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?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I echo Shah's comments Mate.................Like with the Captain's top 50 ATg list it isn't easy compiling a big list......

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

Yes, i would be astonished to find anyone who agrees with me on every single placement. I disagree with [i]myself [i]on a couple. But I'm satisfied that these are ballpark rankings.

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

I think Johnson and Jeffries belong together or something very like it. As I said in the text, they were ranked right together at the beginning of the process, but Johnson's pre-title run elevates him. Again, I think Johnson should be in in front of Jeffries based on activity levels. He was just too busy for too long against top level opposition for Jeffries to be ranked above him based upon my criteria. But. It's not impossible. I wouldn't rule it out.

McGrain wrote:

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

This has rather piqued my interest though.

In your appraisal of Lennox Lewis you stated he was one of only two Heavyweights on your list to have beaten every man he faced in the paid ranks which is incorrect, it's three.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

McGrain wrote:

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

This has rather piqued my interest though.

In your appraisal of Lennox Lewis you stated he was one of only two Heavyweights on your list to have beaten every man he faced in the paid ranks which is incorrect, it's three.

Who is the third?

Who are your two?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Who are your two?

This is turning into a rather odd conversation - if you accuse me of "not knowing my facts" - and if this one single factual "error" in over sixty thousand words is all you have, i think that's an astonishing accusation regardless - I would expect you to explain yourself rather than answer questions with questions, but very well, i will answer.

Marciano and Lewis beat every MAN they ever faced. Gene Tunney beat every heavyweight he ever met, but not every man. I suspect you are going to try to say Tunney should be included in the sentence because the original designator was "heavyweight". However, because the final designator was "man", I would disagree. But either way, it's a matter of grammar and of little interest to me.


But of course, as you decided to levy an accusation, explain it incompletely, avoid my question and rather ask one of my own, it's hard to be sure of any of this

Ingemar Johansson.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ingemar Johansson.

Yeah, I would have to concede that that is quite correct - and i'd have to add that the chances of this being the only factual error in all ten parts is almost nil.

Excellent list and the text and videos bring the fighters to life. A tough task and you'd have to be a bit mad to take it on so fair play. Like everyone else I have a few gripes (Lennox and Rocky too high) but all the right names are there so its down to the criteria of how the fighters are assessed. Once the assumptions and methods of measurement are defined then you can do no more.

Really like the write up on Louis.

It should really be four because I see no reason why Ibeabuchi doesn't make the top 100, his fight with Tua and the destruction of Byrd alone is more than many at the lower depths achieved.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It should really be four because I see no reason why Ibeabuchi doesn't make the top 100, his fight with Tua and the destruction of Byrd alone is more than many at the lower depths achieved.

Well, not in a literal sense. Firpo for example knocked out one lineal heavyweight champion of the world, and knocked another out of the ring. Ibeabuchi beat two really good contenders who never lifted the title.

Having said that, I think Ibeabuchi slots in anywhere at all in the bottom ten and probably very comfortably in the bottom twenty. I identified forty fighters that could easily have inhabited the bottom ten slots.

Strongback wrote:Excellent list and the text and videos bring the fighters to life. A tough task and you'd have to be a bit mad to take it on so fair play.  Like everyone else I have a few gripes (Lennox and Rocky too high) but all the right names are there so its down to the criteria of how the fighters are assessed.  Once the assumptions and methods of measurement are defined then you can do no more.

Really like the write up on Louis.  

Thank you - writing Louis up was hard, because i'd previously written him in more detail than any other fighter i've looked at -

(not allowed to post a link)

It gets difficult to find new things to say, because he also got a detailed entry in the top 100 pound-for-pound top ten.

I can't say beating an ancient Willard and losing to every other top heavyweight really compares to those two Ibeabuchi fights, statistically maybe but in reality no.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I can't say beating an ancient Willard and losing to every other top heavyweight really compares to those two Ibeabuchi fights, statistically maybe but in reality no.

This isn't quite true. Firpo inarguably did not lose to "every other top heavyweight."

Well the reality is that Ibeabuchi didn't fight a career, but only the beginning of one.  It included two very good wins but nothing else of note, really.  Firpo on the other hand beat a lineal champion (all be it one of the worst ones) and has some other very good wins, Bill Brennan, Charles Weinhart, Erminio Spalla.  Adding that astonishing performance against Dempsey, where he came extremely close to stopping one of the few truly great heavies in history is what puts him ahead for me.

But there is almost nothing between them.  It's extremely close.

McGrain wrote:

Strongback wrote:Excellent list and the text and videos bring the fighters to life. A tough task and you'd have to be a bit mad to take it on so fair play.  Like everyone else I have a few gripes (Lennox and Rocky too high) but all the right names are there so its down to the criteria of how the fighters are assessed.  Once the assumptions and methods of measurement are defined then you can do no more.

Really like the write up on Louis.  

Thank you - writing Louis up was hard, because i'd previously written him in more detail than any other fighter i've looked at -

(not allowed to post a link)

It gets difficult to find new things to say, because he also got a detailed entry in the top 100 pound-for-pound top ten.

Funny you should mention Louis is in you P4P Top 10. Quite a few knowledgeable posters on this site don't think Louis makes the Top 20. Mayweather in contrast is in most people's Top 10. Doctors differ and patients die. We have have discussed the anomalies of fighters ratings from different sites and it is amazing how posters are influenced.

Needlees to say I'm a Louis die hard and along with a couple more around here we have had to fight a rearguard action in his defense. To be fair though I have also found ESB has a bit of a hard on for Lennox which I don't fully buy into.

Maccy, I mean this in the nicest way as I seem to be missing your introduction. Who are you and what list did you write up?

Where would you have Haye and Valuev in the list?

hayemaker wrote:Where would you have Haye and Valuev in the list?

I think the politest way I could put it is to say that Haye still has a good deal of work to do. Valuev, it would be a very long list before his name would appear on it.

At the frequency Haye fights he could make the list by 2027!

I love how Strongy mentions having to fight a rearguard for Louis, as if it's something that actually matters.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I love how Strongy mentions having to fight a rearguard for Louis, as if it's something that actually matters.

I'd fight Louis corner but as strongy has suggested, I is too fick to form my own opinions and I is easily influenced buy da ova peoples on this forum!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I love how Strongy mentions having to fight a rearguard for Louis, as if it's something that actually matters.

Where do you rank Louis as a P4P ATG?

DuransHorse wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I love how Strongy mentions having to fight a rearguard for Louis, as if it's something that actually matters.

I'd fight Louis corner but as strongy has suggested, I is too fick to form my own opinions and I is easily influenced buy da ova peoples on this forum!

Can't remember calling you thick but I have had the scatter gun out recently.

I have him at around 12/13 personally.

Strongback wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I love how Strongy mentions having to fight a rearguard for Louis, as if it's something that actually matters.

I'd fight Louis corner but as strongy has suggested, I is too fick to form my own opinions and I is easily influenced buy da ova peoples on this forum!

Can't remember calling you thick but I have had the scatter gun out recently.

It's more that when you post there is an undertone that people on this forum all follow a group consensus and are quite sheltered from wider knowledge and the real truth posted on other forums. Our supposed collective "Eddie is the greatest" ideology is obviously the usual accusation made toward us or in this case we generally think Louis is overrated.  I think neither by the way.

Like Hammer I have Louis top 15..

Which posters have him outside the Top 20 ??...You tedious, humorless, stalking moron ??

McGrain wrote:

hayemaker wrote:Where would you have Haye and Valuev in the list?

I think the politest way I could put it is to say that Haye still has a good deal of work to do.  Valuev, it would be a very long list before his name would appear on it.

Fair play for having a go at a top 100. Like many I may not agree with all your positions but most of us would cause arguments if we spent a week formulating our top 10 so nice work.

DuransHorse wrote:

McGrain wrote:

hayemaker wrote:Where would you have Haye and Valuev in the list?

I think the politest way I could put it is to say that Haye still has a good deal of work to do.  Valuev, it would be a very long list before his name would appear on it.

Fair play for having a go at a top 100.  Like many I may not agree with all your positions but most of us would cause arguments if we spent a week formulating our top 10 so nice work.

Thanks. It was an eye-opening process no doubt.

I wouldn't and don't expect not just everybody, but anybody to agree. There are a 100 spots and a lot of different points of view. I'd insist upon two things. One, it's well researched and thereby ball-park. So all the fighters are in their given ranges (with one exception i'd like to move down, and probably will). Two, in no case is it ludicrous, or outrageous to argue x above y. Nobody is ranked above somebody they inarguably should not be ranked above.

Other than that, I think it's all up for debate.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Like Hammer I have Louis top 15..

Which posters have him outside the Top 20 ??...You tedious, humorless, stalking moron ??

You have written more words than any person on the internet running Louis down.  Now you're being conciliatory.  You're fooling nobody kiddo.

For the record Captain has posted he has Louis outside the Top 25 as an ATG.  Chris and Rowley don't see a place for him in their Top 10, their exact position for him they will have to verify.


Edit: missed you called me a moran. You're the most black and white unimaginative troll I've ever seen, you're hitting 30,000 posts in three years and there's nothing but guff. Get a job you fat loser.

I believe Strongy is starting to completely lose the plot.

Only starting, Hammersmith!?

On a serious note, Strongy, Louis doesn't tend to make my top twenty, but he doesn't miss out by much and he's a clear number two at Heavyweight, which ain't bad going by anyone's standards.

I've outlined my reasons for this before, but again: I think Louis was technically outstanding when on song (I still get boxing wood watching his accuracy, combination punching and hand speed) and he literally did clear out his division (two or three times over, given how long he reigned) with not a single worthwhile and necessary opponent missed, in my opinion. His record in rematches, where he almost always improved on his first fight's showing, also show his fighting intelligence.

That said, while he was right up there as one of the greatest ever seen across all divisions up until that stage, more than seven decades have passed since Louis' prime and there's been a hell of a lot of exceptional fighters who have competed in divisions more talent-laden than the Heavyweight one which Louis ruled over.

In his peak years, Louis' best opponent was arguably Conn, a Light-Heavyweight who still boxed within that weight limit even when contesting the Heavyweight crown. Conn was a great 175 pounder of course, but it's fair to say that an even greater and even bigger (to the tune of nearly two stone) fighter in Louis maybe shouldn't have struggled as badly as he did there!

Outside of that, he has some very good wins but not really anything you'd call outstanding. Braddock, Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, the Baers etc - in quite a few of these cases Louis was beating them when their best days were behind them.

Louis faced the best available on a consistent basis, but sometimes even the best available just ain't that good (relatively speaking, of course) and I don't consider the Heavyweights of Louis' time to be a particularly great weight class. His knockout of Walcott while clearly on the slide himself stands as a meritorious result even now, but let's not forget that even Louis apologised in Walcott's ear after the first fight, so unfair was the verdict, and he was behind in the second instalment before getting the job done, too. Despite that, the Walcott fights were the highlight of Louis' post-War career, which shows how poorly it compares to Ali's post-exile career, for instance. I can never really understand any logic which puts Louis higher than Ali, personally.

It's a slightly unpopular view, but I believe the fact that Louis is a Heavyweight of that era gives him some benefit of the doubt, too. Louis reigned at a time when the Heavyweight title was still the greatest, most glamorous prize in sports and an overwhelming majority of boxing's press coverage, money and fanfare was invested in the Heavyweight division (Dempsey gets badly overrated in a pound for pound sense by many old school historians for the same reason, in my eyes). When Louis retired, he and Dempsey were still the only two men who had drawn million dollar gates - nobody outside of the Heavyweights had got there yet.

Up until Robinson, it was commonplace for the Heavyweight champion, whoever he was, to be billed as the greatest fighter in the world and as such Louis' reputation got, and will probably always continue to get, an additional boost. The aura around the Heavyweights has dimmed a hell of a lot, and while statisticians love pointing out how many number one or two contenders Louis beat, it's interesting that they're seldom willing to dish out anything like the praise Louis gets for beating the likes of Baer, Simon and Godoy to a guy like Wladimir when he beats someone such as Povetkin or Haye.

And of course, he was immensely important to boxing, and all sport come to think of it. I've said it before, but to me he is a true sporting hero and, though some of Ali's fanatics won't like it, I also consider him the greatest 'man' to have held the crown as well. Again, it might not be a popular opinion, but I tend to think that this helps to boost his rating inside the ring, too, and I can see why it might.

McGrain wrote:

hayemaker wrote:Where would you have Haye and Valuev in the list?

I think the politest way I could put it is to say that Haye still has a good deal of work to do.  Valuev, it would be a very long list before his name would appear on it.

You have Ruiz on your list who Haye demolished? Haye is a vastly better heavyweight than Ruiz. He also beat the heavyweight of all time giving away the most height and weight. Cant see why he wouldnt be on the list or even top 50 when the Klitschkos are so high and fought in the same era?

I think you are right Haye has lots more to offer and I believe we will see him back in the ring again and becoming champion again. I think he is the best heavyweight on the planet when he is in top form. Where would you rate him on the list if he beat Klitschko in a rematch which I think would happen if Haye chooses more aggressive tactics?

Are you David Haye himself?

Spot on analysis Chris, from a purely boxing point of view Louis lacks in one vital area and that's quality of opposition and it's something Marciano and Dempsey lack too. You can only beat what's put in front of you but at the same time it can't be assumed that you beat those whom you haven't faced.

The aforementioned three fought for the most part shoddy opponents and quite how anybody can seriously have Marciano as high as three is laughable to say the least, ruins for me a pretty decent list. When it comes down to it did Louis beat better fighters than say Kid Gavilan, no he didn't not by a long shot so why should we rate him higher for not being tested to the same degree?

Strongback wrote:

Edit:  missed you called me a moran.  You're the most black and white unimaginative troll I've ever seen, you're hitting 30,000 posts in three years and there's nothing but guff. Get a job you fat loser.

Moran is a mild insult for truss, he could have called you a wonker.

milkyboy wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Edit:  missed you called me a moran.  You're the most black and white unimaginative troll I've ever seen, you're hitting 30,000 posts in three years and there's nothing but guff. Get a job you fat loser.

Moran is a mild insult for truss, he could have called you a wonker.

Don't tell me you've joined the spelling nazi's too.

Strongback wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Edit:  missed you called me a moran.  You're the most black and white unimaginative troll I've ever seen, you're hitting 30,000 posts in three years and there's nothing but guff. Get a job you fat loser.

Moran is a mild insult for truss, he could have called you a wonker.

Don't tell me you've joined the spelling nazi's too.

I make way too many myself to do that strongy... But if something makes me snigger, I just can't help myself.

Bruno does not make the list and I'd have him above Haye.

88Chris05 wrote:Only starting, Hammersmith!?

On a serious note, Strongy, Louis doesn't tend to make my top twenty, but he doesn't miss out by much and he's a clear number two at Heavyweight, which ain't bad going by anyone's standards.

I've outlined my reasons for this before, but again: I think Louis was technically outstanding when on song (I still get boxing wood watching his accuracy, combination punching and hand speed) and he literally did clear out his division (two or three times over, given how long he reigned) with not a single worthwhile and necessary opponent missed, in my opinion. His record in rematches, where he almost always improved on his first fight's showing, also show his fighting intelligence.

That said, while he was right up there as one of the greatest ever seen across all divisions up until that stage, more than seven decades have passed since Louis' prime and there's been a hell of a lot of exceptional fighters who have competed in divisions more talent-laden than the Heavyweight one which Louis ruled over.

In his peak years, Louis' best opponent was arguably Conn, a Light-Heavyweight who still boxed within that weight limit even when contesting the Heavyweight crown. Conn was a great 175 pounder of course, but it's fair to say that an even greater and even bigger (to the tune of nearly two stone) fighter in Louis maybe shouldn't have struggled as badly as he did there!

Outside of that, he has some very good wins but not really anything you'd call outstanding. Braddock, Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, the Baers etc - in quite a few of these cases Louis was beating them when their best days were behind them.

Louis faced the best available on a consistent basis, but sometimes even the best available just ain't that good (relatively speaking, of course) and I don't consider the Heavyweights of Louis' time to be a particularly great weight class. His knockout of Walcott while clearly on the slide himself stands as a meritorious result even now, but let's not forget that even Louis apologised in Walcott's ear after the first fight, so unfair was the verdict, and he was behind in the second instalment before getting the job done, too. Despite that, the Walcott fights were the highlight of Louis' post-War career, which shows how poorly it compares to Ali's post-exile career, for instance. I can never really understand any logic which puts Louis higher than Ali, personally.

It's a slightly unpopular view, but I believe the fact that Louis is a Heavyweight of that era gives him some benefit of the doubt, too. Louis reigned at a time when the Heavyweight title was still the greatest, most glamorous prize in sports and an overwhelming majority of boxing's press coverage, money and fanfare was invested in the Heavyweight division (Dempsey gets badly overrated in a pound for pound sense by many old school historians for the same reason, in my eyes). When Louis retired, he and Dempsey were still the only two men who had drawn million dollar gates - nobody outside of the Heavyweights had got there yet.

Up until Robinson, it was commonplace for the Heavyweight champion, whoever he was, to be billed as the greatest fighter in the world and as such Louis' reputation got, and will probably always continue to get, an additional boost. The aura around the Heavyweights has dimmed a hell of a lot, and while statisticians love pointing out how many number one or two contenders Louis beat, it's interesting that they're seldom willing to dish out anything like the praise Louis gets for beating the likes of Baer, Simon and Godoy to a guy like Wladimir when he beats someone such as Povetkin or Haye.

And of course, he was immensely important to boxing, and all sport come to think of it. I've said it before, but to me he is a true sporting hero and, though some of Ali's fanatics won't like it, I also consider him the greatest 'man' to have held the crown as well. Again, it might not be a popular opinion, but I tend to think that this helps to boost his rating inside the ring, too, and I can see why it might.

I think, clearly, people are adhering to conflicting criteria when compiling these lists. Basing a ranking on how great the fighter was in their time - which would see strong emphasis placed on dominance at the weight(s) they fought, number of legitimate title defences, top rivals beaten - with quality of opposition factored into any close calls - can't fail to see Louis ranked top ten.

Second greatest heavyweight of all time (at least), greatest championship reign of all time, most number of legitimate defences (linear if you will), walloping every top rival in his path (over an extended period) - Louis has to qualify on that basis.

If you're using more arbitrary criteria - the eyeball test, talent, pound for pound comparisons etc. - then you could end up with fighters such as Louis displaced I guess. For me, the former is a better basis for judging fighters.

I know this has been done to death but having Mayweather above Louis with the knock being (presumably) quality of competition seems particularly strange.

If people are using the "he looks like the best I've seen on film" justification then I have no issue with that but the argument holds far less sway using the original set of parameters above. Great as a super featherweight but sketchy record since (due to the fact he himself isn't concerned with legacy, championships or history). Failing to fight Pacquiao does matter (failure to face top rival) I'm afraid. I'm a huge Lewis fan but I mark him down for the same reason.

Can't add much to the debate (as Strongy, Truss etc will gleefully testify too) however a massive fairplay to McGrain for not only compiling such an extensive list, but more importantly to having the balls to come on here and debate with what can be a fairly hostile crowd to defend his points.

The issue is that you use different criteria to most of us, dominance of an era has to coincide with quality of opposition otherwise Wlad would have to rank highly which he never will.

Stats for me are a secondary criteria after quality of opposition.

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Like Hammer I have Louis top 15..

Which posters have him outside the Top 20 ??...You tedious, humorless, stalking moron ??

You have written more words than any person on the internet running Louis down.  Now you're being conciliatory.  You're fooling nobody kiddo.

For the record Captain has posted he has Louis outside the Top 25 as an ATG.  Chris and Rowley don't see a place for him in their Top 10, their exact position for him they will have to verify.


Edit:  missed you called me a moran.  You're the most black and white unimaginative troll I've ever seen, you're hitting 30,000 posts in three years and there's nothing but guff. Get a job you fat loser.

Yep...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Like Hammer I have Louis top 15..

Which posters have him outside the Top 20 ??...You tedious, humorless, stalking moron ??

You have written more words than any person on the internet running Louis down.  Now you're being conciliatory.  You're fooling nobody kiddo.

For the record Captain has posted he has Louis outside the Top 25 as an ATG.  Chris and Rowley don't see a place for him in their Top 10, their exact position for him they will have to verify.


Edit:  missed you called me a moran.  You're the most black and white unimaginative troll I've ever seen, you're hitting 30,000 posts in three years and there's nothing but guff. Get a job you fat loser.

Yep...

Yeah TRUSS your DISSENT into HiPPOCRACY shows you are nothing more that a PARADE of yourself you great MORAN!!!!!

He has six degrees so I'm not worthy..

I have Three degrees at home though....Oh Frankie do you remember me "?

Haz, I agree with you that who a fighter has beaten has to be the first port of call when you talk about how good / great they are, ahead of the eyeball test, overall ability, how clearly they beat their best opponents etc (these things still carry some weight, mind you). I just don't think that Louis' opposition was good enough to make him a shoo-in for a top ten place even if you put emphasis on the way he cleared out his division and who he did it against, unfortunately.

To be fair to him, Heavyweights in a sense have their hands tied to a certain degree. Fighters from the lower weights can slip between divisions as they wish and follow the challenges accordingly. If you're a Heavy, though, you're kind of buggered if your division isn't particularly strong. In contrast to Louis, Ali just happened to have a career which coincided with the strongest era of Heavyweights, one of the few eras in which the guys north of 200 lb were just as good as the smaller guys. Ali's achievements in that era make him easily good enough for a top ten spot, for me, but given how superior his opposition generally was to Joe's I feel there needs to be a pretty significant gap between them, hence no top ten spot for Louis in my eyes.

If you look at who Louis had to beat to establish himself as an all-time great Heavy, and then look who Charles had to beat to do the same at Middle / Light-Heavy (or Benny Leonard at Lightweight, Ray Leonard at Welter, Armstrong for Feather to Light, Greb from Middle to Light-Heavy, Duran at Light to Welter, Langford from Light right up to Light-Heavy etc) then I think it's hard to deny that the smaller guys often had to beat better fighters to establish their credentials. Hell, even if you leave that super-elite bracket, the likes of Canzoneri, Ross, McLarnin, Harada, Walker, Napoles, Griffith etc generally had more noteworthy foes to challenge themselves against, albeit Louis' consistency and longevity mean that he'd probably be ahead of those names.

But as I've said before, there are probably about 25, maybe 30 names that could conceivably have a decent top ten case made for them, depending on what you like. Louis is definitely one of them, so I don't think it's totally unreasonable to make him a top tenner - he just doesn't make mine, that's all.

Reiterate ...That I have Louis number 2 at heavy and Top 15..

Sadly the best opponents beat him. Even more sadly he probably beats them earlier in his great run..

Doesn't quite beat enough quality for my Top 10..

But that's just the way I look at it.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He has six degrees so I'm not worthy..

I have Three degrees at home though....Oh Frankie do you remember me "?

Are they locked in your cellar, being forced to sing sister sledge songs for your perverted gratification?

" I'm a huge Lewis fan but I mark him down for the same reason"

Haz, Was it lewis fault he didn't fight bowe? Or holy/Tyson at their best? Its fair to give him less credit for the wins but is it fair to mark him down?

Re the criteria, there's no right or wrong. I think Matt said it earlier, as long as you're consistent with your approach, its fair enough. Personally, I feel Louis' opponents weren't great, but when you have a dominant champion its hard to judge. In boxing the passing of the baton is usually sudden as an ageing champion loses to a younger man. (You have guys who overlap eras as barometers but they're always at different stages of their own careers).

Its impossible to be scientific about who the greatest is. You take it on a results only basis, you miss the eyeball test that tells us the 70's was a great era and the 30's/40's wasn't. You apply more subjective criteria head-to-head etc, and it's a subjective game of preferences.

I still maintain for example that if you think Roberto duran is the greatest lightweight ever... As many do, It's entirely plausible that Esteban de Jesus is the second best... And might have dominated that era had duran not been born or any other era had he been around in them. I don't see him too high on many ATG lightweight lists, because we don't know.

I really don't understand why some get so hot under the collar on what's essentially a pub game to promote discussion, but without any answers.

milkyboy wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He has six degrees so I'm not worthy..

I have Three degrees at home though....Oh Frankie do you remember me "?

Are they locked in your cellar, being forced to sing sister sledge songs for your perverted gratification?

I met a guy called Frankie at the Oyster last night !!!...

You're right Milko.....My Motown knowledge is lacking.

milkyboy wrote:" I'm a huge Lewis fan but I mark him down for the same reason"

Haz, Was it lewis fault he didn't fight bowe? Or holy/Tyson at their best? Its fair to give him less credit for the wins but is it fair to mark him down?

Re the criteria, there's no right or wrong. I think Matt said it earlier, as long as you're consistent with your approach, its fair enough. Personally, I feel Louis' opponents weren't great, but when you have a dominant champion its hard to judge. In boxing the passing of the baton is usually sudden as an ageing champion loses to a younger man. (You have guys who overlap eras as barometers but they're always at different stages of their own careers).

Its impossible to be scientific about who the greatest is. You take it on a results only basis, you miss the eyeball test that tells us the 70's was a great era and the 30's/40's wasn't. You apply more subjective criteria head-to-head etc, and it's a subjective game of preferences.

I still maintain for example that if you think Roberto duran is the greatest lightweight ever... As many do, It's entirely plausible that Esteban de Jesus is the second best... And might have dominated that era had duran not been born or any other era had he been around in them. I don't see him too high on many ATG lightweight lists, because we don't know.

I really don't understand why some get so hot under the collar on what's essentially a pub game to promote discussion, but without any answers.

Lewis was largely blameless for the Bowe fight going up in smoke (unless you blame him for having a promoter who was out of his depth - it was criminal he never fought Bowe, Holyfield or Moorer prior to '99 - and losing to McCall when the contracts were signed). His wins over Holyfield and Tyson don't mean as much as Frazier over Ali and Foreman over Frazier - that's what I meant.

I'm cool with people having their own views based on their own criteria but there's a distinct lack of realisation from some that that's actually the case. I tend to bite when people become abusive or quote their view as gospel.

Ref. DeJesus: whether he could have been the second best ever is all ifs and buts (like the eyeball test ). Did he carve out the second best lightweight career? You'd have to say no.

As for Louis - comparing his tenure to Wlad's (which only began after beating Povetkin by TBRB criteria) is ridiculous. Baer, Schmeling, Braddock, Carnera and Walcott were all heavyweight champions - not ABC titlists. Quite why his opposition is repeatedly run down when others are given a pass is puzzling. Leaving Floyd to one side for a change - how can someone like Eder Jofre be ranked higher other than the eyeball test?

Ranking fighters on achievement is a more solid basis.

Will admit that I've probably been guilty of overrating Jofre in the past, Haz (that's not to undermine anyone who rates him higher than I do, because there are plenty of top class posters who do). He used to be on the fringes of my top ten but that's now top fifteen / twenty.

I'd say that if you compared Louis' career as Heavyweight champion to Jofre's as Bantamweight champion, Louis comes out on top. The curve ball is that Jofre returned from a four-year lay off to claim the Featherweight title at the age of thirty-seven, which is practically ancient for a man from the lower weight classes. As far as improbable successful comebacks go, he takes a bit of beating.

I do think he gets let off too easily for the Harada defeats, though, and whichever way you slice it he came up short against the best Bantam he faced. Some say that he was robbed in the first one (not me personally, as I thought it could be argued to either man by a point or so) but there's nothing contentious at all about the second one in my eyes. He had managerial disputes and was a bit tight at the weight by then, in fairness, but as I've often said before, those kind of excuses don't tend to really cut it for me.

Given that Jofre is usually held up as the best Bantam of all time, I think it's fair enough to say that the Harada fights are a legitimate stick to beat him with, and his opposition at Bantam (he didn't face all that many punchers there, for example) is open to the same criticisms as Louis' at Heavy. But he made up for that with his late-career surge at Feather.

I think Louis and Jofre are close, both in terms of all-round skill (Jofre the better chin, though) and resume. I'd have Jofre a little higher, but wouldn't object to anyone who saw it differently.