Worst Ever Heavyweight Champions

Reasonably frequently we have threads on here discussing the best heavyweight champions of all time, but as a bit of variety I thought I’d come at it from the other angle and try and sort out who were the worst ever champions. By champions I have limited consideration to those with a reasonable claim to be considered the man at the time, or who have a reasonable claim to some degree of hegemony over the division. I have done this for the simple reason there is too much guff to wade through in the modern era and too many with tenuous claims to spurious belts. I have only done five for no other reason than laziness. I have based this on talent and achievements during their reigns.

5 Jess Willard – As the man who took the belt off the wildly unpopular Johnson and lost it to the legendary Jack Dempsey it is peculiar that Willard has become such a footnote in heavyweight boxing history. Part of the problem is of Willard’s own making, between beating Johnson in 1915 and dumping the title to Dempsey in 1919 Willard managed a sum total of one defence. The frustrating thing is, and the reason Willard does not appear higher on the list is I don’t actually think he is too bad a fighter. At 6ft 6 he is never going to be a speedster but he has decent enough speed for his size, half decent stamina and some degree of power. However one has to consider certain things. Johnson was long in the tooth and being hounded by the authorities left, right and centre when he lost to Johnson and Dempsey’s title win over him was about as one sided as you’d ever see. Given this Willard inevitably has to feature. As an aside Willard is one of the few undisputed champions who does not have a biography available.

4 Ingemar Johannsen -  Whilst Floyd Patterson does not feature in this list, there is a strong possibility was it extended to ten Floyd would appear before long. Given this there is an air of inevitability that the man who lost his title to Floyd was always going to make the cut. What does it for Ingemar is the brevity of his reign. Believe I am right in saying he was champion for weeks shy of a year, a period that did not contain one defence. As with Willard the irony with Ingy is there is a decent fighter bubbling somewhere under the surface. He sure as hell did not have a great chin and his dedication to training was, on occasion, less than stellar but he had decent footwork and a right hand that was a genuinely hurtful thing. When focussed and able to land the right hand he was capable of some impressive work as wins over Cooper and the decent Eddie Machen testify, but as a champion he remains something of a busted flush who unfortunately deserves his top five berth.

3 Primo Carnera – I am sure only have Carnera at three will raise the odd eyebrow but as I have a penchant for doing I will make a case for the big man. Firstly in the era between Dempsey and Louis only two fighters managed two defences of the title, Gene Tunney was one, Da Preem was the other, neither Schmeling, Sharkey or Baer could manage the feat. Carnera also did it in half decent company, Uzcudin was something of a perennial contender, but was not rubbish and Loughran was a fantastic fighter (albeit one more natural at light heavy). Whilst rumours abound about mob involvement in his career most agree his title defences were above board, his title winning effort against Sharkey is still the subject of debate but even if we accept these are true two decent defences against solid opposition is enough to elevate him against at least a couple of candidates in my eyes.

2  Marvin Hart – Hart is an odd one because whilst we generally accept him as a heavyweight champion at the time his status was less than universally agreed. Basically when Jeffries retired nobody really knew what to do as the situation was unprecedented. There was talk of elimination tournaments, giving it back to Fitzsimmons, holding it in abeyance until Jeffries returned and other vaguely ridiculous proposals. Eventually a promoter matched Hart and Root for the title, got Jeffries to referee and relied on the symbolic value of Jeff raising the winners arm as being sufficient. Most saw this as chutzpah but grudgingly agreed Hart would be accepted once he put a few defences together, this plan fell to bits when he dumped the title first defence!

As with most of the fighters around at that time Hart suffers from the truth that Jack Johnson was far and away the best heavyweight in the world, irrespective of Hart holding a more than contentious win over him. Was it not for the colour line Hart would not have got within a country mile of the title. Limited ability, zero defences, a tenuous claim to the title and a far more qualified fighter being screwed out of holding it pretty much guarantee Hart deserves his place on the list.


1  Leon Spinks – All of which poses the question how bad do you have to be to deny Hart a place on the top of the pile. The answer is as bad as Leon Spinks. Spinks won the title in only his eight fight against Muhammad Ali, all of which sounds reasonably impressive, but the truth is he beat an Ali who was a shell of the fighter he had been, old, slower than old molasses and out of shape, even with all this in his favour Spinks still made heavy weather of it.  After winning the title the inevitable rematch was scheduled, Spinks appears to have trained for this in strip bars and somehow managed to give the title back to an even older and slower version of Ali, both fights of which nobody should ever sit through unless forced. After losing to Ali Spinks was to fight on until 1995, but managed to lose pretty much any time he fought anybody half decent (Holmes, Coetzee, De Leon). Like others on the list Spinks is probably not without talent, he was an Olympic champion, but a terrible attitude to his training ensured he never fulfilled whatever promise he may have had and his time as champion is one of the more inglorious moments in heavyweight history.

Feel free to make suggestions as to who I have missed, where or how the order is wrong, or cover my laziness and fill in the rest of the top ten.

Tyson Fury?

Guessing Audley Harrison's WBF belt doesn't count then??

Realise you've a penchant for the old timers but no Charles Martin? Assume David Haye gets in the 6-10 bracket??

You've not read the thread have you toppy?

As soon as I saw the thread title, Leon Spinks came to mind. How he even got a title shot is amazing. Him getting a shot isn't much better than Pete Rademacher getting to fight for the title in his first fight.

Bruce Seldon, Michael Bent, Charles Martin all worse than Leon Spinks for my money, hell even big Frank couldn't complain if he was put on a par with a man who at least beat for, and lost his title to the man who was regarded as the best HW at the time.

You've not read the thread have you horizontal?

Ah... I missed the 'could be considered the man bit' apologies, comments withdrawn!

Buster Douglas.

I thought about Douglas, his defence against holy was truly shocking. However he was fantastic against Tyson, just not sure anyone else listed has a performance like that in them. Definitely not a name I'd argue too greatly over if someone wanted to include him.

It's the way he carried himself as champion. Fought like an atg against Tyson. Then rolled over like a mongrel against Holy.

Nice list, Jeff. Will have a go myself if you don't mind. A rough mix based on how impressive they were in all aspects of winning the title, how they fared as champion and an overall consideration of their careers, if only to maybe give a different perspective on the subject. On another day I might have stuck the likes of Tommy Burns, Michael Moorer or Floyd Patterson in there, but this is a rough estimate!

10) Michael Spinks

Outside of Ezzard Charles, and perhaps Archie Moore depending on my mood, nobody can out-rank the younger Spinks brother at Light-Heavyweight, for me. But north of 175 it's fair to say he flattered to deceive. Deservedly beat Holmes first time out, albeit Larry was slowing down and looking as if he'd forgotten how to pull the trigger by then - but needed a dubious verdict in the rematch. Makes one defence of the IBF belt against the unheralded Tangstad and vacates to fight the down-on-his-luck Cooney rather than a live contender in Tucker. Then, of course, came the pathetic display against Tyson to remove any lingering claim he had to Heavyweight supremacy.

9) James 'Buster' Douglas

Wasn't sure where to place Douglas, really. It's a travesty that someone with his ability ended up on the list, particularly given the magnificent performance he summoned to become champion. Such a shame he undid that wonderful performance in Tokyo in such a short space of time. Fair enough, you'd struggle to find a tougher first defence than Holyfield, but it's the way Douglas surrendered the title which means he has to feature here. Underprepared, overweight, forgetting all the skills he'd used to dethrone Tyson and staying down from what looked a relatively innocuous punch.

8) Jim Corbett

My belief that Corbett is one of boxing's most overrated fighters ever hasn't gone down too well with most posters in the past, but here we go again! In terms of genuine Heavyweight champions, Corbett is one of the more fortunate ones, for me. He took out Sullivan, sure, but John L. was old, past it and only one step away from being a full-blown alcoholic by that point. He then makes one ratified defence in five years before losing his crown to the lightest Heavyweight champion of all time, and then loses inside-schedule in two further attempts to regain the title against Jeffries. Yes, Corbett was on top before Fitzsimmons took him out. Yes, he performed admirably against the giant (in comparison) Jeffries. But he lost all of those fights. Choynski and Kilrain are wins of note, but more in the 'good' rather than 'great' category in my opinion, which is Corbett in a nutshell. For all the talk of how he was light years ahead of his contemporaries in terms of skill and style, you'd expect a truly great fighter to have translated that in to better career results.

7) Jess Willard

Rowley has already covered the reasons why Big Jess has to feature here. He wasn't useless by any means - his win over Moran was generally considered to be more impressive than Johnson's, for instance - and despite Papa Jack's insistence, there's no real hard evidence to suggest that Willard's win over him wasn't on the level. But he appeared once in a blue moon as champion, and in his second defence was annihilated by Dempsey. He showed immense bravery in taking that hammering, though, which at least keeps him close-ish to the likes of Michael Spinks and Douglas who, while better fighters who won their titles in better circumstances, can't say the same for the way they surrendered them.

6) Primo Carnera

Another of Jeff's picks, and again no real new points to add. Given Carnera's size and genuine power and Sharkey's erratic nature, we can perhaps give Primo the benefit of the doubt for his title win, and his two successful defences make his reign a glorious one compared to the other candidates here. He was also brave almost to the point of stupidity against Baer. But the chasm between him and Madcap Maxie on show that night, a subsequent demolition at Louis' hands, an earlier wide loss to Sharkey and the general stench of uncertainty around the legitimacy of his career all combine to make him one of the less impressive Heavyweight champions - just not a contender for the title of being THE worst.

5) Ingemar Johansson

Johansson's right hand ('Ingo's Bingo') was certainly a USP, and his third fight with Patterson is one of the most remarkable Heavyweight title fights ever, for me. But there's the rub - it required Ingo being faced with one of the most brittle-chinned champions ever in Patterson for the Swede to make that right hand count on the biggest stage, and Patterson came back to lay Johansson out cold in two subsequent returns. I appreciate that Johansson added some good wins as Rowley has already mentioned, and that those two losses to Patterson were the only ones of his professional career, but that owes as much to him simply not fighting many times against the leading Heavies of his era as it does to any brilliance on his part; Liston, Terrell, Williams etc were all on the scene between Johansson's trilogy with Patterson and his retirement, but none appear on his ledger.

4) Leon Spinks

Not without talent, but Neon Leon basically won one single fight of any significance in his whole career. It was against a fighter who was over the hill, but the fact that it was Ali still gives Leon a bit of breathing room between himself and the 'top' spot here in my eyes, rightly or wrongly!

3) Hasim Rahman

One punch. For all intents and purposes, this man built his career on one punch, albeit a very, very good one. Say what you like about Rahman, but at the end of the day he did beat an all-time great Heavyweight to win the title, and he did it in style. But he lasted less than four rounds as champion, during which he hardly managed to lay a glove on his former victim and ended up getting completely sparked himself. Outside of that, there's nothing to suggest that Rahman was anything other than a very average dog who just managed to have his day; a loss to Tua, another at the hands of the shell of Holyfield and inside-schedule reverses to the likes of Maskaev, who would be a contender for the title of worst alphabet title holder ever, never mind worst genuine champion.

2) Marvin Hart

I feel a degree of sympathy for Hart because, as Jeff says, he was a victim of the times. He was never really a true Heavyweight in any case, and neither was the man he took the title from, Root. On top of that, the man he lost the title to, Tommy Burns, only just about escaped inclusion on this list. He does have the win on his record over Johnson, but even that comes the caveat of being widely-considered a stitch up, and would anyone have taken him over the likes of Langford or Jeannette had the colour bar not been in place?

1) Shannon Briggs

Yep, I know. Briggs didn't have the collection of shiny belts at the time, but by the letter of the law his 'win' over George Foreman in 1997 made him 'the man who beat the man' in the Heavyweight division. But here's the problem - precious few actually think he beat Big George, and the verdict at best was questionable. Oh, and Big George was by now forty-eight years old. And had already been danced around and easily outboxed by the likes of Tommy Morrison and Axel Schulz in the previous few years.

You don't need me to go on - suffice to say Briggs' victory over Foreman doesn't really do it for me.

But as the de facto champion, Briggs lasted a small handful of rounds as he was taken out by an admittedly great Lewis, so taking aside the Foreman farce we might conclude that the greatest victory of his career was against, wait for it....Siarhei Liakhovich. Again, in the likes of Liakhovich we may well be looking at the poorest fighter to ever call himself a Heavyweight champion of any kind, never mind the proper kind.

So when David Haye 'gives the public what they want' by signing to face Briggs later this year, remember - he'll be facing the worst 'legitimate' Heavyweight champion in history!

Cheers Chris. Close to filling up seeing Da Preem outside the top five! To be honest I did not consider Briggs. I don't remember the exact circumstances as to why big George made claims to linear rights but recall thinking at the time it smacked of a mix of smart marketing and chutzpah on George's part.

As I was never sold on George's claims to be the man I can't give Briggs any props for beating him. Rahman is an excellent shout though and almost certainly should have featured.

Yeah, can see why Briggs would be contentious for a whole host of reasons. Does the fact that Foreman was so far behind against Moorer before landing the money punch mean his 'lineal' status (as well as WBA and IBF at that point, to be fair) should be taken with a pinch of salt? Does the fact that boxing politics saw him relieved of the two sanctioning body belts outside of the ring mean that, in a time where there were no Ring Magazine belts, the 'man who beat the man' theory counted for less at that time? That's not even to mention the fact that he'd basically been beaten in most observers eyes by Schulz before he fought Briggs, or that, while Foreman may have had the lineage by the letter of the law, there was a guy holding a title (Holyfield) in 1997 who'd already given the fading Foreman a bit of a hiding a few years earlier.

Understandable that anyone, in the face of all that, would just think 'sod it, lineal meant nothing at that stage' and take Briggs out of the equation altogether. But hey, I like playing Devil's Advocate now and then, and it gave me a chance to slip a sly dig at David Haye in there, Rowls, which I know you'll approve of!

Bradock is the obvious omission.

I guess David Haye would have to be up there. Beat a zombified freak in Nikolay Valuev to win the title. One mandatory against a 39 year old John Ruiz before given a guy called Audley Harrison a shot at boxings greatest prize. Then lost to Wladimir Klitschko convincingly. Terrible champion

Rowley wrote:By champions I have limited consideration to those with a reasonable claim to be considered the man at the time, or who have a reasonable claim to some degree of hegemony over the division. I have done this for the simple reason there is too much guff to wade through in the modern era and too many with tenuous claims to spurious belts. I have only done five for no other reason than laziness. I have based this on talent and achievements during their reigns

88Chris05 wrote:Nice list, Jeff. Will have a go myself if you don't mind. A rough mix based on how impressive they were in all aspects of winning the title, how they fared as champion and an overall consideration of their careers, if only to maybe give a different perspective on the subject. On another day I might have stuck the likes of Tommy Burns, Michael Moorer or Floyd Patterson in there, but this is a rough estimate!

10) Michael Spinks

Outside of Ezzard Charles, and perhaps Archie Moore depending on my mood, nobody can out-rank the younger Spinks brother at Light-Heavyweight, for me. But north of 175 it's fair to say he flattered to deceive. Deservedly beat Holmes first time out, albeit Larry was slowing down and looking as if he'd forgotten how to pull the trigger by then - but needed a dubious verdict in the rematch. Makes one defence of the IBF belt against the unheralded Tangstad and vacates to fight the down-on-his-luck Cooney rather than a live contender in Tucker. Then, of course, came the pathetic display against Tyson to remove any lingering claim he had to Heavyweight supremacy.

9) James 'Buster' Douglas

Wasn't sure where to place Douglas, really. It's a travesty that someone with his ability ended up on the list, particularly given the magnificent performance he summoned to become champion. Such a shame he undid that wonderful performance in Tokyo in such a short space of time. Fair enough, you'd struggle to find a tougher first defence than Holyfield, but it's the way Douglas surrendered the title which means he has to feature here. Underprepared, overweight, forgetting all the skills he'd used to dethrone Tyson and staying down from what looked a relatively innocuous punch.

8) Jim Corbett

My belief that Corbett is one of boxing's most overrated fighters ever hasn't gone down too well with most posters in the past, but here we go again! In terms of genuine Heavyweight champions, Corbett is one of the more fortunate ones, for me. He took out Sullivan, sure, but John L. was old, past it and only one step away from being a full-blown alcoholic by that point. He then makes one ratified defence in five years before losing his crown to the lightest Heavyweight champion of all time, and then loses inside-schedule in two further attempts to regain the title against Jeffries. Yes, Corbett was on top before Fitzsimmons took him out. Yes, he performed admirably against the giant (in comparison) Jeffries. But he lost all of those fights. Choynski and Kilrain are wins of note, but more in the 'good' rather than 'great' category in my opinion, which is Corbett in a nutshell. For all the talk of how he was light years ahead of his contemporaries in terms of skill and style, you'd expect a truly great fighter to have translated that in to better career results.

7) Jess Willard

Rowley has already covered the reasons why Big Jess has to feature here. He wasn't useless by any means - his win over Moran was generally considered to be more impressive than Johnson's, for instance - and despite Papa Jack's insistence, there's no real hard evidence to suggest that Willard's win over him wasn't on the level. But he appeared once in a blue moon as champion, and in his second defence was annihilated by Dempsey. He showed immense bravery in taking that hammering, though, which at least keeps him close-ish to the likes of Michael Spinks and Douglas who, while better fighters who won their titles in better circumstances, can't say the same for the way they surrendered them.

6) Primo Carnera

Another of Jeff's picks, and again no real new points to add. Given Carnera's size and genuine power and Sharkey's erratic nature, we can perhaps give Primo the benefit of the doubt for his title win, and his two successful defences make his reign a glorious one compared to the other candidates here. He was also brave almost to the point of stupidity against Baer. But the chasm between him and Madcap Maxie on show that night, a subsequent demolition at Louis' hands, an earlier wide loss to Sharkey and the general stench of uncertainty around the legitimacy of his career all combine to make him one of the less impressive Heavyweight champions - just not a contender for the title of being THE worst.

5) Ingemar Johansson

Johansson's right hand ('Ingo's Bingo') was certainly a USP, and his third fight with Patterson is one of the most remarkable Heavyweight title fights ever, for me. But there's the rub - it required Ingo being faced with one of the most brittle-chinned champions ever in Patterson for the Swede to make that right hand count on the biggest stage, and Patterson came back to lay Johansson out cold in two subsequent returns. I appreciate that Johansson added some good wins as Rowley has already mentioned, and that those two losses to Patterson were the only ones of his professional career, but that owes as much to him simply not fighting many times against the leading Heavies of his era as it does to any brilliance on his part; Liston, Terrell, Williams etc were all on the scene between Johansson's trilogy with Patterson and his retirement, but none appear on his ledger.

4) Leon Spinks

Not without talent, but Neon Leon basically won one single fight of any significance in his whole career. It was against a fighter who was over the hill, but the fact that it was Ali still gives Leon a bit of breathing room between himself and the 'top' spot here in my eyes, rightly or wrongly!

3) Hasim Rahman

One punch. For all intents and purposes, this man built his career on one punch, albeit a very, very good one. Say what you like about Rahman, but at the end of the day he did beat an all-time great Heavyweight to win the title, and he did it in style. But he lasted less than four rounds as champion, during which he hardly managed to lay a glove on his former victim and ended up getting completely sparked himself. Outside of that, there's nothing to suggest that Rahman was anything other than a very average dog who just managed to have his day; a loss to Tua, another at the hands of the shell of Holyfield and inside-schedule reverses to the likes of Maskaev, who would be a contender for the title of worst alphabet title holder ever, never mind worst genuine champion.

2) Marvin Hart

I feel a degree of sympathy for Hart because, as Jeff says, he was a victim of the times. He was never really a true Heavyweight in any case, and neither was the man he took the title from, Root. On top of that, the man he lost the title to, Tommy Burns, only just about escaped inclusion on this list. He does have the win on his record over Johnson, but even that comes the caveat of being widely-considered a stitch up, and would anyone have taken him over the likes of Langford or Jeannette had the colour bar not been in place?

1) Shannon Briggs

Yep, I know. Briggs didn't have the collection of shiny belts at the time, but by the letter of the law his 'win' over George Foreman in 1997 made him 'the man who beat the man' in the Heavyweight division. But here's the problem - precious few actually think he beat Big George, and the verdict at best was questionable. Oh, and Big George was by now forty-eight years old. And had already been danced around and easily outboxed by the likes of Tommy Morrison and Axel Schulz in the previous few years.

You don't need me to go on - suffice to say Briggs' victory over Foreman doesn't really do it for me.

But as the de facto champion, Briggs lasted a small handful of rounds as he was taken out by an admittedly great Lewis, so taking aside the Foreman farce we might conclude that the greatest victory of his career was against, wait for it....Siarhei Liakhovich. Again, in the likes of Liakhovich we may well be looking at the poorest fighter to ever call himself a Heavyweight champion of any kind, never mind the proper kind.

So when David Haye 'gives the public what they want' by signing to face Briggs later this year, remember - he'll be facing the worst 'legitimate' Heavyweight champion in history!

if anyone ever wanted an example of why Chris is this forums best ever poster, this post is it- not only do you get a well thought out, considered answer,but he raises it by another five contenders, and still finds a winner that no one else would have come up with. Chris, I take my hat off to you!

88Chris05 wrote:  
7) Jess Willard

Rowley has already covered the reasons why Big Jess has to feature here. He wasn't useless by any means - his win over Moran was generally considered to be more impressive than Johnson's, for instance - and despite Papa Jack's insistence, there's no real hard evidence to suggest that Willard's win over him wasn't on the level. But he appeared once in a blue moon as champion, and in his second defence was annihilated by Dempsey. He showed immense bravery in taking that hammering, though, which at least keeps him close-ish to the likes of Michael Spinks and Douglas who, while better fighters who won their titles in better circumstances, can't say the same for the way they surrendered them.

Moran had to knock out Willard to win their fight. There was an agreement before the fight that if both men were still standing at the final bell no official decision would be given. Willard only had to last the distance to retain his belt.

The only decision given for this fight was by the ringside reporters, which wasn't really official.

Boxing Monthly (online) are currently ranking the heavyweight champs (lineal). Here's who they have at the back end:

1. Marvin Hart
2. Shannon Briggs
3. Leon Spinks
4. Hasim Rahman
5. Michael Moorer
6. Buster Douglas
7. Jess Willard
8. Jack Sharkey
9. Primo Carnera

For a different take, how about George Foreman's second reign? Landed one shot against Moorer, who had been handing him a terrific tousing, and defended against Axel Schulz (who many felt out pointed him), Crawford Grimsley (a club fighter) and china-chinned Lou Savarese before being ousted by Briggs (though many felt George deserved that verdict).

jimdig wrote:Bradock is the obvious omission.

Excellent shout Jim. If not a top five guy almost certainly a top ten. Which leaves me in the clear but Chris looking stupid, which doesn't happen too often.

Rowley wrote:Cheers Chris. Close to filling up seeing Da Preem outside the top five! To be honest I did not consider Briggs. I don't remember the exact circumstances as to why big George made claims to linear rights but recall thinking at the time it smacked of a mix of smart marketing and chutzpah on George's part.

As I was never sold on George's claims to be the man I can't give Briggs any props for beating him. Rahman is an excellent shout though and almost certainly should have featured.

Foreman beat Moorer who beat Holyfield (who'd gained revenge over Bowe).

After Bowe splintered the belts, a lot of Brits sided with Lewis (who Bowe had avoided) and so felt there no longer was "a man" but rather two. The American press, The Ring and KO were far less supportive of that position (they were openly biased against Lewis at times) and so stuck with the lineal thing.

It was often a mess back then, with almost everyone discredited to some degree or another. Bowe beats Holyfield (who was viewed as a poor successor to Tyson) and then avoids Lewis. Lewis looks like the man against Ruddock only to look clumsy and amateurish in subsequent fights; Holyfield looked terrible in his comeback fight with Alex Stewart only to surprise everyone against Bowe (and then have the win downplayed due to Bowe's condition). Moorer then sleepwalks past Holyfield due to the latter having heart problems mid-fight while Lewis is KOd by McCall, who is very nearly kidded out of the green belt by a creaky Larry Holmes.

It didn't take long for Foreman to lose support after the Schulz fight (which SHOULD have gone to the German). And all through this the shadow of prisoner 922335 loomed large. Tyson was the man everyone still felt would obliterate the likes of Lewis, Bowe and Holy. It wasn't long before King began lobbying the alphabets to strip Foreman of his belts so that he could line up a string of ducks for Tyson to knock down (leaving Tyson little option other than to re-sign with a promoter many felt had helped wreck his first, tyrannous reign).

Incidentally, if Schulz had received the decision he deserved, he'd have been your comfortable winner!

Rowley wrote:

jimdig wrote:Bradock is the obvious omission.

Excellent shout Jim. If not a top five guy almost certainly a top ten. Which leaves me in the clear but Chris looking stupid, which doesn't happen too often.

Ha, ha.

Rowley wrote:You've not read the thread have you toppy?

There was a lot to get through Chris Rowley.

Think Rahman is being rated too harshly. One of only two guys to beat Lewis, excellent win against Sanders, draw with Tua. Decent longevity and excellent KO ratio. Not like he only fought well once

His comprehensive destruction in the Lewis rematch suggest his only win of note was a bit of a fluke though.

Gerrie Coetzee must be a challenger for the top 10

May as well chuck Bruno in there as well or maybe Michael Bentt or Henry Akinwande or Herbie Hide...hang on they're all British (or at the very least Brit-ish!)

If Fury loses easily against Wlad in a rematch, he would be in the conversation. Hopefully he will win.

It was a conscious decision not to include him Adam. Not really fair to assess a career until it is over.

Yes I understand. I think you and Chris have the main names covered. I actually like Fury and hope he hangs on to the title for a while yet.

Rowley wrote:It was a conscious decision not to include him Adam. Not really fair to assess a career until it is over.

That explains Audley's absence.

ShahenshahG wrote:

Rowley wrote:It was a conscious decision not to include him Adam. Not really fair to assess a career until it is over.

That explains Audley's absence.

I might do a ten ten most contrived grudges ever. Got to think of some way of getting the big guy into a top ten somehow.

Biggest waste of talent. Audley had tools to box, he just didn't have the nature. Waste of talent.

I know he's a laughing stock, but the guy had some good attributes.

Buster Douglas doesn't belong on this list...One of the few heavies in history with the jab, handspeed and footwork to dismantle Tyson...A performance alone which keeps him off...

Add in a top class effort against Lewis destroyer McCall and a much hyped unbeaten Mike Williams....even chuck in the number 1 ranked Berbick if you like....and you have an accomplished heavy career..

Douglas wasted his talent but he doesn't belong on any list like this..