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?

Getting interesting now:

30. Sam McVey
29. Joe Jeanette
28. Max Baer
27. Bob Fitzimmons
26. Vitali Klitschko
25. Riddick Bowe
24. Peter Jackson
23. Gene Tunney
22. Ken Norton
21. Max Schmeling

Sheesh Schmeling nearly cracks top 20? I suppose since Louis will probably be #1 or #2 the guy who beat him cleanest at his peak gets a mega bump.

Vitali at 26 and Gene at 23? Come on now, Matt!

Hard to call this list.....Till you see what's above them....Think Norton's wins put him higher than Max....But then Fitz should be higher too considering the scandalous way Max won the belt...

Still think 50 spaces between Spinks and Tunney is a joke...No one holds Rocky 2 against Jersey..

Can we piece together the final 20?

Ali, Louis, Johnson, Holmes, Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson, Liston, Holyfield, Lewis gets you 12.

Langford I guess is 13. Walcott, Klitschko makes it 15. Patterson, Charles, Jeffries. Who are the other two?

Sullivan is probably in there Haz. Has Corbett appeared yet?

I don't think he's including John L.

Got to be Wills then, surely?

Ah, yeah, that'll be the one.

Herbie Hyde?

Adam D wrote:Herbie Hyde?

I've put him at 101, so close but that guy michael moorer is 100.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Adam D wrote:Herbie Hyde?

I've put him at 101

You mean in 101.......The room.

Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano to be number one and two.

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.

Where abouts would Haye rate in the top 100?

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.

hayemaker wrote:Where abouts would Haye rate in the top 100?

He wouldn't.

To be honest Rowley......If Cooney is 95..............Then you could make a case for Haye....

Old Gerry .......Though I'd pick him to beat the Klits.........

Never beat anybody..

I do not think Cooney beats the Klits. Maybe Wlad before he became ultra defensive but I definitely do not see him beating Vitali.

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.

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..

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..

Has the list been released? I didn't say he'd be top three... but his ranking has stayed 5-7 despite the preceding years, Ali, Foreman, Frazier, etc coming along. I.e Other fighters who may have looked better, or been more convincing have actually slid down because at the end - it's all about records... hence my comment (tongue in cheek) about a guy with 20 defenses being top three once we've forgotten who he fought.

I don't think 7 is unresonable..

Haye is definately top 100. The only man to beat Valuev who was the biggest heavyweight in history.

hayemaker wrote:Haye is definately top 100. The only man to beat Valuev who was the biggest heavyweight in history.

Chagaev?

And Holyfield really won their fight too. More convincingly than #Haye

If Haye hadn't of broken his toe, Wlad wouldn't be alive today. Imagine what Haye would do to Foreman and Tyson at their peaks

To be honest If Trevor Berbick and Ray Mercer are in the 60s...

A case for Haye is a good one.....

In between losing to cruiserweights........Berbick beat an uninterested (weaver koed) Tate and a Pinklon who looked like he'd been up to his old naughty habits....

Mercer lost to a 44 yr old Holmes and Jesse ferguson !!...........Bentt beat up Morrison and Bert Cooper was rent-a-win..

I'm not going to entertain the idea that the Valuev win is a great marker for Haye's career as Valuev was utter rubbish. I even recall watching Valuev fight some tiny little unknown podgy guy that was able to work him over. Size isn't an asset in boxing if you can't move it with any urgency.

I like Haye and I think that even if you only beat stiffs you can still showcase enough talent to break into the top 100. Unfortunately when you only fight a handful of stiffs and your best names on a very very short heavyweight CV are a lumbering Valuev and a shot Ruiz you don't have a stellar case. He doesn't break in for me but he may do if his comeback materialises.

When I was a nipper I thought Marciano was the best as he never lost. That was all that mattered in my head. Anyone recall those Boxing mags in the UK with the VHS tapes attached to the front that were dedicated to one boxer a month in the late 80's/early 90's? That sold me on Marciano. These days I admire him mostly for determination, conditioning and general toughness and feel quite a few heavies beat him head to head. I can't even decide if he's top 10 now. I still think he's a great heavy though, just a bit small by todays standards to really rank that high.

Can't dispute his Heavyweight career doesn't add up to much...........But an alphabet and a couple of defences isn't much worse than some other names polluting the lower reaches...

By saying Haye may belong in a Top 100......It's more by default...than any attempted compliment.

I agree to an extent Truss but to make it into the top 100 with just 6 or 7 fights, one being an emphatic loss, another where the other guy was so poor he threw one punch in 3 rounds, 2 where the other guy retired directly after ( not because they got career ending beatings but due to age ) it just doesn't highlight enough talent for me. It could be argued that a CV with 20 wins against journeymen and the odd gatekeeper beats Haye's and there are plenty of guys out there with records like that.

I do see your point.....

Part 9 here: http://www.boxing.com/the_100_greatest_heavyweights_of_all_time_part_nine_20_11.html

20. Jersey Joe Walcott
19. James J. Corbett
18. Floyd Patterson
17. Ezzard Charles
16. Wladimir Klitschko
15. Sam Langford
14. James J. Jeffries
13. Jack Dempsey
12. Harry Wills
11. Evander Holyfield

Joe Louis's oppo not looking too shabby now huh?

Top ten shaping up very nicely:

Ali, Louis, Johnson, Holmes, Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Tyson, Lewis, Marciano. Solid.

Dempsey at 13 too low.

McGrain has a hard on for Lewis so won't be surprised if he has him Top 5.  

I'd have Dempsey above Lewis and Tyson.

Same for Jeffries, he has some quality names on his record.

hazharrison wrote:Joe Louis's oppo not looking too shabby now huh?

Top ten shaping up very nicely:

Ali, Louis, Johnson, Holmes, Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Tyson, Lewis, Marciano. Solid.

Strange comment.....Charles beat him and he admitted Walcott beat him....

My argument is he lost to the best fighters he fought and beat average fighters....Whether he was past it is another story...

Not that he never fought good fighters...He just didn't beat many...

Anyway back to bed....

Louis wasn't the same after the war and was shot to pieces in his comeback. The greatest puncher of all time not being able to score KO's late in his career tells the story as well as anything.

10 spots between big and little K-bro? Interesting. Not seen a reason to split them that much, considering big only lost to a great and had a retirement plus cleaned up little's messes after he lost.

Hhhmmm....Not a bad 11-20, but still some things I'd personally question. Wills being above Dempsey strikes me as trying to be controversial or leftfield for the sake of it. Wills was certainly hard done by in not getting a crack at Dempsey, but you can't just effectively give him the win as a result of that or ignore the fact that Dempsey had the more impressive and successful career outside of that fight which never happened. Don't tend to rate Dempsey as highly as others on here, but he should be above Harry and is maybe a spot or two too low in general.

Jeffries is definitely top ten for me, maybe even just inside the top five. The first truly dominant champion of the gloved era and while he never got around to accommodating Johnson during his reign, the general quality of his opponents as champion rips Johnson's to shreds.

Patterson's not a top twenty man in my eyes, but he's low enough here for me to not get too upset about it. Corbett's another guy who gets too much love for me, but again at nineteen I can't be too upset about that. Likewise, Wladimir would be a place or two up from where McGrain has him in my list, but that's just splitting hairs, really.

As you already know Chris you have my full support in believing Jeffries is getting short thrift. The only real blot on his copybook is the Johnson fight and in all fairness that is an accusation most of his era can have thrown at them, certainly through to Dempsey, including Johnson himself, whose ranking never tends to suffer too greatly for it. Also what absolutely has to be said with Jeffries is if Johnson was the best available opponent, the guys he did face very much represented the best of the rest. Sharkey, Corbett and Fitzsimmons are all Hall of Famers in their own right and each was dealt with, normally in increasingly impressive fashion.

His record for me stands comparison with most other heavies. Is for me a lock for the top ten and probably top five is appropriate.

Does Jeffries size relative to his opponents not mark him down a bit?

Granted you can only beat those there to beat but would we consider any of Fitz, Corbett or Sharkey a notable win for say Tyson relatively speaking?

Not for me it doesn't HH. If having a size advantage was enough to secure wins Valuev would have dominated these last ten years. An advantage of this nature will only take you so far, as Valuev has proven. Jeffries could also fight a bit. Almost certainly he got through some of his early defences on sheer durability and ability to take a licking, but when you read the reports of his later defences he had definitely added some ability to go with the other assets he had, the reports of his second Corbett fight are quite positive about his boxing ability, some even going as far as to say he was outboxing Corbett, which did not happen too frequently in his career.

What I mean is would we consider Jones a notable win for say Holyfield, similar size difference as Fitz and Jeffries?

It's not all about size but it was a big help to Jeffries who was less able than a few of his opposition, in the rematch Fitz was giving him a bloody beating.

Well in fairness, as everyone always says just about all the great Heavies have at least one thing you can mark them down for in a way or something which arguably puts their achievements in to a less flattering context (short prime for Foreman, 'Bum of the Month' for Louis, a refusal to meet the leading contenders while champion for Johnson etc) and Hammersmith is probably right to point out that having such great size advantages over a few of his most notable opponents is probably Jeffries'.

Like the other guys mentioned, though, you have to try and see how that negative stacks up against the positives and I think there's enough going on Jeffries' record to stop him from sliding too far down the ratings on that basis.

Hammersmith said it, but you can only beat who is around at the time and in general Jeffries did that. Spinks is considered one of Tyson's signature wins (some would say it's THE signature win for him) and Louis gets plenty of credit for the Conn victories, so in return Jeffries deserves praise for wins over guys like Fitzsimmons, Corbett and Sharkey. Also worth noting that Jeffries was chucked in the deep end early on in his career; Ruhlin and Choynski in just his sixth and seventh fight respectively. Size advantage or no, Hearn would probably balk at the idea of putting the 8-0 Joshua, with a more extensive amateur career to boot, in with someone like Cunningham, Huck or Adamek right now, to put that in to context. Jeffries was a raw talent who had to learn fast so I'm a bit more forgiving of his struggles with guys like Fitz than I'd otherwise be.

Will agree without too much fuss that Jeffries isn't a great head-to-head fighter, but within his own era he set better standards as champion than anyone who'd gone before and like Rowley says, it's one thing just being bigger than the other guy but another actually being better. Jeffries' size helped him out, for sure, but I don't think it was the only reason he was the top man during his era.

To be fair to him he classes the true heavyweight greats as everyone from Jeffries up:

"In real terms these are the greatest, the most brilliant, the most dangerous many ever to box, symbols of heroism and strength no matter which era they lived in. So little separates them that by my reckoning there is almost nothing to separate them, and just as the man I have chosen to rank at #3 could legitimately be ranked at #14, so the man at #14 could legitimately be ranked at #3, dependent upon perspective and criteria."

Glad to see Tyson and Liston getting their props.

Dempsey, whatever your opinion of him, clearly deserves to be ranked above Wills. I really can't make a case to have Wills above Jack.

In fact, Dempsey's ranking here is a little surprising, considering the relatively high ranking Tunney has received. #23 is not necessarily unjustified, however, considering the limited number of fights that Gene had at Heavy, one would suppose that the justification for ranking him 3 places higher than Vitali Klitschko (who is scandalously low, IMO) would be that Tunney beat a genuine divisional great and nailed on top-10er. As such, I expected to see Dempsey pop up around 8 in this list. Not that I disagree particularly with his ranking, I have him at 10 or 11 usually, but 13 is not a travesty. Should be above Wills though.

Agree with TRUSS as well, that Spinks should be MUCH higher. Two wins over, an admittedly, ageing Holmes is still a fine achievement. His loss to Tyson shouldn't see him languishing as low as he is. As much as some revisionist fans would have you believe otherwise, Tyson was a serious force in '88. Foreman blew Frazier out in 2, that loss doesn't affect Joe's ranking too much, and rightly so.

We're up to ten, and we're yet to find a fighter whose record can't be picked to pieces. For all the romanticism, the heavyweight division really is a crock of Poopie

That's some list. Very hard to compile but agree there are some strange placings in there.

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

Lennox No.2 for me behind the G.O.A.T

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.

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.

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

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