Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[-CANE-]

Larry holmes behind Lewis? I have Holmes at 3 and think that is where he should be.

Why is Moore on this list and Ezzard Charles is not?

This was a consensus and Lewis got more votes/points than Holmes. I personally have the same top4 in my own list and in that order.

For me Ali and Louis stand out as the top2, and just behind them it's Lewis and Holmes. I wouldn't argue though if someone put Holmes at 3 and Lewis at 4.

My reasons for having Lewis at no.3 were apart from the 3 above him he made more defenses than any other heavyweight in history. Louis 25,Holmes 20,Ali 19 and Lewis 14. Louis reigned in total for 12 years, Lewis 9, Ali 8 and Holmes 7 years. Ali and Lewis both 3 time champions and Lewis unified the belts, whereas for whatever reasons Holmes never.

Lewis beat everyone he ever faced avenging his 2 losses and IMO fought better quality opponents than Holmes, although Holmes fought some bums he also fought some high level quality fighters.

But it's all about opinion and just on accomplishments alone it is these 4 fighters that stand out and are above everyone else. They are also very good boxers all 4 of them, all big heavyweights who could punch and I'd pick these 4 to be top of the pile in head to heads against all the other heavyweights.

[Feint]

Here is my top 11. The criteria I used is domination of the era in which the fighter boxed, performance in the ring, and skill set (this list changes from time to time):

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Larry Holmes
7. Evander Holyfield
8. George Foreman
9. Mike Tyson
10. Joe Frazier
11. Lennox Lewis (I just can't leave him out)

[-CANE-]

Here is my top 11. The criteria I used is domination of the era in which the fighter boxed, performance in the ring, and skill set (this list changes from time to time):

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Larry Holmes
7. Evander Holyfield
8. George Foreman
9. Mike Tyson
10. Joe Frazier
11. Lennox Lewis (I just can't leave him out)

You are entitled to your opinion, but on the criteria you used surely Lewis should be higher. Apart from Holmes he reigned longer than all the others above him upto Jack Johnson. He also made more defenses than the rest of them, only suffered 2 losses which he did avenge. His skill set was much higher than Marciano,Dempsey,Holyfield,Tyson,Foreman and Frazier, and he beat the two other greats in your list that are higher. Granted they were past it, but so was Lewis himself and that's why Tyson and Holyfield avoided him and only fought him when he had something they wanted, plus it was the biggest money earner for them.

[Feint]

You are entitled to your opinion, but on the criteria you used surely Lewis should be higher. Apart from Holmes he reigned longer than all the others above him upto Jack Johnson. He also made more defenses than the rest of them, only suffered 2 losses which he did avenge. His skill set was much higher than Marciano,Dempsey,Holyfield,Tyson,Foreman and Frazier, and he beat the two other greats in your list that are higher. Granted they were past it, but so was Lewis himself and that's why Tyson and Holyfield avoided him and only fought him when he had something they wanted, plus it was the biggest money earner for them.

All good points. Lewis probably does deserve to be higher.

[Feint]

Thanks for the advice. I like to hear opinions from knowledgeable fans. And although I’m going to disagree with you of Lewis’s skill set when compared to some of the other all-time greats, you make a great point about the dominance that he displayed within his era. It’s so damn subjective coming up with a list (which is why I hate the P4P debates) but here is my new list based on your points…


1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Larry Holmes
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Evander Holyfield
9. George Foreman
10. Mike Tyson

[-CANE-]

Thanks for the advice. I like to hear opinions from knowledgeable fans. And although I’m going to disagree with you of Lewis’s skill set when compared to some of the other all-time greats, you make a great point about the dominance that he displayed within his era. It’s so damn subjective coming up with a list (which is why I hate the P4P debates) but here is my new list based on your points?br />

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Larry Holmes
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Evander Holyfield
9. George Foreman
10. Mike Tyson

I'm gonna keep on at you until you move Lewis upto 3rd where he belongs. (joke)

Skill set is a difficult one, as boxing moves on and advances through the ages.
For his time Johnson was amazing and had he been around today he would have fought in a very different style and would he have been so advanced. I still think he would have been a great in any era though. Dempsey and Marciano are underated in the skill department, I'd have Marciano higher than Dempsey as well.

Tyson was simply amazing at what he did in his prime and barely got hit. His defense was as good as his offense, or was it that he fought in a very weak era in the 80's? I believe his defense was very good but lacked the mental concentration to keep it up for 12 rounds. Even in his prime when winning easily his head movement and bobbing and weaving greatly reduced after 5 or so rounds. When he fought a better class of heavyweights this and his mental toughness cost him victories in fights maybe he should have won.

He just could never dig deep and produce his best work when he had to, and resorted to throwing single bombs and leaving himself open. Strange considering he was a boxing historian, you think he would have realised this as he analysed so many fights.

Technically Louis was better than Ali IMO, Ali did things technically wrong, but because of his brilliant reflexes and speed of hand and foot he could get away with them. He also had a mental toughness as good as you can get, and even when his reflexes slowed he managed to outwork and outgut many an opponent through sheer desire and guts.

[Feint]

I'm gonna keep on at you until you move Lewis upto 3rd where he belongs. (joke)

Skill set is a difficult one, as boxing moves on and advances through the ages.
For his time Johnson was amazing and had he been around today he would have fought in a very different style and would he have been so advanced. I still think he would have been a great in any era though. Dempsey and Marciano are underated in the skill department, I'd have Marciano higher than Dempsey as well.

Tyson was simply amazing at what he did in his prime and barely got hit. His defense was as good as his offense, or was it that he fought in a very weak era in the 80's? I believe his defense was very good but lacked the mental concentration to keep it up for 12 rounds. Even in his prime when winning easily his head movement and bobbing and weaving greatly reduced after 5 or so rounds. When he fought a better class of heavyweights this and his mental toughness cost him victories in fights maybe he should have won.

He just could never dig deep and produce his best work when he had to, and resorted to throwing single bombs and leaving himself open. Strange considering he was a boxing historian, you think he would have realised this as he analysed so many fights.

Technically Louis was better than Ali IMO, Ali did things technically wrong, but because of his brilliant reflexes and speed of hand and foot he could get away with them. He also had a mental toughness as good as you can get, and even when his reflexes slowed he managed to outwork and outgut many an opponent through sheer desire and guts.

Lol, about Lewis. Yeah, I'm sure you could talk me into it eventually...

Good points. Although I like to debate the subject, ranking boxers from different eras can drive you up the wall….lol. I really don’t like using skill set as a tool for measurement as can you really say a boxer with better technical skills is better than another with weaker ones but a better overall record? Isn’t the end result all that matters? Level of competition is a much better measuring stick...

However, having said that I find it near impossible to compare the level of competition when looking at two different boxers from separate era as you are regulated (for the most part without doing extensive research) to simply looking at their win-loss record. It’s much easier to compare level of competition from your own era.

At times I had Ali at the top but I’m pretty settled at this point with him being number two. Although Ali may have fought in “bigger” fights, Louis was just a little more skilled and dominant against his competition.

[mcentepede]

Ali was fantastic...though he made alot of mistakes(no body punching, hands down) he looked clean and fought that way, no one ever accused Ali of fighting dirty, though the holding behind the head is illegal now, it wasn't when he was fighting back then. Plus, I don't think anybody had a better chin than Ali except maybe Chuvalo and Foreman. Every time Ali went down, he got up within 10 seconds...and rarely went down (3 times in 61 fights). Schemeling knocked out Louis, and he had trouble with several of the 25 BUM OF THE MONTH club (not my words) fighters. Both were great though. Joe's 12 year reign is phenomenal in any sport period. Ali was undisputed World Heavy weight champion 3 times, still the only one up to this point to do this. Only alfabet belts now...not the same thing.

[-CANE-]

Lol, about Lewis. Yeah, I'm sure you could talk me into it eventually...

Good points. Although I like to debate the subject, ranking boxers from different eras can drive you up the wall?lol. I really don’t like using skill set as a tool for measurement as can you really say a boxer with better technical skills is better than another with weaker ones but a better overall record? Isn’t the end result all that matters? Level of competition is a much better measuring stick...

However, having said that I find it near impossible to compare the level of competition when looking at two different boxers from separate era as you are regulated (for the most part without doing extensive research) to simply looking at their win-loss record. It’s much easier to compare level of competition from your own era.

At times I had Ali at the top but I’m pretty settled at this point with him being number two. Although Ali may have fought in “bigger?fights, Louis was just a little more skilled and dominant against his competition.

Just a note about Lewis, he wasn't technically brilliant in his early career, against the likes of Ruddock and Bruno but physically I think his peak was then at that weight. Much faster and hit really hard, but he was clumsy and awkward.

It wasn't until fighting under Manny Steward for a while that he turned into a complete boxer. Did everything extremely well and threw his punches correctly. Very very clever fighter.

Like you said it's difficult trying to figure out quality of opposition, but I believe Lewis fought in the toughest era apart from the Ali,Frazier,Foreman era.

I laugh when people say he actually had a weak chin, because he never.

Just because the 2 ko defeats were not against big names, don't mean to say they couldn't punch.

He literally run onto the McCall punch doubling it's power, he was up at 6, although very shaky but not given the chance to continue. The first time in heavyweight championship history the champ had got up from being knocked down and not given the chance to continue. Maybe he would have lost, but we'll never know. Had Holmes been stopped after getting decked by shavers, how many would have complained or thought he would come back to win.

The Rahman fight he was past it, over-weight and under prepared, ****** on his part, but again he came onto the punch by bouncing off the ropes and coming into it, increasing it's power.

He avenged both defeats, and faced much bigger punches and got caught by some explosive hitters which never really hurt him.

Klitchko,Tyson,Tua,Ruddock,Mercer,Morrison,Bruno,B riggs and so on.

Check out this video and watch how many good punches he takes from these fighters.

[Yogi]

Schemeling knocked out Louis, and he had trouble with several of the 25 BUM OF THE MONTH club (not my words) fighters.

Come on now, that "Bum of the Month" club wasn't written in reference to Louis' whole title reign, just the time frame from Dec 1940 to May of 1941, when Jacobs announced in advance that Louis would be defending the title each month on a tour that was to take Louis across the country, and culminated with the defense against the No. 1 contender, Billy Conn (who wasn't part of the "bum" club).

The "Bum of the Month" was written in reference to six defenses of Louis' in the span of six months.