606v2 Heavyweight Rankings

To carry on the theme of trying to do our own all time rankings much like the IBRO it's time for the classic 8 divisions and to start with it's the big men, to try and avoid a similar outcome to the british list where only 12 men got votes i'm asking for a list of 15 fighters again. With regards to the other divisions the junior classes will be joined together with their parent division directly above which unfortunately or fortunately dependant on your views means the Cruiserweight division will be avoided altogether.

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Dempsey
4. Holmes
5. Foreman
6. Lewis
7. Jeffries
8. Marciano
9. Frazier
10. Liston
11. Johnson
12. Holyfield
13. Tyson
14. Tunney
15. Wills

Look forward to hearing your views

1 Ali
2 Louis
3 Dempsey
4 Jeffries
5 Johnson
6 Marciano
7 Holmes
8 Foreman
9 Lewis
10 Frazier
11 Liston
12 Tunney
13 Tyson
14 Holyfield
15 Charles

The principle problem for me at heavyweight has always been the placing of Gene Tunney. If we were to assess him on overall ability he'd be a certainty for my top ten, but the same could equally be said of Fitzsimmons and Langford, and I find myself dropping Tunney to a much lowlier status than his talent deserves simply because his flirtation with the division was too brief.

A second fly in the ointment would be George Foreman. Surely one of the most dominant heavyweights of all time, yet a certain Muhammad Ali managed to spoil the party and leave Big George with a mediocre record as champion.

Then we have Jack Johnson, who was 13 - 2 - 2 in HOF contests during his best years, yet contrived to dodge his best challengers while he wore the crown.

All in all, picking the top fifteen heavyweights as opposed to the top fifteen fighters who campaigned at heavyweight, I'd see them something along these lines, bearing in mind ability, record, longevity, impact, dominance of their respective eras and a few other things besides :


1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Dempsey
4. Foreman
5. Johnson
6. Holmes
7. Jeffries
8. Marciano
9. Lewis
10.Tyson
11.Frazier
12.Liston
13.Tunney
14.Holyfield
15.Sullivan......... NOW EDITED TO FITZSIMMONS, SULLIVAN HAVING BEEN DISQUALIFIED.

Nice to see someone else finding space for Sully Windy, Andy will be over the moon. You've still got Jeffries too low though.

No place for Charles in anyone's top fifteen so far, lads? He'd rank more or less alongside Tunney for me. There's a tendancy to think of Charles as a stop-gap Heavyweight, but he wasn't. Eight defences of the NBA title (more than the likes of Marciano or Dempsey managed, though of course he didn't unify until he beat the old version of Louis), 2-2 with Walcott, himself a top twenty man at least, a decent win over Lesnevich and those two heroic efforts against Marciano. Seeing as I'm keeping it strictly to the gloved era, he'd take Sullivan's place, for me.

1) Muhammad Ali 2) Joe Louis 3) Jack Johnson 4) Larry Holmes 5) Jim Jeffries 6) George Foreman 7) Lennox Lewis 8) Jack Dempsey 9) Rocky Marciano 10) Joe Frazier 11) Sonny Liston 12) Evander Holyfield 13) Mike Tyson 14) Ezzard Charles 15) Gene Tunney

Cheers Ghosty.

I very much keep my lists to the gloved era exclusively in which case I can't possibly rate Sullivan anywhere, he has a loss to Corbett and that's it.

It does become very tricky as you point out Windy when we have great fighters who campaigned in a division but didn't fight there all that much, would suggest that Fitzsimmons and Langford have a better claim to a high heavyweight ranking than Tunney who's record consists of Dempsey twice and Heeney.

rowley wrote:Nice to see someone else finding space for Sully Windy, Andy will be over the moon. You've still got Jeffries too low though.

Breaks my heart to have Jeffries down there, jeff, but I'd already done no amount of juggling and it just felt right, today.

Sullivan's utter dominance, longevity and impact earn him a place for me all by themselves, but I'm also coming round to the idea, ( partly due to your influence, incidentally, ) that there was a lot more to John L than a hefty wallop.

Chris, Charles was one of the guys I wrestled with for my 15th place along side Corbett, Fitz and Langford. Solely plumped for Sullivan as I think he gets something of a shaft from history he doesn't deserve, although if I'm being honest think he should perhaps be excluded from these lists as Ghosty suggests.

Same for me, as far as Charles goes.

I plumped for Sullivan, but were he disqualified I'd be tossing up the pros and cons of Charles, Fitz and Langford for that final place.

I don't wish to influence the votes too much so will allow votes for Sullivan against my better judgement.

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Dempsey
4. Foreman
5. Marciano
6. Lewis
7. Johnson
8. Holmes
9. Jeffries
10.Frazier
11.Tyson
12. Liston
13. Tunney
14. Holyfield
15. Fitzsimmons

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Dempsey
4. Johnson
5. Jeffries
6. Foreman
7. Holmes
8. Lewis
9. Langford
10. Frazier
11. Marciano
12. Liston
13. Tunney
14. Holyfield
15. E Charles

Joe Louis, the greatest boxer that ever lived. He was badder than Cassius Clay, he was badder than Sugar Ray, and that boy...what's his name...Mike Tyson...looks like a bulldog. He was badder than him too

Joe Louis had come out of retirement to fight Rocky Marciano the minute he was 76 years old. Joe Louis was always lying about his age. He lied about his age all the time. One time Frank Sinatra came here to Wales. I said "Frank you hang out with Joe Louis, just between me and you, how old is Joe Louis?"

You know what Frank told me, he said "Hey, Joe Louis is 137 years old." A hundred and thirty-seven years old!

1. Farr
2. Louis
3. Ali
4. Dempsey
5. Foreman
6. Marciano
7. Johnson
8. Holmes
9. Jeffries
10.Frazier
11.Tyson
12.Liston
13.Tunney
14.Holyfield
15.Sullivan

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Dempsey
4. Johnson
5. Marciano
6. Jeffries
7. Holmes
8. Foreman
9. Tunney
10. Liston
11. Lewis
12. Holyfield
13. Frazier
14. Tyson
15. Wills

Very difficult to choose betwen such fine margins as always. A couple of issues cropped up with the list.

The first would be the Louis v Ali question. They are almost always recognised (rightfully in my view) as the top two. However in my own opinion Louis was the better fighter overall. Both beat pretty much everyone there was to beat during their peak years but what gives Ali the edge as that his competition was slightly better overall and included 3 nailed on top 15 heavies as opposed to Louis, despite Louis level of competition often being underrated in my view. Other than Ali is there any other heavyweight champion with as good a resume?

The second point would be the one raised on Langford/Tunney regarding their weights. Would always view Tunney as a light heavyweight first and foremost of course, but he fought at heavyweight more often than the Dempsey fights in the strictest sense. We could include wins over Greb, Gibbons, Risko, Jeff Smith and Tom Heeney as wins that happened above the light heavyweight limit. When added to his double over Dempsey then its not a bad record at all. When combined with his overall obvious talent and no defeats at the weight then its enough for a top ten placing in my view. However much depends on how you want to treat these kind of wins as being truly heavyweight or closer to a kind of catchweight.

Likewise with Langford who could be classified in any number of weight classes and a great many of his top wins came inside the heavyweight bracket. What seperates him from Tunney is that his record with rivals McVea and Jeannatte is patchier at the weight and he was very much second best to Wills. On that basis Ifelt I simply couldnt include Langford above Wills on a heavyweight list as Wills was the superior heavyweight of the Langford, McVea, Jeannette group.

Finally on the Sullivan issue,would largely think the list should be confined to gloved era only which pretty much rules Sullivan out although I more than sympathize with his position. If we are talkking gloved era only then I cant really see a basis for Sullivan being included.

1) Ali 2) Louis 3) Johnson 4) Foreman 5) Holmes 6) Jeffries 7) Marciano 8) Dempsey 9) Lewis (L) 10) Frazier 11) Holyfield 12) Tyson 13) Tunney 14) Wills 15) Liston

It shifts a little from day to day, and some will feel that I have Dempsey and Liston too low and probably Foreman too high, and I might have some sympathy with them. Truth is, I don't think that many heavyweights would challenge the upper reaches of my pound for pound list, even allowing for the fact that the big guys can't shift through the divisions. Big gap between the top 2 and the rest, I'd say.

My list will be tailored more towards modern fighters seeing as my knowledge of pre-1930 boxing is extremely limited at best!

1. Muhammed Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Dempsey
4. George Foreman
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Johnson
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Jim Jefferies
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Joe Frazier
11. Mike Tyson
12. Sonny Liston
13. Gene Tunney
14. Evander Holyfield
15. Ezzard Charles

1.Muhammed Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Jack Dempsey
4.Jack Johnson
5.Larry Holmes
6.Lennox Lewis
7.Rocky Marciano 
8.Jim Jeffries
9.George Foreman
10.Sonny Liston
11.Evander Holyfield
12.Joe Frazier
13.Mike Tyson
14.Gene Tunney
15.Sam Langford

Quite interesting to see Langford make it in to several lists. Just wondering what the basis is for having him ahead of Harry Wills is for most people?

In an overall list I think Langford ranks significantly higher but if we are confining the list purely to heavyweight terms then I would find it difficult to put Langford ahead of Wills given how one sided their series were.

Could be argued that the timing favoured Wills for much of the series but Wills consistenty at the weight for me was far greater than Langfords, especially if we consider the 5 year period leading up to his number one challenger status where he was virtually unbeaten in 50 odd fights and posted multiple victories over rivals Langford, Jeannette and McVea and wins over the likes of Kid Norfolk, Firpo and Fred Fullton.

Just curious as to others opinions and reasoning on that particular rating as someone who rates Langford amongst the greatest fighters in history but cant find room for him in a purely heavyweight list.

That was for me the biggest question of all Colonial whether to pick Wills over Langford and on reflection think you're right to give the 15th spot to Wills so will change my list accordingly, was without a doubt the best black heavyweight between Johnson and Louis, held winning records over most of his main rivals and has a better case than most to have had a world title shot.

With regards to Tunney while he may have weighed slightly over the light heavyweight limit for some of those fights aside from Dempsey and Heeney don't view any of his other fights as being genuine heavyweight contests.

Will add that i'll be respectfully ignoring Steffans list unless anyone has issues with that?

Was his list just a step to Farr for you Ghosty?.

Just a bit mate, i'm all for freedom of speech but when the rest of us are trying to sensibly compile lists as a group for the benefit of the forum will ignore anything that is a blatent wind up.

If at any point anyone changes their mind on any of their lists I can very quickly edit it so think of them more as a continuously changing rather than fixed.

1. Muhammad Ali
His quality of opposition leaves almost everybody in boxing history in the dust.

2. Joe Louis
Completely dominant in his prime, holds records for most defenses.

3. Jack Dempsey
Former hobo who fought with a revolutionary bob and weave style and in tremendously exciting fashion. Wrecked the 1920's Vitali Klitchko in a round to take the title but didn't actively defend it.

4. Sonny Liston
Other than one hicup early in his career he could've gone undefeated for a very long if he hadn't had the misfortune to cross swords with the greatest of them all. Also has an upbringing that makes Tyson's life look like a walk in the park.

5. George Foreman
Another who could've reigned forever if it weren't for the charismatic under dog Ali. Ferocious in his prime, he crushed ATG's like Norton and Frazier like they were kids before he lost the plot. Made a comeback and became the oldest heavyweight champ in history 20 years after losing the title.

6. Rocky Marciano
Only undefeated heavyweight champ and against much better opposition than many would have you believe.

7. James Jeffries
A third of his fights against HOF's and only defeat 6 years after retirement.

8. Jack Johnson
Marked down for ducking black contenders for so long and now again firing hot and cold, such as losing to Marvin Hart. However he was a revolutionare in style and attitude, and became the first black champion.

9. Lennox Lewis
At his best a real tall order in head to heads, and I think stylistically Ali's biggest challenge. Lewis was big fast powerful and defeated everyone he faced, the best of his era. Marked down for getting lazy twice and getting splattered by two guys who weren't fit to carry his jockstrap. Also, although he beat the best of his era, they were past it, I don't hold this against him though because they were too busy ducking him their prime so they shouldn't complain. He gets marked up for beating the man who'd go on to dominate the division in his final fight. This win looks better and better with age.

10. Larry Holmes
Great longevity, almost equalled Marciano but is marked down for less than stellar opposition at times. Plus he beat up Ali, which just irks me. Plus the Marciano comment was low.

11. Joe Frazier
Other than claiming arguably the greatest scalp in heavyweight history in doing the closest thing to defeating a prime Ali, he also cleaed out the division in Ali's absence. It's fine to say he had a losing record against ATG's, but another way to look at it is that he never lost to anything less than the very best.

12. John L Sullivan
The cross over champ from LPR to Marquis of Queensbury rules. His only defeat was when he was way past his best. In his thirties, which might not seem like so much, but he was on the end of a long and brutal career in which he'd rarely looked even slightly vunerable. He established what a dominant heavyweight champ should look like.

13. Mike Tyson
Went off the rails, but he did have a very impressive win streak up to that point and had looked unique in ability for a while there.

14. Evander Holyfield
It may seem cruel, given age/wear and tear, to mark the warrior down for this but I believe he lost around a third of his fights at heavyweight. At his best he went 1-2 with Bowe and although past his best he was 0-2 against Lewis. He is marked up for becoming world champion and defending against very tough opposition and of course for his amazing victories over Tyson. This for a guy who wasn't even a natural heavyweight is very impressive. Never outweighed an opponent in a title fight.

15. Ezzard Charles
Forget cruiser, this guy started at middleweight and I don't think he ever weighed over 200lbs! He beat Jersey Joe Walcott twice even when Joe was at his best and at his natural weight. Ezzard was for from either of those things. Jersey evened the score in their next two meetings but Ezzard was on a steep decline by then. He also beat an ageing Joe Louis, but he beat him so dominantly (I wrote a piece on this on old606) it was a great display of ring generalship against a stronger but slower foe that makes me think Ezzard would have a chance against Louis. He also beat many top contenders and came as close as anyone to uprooting Marciano.

Nice summary John Bloody Wayne, but would contest a couple of points. Not sure Lewis beating Vitali can be regarded as beating the man who would go on to dominate the division. I suspect Vitali was perhaps comfortably the best heavyweight post Lewis but his almost 4 year abscence combined with his failure to beat or even overshadow his main rival and total failure to unify means I cant regard him as a dominant champ.

There is a tendancy to view the two brothers as a single unit which doesnt sit well with me. I completely understand their reasons not fight, but I think they have to suffer the consequences of this if they are going to reap the benefits of not having to face their main rival. I dont think they are entitles to the best of both worlds as not facing your clear main (and perhaps only) rival is simply not a luxury afforded to other fighters. I suspect Vitali was and probably still is the better of the two brothers but his allowance of his brother to unify the rest of the titles and become number 1 in his abscence means that he risks having the inferior legacy of the two (if history manages to remember they were two seperate fighters!). The era will definately be remembered as the Klitschko era, but I think both have to accept that if they opt to rule jointly then neither can claim individual dominance which harms their overall legacy in my view.

Always interested to read peoples take on Sullivan. Agree with the majority on here that hes often overlooked and underrated but I find him virtually impossible to place due to the crossover in his career. Rather than do him an injustice or in the other extreme, overcompensate, I tend to leave him ot entirely and still generally classify him as primarily a bareknuckle/London Prize Rule fighter because under my general sort of criteria for rating fighters he just falls down in so many areas it would be unjust I feel its pointless to rate him on whats an uneven playing field.

Lion the more I think about it the more I regret my decision to include Sullivan. Will admit it was a largely sentimental choice as I think he gets overlooked or often dismissed as a crude slugger, which underplays both his skills which were well revered at the time and his impact on the sport, which compares favourably with almost any fighter ever.

However all this does not change the fact the bulk of his major wins such as Ryan and Kilrain were bareknuckle affairs and his actual gloved record is perhaps too thin to justify his inclusion. Will leave him in for the time being but perhaps it would be prudent to get a consensus view as to whether he should be excluded from this process and if so will replace him for Charles whose exclusion is begining to rankle slightly with me.

I'm also happy to concede on the Sullivan issue, but will need to think about which of Charles, Fitz or Langford will take his place should Ghosty decide to disqualify John L.

1. Lewis
2. Louis
3. Ali
4. Holmes
5. Foreman
6. Frazier
7. Jeffries
8. Dempsey
9. Liston
10. Marciano
11. Johnson
12. Holyfield
13. Tyson
14. Tunney
15. E.Charles

HumanWindmill wrote:I'm also happy to concede on the Sullivan issue, but will need to think about which of Charles, Fitz or Langford will take his place should Ghosty decide to disqualify John L.

Must admit, I wrestled with a number of fighters, mainly Charles, Schmelling and Fitzsimmons before finally settling on Wills despite him never holding the title. As I said above, Langford gets a raw deal in these individual lists but cant consider him ahead of Wills on the basis of their heavyweight series and overall record at the weight.

Colonial Lion wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I'm also happy to concede on the Sullivan issue, but will need to think about which of Charles, Fitz or Langford will take his place should Ghosty decide to disqualify John L.

Must admit, I wrestled with a number of fighters, mainly Charles, Schmelling and Fitzsimmons before finally settling on Wills despite him never holding the title. As I said above, Langford gets a raw deal in these individual lists but cant consider him ahead of Wills on the basis of their heavyweight series and overall record at the weight.

I certainly wouldn't contest the issue too passionately, Colonial.

I tend to favour Langford because of a number of factors, not the least of which is that he had the better of the early going in the series with Wills and that his having lost the sight in one eye during the Fulton fight of 1917 might have been a contributory factor in his coming off very much second best in the series, overall. I also believe that Sam remained a significant force over a longer period, and even into his declining years. Wills' brutal kayo by Uzcudan looms large in my memory when I assess him overall, and I can't help but think that Sam would not have been so comprehensively dispatched by a man whom I consider to have been the George Chuvalo of his day. This would be another reason why I've never quite bought into the idea that Wills would have represented a serious threat to Dempsey, notwithstanding that the Wills who was upended by Uzcudan was not the Wills of 1923 or so.

As I say, though, I could easily see why Wills could get the nod over Langford at heavy. Margins are always narrow at the elite level.

Like you Windy I personally give the edge to Sam, think you have to look at each fighter at his best as the Lion has rightly argued Wills going nigh on 50 fights unbeaten is pretty impressive but at his absolute best between 1907 and 1912 Sam can boast a similar record losing only two in 51 fights both avenged, one on numerous occasions. Given at the time he was regularly facing and beating the likes of Jeannette and McVea this is no mean feat and perhaps speaks to his true worth.

Also this is a factor that boasts him more P4P than at heavy you do have to also consider we are talking about a guy of 5ft 6 who could, were the opportunites available have probably made middleweight to go on such a run is pretty unrivalled. Is a wafer thin thing but for me tend to side slightly with Sam as I don't feel too much can be inferred from their head to head record as the bulk of the fights and indeed Wills' wins came when sam was very much on the downslide and many when he was nigh on blind.

An interesting perspective. Certainly the timing favoured Wills for the most part of their series as he was by far the fresher fighter and the bigger man. Post the Fullton fight in 1917 I think wear and tear was a big factor for Langford but the still think the guts of the series with Wills had been fought by then with Wills still being significantly ahead. Ultimately though Langford was a plus 100 fight veteran and mid thirties fighter for much of the series so I take your point on that.

Think you are right that Langford hung around longer than Wills who dropped off quite quickly after his losses to Sharkey and Uzcuden. But between 1917-1926 Wills was close to unbeaten in over 50 fights which included wins over McVea, Jeannette, Langford, Firpo, Fulton. Even looking past the Langford v Wills head to heads this period represents greater consistency than Langford managed (at heavyweight), though its hard to always pinpoint what weight class Langford was campaigning in and that he was past his best by then.

Difficult to say how Wills would have fared against Dempsey and I guess alot would depend on when the fight happened. Hard to imagine the Wills that was battered by Sharkey and stopped by Uzcuden would have beaten Dempsey but a couple of years prior when he was in the middle of an outstanding unbeaten run would have been interesting. Tend to wonder what impact Wills rather long period of inactivity prior to the Sharkey bout had, if any, on his performance. Would still back Dempsey to win ultimately but think it would be a good contest.

If it's possible Ghosty, I'd like to shift my order slightly, to have Frazier at 10, Holyfield at 11 and Tyson at 12. Thanks and sorry to be a nuisance.

Colonial Lion wrote:An interesting perspective. Certainly the timing favoured Wills for the most part of their series as he was by far the fresher fighter and the bigger man. Post the Fullton fight in 1917 I think wear and tear was a big factor for Langford but the still think the guts of the series with Wills had been fought by then with Wills still being significantly ahead. Ultimately though Langford was a plus 100 fight veteran and mid thirties fighter for much of the series so I take your point on that.

Think you are right that Langford hung around longer than Wills who dropped off quite quickly after his losses to Sharkey and Uzcuden. But between 1917-1926 Wills was close to unbeaten in over 50 fights which included wins over McVea, Jeannette, Langford, Firpo, Fulton. Even looking past the Langford v Wills head to heads this period represents greater consistency than Langford managed (at heavyweight), though its hard to always pinpoint what weight class Langford was campaigning in and that he was past his best by then.

Difficult to say how Wills would have fared against Dempsey and I guess alot would depend on when the fight happened. Hard to imagine the Wills that was battered by Sharkey and stopped by Uzcuden would have beaten Dempsey but a couple of years prior when he was in the middle of an outstanding unbeaten run would have been interesting. Tend to wonder what impact Wills rather long period of inactivity prior to the Sharkey bout had, if any, on his performance. Would still back Dempsey to win ultimately but think it would be a good contest.

The dreaded ' no decison ' situation tends to blur things when we consider Wills and Langford doesn't it, Colonial ?

For example, some sources report that, prior to Langford's suffering the detached retina against Fulton in 1917, his record v Wills was such :

May 1914 L 10

Nov 1914 W 14

Dec 1915 ND 10

Jan 1916 L 20

Feb 1916 W 19

Mar 1916 ND 10

Apr 1916 ND 8

May 1917 ND 6

I must say that I haven't thoroughly checked the newspaper archives of the day to ascertain which of the two was considered to have had the better going of the ND affairs, so you may well have the advantage over me, there.

This question has sufficiently whetted my appetite to scurry off and do just that.

Windy, as you know I have read Moyle's book on Sam quite a few times and working from memory my recollection is that Wills does appear to have had pretty much the better of their series. Another interesting aspect to this though and one which for me sometimes gets overlooked is quite how patchy and noticably less impressive Sam's career gets once Johnson lost his heavyweight crown.

As I said previously his best was very much up to around 1912 but for the next three years he was still a formidable force and opponent but from Johnson losing his belt and with it any realistic or vague hope Sam ever possessed of fighting for the biggest crown in the sport his form does appear to have tailed off quite alarmingly. Obvioulsy some of this will be the ravages of age and a long career but don't feel the demoralising effect on his morale this must have had should be overlooked.

Further to the above, Colonial, a quick check at BoxRec reveals that many of those recorded as NDs, above, were deemed to have gone to Wills in the consensus view of the press of the day, which would tend to support your point about Wills' already having been in the ascendancy prior to the Fulton fight.

rowley wrote:Windy, as you know I have read Moyle's book on Sam quite a few times and working from memory my recollection is that Wills does appear to have had pretty much the better of their series. Another interesting aspect to this though and one which for me sometimes gets overlooked is quite how patchy and noticably less impressive Sam's career gets once Johnson lost his heavyweight crown.

As I said previously his best was very much up to around 1912 but for the next three years he was still a formidable force and opponent but from Johnson losing his belt and with it any realistic or vague hope Sam ever possessed of fighting for the biggest crown in the sport his form does appear to have tailed off quite alarmingly. Obvioulsy some of this will be the ravages of age and a long career but don't feel the demoralising effect on his morale this must have had should be overlooked.

Agreed on both points, jeff.

My only question concerning the Wills / Langford series was one of when Wills began to take the upper hand, and cursory research would tend to support Colonial Lion's view.

I believe that Langford, once he had filled out and matured, always felt that he had the beating of Johnson and, given that Jack pretty much lost interest after the Jeffries fight in 1910, it's not unreasonable to suggest that Langford may well have been able to topple him. Johnson's losing to Willard, coupled with Sam's being 32 at the time, probably served to take some of the edge off his ambition, I would suspect.

The Johnson Langford fight is a tricky one Windy, seems fairly clear Sam had Jack spooked but I actually think Jack needed this in a fight as it would get rid of the laid back and occasional laziness that could creep into his game. His respect of Sam's ability and power surely mean we see the best Jack Johnson possible should the rematch happen.

However it is so difficult to know how good Sam was, widely accepted he carried a lot of opponents and the limited evidence suggests that when a fighter got under his skin or he was properly motivated he could be truly devastating and you have to think against a guy he had chased so hard and for the biggest prize in sport he would hold nothing in reserve.

Horrible, horrible fight to call and my call may be based on nothing more than a good big un beats a good little un.

Again, jeff, I believe we see this pretty much the same way.

As you know, Johnson had promised Langford first shot at his title, only to renege on the deal. From 1908 through the Jeffries fight in 1910 I'd reckon Johnson to have been too much for the smaller Langford.

Fleischer, among others, reckoned that Langford would never have beaten Johnson, and he would certainly know better than I, his having seen them both from ringside. Neverteless, I can't help but wonder whether Johnson, albeit that he was aware of Sam's abilities, lost some of his edge after beating Jeffries, and that his soft living as a ' sport ' in Chicago might have rendered him vulnerable to a Langford who was in the form of his life.

Bottom line is that I'd probably favour Johnson, but I certainly believe it to be entirely possible that Sam could have turned Johnson over sometime after 1910.

Windy will post some quotes from the book when I get home, cannot remember them verbatim at the minute obviously but I am fairly sure both Abe Attell and Jeannette called the fight for Sam, I know Attell is absolutely effusive in praise of Sam's abilities

Well I would say that Wills pretty much had the best of the pair during any stage of their series. IfI remember rightly he won the first meeting and then lost the return but after that he largely begins to dominate the series with the newspapers of the day generally siding with him in the no decision contests.

However as pointed out by rowley, one has to consider Langford past his best by this stage and we have to look 1907 - 1912 period prior to Wills to see Langford at his best. What factors for me thogh is that not all of this period was heavyweight contests as opposed to wills who clocked up something like 53-1 (the loss coming by way of obscure DQ) all at heavyweight. In Langfords favour, during the Wills era of 1914 onwards Langfords form is noticeably more patchy against his main rivals as opposed to prior to that when he was consistently getting the better of the likes of Jeannette and McVea. So its fair to assume Langford was past his best for most if not all of his head to heads with Wills.

But even if we look past the head to heads, at just heavyweight alone I think Wills has the better record in general and is the more consistent at the weight. Langfords best years saw him spread across so many weights that I feel it weakens his claims at heavyweight alone quite substantially. Wills on the other hand was almost exclusively a heavyweight. Wills period of dominance between 1917 up until his losses to Sharkey and Uzcuden in the 1920s was purely heavyweight whereas Langfords equally impressive reign between 1907-1912 was spread across several divisions. Its a no contest in my eyes as to who the better overall fighter is in pound for pound tems but in pure heavyweight terms I give Wills the edge.

rowley wrote:Windy will post some quotes from the book when I get home, cannot remember them verbatim at the minute obviously but I am fairly sure both Abe Attell and Jeannette called the fight for Sam, I know Attell is absolutely effusive in praise of Sam's abilities

Would be very interested to read those, jeff. Thanks.

Colonial, as always, you argue your points very persuasively and I really must say that you have made me reconsider the Wills issue.

I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread, and there I had been believing that the heavyweights had been ' done to death. '

Ali
Louis
Johnson
Foreman
holmes
lewis
jeffries
liston
frazier
dempsey
marciano
holyfield
tyson
wills
tunney


Never easy this. To some degree you could chuck a blanked over them from 3-15. I'm sure my list is very different to the last time i did it.

Of all the debates, though the one thing that never ceases to amaze me, is how many of the very knowledgable posters on here rate Dempsey so highly. Not planning a debate on it, i've done it too many times... just one of those agree to disagrees

Milky as someone who does rate Dempsey higher than many there are a couple of things for me that I base it on. One is a firm belief his opposition was far better than many give it credit for, Carpentier had some form at the weight and so was not quite the light heavy many would have people believe, Firpo whilst undoubtedly crude packed one hell of a wallop and had some form at the weight and much is made of Miske's illness but he went on to win something like 20 odd fights after the Dempsey loss. Willard also was an underrated fighter who had never been stopped prior to Jack steamrolling him

Another factor is that on his run to the title the odd poor result aside he was on a formidable run regularly ko'ing decent fighters like Fulton in double quick time, also worth remembering little footage remains of him in this period when arguably he was at his best.

The final factor is the impact his style had on the sport, he was the first heavy to fight with such an intensity or to utilise the bob and weave to any kind of affect, can question whether these should be a consideration but for me his impact cannot and should not be overlooked.

However as once you get past Ali and Louis who are a clear one and two for me you can make arguments to shift virtually any guy up or down the top ten by a good number of places so will not object too greatly to anyone who sees him lower in these things than me, although was anyone to exclude him totally from the 15 would have to take issue with this.

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Johnson
4. Dempsey
5. Marciano
6. Holmes
7. Lewis
8. Jefferies
9. Foreman
10. Liston
11. Frazier
12. Holyfield
13. Tyson
14. Tunney
15. Langford

I'm suprised how low Johnson is on a lot of people's lists. I seem to remember a couple of years ago on the old 606 many people had him at 3 (I believe a couple of posters even used to make the case for him being 1 or 2), definitely above Dempsey, whereas now placing him about 5/6 seems more common.

Have any of the regulars reviewed their placing of Johnson? Or is it just so tight that there is naturally going to be a bit of shuffling of everyone past Ali and Louis?

May well cause me a bit of work for myself but consider Sullivan disqualified

All valid points jeff.... and i can get a bit hagler leonard on dempsey. I think he was the poster boy of his day, and that glosses his achievements which were good but not spectacular imo

I think regarding Dempsey/Johnson its as rowley say, very fine margins seperating a large group of fighters from about 3-10.

ChelskiFanski wrote:I'm suprised how low Johnson is on a lot of people's lists. I seem to remember a couple of years ago on the old 606 many people had him at 3 (I believe a couple of posters even used to make the case for him being 1 or 2), definitely above Dempsey, whereas now placing him about 5/6 seems more common.

Have any of the regulars reviewed their placing of Johnson? Or is it just so tight that there is naturally going to be a bit of shuffling of everyone past Ali and Louis?

Bit of both in my case, Chelski.

I can change the lower eight of my top ten heavies as often as I change my socks and Johnson, in particular, is an enigma. We see glimpses of his greatness in the surviving film, but not nearly in so convincing a fashion as we read in eye witness accounts and, while he beat everybody there was to beat on the way up, his title tenure was pretty shoddy, all in all.

On a given day, I could up him to third, but I could equally drop him to sixth or seventh on another day and using other criteria.

Captain i've changed your list so we're where we should be

I just think we have all on the whole been disrespectful to our long lost forgotten Foe, at this rate Marciano is going to be in the top 8, what are we thinking, did he not teach us anything?