The Top Twenty Heavies

[Howlin Mad Missy]

I can't be bothered to read all that.

The only fight people care about is prime Mike Tyson vs Anyone.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

If we aren't taking social standing/ influence into account, then we shouldn't have to account for something as subjective as HOF.

IMO Canastota assuming that Rocky Balboa is a HOF is no different to me assuming that Ken Norton would be lit up by most of the heavyweights of the 90's... Except that in my eyes, I am right and they are dumb as fuck

Otherwise interesting post. Lots to disagree about

[brocktonblockbust]

too many criteria to balance and tweak like nipples on an aging female goat: we're too busy suckin' to pick a tit.


1. Muhammad Ali because he was great in 2 careers. 1st was built on speed and accuracy. 2nd career on taking major punishment and squeaking it out at the end. Who the hell else could make such an adjustment and still remain.......THE GREATES' !!!

2. Larry Holmes because this guy probably even had a better chin than Ali, a better jab, a better right hand, and better stamina, and he defended his title FOREVER, and should have tied Marciano at 49-0 but was fuckin RAILROADED.

3. George Foreman because he also had 2 fantastic Champion careers. And he maybe had a better chin than Ali AND Holmes, a better right hand and left hook, a wrecking ball left jab, though not the stamina.

4. Joe Louis..........jus' bcuz He knew how to rock and roll, shimmy, and do the twist.

5. Rocky Marciano

*************THESE ARE THE TOP 5 OF ALL TIME**************
6. jACK jOHNSON
7. Joe Frazier
8. JJ Walcott
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Evander Holyfield
*************************************
11. Ezzard Charles
12. Lennox Lewis
13. Mike Tyson
then 14-15 is Liston, Schmeling
***************************************
forget corbett, langford, baer, tunney, klitschkos, bowe, etc....thats ridiculous

[marbleheadmaui]

too many criteria to balance and tweak like nipples on an aging female goat: we're too busy suckin' to pick a tit.


1. Muhammad Ali because he was great in 2 careers. 1st was built on speed and accuracy. 2nd career on taking major punishment and squeaking it out at the end. Who the hell else could make such an adjustment and still remain.......THE GREATES' !!!

2. Larry Holmes because this guy probably even had a better chin than Ali, a better jab, a better right hand, and better stamina, and he defended his title FOREVER, and should have tied Marciano at 49-0 but was fuckin RAILROADED.

3. George Foreman because he also had 2 fantastic Champion careers. And he maybe had a better chin than Ali AND Holmes, a better right hand and left hook, a wrecking ball left jab, though not the stamina.

4. Joe Louis..........jus' bcuz He knew how to rock and roll, shimmy, and do the twist.

5. Rocky Marciano

*************THESE ARE THE TOP 5 OF ALL TIME**************
6. jACK jOHNSON
7. Joe Frazier
8. JJ Walcott
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Evander Holyfield
*************************************
11. Ezzard Charles
12. Lennox Lewis
13. Mike Tyson
then 14-15 is Liston, Schmeling
***************************************
forget corbett, langford, baer, tunney, klitschkos, bowe, etc....thats ridiculous

Forget Langford Really?

[Howlin Mad Missy]

"Occasional losses top great fighters don't have large impact"

Lennox Lewis went 3-0-1 against HOFers but really met only Vitali in what could be called his prime. He defeated 13 ranked heavies. So why isn't he higher? Two bad KO losses just can't be ignored

Sam Langford was not at his best as a heavy but he was still special. Before his eyesight went he was 14-9-8 against HOF heavies. Sam isn't higher because as a heavy he got lazy and he occasionally lost to men he shouldn't have.

Same thing.

I consider the way someone won as well as the way they lost. Stats only tell one part of a story.

[marbleheadmaui]

"Occasional losses top great fighters don't have large impact"

Lennox Lewis went 3-0-1 against HOFers but really met only Vitali in what could be called his prime. He defeated 13 ranked heavies. So why isn't he higher? Two bad KO losses just can't be ignored

Sam Langford was not at his best as a heavy but he was still special. Before his eyesight went he was 14-9-8 against HOF heavies. Sam isn't higher because as a heavy he got lazy and he occasionally lost to men he shouldn't have.

Same thing.

I consider the way someone won as well as the way they lost. Stats only tell one part of a story.

Not remotely the same thing. One getting absolkutely drilled and the other losing decisions is not the same thing. See your own comment.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

"Occasional losses top great fighters don't have large impact"

Lennox Lewis went 3-0-1 against HOFers but really met only Vitali in what could be called his prime. He defeated 13 ranked heavies. So why isn't he higher? Two bad KO losses just can't be ignored

Sam Langford was not at his best as a heavy but he was still special. Before his eyesight went he was 14-9-8 against HOF heavies. Sam isn't higher because as a heavy he got lazy and he occasionally lost to men he shouldn't have.

Same thing.

I consider the way someone won as well as the way they lost. Stats only tell one part of a story.

Not remotely the same thing. One getting absolkutely drilled and the other losing decisions is not the same thing. See your own comment.

Losing by ko or points because you got lazy and didnt train = same thing.

[ryanman]

"Occasional losses top great fighters don't have large impact"

Lennox Lewis went 3-0-1 against HOFers but really met only Vitali in what could be called his prime. He defeated 13 ranked heavies. So why isn't he higher? Two bad KO losses just can't be ignored

Sam Langford was not at his best as a heavy but he was still special. Before his eyesight went he was 14-9-8 against HOF heavies. Sam isn't higher because as a heavy he got lazy and he occasionally lost to men he shouldn't have.

Same thing.

I consider the way someone won as well as the way they lost. Stats only tell one part of a story.

Not remotely the same thing. One getting absolkutely drilled and the other losing decisions is not the same thing. See your own comment.

It's pretty much the same thing. Putting your analysis of Langford and Lewis side-by-side shows the hyprocrisy clearly.

[marbleheadmaui]

If we aren't taking social standing/ influence into account, then we shouldn't have to account for something as subjective as HOF.

IMO Canastota assuming that Rocky Balboa is a HOF is no different to me assuming that Ken Norton would be lit up by most of the heavyweights of the 90's... Except that in my eyes, I am right and they are dumb as fuck

Otherwise interesting post. Lots to disagree about

The HOF, at this point, remains a reasonable, if imperfect shorthand for greatness.

You do realize Stallone went in in a non-fighting capacity like guys including AJ Liebling, Budd Schulberg. Bert Sugar and Howard Cosell, right?

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

If we aren't taking social standing/ influence into account, then we shouldn't have to account for something as subjective as HOF.

IMO Canastota assuming that Rocky Balboa is a HOF is no different to me assuming that Ken Norton would be lit up by most of the heavyweights of the 90's... Except that in my eyes, I am right and they are dumb as fuck

Otherwise interesting post. Lots to disagree about

The HOF, at this point, remains a reasonable, if imperfect shorthand for greatness.

You do realize Stallone went in in a non-fighting capacity like guys including AJ Liebling, Budd Schulberg. Bert Sugar and Howard Cosell, right?

It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.

Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.

I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it

[Master]

Ali
Louis
Holmes
Johnson
Tyson
Lewis
Foreman
Frasier
Holyfield
Rocky
Dempsey
Sullivan
Liston
Tunney
Wlad
Fitzsimmons
Corbett
Vitali
Schmeling
Patterson

[JazMerkin]

It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.

Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.

I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it

See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).

However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system. I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.

I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?

I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.

My Top 20

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling

[marbleheadmaui]

It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.

Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.

I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it

See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).

However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system. I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.

I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?

I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.

My Top 20

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling

The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.

How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?

Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.

[ryanman]

It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.

Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.

I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it

See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).

However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system. I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.

I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?

I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.

My Top 20

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling

The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.

How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?

Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.

The fact is it is just YOUR criteria. Your criteria is not the criteria that everybody must follow. You select your criteria, hence it has inherent bias. You can't argue with that. Also, you come across as quite patronising. Just my opinion.

Oh, and just to parody your last sentence - How can you use YOUR own eyes and have Langford ahead of Lewis? Ok, you will say you don't rely on your eyes but your own criteria (as if only a moron would trust their own eyes), but your criteria seem very bendy.

[ryanman]

It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.

Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.

I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it

See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).

However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system. I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.

I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?

I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.

My Top 20

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling

The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.

How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?

Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.

Oh, and where is Charlie Chaplin in your list?

I was just wondering because it seems your number one criteria for any list is that the person in question performed in black & white.