Boxing.com 100 Greatest Heavyweights

First topic message reminder :

Matt McGrain has started to publish a top 100 greatest heavyweights list after the highly entertaining (and contentious) 100 greatest fighters project. So far, he's done 100-80:

http://www.boxing.com/the_100_greatest_heavyweights_of_all_time_part_two_90_81.html

This might be one to follow and update.

And it's already curled my eyebrow: John Ruiz over Tucker, Dokes and Cooney?

WelshDevilRob wrote:

Rowley wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

Looking forward to the Top 10. Not seen Ike Ibeabuchi listed yet, so he must have cracked the Top 10

He is just behind Bruno I believe.

Must have been seeing that, that caused Joe Bugners recent heart-attack.

Or that Eddie's lined him up to fight Anthony Joshua

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:As long as Ali is number 1 I don't give a crap...

If it's Louis .......Then we can all despair..

Ali first by a huge margin for me.

DAVE667 wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

Rowley wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

Looking forward to the Top 10. Not seen Ike Ibeabuchi listed yet, so he must have cracked the Top 10

He is just behind Bruno I believe.

Must have been seeing that, that caused Joe Bugners recent heart-attack.

Or that Eddie's lined him up to fight Anthony Joshua

Probably be a step up in competition

AdamT wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

Rowley wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

Looking forward to the Top 10. Not seen Ike Ibeabuchi listed yet, so he must have cracked the Top 10

He is just behind Bruno I believe.

Must have been seeing that, that caused Joe Bugners recent heart-attack.

Or that Eddie's lined him up to fight Anthony Joshua

Probably be a step up in competition

"He's a household name (so is Domestos, Eddie), he's fought the very best and is a very dangerous opponent on his day" (if that day is sometime in the 1970's)

Here it is, the final 10:
http://www.boxing.com/the_one_hundred_greatest_heavyweights_of_all_time_part_ten_10_1.html

It's a hell of a list. One guy too high for me but a brilliant crack from McGrain. Brilliant to see Frazier, Liston and Tyson getting their just dues. Horribly underrated trio.

Lewis, Frazier and Liston maybe a shade too high, for me (I see no reason for Lewis to be above Holmes, for instance - similarities in their careers with the exception being that Holmes wasn't detached from his title - and his senses - twice by guys who are really just footnotes in Heavyweight history). Marciano definitely quite a bit too high. On the flip side I think Larry Big Pants is a little low.

Got the top two in the right order, though, in fairness.

88Chris05 wrote:Lewis, Frazier and Liston maybe a shade too high, for me (I see no reason for Lewis to be above Holmes, for instance - similarities in their careers with the exception being that Holmes wasn't detached from his title - and his senses - twice by guys who are really just footnotes in Heavyweight history). Marciano definitely quite a bit too high. On the flip side I think Larry Big Pants is a little low.

Got the top two in the right order, though, in fairness.

My top ten has been more or less the same for years but this flips a lot of what I had upside down. Frazier over Foreman and Holmes? You know what - maybe that's right. Maybe I've overrated Johnson, Holmes and Dempsey?

Lewis way too high for me. Tyson and Liston above him.

Marciano is far too high and Holmes a bit low, aside from that it's horses for courses really.

The author is wrong in write up of Lewis though, there are three men not two who beat every man they ever faced, presumably Johansson being the one he overlooked.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Marciano is far too high and Holmes a bit low, aside from that it's horses for courses really.

The author is wrong in write up of Lewis though, there are three men not two who beat every man they ever faced, presumably Johansson being the one he overlooked.

I think Marciano is top five. No quibbles having him that high.

Lewis does have a lot of scalps from the top 100 bit he was only great between Holyfield and Tyson (and managed to get himself pancaked in the middle of that run).

You are forbidden to view this page? Anyone mind listing the final 10

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Marciano
4. Lewis
5. Frazier
6. Foreman
7. Holmes
8. Liston
9. Johnson
10. Tyson

Cheers mate

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

kingraf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Funny thing about Marciano is most people had him about 5-7ish when he retired. Remarkable how opinion matures like wine. Wlad might break top 3 in fifty years.

He's still back  end of top 10 now.....

Don't get like Azania....Marciano had a great career.

No doubt... it wasn't a criticism of Marciano, it was a comment on the rose coloured glasses worn.

It was an incorrect assumption that he's in the Top 3..........

He ain't but he deserves Top 10..

El Oh El...

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Marciano is far too high and Holmes a bit low, aside from that it's horses for courses really.

The author is wrong in write up of Lewis though, there are three men not two who beat every man they ever faced, presumably Johansson being the one he overlooked.

I think Marciano is top five. No quibbles having him that high.

Lewis does have a lot of scalps from the top 100 bit he was only great between Holyfield and Tyson (and managed to get himself pancaked in the middle of that run).

I can see no argument for having Marciano that high, his opposition was very poor and his unbeaten record should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Don't want to be overly critical because this is a nigh on impossible task. However pretty much for the reasons Chris has outlined I cannot really see an argument for putting Lewis above Holmes and the Rock can consider himself lucky to be at three. Fine heavyweight and no need to get all Az about the guy but his reign is pretty much an ageing Jersey Joe and a couple of blown up light heavies, albeit extraordinary ones, most of whom managed to give him plenty of issues at various times.

Jeffries still looks the glaring omission from the ten to me. If he is going to be marked down for his best opposition being naturally smaller guys is hard to have the Rock at three

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Marciano is far too high and Holmes a bit low, aside from that it's horses for courses really.

The author is wrong in write up of Lewis though, there are three men not two who beat every man they ever faced, presumably Johansson being the one he overlooked.

I think Marciano is top five. No quibbles having him that high.

Lewis does have a lot of scalps from the top 100 bit he was only great between Holyfield and Tyson (and managed to get himself pancaked in the middle of that run).

I can see no argument for having Marciano that high, his opposition was very poor and his unbeaten record should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Says the Mayweather fan.....

Rowley wrote:Don't want to be overly critical because this is a nigh on impossible task. However pretty much for the reasons Chris has outlined I cannot really see an argument for putting Lewis above Holmes and the Rock can consider himself lucky to be at three. Fine heavyweight and no need to get all Az about the guy but his reign is pretty much an ageing Jersey Joe and a couple of blown up light heavies, albeit extraordinary ones, most of whom managed to give him plenty of issues at various times.

Jeffries still looks the glaring omission from the ten to me. If he is going to be marked down for his best opposition being naturally smaller guys is hard to have the Rock at three

To be fair to Marciano, he fought his best available opposition (number one contenders) and some of those, such as Charles and Walcott, are underrated.

If you're measuring it on how great they were in their own era, he deserves a high rating.

He does indeed Haz, however the same is true of Jeffries, more so in reality and he does not crack the top ten.

Rowley wrote:He does indeed Haz, however the same is true of Jeffries, more so in reality and he does not crack the top ten.

Is he marked down for not facing Johnson (when Jack was his top contender)?

I like Rocky top 7..............Stayed unbeaten................LaStarza was quality, Charles was quality and beaten twice, Walcott was beaten twice...like Louis he beat a top quality 175 pounder.....and he dominated for three years........More than enough for top 10 status...

Then again I have Tyson around ten and Jeffries also....

To be fair hard to criticise Marciano's competition when you look at the crap Louis beat....Though he is rightly second for an amazing ten year reign..

This Mayweather has fought poor opposition crap is also getting boring.........

Probably, he has most guys who avoided their best opponents further down his list than tends to be the case. Dempsey and Johnson are certainly lower than they normally appear. If that is his rationale at least he is consistent. Does my head in people who have a dig at the likes of Dempsey and Jeffries for the colour line and then have Johnson in their top three, makes zero sense.

Or in their p4p top 7..

Rowley wrote:Probably, he has most guys who avoided their best opponents further down his list than tends to be the case. Dempsey and Johnson are certainly lower than they normally appear. If that is his rationale at least he is consistent. Does my head in people who have a dig at the likes of Dempsey and Jeffries for the colour line and then have Johnson in their top three, makes zero sense.

I don't hold the colored fighters debacle against Dempsey and Jeffries..............Very sensitive times. Unfortunately as with the Mayweather-Manny debacle though...It's easy fodder for people with gripes to chuck at legends......

We are in a black and white age with no grey areas.................You are a T**T or you're a great guy.................It's the same with Calzaghe If you like him he's great.If you don't he's a cherrypicker who waited till Jones and Hoppo were past it..

Boxing fans are hardly ever impartial..............Until usually twenty years later when they reflect..

The colour line is the same as Floyd and Pacquiao deciding not to fight one another?

Nice try!!! Ha!!

Never said it was......Let's not argue, I've seen how you cry when Hammer has a pop!

The Charles who faced Marciano was over rated if anything, he was on his last legs as a fighter, a once fabulous fighter living off his reputation. The Rock did face the best of his era to an extent but Valdes and Baker were glaring omissions, coincidentally both were genuine Heavyweights.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The Charles who faced Marciano was over rated if anything, he was on his last legs as a fighter, a once fabulous fighter living off his reputation. The Rock did face the best of his era to an extent but Valdes and Baker were glaring omissions, coincidentally both were genuine Heavyweights.

But you can look into most records and find omissions..............S**t happens......Lewis didn't fight Bowe not that it was necessarily his fault....

Robbo reneged on Turpin 3....

Me I look at who people fight and not who they don't...........The Rock had a good CV..

Then again we are Mayweather fans what do we know !!..

When they were two men who possessed the physical attributes to cause him problems it doesn't look to be a coincidence but he was still great just not top three great.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Never said it was......Let's not argue, I've seen how you cry when Hammer has a pop!

Oh yeah. That guy bores me to tears....

Surely you can only judge a fighter on who he's fought ??

I don't mark Bowe down for Louis........I don't think yes his wins put him at 17... but he didn't fight Lewis so he's 27...

That's just bollox..

Think liston could be Second on a head to head. My dad always said he was a special fighter and no matter what happened with Ali, people shouldn't forget that was an older and slower Liston

1. Ali.................By a mile.
2. Louis
3. Johnson
4. Foreman
5. Holmes
6. Marciano
7. Frazier
8. Jeffries
9. Dempsey
10. Tyson
11. Lewis
12. Holy
13. Liston

Think mine is usually around this line up give a take the odd place..

AdamT wrote:Think liston could be Second on a head to head. My dad always said he was a special fighter and no matter what happened with Ali, people shouldn't forget that was an older and slower Liston

Ali should get more praise for Liston not less..Just as he should for Foreman...............People forget that Liston and Foreman were monsters who scared the crap out of people....

For a 22 year old to get in there and put on a masterclass was just magnificent...................Liston would have always struggled against the greatest of alltime...

Ali had the heart of six lions not one.. just as a Bowe-smashed Holy did when he turned over Tyson by shoving him back and out muscling him an other performance that was simply terrific !!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Surely you can only judge a fighter on who he's fought ??

I don't mark Bowe down for Louis........I don't think yes his wins put him at 17... but he didn't fight Lewis so he's 27...

That's just bollox..

Bowe is marked down for not facing Lewis (and rightly so). In Lewis's defence, he fulfilled his obligation in defeating Ruddock in '92.

Bowe at least signed to fight years later but Lewis got himself knocked out.

Fighters should be judged in context to the era they fought. For example: Did they fight their main rivals?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The Charles who faced Marciano was over rated if anything, he was on his last legs as a fighter, a once fabulous fighter living off his reputation. The Rock did face the best of his era to an extent but Valdes and Baker were glaring omissions, coincidentally both were genuine Heavyweights.

Glaring? Hardly.

Valdes had a chance but lost to Moore (who Marciano then walloped).

He fought more number one contenders than most heavyweight champions.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

AdamT wrote:Think liston could be Second on a head to head. My dad always said he was a special fighter and no matter what happened with Ali, people shouldn't forget that was an older and slower Liston

Ali should get more praise for Liston not less..Just as he should for Foreman...............People forget that Liston and Foreman were monsters who scared the crap out of people....

For a 22 year old to get in there and put on a masterclass was just magnificent...................Liston would have always struggled against the greatest of alltime...

Ali had the heart of six lions not one.. just as a Bowe-smashed Holy did when he turned over Tyson by shoving him back and out muscling him an other performance that was simply terrific !!

Those fights stunk. Both of them.

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Surely you can only judge a fighter on who he's fought ??

I don't mark Bowe down for Louis........I don't think yes his wins put him at 17... but he didn't fight Lewis so he's 27...

That's just bollox..

Bowe is marked down for not facing Lewis (and rightly so). In Lewis's defence, he fulfilled his obligation in defeating Ruddock in '92.

Bowe at least signed to fight years later but Lewis got himself knocked out.

Fighters should be judged in context to the era they fought. For example: Did they fight their main rivals?

Bowe isn't marked down...............at all..

Just as respected posters like Ghosty, Chris, Captain and myself have Mayweather around the top 10 If not in it..

Just like you don't hold Johnson's cherrypicking against him...............You have him at number 7 in your P4P list...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:1. Ali.................By a mile.
2. Louis
3. Johnson
4. Foreman
5. Holmes
6. Marciano
7. Frazier
8. Jeffries
9. Dempsey
10. Tyson
11. Lewis
12. Holy
13. Liston

Think mine is usually around this line up give a take the odd place..

Odd that you favour a guy whose greatness lay in his mastery of other great fighters in their prime over one whose greatness lay in consistency over a long period.

Surely you'd rate Leonard over Floyd if you were applying the same logic?

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:1. Ali.................By a mile.
2. Louis
3. Johnson
4. Foreman
5. Holmes
6. Marciano
7. Frazier
8. Jeffries
9. Dempsey
10. Tyson
11. Lewis
12. Holy
13. Liston

Think mine is usually around this line up give a take the odd place..

Odd that you favour a guy whose greatness lay in his mastery of other great fighters in their prime over one whose greatness lay in consistency over a long period.

Surely you'd rate Leonard over Floyd if you were applying the same logic?

I have Leonard top 5......

And Floyd above him. Right on....

It's all stats with you Haz not taking into account anything other than that, he could have fought Valdes but chose Cockell instead, he was a relieved man to see him lose. His stats aren't much different to Wlad anyway.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Surely you can only judge a fighter on who he's fought ??

I don't mark Bowe down for Louis........I don't think yes his wins put him at 17... but he didn't fight Lewis so he's 27...

That's just bollox..

Bowe is marked down for not facing Lewis (and rightly so). In Lewis's defence, he fulfilled his obligation in defeating Ruddock in '92.

Bowe at least signed to fight years later but Lewis got himself knocked out.

Fighters should be judged in context to the era they fought. For example: Did they fight their main rivals?

Bowe isn't marked down...............at all..

Just as respected posters like Ghosty, Chris, Captain and myself have Mayweather around the top 10 If not in it..

Just like you don't hold Johnson's cherrypicking against him...............You have him at number 7 in your P4P list...

News flash to you and your respected crew (I bet they're chuffed being lumped in with you) - no respected experts (the ones who actually earn a living from their expertise) agree.

hazharrison wrote:And Floyd above him. Right on....

Not got Floyd above him...

Stop being a sillybilly.

Let's ask Hugh McIlvanney..............He knows everything..

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's all stats with you Haz not taking into account anything other than that, he could have fought Valdes but chose Cockell instead, he was a relieved man to see him lose. His stats aren't much different to Wlad anyway.

I'm all stats and then you quote stats? This used to be fun.....

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's all stats with you Haz not taking into account anything other than that, he could have fought Valdes but chose Cockell instead, he was a relieved man to see him lose. His stats aren't much different to Wlad anyway.

I'm all stats and then you quote stats? This used to be fun.....

It's not all stats...It's all authors............

Write a sh**ty book and you are the font of all knowledge...

After all writers are always impartial !!

He only had Johnson at 7 because some writer put him there !!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:1. Ali.................By a mile.
2. Louis
3. Johnson
4. Foreman
5. Holmes
6. Marciano
7. Frazier
8. Jeffries
9. Dempsey
10. Tyson
11. Lewis
12. Holy
13. Liston

Think mine is usually around this line up give a take the odd place..

Interesting you have Frazier just below Marciano Truss. I would have picked you to have them the other way around. Switch their opponents and how does Marciano do?

I like Marciano. A true grafter with amazing will and for me the toughest guy to them lace up. The problem is he's under 6ft, short reach, not the most skillful and not far off light heavy by todays standards. Most of his opponents were also light so it's not like he was slaying huge beasts. Frazier was only a touch taller and not much heavier so I often ponder how they'd match up. I do wonder if Marciano just had that special winning mentality that would overcome Frazier but Frazier would be by far the best Marciano faced and one of the biggest. I think Frazier wins 7/10.

Where there's a will there's a way and Marciano had iron will but on the other hand a good bigun beats a good littlun and there are plenty of good biguns to choose from.

Head to head I'd have Frazier smashing Louis and Marciano..............With that bob and weave style and left hook he'd only need to land the left once.....

The Rock and Louis would struggle in the 70s with guys like Norton, Foreman, Quarry and Shavers.............as would Johnson....

People forget Louis weighed 199 for Conn..............Which suggests he could have made cruiser..Rocky was a cruiser....

Have no objection to Frazier higher though..

Bigger heavies...

I've quoted a stat that nobody would take seriously to highlight how stupid it is to do it without context.

Head to head is as arbitrary as pound for pound (in terms of rating fighters). Good for a bit of knock about fun but that's about it.

Who would have tipped Holyfield over Bowe? Ali over Liston? Holyfield over Tyson?

Then again...experts know nothing anyway..because the books they write are rubbish...but it's a Ok to basically regurgitate these books on a forum and be deemed "respected".

At least if they're posting on here they're not operating heavy machinery elsewhere I suppose...