The Best of the rest, HW's 11-20

Good afternoon everyone

A lot of ink has been spilt by all of us I imagine deliberating and compiling our own top 10 HW list. Over time I feel quite settled pretty much with the order bar a couple places. Which got me thinking, could I tackle and convincingly place the HW's 11-20 with a reasonable order, I wondered if any others have tried this and be kind to share the list and reasons why if possible, its only for the brave, below is my attempt, thanks as always.

11. Mike Tyson When remembering Mike Tyson in 2012, its only obvious I think of the hammerings he took off Holyfield, Lewis, Douglas ect. and the fact Mike never battled back from adversity in any scrap. However Mikes reign from 86-90 was cintilating, exciting add to the fact he demolished some very handy names its only right in my mind Mike is one of the first names slogging it out for a spot in the top 10.

12 Gene Tunney A favourite of mine and I always try to find a top ten spot for him, however Gene's reign was far too breif. The two fabulous wins against Dempsey, and the beating of Greb earns Gene rightfully a favourable ranking.

13 Sonny Liston His win against Patterson rates as one of the finest destructions in HW championship boxing in my opinion, he had the tools to succeed as one of the finest champions. His manner in defeats against Clay/Ali spoil a top ten showing in my opinion, you could arguably say he quit in both his biggest challenge's.

14 Evander Holyfield Wins over Bowe, Tyson and Moorer spring immediately to mind, and add to the fact he was one of the old generation in terms of weight, hanging with the new Superheavies, Evander can find him placed anywhere in a top 20 list. Evander finds himself at 14 on my list, simply down to the fact every great performance was followed far too frequently by a poor one, the level inconsistency has a huge baring on his rating.

15 Sam Langford Sam's a tricky one at Heavyweight obviously not winning any title, however you cant ignore he was avoided and wins over Smith,Flynn and Wills provide enough substance again finding some sort of placing for Sam.

16 Harry Wills Could Harry have beaten Dempsey, we'll never know? Again circumstances have it Harry never got his shot, but he dominated an era albeit the champ, McVea, Firpo, Fulton and Langford among others he has on his fine resume, and its difficult to separate him and Langford.

17 Wlad/Vitali Klitschko We must remember the brothers have dominated todays era, as much as we all agree its lack of talent, the problem I have ranking Wlad/Vitali is simply down to the fact we don't know whose the real HW champion and something unfortunately we'll never find out.

18 Ezzard Charles The finest light heavy weight ever, maybes deserves a higher ranking than I'm giving him at HW. He gave Marciano a couple of real tussles and his win against Walcott, add to the fact he was a tremendous all round fighter.

19 Max Schmeling Overall an excellent fighter with brains and superb right hand, the Louis win stands out like a beacon on Max resume, however wins over Sharkey (DQ) Hitlers other man Neusel, and the tough Spaniard Paulino (cant remember his surname for the life of me apologies) rank as pretty impressive C.V

20 Bob Fitzsimmons Based on his dominance of men in his era its very strong, an unbelievable finisher. Although Ive got men such as Schmeling above Fitz, Id imagine no one would have said Max was in Bob's league in his time.

Just missing out, Jack Sharkey, Jersey Joe Walcott, Riddick Bowe

Thanks



[b]

Sorry I missed this cribb, it was in danger of sliding down the page which would have done it a disservice. Like most fans I can do a ten and am pretty happy with it now, qubbling over places aside, and looking at your 11-20 it would appear we have much the same names. At the minute I prefer to leave Wlad and Vitali out, not that they are undeserving but prefer to wait till careers are over before ranking guys, given this I think I would make space for Corbett in their absence, very brief reign but such a significant figure I simply can't exclude him and I think I like Wills over Schmeling but have to say we ain't got too much to disagree with on this one.

Apologies Cribb, realise you have got Wills in, totally missed him, still think I prefer Walcott to Schmeling but we are really talking flip of a coin kind of stuff there.

I would agree with most of your list, although I tend to have Liston in my top 10.

The thing that always got me with these lists is how much credence you give to a particular line of thinking.

For example, I know some people compile a top 10 list based on each fighters career, their defining fights, longevity etc, whereas others base the list on a who would beat who basis. This is why I think Liston in particular is interesting because here was a guy who had a very good career, particularly in the run up to his title reign, but then is forever linked to the two clay/ali fights which will be argued over as long as boxing exists. This therefore makes him difficult to place on a top 10 list based on a fighters career. On the other hand, if we were to base the list on a sort of round-robin tournament, IMO he would figure quite highly due to his size, skills and power I personally would favour him in just about any fight in history with the possible exceptions of Louis and Ali. (For example, a lot of people have Dempsey in the top 10, Liston would take him out inside 8 rounds in my opinion, same with Frazier and a few others).

It would be interesting to see which line of thinking people here adopt in making their lists.

Nathan I tend not to put an excess of stock into head to head, because although it obviously has to be a consideration as I have argued on more than one occasion if we take this to its extreme by its very nature it tends to pit people at their peak and if we do this we can end up having Buster Douglas in there who at his best was a hell of a fighter, problem is he only showed it once!

Also you have the issue of rules and length of fight to cloud the head to head line. Again have said this before but in a modern ring, with modern rules over 12 rounds is not impossible johnny Nelson outpoints John L Sullivan, does not mean he is a greater heavyweight and certasinly does not mean in a fight to the finish with the kind of rules and reffing Sully had he could complete the trick.

There is no exact science to ranking fighters it is pretty much a combination of the factors you have outlined with each person putting their own emphasis on the things they consider important. I do tend to have Liston outside my top ten but he is definitely in the bunch that on another day could occupy the 9th or 10th slot because as you have alluded to his form in the run up to winning the title was pretty impressive.

Head to head also puts the older guys at a distinct disadvantage, Jack Johnson for example was considered a giant in his day, but at 6'1" and more often than not weighing in at under 200lbs, he'd be a small cruiserweight today.

No problems Rowley and thanks very much, I toyed with the idea of keeping the Klitschko's out, Corbett is worth a shout without a doubt, his reign like you said was brief but it really gets difficult the further you get down the page. The guy I would've liked to put in was Jack Sharkey another favourite of mine who didn't achieve anywhere near his potential, always remember a quote from a chap who used to write about the old timers on the old 606 version summed him up brilliantly, "The best heavyweight ever, from the neck downwards"

Nathan, good post mate. Liston is a difficult one he used to be a permanent fixture in my top 10 also however the more I think of him the less I'm impressed, someone once wrote an article on him and how he disgraced himself in the Clay bouts, which kinda stuck with me and his spiraled down my list ever since, as for head to head I'm sure Liston would do very well, but its not an angle I take rating the fighters.

I would have Wills above Langford if its just accounting for the heavyweight division.

Find it hard to seperate Baer/Schmelling. Schmellings stand out win over Louis was huge but when two met in the ring Baer gave him a bit of a pasting.

Would have Fitzsimmons and Charles above the K bros at the moment but other than seems about right.

Interesting that you have merged the K-bros and effectively rated them as one person- there are eleven fighters taking only ten ratings. Why have you done this? Is it that you can't separate them in terms of skill, opponents, longevity, etc? I find it odd that we as fans seem to view them as indistinguishable. Personally I think that despite his early losses Wlad has had a better career than Vit and that would reflect in a higher position in the ratings.

Not sure on Tunney. Would have him a top 3 lightheavyweight but not in the heavy rankings

While Max Schmeling was indeed a great boxer think there are a few more id put ahead of him

Not sure on Tunney. Would have him a top 3 lightheavyweight but not in the heavy rankings

I could start to really not like you, Steffan.

Liston just about scrapes into my top 10 and I'd possibly find a place for Bowe. Can't see how anyone could omit Wlad and Vitali anymore and I think it's fitting to rank them together. If they won't fight each other it makes it very hard to split them as they each miss out on the defining fight of their career.

Interesting read, Cribb. Suppose I should try to offer my take on it!

11) Joe Frazier. Always a bit of a heart breaker to leave Smokin' Joe out of the top ten; he's a borderline case, who might find himself nicking that last spot on any other given day depending on my mood.

12) Liston. A better technical boxer than Frazier and, in all likelihood, would probably have dished out a beating to him had they met. To balance things, Frazier probably had the marginally better career in terms of high points, and certainly a better title reign.

13) Holyfield. Prospered in what was a very fine era for Heavyweight boxing, though a lack of dominance or clear superiority over his rivals means that he can't crack the top ten.

14) Charles. I think a few people forget how long he reigned for, if we count his NBA defences before beating Louis. In retrospect, he did have a good run of three years or so as the best Heavyweight in the world. Great losing stands against the Rock, 2-2 with Walcott but with more more impressive scalps as champion.

15) Tunney. Stayed at the weight for too short a while to be any higher, though he looked a million dollars in his short tenure, save for that one moment of panic in the seventh round of Dempsey II.

16) Wills. Certainly the best Heavyweight never to have worn the crown for me, if we're going purely on exploits above 175 lb. Even without the title, his list of wins is more impressive than quite a few other champions

17) Wladimir Klitschko. No doubt this will be unpopular with some, but ah well. Like it or not, Wladimir has developed in to a very difficult man to beat and, as time goes by, I'm beginning to appreciate his career exploits more and more. Unifications in an era where they are becoming increasingly rare, a very good and lengthy title tenure, and some very considerable ability to boot, too.

18) Schmeling. For me, just about the best of the 'care taker champions' separating Tunney and the 'Brown Bomber.' His win over Louis was a cracker, and was perhaps unfortunate to lose the title by the width of a fag paper against Sharkey, who he'd already beaten.

19) Langford. A pound for pound legend, his Heavyweight exploits were considerable, too. However, he was on the wrong end of his head-to-head series with Wills and well beaten by Langford - at Heavyweight, Langford wasn't really elite, shall we say.

20) Walcott. Sawn off first time out against Louis - albeit an old version - and eventually got his hands on the title by beating a man who'd conquered him twice before and who features in my top fifteen; surely enough for that final spot, in that case?

Nice to see a place for Wlad on your list Chris, I have been slaughtered on here for suggesting he deserves a berth in the lower reaches of the top 20 at worst but still maintain it is the case. As you have said unifications when they are feasible and very few "genuine" threats have emerged that have not been dealt with, normally pretty clearly as well it should be noted.

Absolutely, Jeff. Obviously, ranking fighters across all eras is a subjective thing, so I can't argue with anyone who has Wladimir just missing out on the top twenty too much, but I do find the lack of respect shown by some towards the brothers (particularly Wladimir) a little perplexing; I genuinely think he's in danger of becoming highly underrated in the future should it continue.

I think there's a tendancy to totally disregard consistency at times, in favour of putting a less deserving candidate in there simply because they are a 'name'. Why should Fitzsimmons, outboxed for round after round before landing the money punch on Corbett and who then lost the title in his first defence to the best Heavyweight he faced, outrank Wladimir who has, for a considerable while now, had a demonstrative run as the best big man on the planet, consistently seeing off his nearest rivals whenever they've emerged? Fitzsimmons was a magnificent pound for pound legend, but his record as a Heavyweight pales in to insignificance when compared to Wlad's, for my money. It's not just Ruby Robert, either - Patterson, Sharkey, Baer etc always seem more likely to get the nod for a list such as this than Wladimir, when really that shouldn't be the case.

And while I don't put all that much emphasis on hypothetical match ups, I don't for a second believe that Wladimir would be totally annhiliated and wiped out by all the names above him, either.

Not sure I agree with your assessment of Fitzsimmons there Chris, i'm probably alone in thinking it but his opposition was for me better than that of either Brother; Jeffries, Corbett, Ruhlin, Sharkey and Maher, to come out of that with only two losses to Jeffries outdoes Wladimir for me. I know he has an official loss to Sharkey but we every man and his dog know that was a swindle job, does be a tendency to forget his record as a heavyweight is actually pretty good.

The thing is Ghosty, Fitzsimmons didn't have an extended period in which he was the best Heavyweight in the world, whereas Wladimir has. He's been dominant at the weight for a few years now.

Corbett is perhaps a better win that anything Wladimir has, you're right, but Fitzsimmons is lacking the same depth which the younger Klitschko can boast. Maher, for instance, is comparable to a Chagaev I'd say, and Wladimir has a roster of those kind of wins spread over a long period.

Fitzsimmons was a fabulous Middleweight, damn good Light-Heavyweight and a considerable Heavyweight, but not consistent enough - or, quite frankly, big enough - to really outrank a long-reigning behemoth like Wladimir.

The length of reign isn't there but he had Jeffries to contend with so can't be too harsh on him for that.

We do get into tricky ground when we bring weight into it, at the time Sharkey, Ruhlin and Maher were considered to be fully fledged heavyweights and very fine ones at that. I would personally take one great win as well as a few very good ones over a lot of decent/good wins, aside from longevity there really isn't anything else to rate Wladimir by, would also consider his three shocking losses combined with no notable wins as a major negative against him.

Not much in it between the likes of Wladimir, Fitzsimmons, Schmeling, Baer and Walcott all of whom would be at the lower end of a top 20.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:The length of reign isn't there but he had Jeffries to contend with so can't be too harsh on him for that.

We do get into tricky ground when we bring weight into it, at the time Sharkey, Ruhlin and Maher were considered to be fully fledged heavyweights and very fine ones at that. I would personally take one great win as well as a few very good ones over a lot of decent/good wins, aside from longevity there really isn't anything else to rate Wladimir by, would also consider his three shocking losses combined with no notable wins as a major negative against him.

Not much in it between the likes of Wladimir, Fitzsimmons, Schmeling, Baer and Walcott all of whom would be at the lower end of a top 20.

Well, I half see your first point Ghosty, but if we went by that method we'd have to do the same for a lot of others. Should Norton get bumped up a few places because he had to contend with Ali and Foreman?

As for Wladimir's shocking losses, well let's not go there if we're going to neglect to mention the disappointing and often inexplicable defeats on the records of men such as Johnson, Dempsey and Walcott. Fully appreciate that fighters from their eras fought more often and with less protection from their management, but I don't think it's fair to only highlight the impressive wins these men had and totally airbrush out the losses to average opposition, which seems the norm for pre-War fighters. Wladimir's unifications are proof enough the he does have wins at least worthy of 'notable' status, for me. If Maher is a good win for Fitzsimmons then why can't Chagaev, Haye, Byrd etc at least be deemed notable for Wladimir?

That is exactly what happens with Norton Chris, were it not for Ali, Foreman and Holmes I don't think he gets rated as highly as he is much like say Young, Lyle, Quarry and a host of others from that era.

Johnson and Dempsey in particular could make up for their losses but Wladimir can't in the same way, when all you have is longevity with no great wins the shocking losses you've had play a bigger part. Maher and Ruhlin I would consider to be better 'heavyweights' than Chagaev and Haye for instance so would rate wins over them higher.

Honestly dont really see why Holyfield ranks ahead of Bowe personally...