Top 25 ATG Heavyweight List

oh



:-(-((

 

:rofl

 

In order my list is below. Even as I typed it I was thinking "dam I don't know half as much as others on this forum" so it is a bit random just done off the top of my head.

Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Joe Louis
Rocky Marciano
Ezzard Charles
Gene Tunney
Jack Johnson
Jack Dempsey
Jersey Joe Walcott
George Foreman
Ken Norton
Mike Tyson
Lennox Lewis
Evander Holyfield
Riddick Bowe
Max Schmeling
Max Baer
Sonny Liston
Wladimir Klitschko
Floyd Patterson
Michael Spinks
James J. Jeffries
Bob Fitzsimmons
James J. Corbett
Harry Wills


I have to admit I don't know a huge amount about some of the pioneers, I had no idea where to place Sullivan so I left him out (oops) but I have seen footage of Corbett and Fitzsimmons and I know Jeffries beat them both so they go in. Did not know if Sam Langford or the Original Joe Walcott counted as they both fought over a few weights so I left them out. Jeanette and McVey I just don't know enough about but Johnson is such a mythical figure I had to put him top 10.

I put Tyson ahead of Lewis and Holyfield despite their beating him as I just don't think he was in his prime post prison. I just keep thinking of Lewis getting battered by McCall and Rahman and Holyfield struggling with Bert Cooper and wonder what prime Tyson would have done.

Ezzard Charles I am probably placing too high as his best was LHW but he looks such a great stylist and gave Marciano his hardest fight. Gene Tunney surprisingly high but he could tame Dempsey and Greb and P4P I feel he holds his own with anyone. Also a bit of a second Corbett in his scientific approach.

Max Schmeling and Max Baer I think are underrated, after all beating Louis is a pretty massive statement and seeing Bear hack down the man mountain Carnera shows what a powerful puncher Bear was when on form. Dempsey and Bear both had wins over fighters roughly equivalent to modern behemoths in Jess Willard, Firpo and Carnera so I think their power and agression was obviously pretty good for any era. Again Dempsey is such a legend and so relentless on film he has to go in high. Although it seems insane I can see him scaring the **** out of many later bigger slower champs just through his whirlwind attack.

The 80's Alphabet boys I just can't get excited about even though arguably in shape and focused Tubbs and Witherspoon could give anyone trouble. But their careers are just too tainted by drugs and food to make an impression.

Walcott above Foreman is probably bollocks but P4P Walcott was just very cute and would probably out think Foreman if he wasn't caught early. Also Norton above Tyson a tricky one, considering what Shavers and Cooney did to him, but I just think a win over Ali (maybe two wins in reality) puts a fighter in a special class, Tyson never beat anyone as good as Ali (I'm not counting Holmes who was past it).

Liston was the man at the time and wiping out a champ twice in one round is pretty special. Foreman because of his comeback and the sheer power of the man.

Klitschko is the nearest thing we have had to a HW standard bearer for a long time so he gets in and he impressed me with his calm win over Haye. Patterson and Spinks were quirky but excellent fights if not true Heavyweights. Their speed would have most likely befuddled many of the pioneers. Harry Wills just seemed a more legitimate final choice than anyone else on the fringes despite my lack of knowledge of him, hell he must have been better than Bruno!

OK maybe a crap list but it's my 2 cents....

 

It tooks 5 pages of posts, but finally Max Baer gets some love...

 

Tentatively, I'll go with, for the moment:

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Marciano
4. Johnson
5. Lewis
6. Holmes
7. Foreman
8. Dempsey
9. Frazier
10. Tunney
11. Charles
12. Jefferies
13. Holyfield
14. Liston
15. Tyson
16. Schmelling
17. Sullivan
18. Patterson
19. Wladamir
20. Vitali
21. Langford
22. Willis
23. Walcott
24. Norton
25. Baer


Hard to know where to put the golden oldies, and the num 4 spot is causing me a bit of consternation

 

I think that is a good list man!? Good to see someone throwing a cat among the pigeons and actually saying it how he sees it and not just raining it in just to appear a bit more normal - its not an inconceivable list at all and I can't disagree with pretty much any of the back up blurb you provided either - especially when you mentioned Walcott above Foreman - for me Walcott I think would definately outclass Foreman no doubt in my mind but then I also can't get the man breaking punches of Foreman out of my mind either - but yeah great list IMO - good to see Charles very high also

 

I hope you let Frazier off your list by accident.

However, I like Walcott and Johnson over Foreman, but Louis only the 3rd?

 

I think that is a good list man!? Good to see someone throwing a cat among the pigeons and actually saying it how he sees it and not just raining it in just to appear a bit more normal - its not an inconceivable list at all and I can't disagree with pretty much any of the back up blurb you provided either - especially when you mentioned Walcott above Foreman - for me Walcott I think would definately outclass Foreman no doubt in my mind but then I also can't get the man breaking punches of Foreman out of my mind either - but yeah great list IMO - good to see Charles very high also



Thanks man, but as the guy below stated I forgot Frazier!


I hope you let Frazier off your list by accident. However, I like Walcott and Johnson over Foreman, but Louis only the 3rd?


What was I thinking! I think I left him till last as he needed some thought then forgot to add him! I suppose I would slot him above Norton but below Foreman at number 11.

I was thinking about Louis after I did the list, considering that Snipes, Shavers and Cooney could rock Holmes it seems pretty clear Louis at his best would grind him down. Louis did have problems with slick cuties though and if Billy Conn could have him confused I though Holmes would possibly take him?

 

Charles might have caused Holmes , Holyfield and maybe Norton problems 4 a while , but would have lost 2 them eventually .

U also 4got SNV , Riddick Bowe , Akinwande , McCline , Michael Grant , Lance Whitaker , Corey Sanders and d list goes on and on .

I think that he would have been quite helpless against Kirk Johnson , Tim Witherspoon , Corrie Sanders , Carl Williams and others

What about Charles vs Patterson ? Charles vs Ellis ? Charles vs Doug Jones ? Charles vs Machen ? Liston ? u c him getting by them ?

Charles was not a heavyweight and was very light 4 a heavyweight even during his own era which was lighter and smaller than its predecessor no2 mention 2day , d 2000s or d 1990s .

I believe that he might have found d likes of Jeremy Williams , Orlin Norris , Bert Cooper , Herbie Hide and Tommy Morrison as very difficult opponents at least .

Just because Charles was not a heavyweight .

u go2b realistic and rank him where he belongs which is 168 , 175 .

 

You're probably of the belief that Charles and other small heavyweights would benefit from packing on unneccassary pounds.

 

Sullivan is a lock in the top ten. He absolutely ruled the division from 1882 (arguably 1880) to 1889, though his prime years were 1882-1886, after which injury, alcoholism (including a couple whiskey induced coma's), typhus and an unending touring schedule had destroyed his physical constitution.

 

if you want to say Charles would have lost to bigger and just as good fighters such as Holyfield, fair enough, no problem on my part, but if you start bringing up B and C level fighters like McCline, Corey Sanders or Lance Whitaker, I beg to differ

the bigger they are, the harder they fall

those guys didn't have the skills to hang with Charles, one of the most technically sound boxer ever, who also happened to punch hard

as for some of the others you brought up, Patterson wasn't a big HW himself, started his career way lower, Ellis a fomer middleweight just like Charles, Machen not a big guy, Herbie Hide a blown-up cruiser

Charles was a heavyweight according to his era standards, and he's still a HW up to this day, because he was fighting in an unlimited division, no matter what he himself weighed

I think you are overating the size/weight factor a whole lot

and you got to be realistic, you can't rank Charles in a division which was created many years after he retired LMAO

 

he probably is, I sure am not

 

Because he beat everyone put in front of him over 20 defences rather than winning the title and then eating and drugging his way out of it in a few months. Witherspoon gave him a hard time but he beat Weaver, Berbick and Smith without too much trouble....If you want to put Tony Tubbs in your top 25 be my guest...