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?

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

Marciano was pleased Valdes lost or more likely Al Weill? I don't believe Marciano cared who he fought. Quite how Valdes has suddenly become his Harry Wills is a mystery only you and your imaginary friends can solve.

Comparing Klitschko's tenure to Marciano's shows how little you understand the word context.

Good one yet again, such insight.

You know so little and as far as Marciano well he just wasn't that great, compare Valdes and Baker to his opposition.

It always ends in tears with you two.....

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Good one yet again, such insight.

You know so little and as far as Marciano well he just wasn't that great, compare Valdes and Baker to his opposition.

Yet you stalk me like a puppy hoping to impress everyone.

Valdes lost to Moore. He may have felt he was robbed but doesn't everyone? So surely Moore was better than him, yes?

After Ali and Louis the next 10 or so are pretty interchangeable in my view. For me, as others, Marciano would generally be at the lower end of the list,  Lewis a bit higher but still only 5-10, Frazier too.

You can create a reasonable argument for most of them over the others if you have the inclination or personal favourites.

Not something to get hot under the collar about on a Friday evening.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:It always ends in tears with you two.....

As I said, he bores me to tears. That's about it.

He's currently flipping through his Big Book Of Boxing hoping to quote some obscure fact or another that makes him look like class prefect.

I'm off to do something more exciting. Like watch the BBC test screen.

milkyboy wrote:After Ali and Louis the next 10 or so are pretty interchangeable in my view. For me, as others, Marciano would generally be at the lower end of the list,  Lewis a bit higher but still only 5-10, Frazier too.

You can create a reasonable argument for most of them over the others if you have the inclination or personal favourites.

Not something to get hot under the collar about on a Friday evening.

Lewis higher than four?

No, haz 5-10, I meant a bit higher than Marciano

milkyboy wrote:No, haz 5-10, I meant a bit higher than Frazier.

Frazier the greater fighter for me. Maybe not physically (head to head) but Lewis didn't do anything like what Frazier did against Ali. He couldn't fight at that level.

milkyboy wrote:After Ali and Louis the next 10 or so are pretty interchangeable in my view. For me, as others, Marciano would generally be at the lower end of the list,  Lewis a bit higher but still only 5-10, Frazier too.

You can create a reasonable argument for most of them over the others if you have the inclination or personal favourites.

Not something to get hot under the collar about on a Friday evening.

I want to give Lewis a top 5 spot, I really believe at his switched on best he had everything required to push into 2nd place. Alas, he drops outside of my top 5 as he showed it too rarely and far too often he was so laid back the referee would count him out.

Ok you read it while I was editing it. I meant Marciano but I usually do have lewis a bit higher than Frazier... but can see the counter argument. Like i said, its one division where there are no standouts after the first two. There are strengths and weaknesses in the records of all of them... Just depends on what you choose to give weight to.

You might be right on Frazier v Ali. Think lewis does a better job on bugner than joe though!

One Swallow does not a Summer make, beyond my top three of Ali, Louis and Holmes you can make a case for five or six men to be at number. Does one great win which was avenged twice outdo a whole career i'm not sure, Frazier had far more strings to his bow than that but like Basilio and Fullmer he gets an elevated status because of one win. (Two in the case of Fullmer).

milkyboy wrote:Ok you read it while I was editing it. I meant Marciano but I usually do have lewis a bit higher than Frazier... but can see the counter argument. Like i said, its one division where there are no standouts after the first two. There are strengths and weaknesses in the records of all of them... Just depends on what you choose to give weight to.

You might be right on Frazier v Ali. Think lewis does a better job on bugner than joe though!

Possibly. Funnily enough I think Bugner would mess Lewis about. Stinker that one.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:One Swallow does not a Summer make, beyond my top three of Ali, Louis and Holmes you can make a case for five or six men to be at number. Does one great win which was avenged twice outdo a whole career i'm not sure, Frazier had far more strings to his bow than that but like Basilio and Fullmer he gets an elevated status because of one win. (Two in the case of Fullmer).

What you got up to in the summer is your own business....

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Ok you read it while I was editing it. I meant Marciano but I usually do have lewis a bit higher than Frazier... but can see the counter argument. Like i said, its one division where there are no standouts after the first two. There are strengths and weaknesses in the records of all of them... Just depends on what you choose to give weight to.

You might be right on Frazier v Ali. Think lewis does a better job on bugner than joe though!

Possibly. Funnily enough I think Bugner would mess Lewis about. Stinker that one.

Most bugner fights were, the Frazier one being an exception. But hey, I'm dragging this further off topic.

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.

From 1956 Ring:

"Had it been billed as just another heavyweight bout, Bob Baker and Nino Valdes might have turned in a real battle in Cleveland. But the mistake was in advertising the winner as Rocky Marciano's next opponent in a world championship bout. That must have scared off both rivals. Neither apparently wanted to be Marciano's next victim. So, instead of fighting to win, Bob and Nino acted as though they were doing their utmost to lose and get eliminated. Valdes was the more successful. He managed to lose. But Baker, in winning, also did a good job of eliminating himself as a prospective Marciano opponent. It was a dull, uninspired, drab, no-account affair which bored the 8,380 onlookers to distraction and evoked catcalls and other derisive noises."

Marciano was already considering retirement by that time Haz, he could and should have fought at least one of them, for a time they were both his number one contender but the moment he had an inclination to fight somebody their ranking seemed to sky rocket. Charles got a shot after beating Sattefield but perversely Valdes didn't get a shot after beating Charles and the moment a young speedy contender in Patterson came around he consequently retired.

In the grand scheme of things beating Baker or Valdes wouldn't have done a great deal to his rather shoddy opposition but they would at least have answered a few pertinent questions, most notably how does he deal with somebody younger and bigger than himself.

Hammersmith harrier wrote: and the moment a young speedy contender in Patterson came around he consequently retired.

It's just supposition to suggest Marciano retired because of Patterson's speed......and a bit of a low blow !!

It's also interesting that you rate Holmes so highly considering the only reason he took the IBF was to avoid Page, Thomas and anybody with a pulse...

A bit hypocritical one might say ....Hammer my old Mate.

Holmes level of opposition was still a darn sight better Truss so avoiding certain fighters doesn't harm him as much. If Marciano didn't have his undefeated record he wouldn't even part of this discussion.

Charles and Walcott were top 15/25 alltimers...If they were past it Norton certainly was !!

LaStarza is highly rated.......

A 12 fight Witherspoon and an old Ali beaten Shavers really all that ??

I'll agree to disagree...Holmes fought piles of crap in between the odd Weaver..

Charles wouldn't be that high as far as Heavyweight goes, he was a past it light heavyweight whereas Norton was at least a past it Heavyweight. The big difference between the two Truss is simply that Holmes was beating actual Heavyweights and Marciano was not, he gets far too much credit for beating former greats above their best weight.

Norton, Shavers, Witherspoon, Cooney, Mercer and Smith all at least had significant success at the weight around the time that Holmes beat them.

Oddly LaStarza is Marciano's best opponent and probably also his best performance, it's not his fault that his era was full of 175lbers masquerading as heavyweights but nor should we be over rating him.

Charles was a quality heavyweight who beat Walcott plenty of times.....How much did Rocky weigh ????????????? He was a cruiser..

Holy was a former 175 pounder and cruiser...Let's mark down Bowe and Lewis because they were bigger ???...............Poor argument.

Mercer lost to Jesse Ferguson .......Cooney ??............Witherspoon was a 12 fight novice who nearly upset Larry and wasn't given a rematch..

Charles, Walcott and LaStarza....................better quality for me........Witherspoon did improve for sure though he underachieved.

But I do find it amusing how you moan about Rocky ducking.............and have the arch-cherry picker at 3 beyond reproach...

Sorry Mate but ....Baloney.

Charles was once a quality heavyweight but no longer was when he faced Marciano

I don't have Holmes beyond reproach at all but he fought a higher level of opposition, those still capable at the weight.

You try and use examples that have no relevance to the case in point, Holyfield proved beyond doubt that he could hang with the big boys and is a highly regarded heavyweight in his own right.

Walcott and Charles were both past their bests not that I rate Walcott that highly anyway, poor management or not he was about as inconsistent as they come, for every good win there was a loss to someone like Maxim, absolutely no different to Mercer in that regard or even Cooney.

We can try and mask up Marciano all we want and as tough as he was he was never truly tested against a young hungry Heavyweight something Witherspoon was or even against a genuine Heavyweight puncher like Shavers. His weight does not matter when we're talking about purely Heavyweights, his era was dross.

You mentioned Charles was a ligh theavy....I mentioned Holy was a 175/cruiser........

It's relevant..........Because Marciano was a cruiser and Bowe and Lewis were big heavies...

Norton was at his peak obviously....as was Shavers !!

If Witherspoon wasn't a novice he wouldn't have got the fight.

You're very arrogant.............But it's fairplay..

We'll just agree your right...and leave it there...Can't be bothered !!

Silly me, I could have mentioned that Charles and Moore both started out as middleweights and were both past their bests when they stepped up to Heavyweight so in no way relevant to Holyfield stepping up in his prime years.

Where has this idea Valdes would have troubled Marciano come from? He was number one contender and pencilled in to face Rocky but put in two dismal performances to completely scupper his chances (he was so poor he was dropped as no. 1 contender and the NYSAC returned his challenger's bond).

Charles, in much better form, was appointed top challenger instead.

You made issue of the weight....Not me..

Whether they were middlewights or welterweights............Fact is that Charles and Walcott are rated higher than anything Holmes beat at Heavy !!....

I'm discounting Ali...........Which was one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen.

If both were Past it then you'd have to accept Norton wasn't peak either.........

After all he was trashed in nearly all his subsequent fights.......Did he beat Cobb I can't remember..

It's all about opinions.............

Charles in much better form having recently lost to Valdes for christ sake somehow redeemed himself with a win over Bob frickin Satterfield.

The idea that Valdes would have troubled Marciano comes from the fake which you somehow can't grasp is that he was 6"3 and weighed over 210lbs, that's a significant step up in size from the Charles and Walcotts of the world as was Bob Baker.

Wallace and Satterfield were ranked 6 and 9. Hey I didn't demote Valdes, it actually happened IN REAL LIFE!

After Rocky munched Charles, Valdes was again in the frame but bottled it again with another dismal showing.

Marciano dealt with Carmine Vingo who was 6' 4". Nearly killed him.

Marciano would have dealt with Valdes just fine.

Valdes and Vingo are definitely comparable aren't they Haz and the former stunk almost every time he fought but that doesn't somehow make him unworthy of a title challenge when he was the most likely to cause Marciano problems. When I say problems I mean more problems because he still struggled with the triumvirate of ageing greats, lets actually compare his opposition to say Frazier, Foreman, Lewis, Tyson, Holmes and Holyfield, not really comparable is it.

He lives off his reputation and I don't want to go all Az on him but being white sure as hell helps him out, the east coast would have moved heaven and hell for a white American of Italian descent.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Valdes and Vingo are definitely comparable aren't they Haz and the former stunk almost every time he fought but that doesn't somehow make him unworthy of a title challenge when he was the most likely to cause Marciano problems. When I say problems I mean more problems because he still struggled with the triumvirate of ageing greats, lets actually compare his opposition to say Frazier, Foreman, Lewis, Tyson, Holmes and Holyfield, not really comparable is it.

He lives off his reputation and I don't want to go all Az on him but being white sure as hell helps him out, the west coast would have moved heaven and hell for a white American of Italian descent.

In size? Yes. Which is the point you made.

Walcott and Charles are rated top twenty here. Moore was also a great fighter (who beat Valdes prior to facing Rocky).

There aren't many sensible judges who feel Valdes would have beaten Marciano - or even given him his toughest fight.

Marciano wiped everyone out - in a wonderfully exciting fashion. He came back from the brink against Charles in a way few ever do. He's an all-time great and a superb champion.

Shame you feel so butt hurt about it.

He came from the brink in a fight he was winning and dominating, despite the split nose he was still comfortably winning the fight and having to come back from the brink against the men he fought isn't the hallmark of a superb champion. A superb champion would be beating them with ease and in no way is the record of the third greatest heavyweight of all time, low top ten I could understand but top three puts into context the whole list from an author who can't even get his facts right.

Haz you also need to stop copying Kid McCoys posts from Boxingscene.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He came from the brink in a fight he was winning and dominating, despite the split nose he was still comfortably winning the fight and having to come back from the brink against the men he fought isn't the hallmark of a superb champion. A superb champion would be beating them with ease and in no way is the record of the third greatest heavyweight of all time, low top ten I could understand but top three puts into context the whole list from an author who can't even get his facts right.

Email him your concerns - I'd love to see that exchange.

Knowing you're minutes away from being stopped and stopping the other guy is some feat. Marciano managed it, as did Robinson in the Turpin rematch.

I don't need to waste time defending Marciano - he's universally heralded as a truly special champion. I guess everyone will have some contrarian or another trying to besmirch them.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Haz you also need to stop copying Kid McCoys posts from Boxingscene.

Yeah? Post it up and we'll see what I've supposedly copied. I'm didn't realise there was a fraternity of forum dweebs. Is he "respected" in your world BoxRec?

Rock is number three because he couldn't box...but still remained unbeaten. A wonderfully unique achievement, despite who he may, or may not, have fought.  It turns out he fought 'no one'.... but this is not some remarkable revelation.

Whats remarkable is he used his primitive style (no better an aggressive bar-room brawler) to overcome EVERYONE, including a few faded legends (not dissimilar to calzaghe).

No heavyweight has emulated this since. All have been beaten by people who 'didn't deserve' to be in the ring with them (Ali, Lewis, Klitschko) except Marciano. He used aggression, heart, power and a chin to great effect - and to do something which has never been emulated before, or since.

No one is saying he would come off well in head to heads against any of the top boxers, no one is even saying he was a good boxer, all anyone is saying is he achieved greatness by achieving something great. You get brownie points for that.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2202&dat=19540313&id=nCYmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Bf4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=3013,5785874

Hello gents.

Any questions at all, feel free, never worry I won't take any of it personally.

Matt.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:an author who can't even get his facts right.

This has rather piqued my interest though.

Why is there such a big difference between Spinks and Tunney.....Spinks is laughably low in your list !!

Spinks beat the better fighter twice at heavy in Holmes........Both Holmes and Dempsey were both showing similar levels of decline.......and Cooney is better than Heeney or anything else Tunney beat at Heavy....Bar Dempsey.

If you are holding Tyson against him then why isn't Walcott marked down for a pathetic performance against the Rock in their return...

Holmes twice despite  the controversy of the 2nd fight and Cooney is a better record than about thirty guys above him...........You can also chuck in the European champ If you want...Tanstad.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Why is there such a big difference between Spinks and Tunney.....Spinks is laughably low in your list !!

As I explained in the article:

"I am not comfortable with his placement, and I hauled him up at the first opportunity. He could validly be ranked lower and he could probably have snuck a little higher – but this is as elevated as a four fight streak gets you on this list."

Spinks has a record, a total record, of 4-1.  No 4-1 fighter should be anywhere near Gene Tunney for my money.

Top thirty is not reasonable based on his record at the weight, i'm satisfied of that.

Mate...You have the awful Berbick 12 places higher..........A zombified Thomas and what else ?? A past it John Tate..

He had 5 fights..................4-1 .....................But If you are gonna mark him down for time spent in a division we'll end up having Geale types higher than Jones jr at middle Mate....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mate...You have the awful Berbick 12 places higher..........A zombified Thomas and what else ?? A past it John Tate..

He had 5 fights..................4-1 .....................But If you are gonna mark him down for time spent in a division we'll end up having Geale types higher than Jones jr at middle Mate....

Why? Jones boxed an entire career at MW. He fought more than twenty fights there, and made the weight for the last time in his fifth year as a professional fighter. Spinks didn't have a heavyweight career. It's the special nature of the achievement in such a short time that gets him onto the list at all, and I personally see a better argument for ranking him at 101 than 25, as you seem to be suggesting.

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

Can you answer this please. Also thanks for taking the time to pop over and respond.

Top level fights............

Swap Jones jr for Tommy Hearns.................Shuler, Roldan and a great fight with Hagler....

You think I'm putting Geale higher ???

Holmes twice, Cooney and the Euro champ................Far exceeds anything Berbick did...

How many fights did Tunney have at Heavy and where is he on your list ??

Doesn't add up Mate..........

Spinks and Tunney had similar careers............

ShahenshahG wrote:

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

Can you answer this please. Also thanks for taking the time to pop over and respond.

You cover rather a lot of ground there, but on Lewis-Holmes, I would suggest that Lewis met with more really good competition. Both of them are at the very sharp edge of any list containing men ranked at one time in the Ring top ten, in fact I think Holmes edges Lewis out narrowly here, but Lewis beat fewer "currently" Ring ranked contenders than anyone outside of Ali and Louis, more fighters I rated "punchers" out of anyone other than Ali and Louis, more top 100 ranked fighters out of anyone other than Ali and Louis. Now, you may say that this list is no good (i'm not saying you are), or that my appraisal of punchers is no good, but that doesn't really matter - a project like this, doing work like this, always creates its own gravity. This pushes Lewis up a bit.

Furthermore i've no problem with balancing the two Lewis knockout losses with the Larry's two losses (one of them debatable) against a former-lightheavyweight, given what Lewis did in re-matches - to be clear, i'm not saying the losses are equal, but that Lewis's dual series against McCall and Rahman are no less damaging than Larry's 2-0 loss to Spinks.

In the end though, I have no problem with Lewis at #7 and Holmes at #4.


I would reject the notion outright that there is such a thing as a "glaring omission" from the top ten unless it were Ali or Louis. 10 is just a number. As I beleive I made clear in the text, the difference between 14 and 10 is almost meaningless; in fact it may be literally meaningless.

Cheers.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
How many fights did Tunney have at Heavy and where is he on your list ??

Doesn't add up Mate..........

Spinks and Tunney had similar careers............

There are similarities, but there are big differences too.. Both have two directly comparable wins over a faded champ.

Spinks lost once at the weight by first round KO, Tunney was completely unbeaten at the weight.

Tunney has over and above him, about four times the number of wins that Spinks achieved at the weight, an additional man from the top 100 list, and a far longer timespan in the biggest division.

In the end, I can't tell you anything else about this really - five fights doesn't get you higher than Spinks's place on the list. You clearly disagree, that's fine, but I wouldn't rank him higher than one more space up the list.

I echo Shah's comments Mate.................Like with the Captain's top 50 ATg list it isn't easy compiling a big list......

I disagree with you over certain placements ............But you've come on here and fought your corner...

Cheers for the response. I would not envy anyone trying to write a top 100 heavyweights, let alone trying to justify the placings of each persons personal favourites or hobby horses (Jeffries being one of mine) and as I have said countless times and you have alluded to once you get past Ali and Louis there is a bunch of about a dozen where splitting them is nigh on impossible.

Still don't like to see a top ten without the boilermaker, but as you had Johnson as low as nine I'll forgive!