The Top Twenty Heavies

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Master's list is daft, mad, pixie-mazed, asinine:

Lewis before Foreman wtf??

and NO ROCKY MARCIANO

..........LAY OFF THE LUNATIC BROTH.

Rocky was 10.

Where was Creed?

[BIG H]

I still just don't get how somebody can so adamently fight the case of fighters that neither they or any living person has probably seen? I'd rather base my opinions on what I can see rather than what a newspaper or an archive says.

[JazMerkin]

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.

Damn, Marble, I see you've been winning friends & influencing people on this thread

Just a few things I'd like to say before I reply to your post.

1. If you want to swear, please just swear. No one is going to judge you & I certainly won't get offended. If you think something I say is bullshit, call it bullshit.

2. Myself & Ryanman are not the same person, even if we did go to the same uni. Unless all us British posters' avatars look the same to you, you web racist!

On your point, we'll just have to disagree. As much as boxing has shrunk as a spectator sport, all facets of sport are more under the microscope than ever before. That's not just boxing, sport & society as a whole is under more scrutiny. It's much easier to pick holes when you can re-watch a fight multiple times & see everything replayed. Also as I've said before, I have NO problem with someone rating these older guys if they've seen extensive footage of them. I just can't rate guys who I haven't & having worked as a boxing journalist I know the temptation for hyperbole & the dangers of bias. I gave the Martinez example because going off the general press reaction to his last few wins, you could very easily believe that he's one of the greatest there has ever been.

I also didn't attack having criteria. What I disagree with is the implication in your OP that it's the criteria we all must use. I'm also clearly not the only one who has read it that way given how a number of other posters have responded. We all have our own criteria which may be different from yours. You assumed mistakenly that I only 'use my eyes'. If I did just that, I wouldn't have Jeffries above Tyson, Tunney, Charles or Wlad. There is obviously more than that. As you have your own groupings, I would have a top 3, which could go in any order. The reason I give an edge to Johnson over Louis is because he's one of the two fighters (Tunney is the other) who I personally feel has had the greatest influence on the styles of so many of the fighters that have followed. Louis looked great, but I don't feel that he was the 'game-changer' in quite the same way as Johnson was, hence why he gets the edge for me. See I have MY criteria as well

[TitoFan]

Personally, I'd place Larry "The Racist" Holmes below the following heavies:

Muhammad Ali - (no need to explain)
Joe Louis - (ditto)
Jack Johnson - (Made a much bigger impact on the sport of boxing than Larry ever did).
Mike Tyson - (ditto)
Lennox Lewis - (Better fighter than Holmes; faced better competition).
George Foreman - (see Ali, Louis)
Joe Frazier - (see Ali, Louis)
Evander Holyfield - (Successfully came up from LHW; hugely successful career as HW).
"Rocky" Marciano - (See Johnson, Tyson)
Jack Dempsey - (See Johnson, Tyson)

To this list, I'm tempted to add Wladimir Klitschko and Sonny Liston. And since I dislike the (cough) self-promoting "Easton Assasin" so much.... I probably would.

So that would make Larry, let's see..... hmm..... 13th?
And he said Marciano wasn't fit to "carry his jock".
Sorry Larry.... it's probably the other way around.

[Master]

Larry Holmes was way better than all with the exception of Ali and the record of Louis. Do not let your prejudice get in the way of acknowledging what a great fighter he was.

[TitoFan]

You take all factors into account: their impact on boxing, level of competition, sheer skill, drawing power..... there's NO way Holmes is anywhere near 3rd on the all-time list.

[Master]

You take all factors into account: their impact on boxing, level of competition, sheer skill, drawing power..... there's NO way Holmes is anywhere near 3rd on the all-time list.

20 defences, wins over Norton, taking the punch of Shavers, the event of beating Cooney and beating Ali were great feats.

[TitoFan]

You take all factors into account: their impact on boxing, level of competition, sheer skill, drawing power..... there's NO way Holmes is anywhere near 3rd on the all-time list.

20 defences, wins over Norton, taking the punch of Shavers, the event of beating Cooney and beating Ali were great feats.

Norton was hardly an all-time great. Cooney was an over-hyped "white hope" who vanished as quickly as he appeared. Ali?!?!? You mean: "the dried-up, over-the-hill, should've-been-retired" Ali, who looked like a walking corpse during the fight. Shame on the racist for even taking that fight!

[TitoFan]

I'll grant you this: On "self-promotion", Holmes was Top 3 All-Time.

[Master]

You take all factors into account: their impact on boxing, level of competition, sheer skill, drawing power..... there's NO way Holmes is anywhere near 3rd on the all-time list.

20 defences, wins over Norton, taking the punch of Shavers, the event of beating Cooney and beating Ali were great feats.

Norton was hardly an all-time great. Cooney was an over-hyped "white hope" who vanished as quickly as he appeared. Ali?!?!? You mean: "the dried-up, over-the-hill, should've-been-retired" Ali, who looked like a walking corpse during the fight. Shame on the racist for even taking that fight!

Holmes had to take the Ali fight as Tyson did Holmes. The Norton fight was brilliant and Holmes went through it with an injury, I never said Cooney was great, but the event was big. I am not trying to convert you, just Holmes did all he could do in his era.

[Mars_ax]

Exellent thread Marb, and although I agree with much of the OP, I tend to stay away from "top 20" or alltime great HW threads, because they're usually subjective/bias. They also don't give proper credit some Pugs deserve for being one of the best of their era and/or the individual merit for their accomplishments tends to be overlooked.

My point? Sure you can make edcucated guesses, compare records/stats, typically Louis & Ali come in first and second "top 20", but who's to say that in their own way, Marciano, Holmes, Dempsey, Johnson, Jeffries, Lewis, et al, wasn't 1st or 2nd, or the greatest HW of all time? I mean isn't this basically just a popularity contest based on opinion?

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

What's good about op is that the method behind the madness is at least clear and documented.

The same cannot be said about The Rings Pound for Pound rankings, for example.

[TitoFan]

You take all factors into account: their impact on boxing, level of competition, sheer skill, drawing power..... there's NO way Holmes is anywhere near 3rd on the all-time list.

20 defences, wins over Norton, taking the punch of Shavers, the event of beating Cooney and beating Ali were great feats.

Norton was hardly an all-time great. Cooney was an over-hyped "white hope" who vanished as quickly as he appeared. Ali?!?!? You mean: "the dried-up, over-the-hill, should've-been-retired" Ali, who looked like a walking corpse during the fight. Shame on the racist for even taking that fight!

Holmes had to take the Ali fight as Tyson did Holmes. The Norton fight was brilliant and Holmes went through it with an injury, I never said Cooney was great, but the event was big. I am not trying to convert you, just Holmes did all he could do in his era.

I know, I know..... I realize I'm in the minority, 'cause I see lots of people ranking Holmes highly. But.... I also happen to think there's reason to rank him lower, as I do. I do admit to being highly prejudiced. Man oh man... how I hated that whining, flabby, racist Holmes. I was ecstatic when Tyson KTFO'ed him late in his career. Didn't want him (Holmes) to walk away without a good ass-whooping on his record.

[IamInuit]

Jimmy Young beat Foreman , Lyle and Ali minus the stench scoring and you never see him pop up on such lists. The most underrated, ignored hev of all time.

[Mars_ax]

You take all factors into account: their impact on boxing, level of competition, sheer skill, drawing power..... there's NO way Holmes is anywhere near 3rd on the all-time list.

20 defences, wins over Norton, taking the punch of Shavers, the event of beating Cooney and beating Ali were great feats.

I agree with your post Master, except the part about beating Ali, this was a totally shot version of Ali, already showing signs of Pugilistic dementia, who shouldn't have even been in the ring with Holmes.

Doesn't Holmes' 20 HW Championship title defenses, only put him 2nd to Joe Louis at 25?