Updated - Top 15 Heavyweight's of alltime..

1. Ali =
2. Louis =
3. Johnson =
4. Foreman =
5. Holmes =
6. Jeffries =
7. Frazier +2
8. Lewis -1
9. Marciano -2
10. Tyson =
11. Holy +1
12. Liston -1
13. Wlad =
14. Charles =
15. Tunney =

No place for Fury....Tunney beat a top 10 legend twice if slightly faded....Found a new respect for Frazier recently...Ali 1 is huge in any account....Frazier 2 came after the jungle..Rocky probably always rated too high but he dominated his division and Charles x2 and Walcott x 2 are great victories..Deserves top 10.

Lewis..Holy and Tyson places are swappable if that's a word..Wouldn't argue...

Jeffries is underrated for me...Sharkey..Corbett and Fitz were the Heavies of their day and he took all them therefore he is high on the list...

Colin Hart had Fury 6... He is way off for me.

Not sure AJ puts him in the top 10 either should he win.

Usyk is a Cruiser so he definitely wouldn't.

Nice list, Truss.  My top 5 has the same names but in a different order:

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Johnson
5. Foreman.

Otherwise, I'd have Liston, Lewis and Tyson higher than you do at the expense of Jeffries and Frazier.  Not sure I'd find a place for Charles and although I don't think Dempsey is a nailed on top 10, I think he's almost certainly worthy of a place in the top 15.   Bowe comes into the equation for the top 15, with Wlad only borderline top 15 at best.

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Lewis
5. Johnson
6. Foreman
7. Dempsey
8. Frazier
9. Marciano
10. Tyson

The top two are pretty much set in stone for all eternity, the depth in talent just ins't there to either usurped.

I tend to rate Lewis a bit higher than most, the 90's is the second strongest era for heavyweights and he came out on top, those two defeats do see Holmes that little bit higher. As the years go by I find Dempsey and Marciano tumbling down my list especially the latter who ruled over a very weak division.

Truss you mention Usyk being a Cruiserweight but ignore that Charles was a middleweight for a large part of his career. Jeffries I consider historically important but I don't really bother rating those before Johnson.

Soul Requiem wrote:1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Lewis
5. Johnson
6. Foreman
7. Dempsey
8. Frazier
9. Marciano
10. Tyson

The top two are pretty much set in stone for all eternity, the depth in talent just ins't there to either usurped.

I tend to rate Lewis a bit higher than most, the 90's is the second strongest era for heavyweights and he came out on top, those two defeats do see Holmes that little bit higher. As the years go by I find Dempsey and Marciano tumbling down my list especially the latter who ruled over a very weak division.

Truss you mention Usyk being a Cruiserweight but ignore that Charles was a middleweight for a large part of his career. Jeffries I consider historically important but I don't really bother rating those before Johnson.

I think the thing with Dempsey is that he was placed too high in these lists for a long time for a number of reasons (being the first "modern" champion and then later by being referenced by and being an inspiration to Tyson) and the more recent assessments of him tend to focus on his actual record rather than just the career highlights.  Used to see him placed as high as 4 or 5 in some of these lists on the old 606 site and that always seemed way too high.  I had him in my top 10 for while, but changed that after reading a biography on Tunney which also spent a chapter or two on Dempsey and brought life to some of the names on his record.

I can see why someone would have him in the top 10 because almost everyone outside the top two have their flaws and can be substituted for any of the others for various reasons, but I now struggle to find a place for him.  Like Holyfield I think he belongs somewhere around 11 or 12 behind Frazier, Marciano and possibly also Jeffries.

Fury's potential win over Usyk being discounted because Usyk is too small is wild considering the only people taller than him on this list are Wlad and Lewis, and only a handful of them weighed more than he weighed vs AJ at their peak. Maybe the idea that Usyk is too small is something of an inadvertent confession

superflyweight wrote:Nice list, Truss.  My top 5 has the same names but in a different order:

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Johnson
5. Foreman.

Otherwise, I'd have Liston, Lewis and Tyson higher than you do at the expense of Jeffries and Frazier.  Not sure I'd find a place for Charles and although I don't think Dempsey is a nailed on top 10, I think he's almost certainly worthy of a place in the top 15.   Bowe comes into the equation for the top 15, with Wlad only borderline top 15 at best.  

Liston is a strange one...Guess I hold Ali and the manner of his victories against him...Cleaned out plenty of contenders before the Top 20 Patterson twice in less than three minutes.

Can't argue really with that too much. Great case but not for me..

If Fury beats Usyk and Joshua you'd have to make a place for him. I always think Lewis however is top 5. I can see him beating every heavyweight in history. Great power, jab and boxing skills, movement. Lewis could beat all of them although not saying he necessarily would. I would put Lewis at 4 or 5 and push the others down a place.

Soul Requiem wrote:1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Lewis
5. Johnson
6. Foreman
7. Dempsey
8. Frazier
9. Marciano
10. Tyson

The top two are pretty much set in stone for all eternity, the depth in talent just ins't there to either usurped.

I tend to rate Lewis a bit higher than most, the 90's is the second strongest era for heavyweights and he came out on top, those two defeats do see Holmes that little bit higher. As the years go by I find Dempsey and Marciano tumbling down my list especially the latter who ruled over a very weak division.

Truss you mention Usyk being a Cruiserweight but ignore that Charles was a middleweight for a large part of his career. Jeffries I consider historically important but I don't really bother rating those before Johnson.

Holmes v Foreman is longevity vs victories...

Peak Norton..Peak Frazier and Lyle pip it for me though I loved Larry...Then you add Foreman's return success..

Charles may have been a middle but Rocky weighed 190...

Fury is 260...and Usyk a Cruiser....Bit different...

But quality lists and thanks for the replies.....Thing with lists is nobody is wrong..

It doesn't matter what Fury and Marciano weigh though Truss, they're both career heavyweights and are judged as such. In a p4p sense you'd have a point but not in this case.

I'd put Lewis higher than Holmes, whilst Lewis has the two sloppy defeats he none the less avenged them. I think Holmes losing to Spinks (a blown up light heavy) twice marks him down. The second Spinks fight I don't think was as much of a robbery as most make out as Holmes allowed Spinks to steal rounds with pitter patter jabs and seemed to let Spinks off the hook time and time again in that fight.

Soul Requiem wrote:It doesn't matter what Fury and Marciano weigh though Truss, they're both career heavyweights and are judged as such. In a p4p sense you'd have a point but not in this case.

It does matter...Marciano would have been a small Cruiser...When Cruiser first started it was 190/95 depending on the alphabet...Marciano would have made that and now its 200..

You have always had a downer on Rocky and I don't know why.

Respect your opinion but I don't share it..

'Career Heavyweights'...In 60 years has changed quite a bit..

I don't appreciate the reasons why Marciano is rated so highly, he was unbeaten but his record was poor.

It has changed but we judge heavyweights on that, not on what they'd be today.

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

My top three hasn't changed in years, and I'm still pretty happy with it now. Seems I rate Frazier and Holyfield (in particular) a little higher than most. Evander at #8 might surprise a few people, but if you look at guys I've got just behind him he was a much more visually impressive and complete fighter than Marciano, for instance, and the kind of opposition he mixed it with throughout his career knocks that of Marciano in to next week.

Also hard to discount the 2-0 scoreline in his favour against Tyson. I don't think it's impossible that a closer to 'prime' Tyson of 1990 / 1991 might have beaten the then lighter and less experienced version of Holyfield, but given the way their fights went six or seven years later it takes a quite a leap of faith, for me. Even if we accept that Tyson did peak at an unusually young age, a comparison of his utterly abject showings later on make for a poor comparison when held alongside Holyfield, who continued to compete well with a better level of opposition well into his mid and late thirties (even his forties in the case of the Valuev fight) after an extremely punishing career.

But once you get past numbers six or seven it gets tough so best to take this as a rough estimate, rather than a properly considered take.

Can't have Lewis above Foreman....Most of his best wins were sloppy seconds..As for George.

Frazier top 10 ATG in his prime...Norton top 20ish Alltime great in his prime.. Lyle probably in the Top 5 best never to win the title at his peak....What a trio.

Certainly wouldn't have been squashed by Rahman or McCall..

Lewis great run for sure like Wlad but Tua was arguably his best win..

Ruddock nailed twice by Tyson.. Holy by Bowe...Tyson twice by Holy..

Lewis though above Wlad and top 10... But many will agree with you and that is fair enough..

Yeah I wouldn't object too much to anyone having Foreman above Lewis, Truss. I considered putting him ahead myself, just leaned towards Lewis' greater depth and consistency at championship level.

Foreman's best wins are more eye-catching, for sure. If you wanted to play Devil's Advocate, though, you could point out that Norton's record against huge punchers was always poor and that Frazier was outsized and a good styles matchup for George...But then again, when you look at the uncomfortable moments Lewis occasionally had against smaller and / or lighter guys such as Mercer, Mavrovic and Holyfield it underlines how special what Foreman did against Frazier was, regardless of styles and a size discrepancy.

Lewis might not have any sensational wins, but he's got an enormous amount of very solid ones and he proved himself against all kinds of styles and sets of problems. The losses to McCall and Rahman become all the more puzzling (or frustrating depending on tour view) when you look at how many big punchers he beat.

I wonder if I'm being a bit lazy just sticking Tunney in there at the end, might be one to reconsider. He might still be worth a #14 or #15 spot but, depending on your criteria, I think any of Walcott, Bowe or Vitali could at least give him a reasonable argument.

88Chris05 wrote:Yeah I wouldn't object too much to anyone having Foreman above Lewis, Truss. I considered putting him ahead myself, just leaned towards Lewis' greater depth and consistency at championship level.

Foreman's best wins are more eye-catching, for sure. If you wanted to play Devil's Advocate, though, you could point out that Norton's record against huge punchers was always poor and that Frazier was outsized and a good styles matchup for George...But then again, when you look at the uncomfortable moments Lewis occasionally had against smaller and / or lighter guys such as Mercer, Mavrovic and Holyfield it underlines how special what Foreman did against Frazier was, regardless of styles and a size discrepancy.

Perhaps if Vitali was less contentious I'd reevaluate...Every chance Lewis wins that fight properly and it becomes a Junior v Hopkins win..Vitali for me was better than his brother...The Sanders win confirming it.

Have a huge admiration for Lewis....Beats Fury and Wlad for sure..

It's the old wins v longevity stakes...As I have Foreman above Holmes you can see which side of the fence I lean on..

But it's horses for courses.

As for Norton he wasn't as weathered as Tyson or Holy when Lewis got them...Foreman intimidated him and that is a skill in itself.

There wasn't anything contentious about the Vitali fight, he had numerous facial cuts and was legitimately stopped because of that. It's just as valid a form of victory as any other.

Soul Requiem wrote:There wasn't anything contentious about the Vitali fight, he had numerous facial cuts and was legitimately stopped because of that. It's just as valid a form of victory as any other.

Was contentious in the fact that we didn't get conclusive proof of who was the better man...

For me the win doesn't enhance his standing...Looked like he was struggling..

If he had won properly Top5 is an option...

Norton.. Frazier x2...Lyle were stopped or knocked out.

Like I said I respect Lewis.. Top 8 in my list is great fighter status.

You might be interested in Big George Foreman's list.
I raised an eyebrow or two .
1 Louis 2 Marciano 3 Sullivan 4 Jack Johnson 5 Ali 6 Patterson 7 Lennox Lewis 8 Tyson 9 Holy 10 Dempsey

It's fair to say it has its eccentric picks of John L and Floyd Patterson.
Personally, I would argue strongly for the inclusion of Sullivan even though I am aware of the reasons given for his exclusion. And if you're going to list him , he has to be listed high.
Floyd Patterson, however I would put in the category of bubbling under the ten myself, but I like George's boldness in this pick. Floyd's vulnerability to an all out assault is well documented, but his skills certainly deserve recognition.
Ali at 5, sour grapes perhaps, but I don't think so. The small margins involved make most of the hypothetical match ups Pickems, although I have a very hard time visualising a Marciano win against Ali.

Derek Smalls wrote:You might be interested in Big George Foreman's list.
I raised an eyebrow or two .
1 Louis 2 Marciano 3 Sullivan 4 Jack Johnson 5 Ali 6 Patterson 7 Lennox Lewis 8 Tyson 9 Holy 10 Dempsey

It's fair to say it has its eccentric picks of John L and Floyd Patterson.
Personally, I would argue strongly for the inclusion of Sullivan even though I am aware of the reasons given for his exclusion. And if you're going to list him , he has to be listed high.
Floyd Patterson, however I would put in the category of bubbling under the ten myself, but I like George's boldness in this pick. His vulnerability to an all out assault is well documented, but his skills certainly deserve recognition.
Ali at 5, sour grapes perhaps, but I don't think so. The small margins involved make most of the hypothetical match ups Pickems, although I have a very hard time visualising a Marciano win against Ali.

I get Foreman's list...Great Champions in all Sport tend to have a high regard for the pioneers..

Of course the problem with John L is, despite being the first modern champion I think he lost his only fight under Queensbury rules..

Think his list would be better with Corbett on it....But if George wants to push back the modern title by a couple of years I'm not going to argue with him..

Love the era myself...Makeshift stadia and history made in the Noon day Sun...

Corbett v Fitz is my favorite film...Watching Corbett play cat and mouse 130 years ago with the first guy to win titles at 3 weights...Beautiful..

Have an article on it lower down for anyone interested.

Nice Post Smallsy. .

Foreman has described all of Louis, Ali and even Lennox as the greatest Heavyweight of all time at various points. I'm not sure if he just says things for the sake of it to generate debate or whatever, but his career as a pundit was / is basically a long line of taking one stance on a certain position before switching emphatically to the other side of the coin, seemingly without any of his colleagues ever remembering his original stance.

I'm all for picks which go against the grain and challenging status quo opinions, but come on George - surely even a man as learned and experienced as you in the sport can't present an argument for Ali being as low as #5 or Patterson (!) being as high as #6 which anyone with any interest at all in the history of the sport would buy in to?

Foreman had championed Lennox for most of his career so I am confused as to why he marked him as Seventh so I see what you mean, and there are other odd things to unpick, for example, where are Holmes, and indeed, himself...And how Floyd would fare against Frazier, also not included, is not a pleasant thought for a Patterson fan.

Holmes was moaning at Foreman for a fight around the time Foreman was trashing Cooney...and Holmes Mercer...

Maybe Larry irritated him...Larry tended to irritate a lot of People...