abetter resume overall. And better longevity. Dominance is about equal. Accomplishment-wise Wlad has unified. Vitali had his great comeback. Both were the man at a time but Vitali was never linear while Wlad is recognized as such after beating Ibragimov and Chagaev.
Ranking Vitali ahead of Wlad based on a losing effort is crazy. Totally crazy. :nut

 

I think I already put forth the reasons why. It is very easy to to rip competition. In such a case lets look at the top two guys on most lists.

Joe Louis for example, I think Vitali would look better vs many of the guys who gave Louis trouble. Would he get smacked around by a 168 pound billy Conn, floored by a journeyman like fighter in Galento, drop 5-6 rounds to Tommy Farr etc...?

Wanna try Ali on for size. Do you think Vitali nearly get's Kod by Cooper, nearly out boxed by Jones, losses 2 of 3 to Kenny Norton, and has problems out boxing the likes of Jimmy Young, Ron Lyle, and Floyd Patterson?

If you believe size is an asset when combined with skills, and understand how styles and ring generalship can make fights, Vitali really doesn't have a tough go in many eras.

I'm sold he's top 15. I'll send you a PM on an article I worte back in 2006 with a current update.

 

not a bad list but peter jackson deserves more than an honourable mention, as does i think fitz and charles. i'd move tunney down and consider taking holyfield and sullivan out. yes, john l was awesome but i think jackson was better and deserves a spot more

 

What proof do you offer that Jackson was better? Perhaps that Sullivan was as racist as most men of his day?

My readings of Sullivan's bouts reveal a fighting dynamo seldom approached in skill or ferocity, let alone matched. In return, the Jackson reports are rather scarce. Is it this paucity of facts that allows the imagination, and judging acumen, run wild?

 

where would you rank Bill Farnan, who actually knocked out Peter Jackson in 3 rounds?

 

Jackson is a difficult case but i'm making the argument based on contemporary reports of his skill, the fact that he was persistently and consistently ducked and the assessments of his peers, notably corbett who stated he was the best boxer he'd ever seen. much like sullivan and others from the era much of their placement comes from anecdotes and testimonies from the time. his record, like many of that era especially blakc fighters, it littered with the same names for multiple fights. his resume should not and cannot be scrutinized in the same way as current fighters. but things like this are a matter of subjectivity and opinion