606v2 Heavyweight Rankings

by Imperial Ghosty Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:45 pm

First topic message reminder :

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

by Rowley Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:48 pm

Chelski I have been one who has had cause to reconsider Johnson in recent years and find myself bumping him down a couple of places. My rationale behind this is through reading and learning more about Sam Langford and the other black fighters around at the time. Whilst Jack would not be alone in refusing to fight the best black fighters he is unique in that he routinely refused to face such fighters and commonly faced fighters far less able or qualified. He is also pretty unique in that certainly in the case of Langford there was good money to be had from fighting him and a willingness from promoters to make the fight, think he sometimes gets a bit of a pass on this that other fighters far less culpable are not afforded.

However on the grounds he beat many if not all of these fighter in his pre title days and was obviously a terrifically talented fighter I cannot bring myself to downgrade him too severely, but as someone who has in the past had him at number three he has suffered a little in my thinking over the last couple of years.

by milkyboy Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:55 pm

....that's your problem jeff, all this reading and learning. Only serves to confuse you. Save yourself the trouble, form an opinion like i do and robustly stick to it even if there is convincing evidence to the contrary.

by **HumanWindmill** Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:56 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:May well cause me a bit of work for myself but consider Sullivan disqualified

In that case, Ghosty, I'll plump for Fitzsimmons.

Had it not been for Colonial Lion's excellent arguments concerning the Langford / Wills issue I would probably have plumped for Sam. However, Colonial's points have made me think again, and since I always think of Langford and Fitz as being very much a pair and tied by very similar circumstances it's not terribly difficult to give Fitz the final place.

He edges Charles, in my opinion, since Fitz accomplished wins over the extremely dangerous Peter Maher, hammered the lightheavyweight legend, Choynski, ( though the official result was a draw, ) and twice handled Tom Sharkey with greater ease than would the great Jeffries, ( notwithstanding that the referee, Wyatt Earp, royally shafted Fitz by disqualifying him in the first contest while Sharkey lay flat on his back, ) all of which while Fitz was still a middleweight. Even when he took the heavyweight crown from Corbett his official weight was only 168lb., and two very good sources which I have seen claim that he actually weighed 159lb. on the morning of the fight.

All of this persuades me to just nudge him ahead of Charles for the fifteenth spot.

Will edit my earlier post, accordingly.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:01 pm

Rowley, Fists and JBW are the only ones left who need to change their votes now

by Rowley Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:03 pm

Is down to Charles or Fitzsimmons and based on Chris' excellent argument will go with Charles this time.

by Rowley Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:12 pm

[quote="HumanWindmill"]

Imperial Ghosty wrote: Even when he took the heavyweight crown from Corbett his official weight was only 168lb., and two very good sources which I have seen claim that he actually weighed 159lb. on the morning of the fight.

Have not heard that before Windy, however what is absolutely certain is in taking the middleweight title off Dempsey Bob weighed 151 five minutes before entering the ring. With day before weigh ins is not impossible big light welters like Hatton have probably weighed more than this by fight time this puts Bob's subsequent heavyweight exploits in sharp focus, is truly staggering a guy of that size could perform with such merit against the likes of Sharkey and Jeff

by **HumanWindmill** Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:22 pm

Fantastic point about today's ' day before ' weigh ins, jeff. As you say, it puts Fitzsimmons' achievements into perspective.

If you remember, the other day I mentioned that from certain angles Fleischer's heavyweight rankings didn't seem to be nearly so daft as they are sometimes deemed to be. It was Fitzsimmons, and some of the points to which you and I have alluded, whom I had very much in mind when I wrote that comment.

If I can't have Sully or Langford at fifteen, I'm more than comfortable with Ruby Robert pinching the place.

by ChelskiFanski Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:38 pm

rowley wrote:Chelski I have been one who has had cause to reconsider Johnson in recent years and find myself bumping him down a couple of places. My rationale behind this is through reading and learning more about Sam Langford and the other black fighters around at the time. Whilst Jack would not be alone in refusing to fight the best black fighters he is unique in that he routinely refused to face such fighters and commonly faced fighters far less able or qualified. He is also pretty unique in that certainly in the case of Langford there was good money to be had from fighting him and a willingness from promoters to make the fight, think he sometimes gets a bit of a pass on this that other fighters far less culpable are not afforded.

However on the grounds he beat many if not all of these fighter in his pre title days and was obviously a terrifically talented fighter I cannot bring myself to downgrade him too severely, but as someone who has in the past had him at number three he has suffered a little in my thinking over the last couple of years.

Thanks for the response Jeffrey. I guess my question now is why do you have Dempsey at 3? If you mark Johnson down for not fighting people while champ surely the same thing point can be levelled at Jack who had only a handful of fights after becoming champ?

by Rowley Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:47 pm

Chelski it is not so much the lack of fights for Jack it is the sheer guff he chose to fight when there were more than capable fighters out there who he could have fought and certainly in the case of Langford turned down generous offers to fight. Have explained earlier that I don't consider Dempsey's opposition as bad as often portrayed but what can be said is they were the best the era had to offer, with the exception of the must discussed Wills, and as Jack signed for this fight at least once guess he has to be given a little leeway on that one.

by **HumanWindmill** Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:55 pm

ChelskiFanski wrote:I guess my question now is why do you have Dempsey at 3? If you mark Johnson down for not fighting people while champ surely the same thing point can be levelled at Jack who had only a handful of fights after becoming champ?

I know you addressed this to jeff ( rowley, ) Chelski, but I hope you won't mind my offering an opinion, also.

Statistically, there's not much between Johnson and Dempsey. If we consider Johnson's peak period to be from the 1903 Denver Ed Martin fight to the 1915 loss to Willard, and if we consider Dempsey's corresponding peak to be from the 1917 win over Gunboat Smith to the second loss to Tunney in 1927 we see some interesting statistics :

Johnson fought fifty two times during his peak to Dempsey's thirty eight.

Johnson's record for the period was 44 - 3 - 5 = 87.5% to Dempsey's 34 - 2 - 2 = 92%

Johnson's opponents for the period averaged 18 - 5 - 4 = 74.6% to Dempsey's 28 - 6 - 4 = 81%

Johnson made eight successful title defences to Dempsey's five.

Johnson was 13 - 2 - 2 in HOF fights to Dempsey's 7 - 2 - 1

Not really much to separate them, there.

As to perceived ability, their styles were so markedly different as to make it a matter of opinion and personal preference as to who was the better. At the moment, I'd favour Dempsey's combination of speed, innovative ( for the day, ) bobbing and weaving, tremendous punching power, ( especially with those vicious short hooks, ) recuperative powers, under rated skillset and that ferocity and will to win which it is impossible to measure, but I could just as easily see why some would point to Johnson's remarkable reflexes, stamina, strength and all round ring smarts.

Come to think of it, it would have made for a pretty good head to head, each man at his best.

by ChelskiFanski Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:02 pm

Thanks Rowley and Windy for the responses - always nice to find out a bit more about the old-timers. To be honest I don't have a clue who fits where below the top 2 (other than Tyson being below Lewis!) so I just wanted to hear the arguments about who deserves the 3rd spot.

I've just bought 'Unforgivable blackness' (the book not the film) and looking forward to finding more about Jack.

by The Galveston Giant Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:05 pm

ChelskiFanski wrote:Thanks Rowley and Windy for the responses - always nice to find out a bit more about the old-timers. To be honest I don't have a clue who fits where below the top 2 (other than Tyson being below Lewis!) so I just wanted to hear the arguments about who deserves the 3rd spot.

I've just bought 'Unforgivable blackness' (the book not the film) and looking forward to finding more about Jack.

It's a good book Chelski, if you don't know much about Jack or the times then you're in for a treat.

by Rowley Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:06 pm

Chelski good choice of book is very good. As a bit of advice though you will enjoy it far more if you ignore the footnotes, at the start of the book there are notes on nearly every page and they really interfere with the flow of the book. I have read it a couple of times, firstly reading the footnotes and they spoilt the book to an extent, when I re-read it whilst ignoring them I enjoyed it so much more.

by ChelskiFanski Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:22 pm

rowley wrote:Chelski good choice of book is very good. As a bit of advice though you will enjoy it far more if you ignore the footnotes, at the start of the book there are notes on nearly every page and they really interfere with the flow of the book. I have read it a couple of times, firstly reading the footnotes and they spoilt the book to an extent, when I re-read it whilst ignoring them I enjoyed it so much more.

Thanks for the advice, I'll make sure to follow it.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:29 pm

Still don't have the damm time to start reading these books, doing my head in now.

by **HumanWindmill** Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:45 pm

You're welcome, Chelski, and I also give a thumbs up to ' Unforgivable Blackness.' I was a tiny bit disappointed that the actual fight coverage was a little flimsy, but for background and Johnson's life and times it's superb.

Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

PS The documentary is pretty good, also.

by Rowley Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:51 pm

Fear not Windy Adam Pollack has completed his Burns biography which means Johnson should be next. Spoke to him the other week and he was a little undecided as to whether to write it but said he probably would, can be absolutely certain that will not suffer from covering the fights in anything other than forensic detail.

by **HumanWindmill** Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:01 pm

Come hail or shine I'll be buying that one, jeff.

by Rowley Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:05 pm

Likewise Windy, don't think I have looked forward to a book, including No Ordinary Joe quite like I am looking forward to that, just have to hope he actually does write it now, but suspect he will

by coxy0001 Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:12 pm

I could have a go at writing it... By about chapter 5 we'll be into full RJJ/JC/Naz battering mode.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:08 pm

Just to let you know that the 8 fighters who come out on top will be used in the future when I resurrect the knockout tournaments once these are all done.

by John Bloody Wayne Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:30 pm

OK seen as John L is an illegal substance I'll stick Fitz in there instead.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:31 pm

Want me to push the rest up one place with Fitz at 15?

by John Bloody Wayne Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:38 pm

YESH

Sorry, that wasn't meant to be quite so intense.

by Mind the windows Tino. Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:56 pm

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

16) Herbie Hide (would do Jeffries inside 2 rounds)

by Liam_Main Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:01 pm

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

Notable Mentions: Wladamir Klitschko, Mike Tyson, Sam Langford, Jersey Joe Walcott

by WelshDevilRob Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:14 pm

Harry Wills lost his title to Langford on the 11th February 1916 and was due too get married the next day but his proposed wife Edna Jones committed suicide 3 hours before the ceremony.

At his peak he lost only once in 50 fights.
He had 100 fights over 21 years.

When people make all-time lists Dempsey gets included but fighters like Langford and Wills are ignored because they supposedly never were Heavyweight Champ.
It's interesting that Wills beat 2 fighters who then went on too beat Dempsey. Willie Meehan a white fighter lost too Wills then went onto beat Dempsey twice.
Infact after Wills lost to Langford and his fiancé committed suicide, Wills fought and beat John Lester Johnson a month later-in Lester's next bout he gave Dempsey a sound beating.
Dempsey did sign to fight Wills when Wills was 35/36 and on the decline but Dempsey's promoter/managers Kearns and Rickard pulled the plug.
They even made Wills fight leading contender Luis Firpo for the right to fight Jack Dempsey and Wills won even though he'd seen better days.

Harry Wills made 32 defences of the coloured Heavyweight title beating the likes of Sam McVea, Joe Jeanette and Sam Langford.

I'd rate him above Langford overall. At 6'4 he was just too big.

by Imperial Ghosty Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:19 pm

I'm in full agreement that Wills should be rated higher at heavyweight than Langford who I think divisionally gets rated slightly too high based on his undeniable pound for pound pedigree, i'm in the very small minority who thinks that Langford is rated too highly based in no small part to not having the opportunity to fight for a world title (Barbados Joe aside).

by John Bloody Wayne Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:29 am

I always wonder why Dempsey gets slated for not fighting black contenders when no black man contended the heavyweight crown from between Johnson and Louis. Why does the blame fall solely on Dempsey?

by **HumanWindmill** Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:38 am

WelshDevilRob wrote:

When people make all-time lists Dempsey gets included but fighters like Langford and Wills are ignored because they supposedly never were Heavyweight Champ.
It's interesting that Wills beat 2 fighters who then went on too beat Dempsey. Willie Meehan a white fighter lost too Wills then went onto beat Dempsey twice.

Dempsey was a relative rookie, not yet twenty two, when he first fought Meehan (Wills, at around the same age, had been thrown out of Jack Johnson's training camp for not having been good enough to act as sparring partner ) and the fights were little more than four round exhibitions, anyway. The first bout of their five, which Dempsey lost, was staged for some kind of Naval fund, if I remember rightly, and there has been a suggestion that Dempsey, who had gotten himself into hot water over the draft issue at the time, found it prudent to go a little easy on Meehan, who was a Navy man. Nobody would have given Meehan a cat - in - Hell's chance against Dempsey over a ten rounder, or in a fight which carried any serious implications. Wills, by comparison, was a mature pro when he beat Meehan, who was, himself, only twenty one or so at the time.

On that basis it could just as easily be argued that Firpo took Wills the distance and that Sharkey handed Wills a drubbing, whereas Dempsey annihilated Firpo and managed a come - from - behind kayo win over Sharkey when he, Dempsey, was past his best and coming off a loss to Tunney.

It's become fashionable to trash Dempsey, these days, but contemporary opinions are instructive as to his true abilities and Sam Langford, for one, opined that Dempsey would have toppled Wills. If we see Uzcudan knocking Wills down it's clear that Harry was vulnerable to a left hook, and Dempsey probably owned the best left hook in the business until Frazier came along, although Liston and ( don't laugh, ) Galento might have also staked a claim.

As to the Dempsey v Wills fight never having come off, there is only speculation, as opposed to solid evidence, that Rickard, alone, was responsible. I've read those accounts, of course, and there's little doubt that Rickard was an advocate of the colour line. However, it's equally true that newspapers of the day carried stories that Rickard had set up a couple of bouts for Wills which, safely negotiated, would guarantee him a shot at Dempsey. There is also circumstantial evidence that the newly - reformed KKK boasted members in high offices of local government, and that they turned down flat a Wills v Dempsey fight in many of the major cities.

Too easy and too simplistic to beat Dempsey with this particular stick.

by milkyboy Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:51 am

eloquently put windy, and i wouldn't argue with any of it except the 'it's become fashionable to trash dempsey' line.

It was me who raised the comment that i'm surprised how high he is in so many well read rankings on here. My view is its fashionable to rose tint him and jeffries and trash johnson. After Ali and Louis, you can create a case for the positioning of most of the rest of the top 10 being number 3, but i find that much harder to do for dempsey than the others.

by sittingringside Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:00 am

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

by **HumanWindmill** Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:14 am

milkyboy wrote:eloquently put windy, and i wouldn't argue with any of it except the 'it's become fashionable to trash dempsey' line.

It was me who raised the comment that i'm surprised how high he is in so many well read rankings on here. My view is its fashionable to rose tint him and jeffries and trash johnson. After Ali and Louis, you can create a case for the positioning of most of the rest of the top 10 being number 3, but i find that much harder to do for dempsey than the others.

Thanks, milky, and good it is to see you posting regularly again.

Perhaps I should have explained myself a little better with regard to the ' trashing Dempsey ' comment. I wouldn't, for one second, presume to know better than other hardcore fans, some of whom rate Dempsey highly and some of whom do not. Rather, I was referring to the fact that his stock has fallen substantially over the years. Back in the sixties it was commonplace for journalists and historians to be scratching their heads and deliberating over which of Dempsey or Louis should be regarded more highly. Today, Louis' star still shines brightly but Dempsey's seems to have faded.

by milkyboy Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:44 am

Thanks for the kind words windy and i understand your point if you're referring to a more long term stock diminishment rather than a recent trend.

I always felt that the legend of dempsey, as probably the first great superstar of the sport, somewhat overshadowed his real achievements- admirable though those were. So i would argue that the post war writers will have grown up hearing from their fathers how great he was. It doesn't surprise me that as more fighters have come and gone - upping the volume and quality of competition - and with them different era's of commentators, that today's views are a little different.

I grew up with Ali as a hero, and struggle with objectivity on him. I suspect i would fight his corner were a new superstar to come along... infact i'm sure i did when the unbeatable tyson was rolling all the late 80's heavies.

Perhaps a simplisitic view but then one written with a moderate hangover Wink

by Imperial Ghosty Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:24 pm

I also think there's a bit of rose tinting as far as Ali is concerned too, you can't argue with his victories over Frazier, Liston and Foreman but do think people are a tad too easy to dismiss his losses to Norton and Frazier as him being past his best. He may not have been the supreme speedster he was before his exile but he was still only 29 at the time while men such as Louis and Dempsey have their losses to Schmeling and Tunney as a way to mark them down.

If anything both Dempsey and Ali benefitted from being superstars compared to the quiet diminutive Joe Louis who just went about business in a calm manner respectful manner.

by milkyboy Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:57 pm

...brings back distant memories of london ring rules talking about Ali's jelly legs against doug jones.

I see your point ghosty, and there's certainly something in it. Undoubtedly they both transcended the sport, and Ali does get some slack... compared to others, especially, if you look strictly at the records. however, you only have to watch ali before and after vietnam to see that it could have been 2 different fighters. To me his true greatness was in his ability to outclass/speed opponents pre vietnam, and out tough them when the feet had gone thereafter.

Fighters like everyone age differently... Ali, like tyson peaked in his 20's.

I think Dempsey does deserve slack for his inactivity prior to tunney, and Louis for being still a boy, allbeit a 20+ fight veteran boy against schmeling. True that they don't always get it though.

by Soldier_Of_Fortune Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:58 pm

Steffan wrote: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

by Imperial Ghosty Mon Aug 15, 2011 3:56 pm

Need a few more votes if you haven't already done so.

by sodhat Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:11 pm

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

by **oxring** Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:08 pm

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Dempsey
4. Marciano
5. Johnson
6. Foreman
7. Frazier
8. Jeffries
9. Lewis
10. Tunney
11. Holmes - final 10 spot was pretty hard to call. I've given Jeffries the nod due to the number of HoFers he faced - but ask me tomorrow and he might be at 11 with Tunney and Holmes moving up.
12. Holyfield
13. Langford
14. Sullivan
15. Tyson

Liston excluded due to mob involvement. Stylistically top 10, record belies his considerable talent slightly.

Narrowly missing out include Jeanette and Corbett. Corbett's record holds him back - but stylistically should be in there.

by Imperial Ghosty Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:13 pm

For the purpose of this list Oxy we decided to exclude Sullivan.

by **oxring** Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:23 pm

Hmph. In which case Tyson moves up to 14 - and then I'd bring in Corbett at 15.

I could do Azania's list as well if you like?

1. Ali
2. Lewis
3. Tyson
4. Foreman
5. Holmes
6. RJJ
7. Ibeabuchi
8. Tua
9. V Klitschko
10 W Klitschko
...
853 R Marciano
854 F Patterson

by Mind the windows Tino. Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:30 pm

oxring wrote:Hmph. In which case Tyson moves up to 14 - and then I'd bring in Corbett at 15.

I could do Azania's list as well if you like?

1. Ali
2. Lewis
2. Hide
3. Tyson
4. Foreman
5. Holmes
6. RJJ
7. Ibeabuchi
8. Tua
9. V Klitschko
10 W Klitschko
...
853 R Marciano
854 F Patterson

I have amended your glaring ommission of Herbie Hide, Oxy. The epic Az claimed Jeffries wouldn't last two rounds.

by **oxring** Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:17 pm

Many thanks Tino. I'm not sure if Ibeabuchi is a touch too low - and should Akinwande come in? I'm pretty sure Az had Akinwande battering Marciano in a couple of rounds as well.

by Imperial Ghosty Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:00 pm

Think you have Marciano a bit high in that list.

by Imperial Ghosty Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:02 pm

by John Bloody Wayne Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:39 pm

by Waingro Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:05 am

1. Ali - best fighter of all time
2. Lewis - Whupped Holyfield and Tyson
3. Tyson - Complete Beast until he got jailed
4. Foreman - Oldest ever champ
5. Frazier - beat Ali once, nuff said
6. Marciano - never lost
7. Holyfield - Could be the new oldest ever champ if Klitschko retires.
8. Holmes - got destroyed by Tyson but still very good
9. Klitschko - beat Haye and has been champ for ages
10. Joe Louis - one of the first black champs after the ban to impact the title

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:58 pm

Ali
Louis
Johnson
Dempsey
Holmes
Marciano
Jeffries
Frazier
Foreman
Lewis
Holyfield
Liston
Tunney
V. Klitchko
W. Klitchko

The Klitchko's get in purely on longevity and consistency not many guys stay top of the division as long as them. Can't have Tyson in mine his record isn't good enough even if he was a 'complete beast'? (see post above)

Not sure if that is a referral to him inside or outside the ring? Towser?

by John Bloody Wayne Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:13 pm

I thought I felt queezy
vomit

by Sponsored content