Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[Dambala]

1-Muhamad Ali
2-Joe Louis
3-Rocky Marciano
4-Mike Tyson
5-George Foreman
6-Jack Johnson
7-Larry Holmes
8-Ezzard Charles
9-Jack Dempsey
10-Joe Frazier

[Mo Leicester]

I'm new round these parts and am really keen to learn more about the big boys of boxing. Read some of the posts on this thread and judging by it's size it looks like quite a good sensible discussion thread.

[StarshipTrooper]

I'm new round these parts and am really keen to learn more about the big boys of boxing. Read some of the posts on this thread and judging by it's size it looks like quite a good sensible discussion thread.

Welcome aboard! IMO this is Boxing Scene's premier thread. It can slow down at times, but when it picks up and all the regs are posting it blows all the other threads away!

Poet

[Mo Leicester]

Welcome aboard! IMO this is Boxing Scene's premier thread. It can slow down at times, but when it picks up and all the regs are posting it blows all the other threads away!

Poet

I'll post a list when I've had a good look at all the fighters, I'm still learning about the old timers.

[JAB5239]

I'll post a list when I've had a good look at all the fighters, I'm still learning about the old timers.

This was a post taken from another site, but is invaluable when learning and researching fighters.

When assessing individuals or eras, it's good to have a few tools to help you along. This thread is for brainstorming the major tools and techniques for analyzing boxing history. Whether it's boxrec, Ring rankings, or Zakman's unique chinchecking method, POST IT!





Records



0.5) Amateur Boxing Records -- Lists of all Olympic medalists, US amateur boxing champions, and world amateur boxing champions.












1) Boxrec -- An invaluable source. You can find most aspects of a fighter's career here pretty quickly...everything from height and weight to who he fought, and when. The rankings are a little goofy, though, so don't take them too seriously. Their encyclopedia is a nice resource as well.







1.5) Cyber Boxing Zone -- Think "boxrec old-style" and you get a pretty good idea. This one is invaluable for finding the records of less-documented fighters in the early part of the 20th century. It even includes the career records of the bareknucklers.





2) Ring ****zine Ratings -- Recently, these have come under the influence of the Evil Golden Lord of Corruption (Oscar de la Hoya to civilians). For the past, though, these have proved invaluable. They give a very good idea of who the best fighters at any one point in time were, and it's a shame that they aren't used more often.






2.5) IBHOF -- A reasonably good guide in establishing which fighters are and are not considered "all time greats" rather than merely top contenders. Also contains biographies and fairly interesting facts.









Film



3) Flaws -- This is one of the methods brought to prominence by a cadre of revisionist Classic historians collectively known as the Amsterdamites. Rather than accepting a fighter's greatness at face value, they decide that film is infinitely more important in judging a fighter's legacy. Therefore, it is necessary for a new boxing historian to have a thorough grasp of the fundamentals of boxing--what's right and what will get you a painful right to the jaw.






This video is a summary of every possible boxing flaw. The degree to which a fight looks like this indicates how good the fighters are:







4) Styles -- These are the basic building blocks of boxing literacy--boxer/swarmer/puncher. They help a great deal, though they're not infallible.






5) Youtube -- This site is the Internet's gift to boxing. it's one thing to be able to look at a man's record on boxrec, but quite another to actually see him against his best opponents on screen. Everyone from Fitzsimmons to McClellan is on here.










Other Useful Stuff




6) The Patented Zakman Chinchecking Method



Quote:
Well first of thanks for according chinchecking an honored place among the various elements that go into assessing fighters. I should say first of all that the evaluation of punch resistance is more of an ART than a science, so it is difficult to quantify, but briefly here are some of its aspects:

1. Examining how many times a fighter has been knocked out or knocked down, i.e. the QUANTITY of KOs/KDs - this is, of course, one general rule of thumb, but in and of itself, it does not necessarily tell the whole story. Obviously, in general, knockouts would give a better indication of a potentially weak chin, because here the fighter was unable to continue. The fighter who gets knocked down, but gets up and wins may actually have better punch resistance and resliance that the one who gets stopped, even if it happens more. Think of Larry Holmes. He hit the canvas several times, but with the exception of the Tyson fight, was always able to get up and win the fight. Joe Louis is another good example here. These guys chins were certainly not rock-solid, but neither are they glass, or even really that shaky.

2. The second key factor, perhaps even more important in assessing punch resistance is the QUALITY of KOs - if a fighter gets knocked down and is completely OUT, this is the hallmark of a glass jaw. Hasim Rahman is a classic example of this. This is even moreso the case if the fighter who knocks him out is not known for his punching power, or gets a reputation for punching power primarily from rendering fighters with weak chins unconscious.

3. Scale (and here I have to also credit my colleague Amsterdam in helping develop this general framework, although his labels for the levels may differ slightly) :

Grade A China - the weakest possible chin strength. Here, a fighter is rendered completely unconscious by either grazing punches or by fighters who are known to be light hitters. A perfect example of this is Fraudley Harrison

Glass - again, a fighter gets knocked completely unconscious, although the fighters are not necessarily light-hitters. Rahman is a good example of this level.

Shaky/Questionable - here fighters may either get TKOd, or perhaps stopped by a hard-hitting fighter. Wlad Klitschko is a good example of this.

Average - doesn't hit the deck very much, but if they do, they always get up. Never is rendered completely unconscious, but may suffer the occational knockdown or TKO.

Solid - rarely hits the deck and has little or no TKOs; may get knocked down, but typically gets up to win fights. Larry Holmes and Joe Louis are good examples of this.

Iron - never knocked down, and only TKOd on cuts or referee discretion while taking multiple punches. Rocky Marciano might be a good example here.

Granite - goes entire career without ever being off their feet. Can take punches and keep coming. Oliver McCall is perhaps the best example of this.

Again, there is, of course, an element of judgement in making these assessments. A person needs to have a good knowledge of fighters' careers, when they were knocked down, how many times, how devastated a fighter was when stopped (i.e. were they unconscious for the ten count, TKOd, etc.) and so on. Like many things in boxing people may disagree about the relative weighting of different factors - but this is a good general guide, I think.








7) Manuals and History Books -- Manuals are absolutely necessary to form a competent understanding of pre-30's boxing. History books give much-needed (free) information on earlier fighters.

While I can't give you an exhaustive list of pre-30's manuals, I can direct you where to look for them. Google book search has pretty much everything under the sun:






8 ) Irrational Hatred of a Certain Fighter -- This is essential for any good boxing historian. With Redrooster, it's Leonard. Zakman prefers Ruiz, Radar hates the Klitschkos, and Dr. Z disliked Johnson. Some industrious over-achievers like Revolver hate everyone. But in order to be taken seriously, you must have a bizarre, incomprehensible bias against a fighter or group of fighters. Me? I loathe that Fitzsimmons character.




9) Newspaper Accounts -- The New York Times works quite well, though there are many other online archives of newspapers that one can refer to when assessing a fight for which there is no film. Ibiblio has several, although many links are broken.











10) Photographs of Early Fighters -- Closeups of physique and facial features.






11) Encyclopedias -- Wikipedia, as mentioned earlier, is sometimes questionable. Boxrec's boxing encyclopedia tends to be more accurate. Both are included for completeness.




Top

[Mo Leicester]

This was a post taken from another site, but is invaluable when learning and researching fighters.

When assessing individuals or eras, it's good to have a few tools to help you along. This thread is for brainstorming the major tools and techniques for analyzing boxing history. Whether it's boxrec, Ring rankings, or Zakman's unique chinchecking method, POST IT!





Records



0.5) Amateur Boxing Records -- Lists of all Olympic medalists, US amateur boxing champions, and world amateur boxing champions.












1) Boxrec -- An invaluable source. You can find most aspects of a fighter's career here pretty quickly...everything from height and weight to who he fought, and when. The rankings are a little goofy, though, so don't take them too seriously. Their encyclopedia is a nice resource as well.







1.5) Cyber Boxing Zone -- Think "boxrec old-style" and you get a pretty good idea. This one is invaluable for finding the records of less-documented fighters in the early part of the 20th century. It even includes the career records of the bareknucklers.





2) Ring ****zine Ratings -- Recently, these have come under the influence of the Evil Golden Lord of Corruption (Oscar de la Hoya to civilians). For the past, though, these have proved invaluable. They give a very good idea of who the best fighters at any one point in time were, and it's a shame that they aren't used more often.






2.5) IBHOF -- A reasonably good guide in establishing which fighters are and are not considered "all time greats" rather than merely top contenders. Also contains biographies and fairly interesting facts.









Film



3) Flaws -- This is one of the methods brought to prominence by a cadre of revisionist Classic historians collectively known as the Amsterdamites. Rather than accepting a fighter's greatness at face value, they decide that film is infinitely more important in judging a fighter's legacy. Therefore, it is necessary for a new boxing historian to have a thorough grasp of the fundamentals of boxing--what's right and what will get you a painful right to the jaw.






This video is a summary of every possible boxing flaw. The degree to which a fight looks like this indicates how good the fighters are:







4) Styles -- These are the basic building blocks of boxing literacy--boxer/swarmer/puncher. They help a great deal, though they're not infallible.






5) Youtube -- This site is the Internet's gift to boxing. it's one thing to be able to look at a man's record on boxrec, but quite another to actually see him against his best opponents on screen. Everyone from Fitzsimmons to McClellan is on here.










Other Useful Stuff




6) The Patented Zakman Chinchecking Method



Quote:
Well first of thanks for according chinchecking an honored place among the various elements that go into assessing fighters. I should say first of all that the evaluation of punch resistance is more of an ART than a science, so it is difficult to quantify, but briefly here are some of its aspects:

1. Examining how many times a fighter has been knocked out or knocked down, i.e. the QUANTITY of KOs/KDs - this is, of course, one general rule of thumb, but in and of itself, it does not necessarily tell the whole story. Obviously, in general, knockouts would give a better indication of a potentially weak chin, because here the fighter was unable to continue. The fighter who gets knocked down, but gets up and wins may actually have better punch resistance and resliance that the one who gets stopped, even if it happens more. Think of Larry Holmes. He hit the canvas several times, but with the exception of the Tyson fight, was always able to get up and win the fight. Joe Louis is another good example here. These guys chins were certainly not rock-solid, but neither are they glass, or even really that shaky.

2. The second key factor, perhaps even more important in assessing punch resistance is the QUALITY of KOs - if a fighter gets knocked down and is completely OUT, this is the hallmark of a glass jaw. Hasim Rahman is a classic example of this. This is even moreso the case if the fighter who knocks him out is not known for his punching power, or gets a reputation for punching power primarily from rendering fighters with weak chins unconscious.

3. Scale (and here I have to also credit my colleague Amsterdam in helping develop this general framework, although his labels for the levels may differ slightly) :

Grade A China - the weakest possible chin strength. Here, a fighter is rendered completely unconscious by either grazing punches or by fighters who are known to be light hitters. A perfect example of this is Fraudley Harrison

Glass - again, a fighter gets knocked completely unconscious, although the fighters are not necessarily light-hitters. Rahman is a good example of this level.

Shaky/Questionable - here fighters may either get TKOd, or perhaps stopped by a hard-hitting fighter. Wlad Klitschko is a good example of this.

Average - doesn't hit the deck very much, but if they do, they always get up. Never is rendered completely unconscious, but may suffer the occational knockdown or TKO.

Solid - rarely hits the deck and has little or no TKOs; may get knocked down, but typically gets up to win fights. Larry Holmes and Joe Louis are good examples of this.

Iron - never knocked down, and only TKOd on cuts or referee discretion while taking multiple punches. Rocky Marciano might be a good example here.

Granite - goes entire career without ever being off their feet. Can take punches and keep coming. Oliver McCall is perhaps the best example of this.

Again, there is, of course, an element of judgement in making these assessments. A person needs to have a good knowledge of fighters' careers, when they were knocked down, how many times, how devastated a fighter was when stopped (i.e. were they unconscious for the ten count, TKOd, etc.) and so on. Like many things in boxing people may disagree about the relative weighting of different factors - but this is a good general guide, I think.








7) Manuals and History Books -- Manuals are absolutely necessary to form a competent understanding of pre-30's boxing. History books give much-needed (free) information on earlier fighters.

While I can't give you an exhaustive list of pre-30's manuals, I can direct you where to look for them. Google book search has pretty much everything under the sun:






8 ) Irrational Hatred of a Certain Fighter -- This is essential for any good boxing historian. With Redrooster, it's Leonard. Zakman prefers Ruiz, Radar hates the Klitschkos, and Dr. Z disliked Johnson. Some industrious over-achievers like Revolver hate everyone. But in order to be taken seriously, you must have a bizarre, incomprehensible bias against a fighter or group of fighters. Me? I loathe that Fitzsimmons character.




9) Newspaper Accounts -- The New York Times works quite well, though there are many other online archives of newspapers that one can refer to when assessing a fight for which there is no film. Ibiblio has several, although many links are broken.











10) Photographs of Early Fighters -- Closeups of physique and facial features.






11) Encyclopedias -- Wikipedia, as mentioned earlier, is sometimes questionable. Boxrec's boxing encyclopedia tends to be more accurate. Both are included for completeness.




Top

Thanks mate, that's the most helpful post on my short time here.

[JAB5239]

Thanks mate, that's the most helpful post on my short time here.

Any time my man. I look forward to your opinions!

[StarshipTrooper]

This was a post taken from another site, but is invaluable when learning and researching fighters.

When assessing individuals or eras, it's good to have a few tools to help you along. This thread is for brainstorming the major tools and techniques for analyzing boxing history. Whether it's boxrec, Ring rankings, or Zakman's unique chinchecking method, POST IT!





Records



0.5) Amateur Boxing Records -- Lists of all Olympic medalists, US amateur boxing champions, and world amateur boxing champions.












1) Boxrec -- An invaluable source. You can find most aspects of a fighter's career here pretty quickly...everything from height and weight to who he fought, and when. The rankings are a little goofy, though, so don't take them too seriously. Their encyclopedia is a nice resource as well.







1.5) Cyber Boxing Zone -- Think "boxrec old-style" and you get a pretty good idea. This one is invaluable for finding the records of less-documented fighters in the early part of the 20th century. It even includes the career records of the bareknucklers.





2) Ring ****zine Ratings -- Recently, these have come under the influence of the Evil Golden Lord of Corruption (Oscar de la Hoya to civilians). For the past, though, these have proved invaluable. They give a very good idea of who the best fighters at any one point in time were, and it's a shame that they aren't used more often.






2.5) IBHOF -- A reasonably good guide in establishing which fighters are and are not considered "all time greats" rather than merely top contenders. Also contains biographies and fairly interesting facts.









Film



3) Flaws -- This is one of the methods brought to prominence by a cadre of revisionist Classic historians collectively known as the Amsterdamites. Rather than accepting a fighter's greatness at face value, they decide that film is infinitely more important in judging a fighter's legacy. Therefore, it is necessary for a new boxing historian to have a thorough grasp of the fundamentals of boxing--what's right and what will get you a painful right to the jaw.






This video is a summary of every possible boxing flaw. The degree to which a fight looks like this indicates how good the fighters are:







4) Styles -- These are the basic building blocks of boxing literacy--boxer/swarmer/puncher. They help a great deal, though they're not infallible.






5) Youtube -- This site is the Internet's gift to boxing. it's one thing to be able to look at a man's record on boxrec, but quite another to actually see him against his best opponents on screen. Everyone from Fitzsimmons to McClellan is on here.










Other Useful Stuff




6) The Patented Zakman Chinchecking Method



Quote:
Well first of thanks for according chinchecking an honored place among the various elements that go into assessing fighters. I should say first of all that the evaluation of punch resistance is more of an ART than a science, so it is difficult to quantify, but briefly here are some of its aspects:

1. Examining how many times a fighter has been knocked out or knocked down, i.e. the QUANTITY of KOs/KDs - this is, of course, one general rule of thumb, but in and of itself, it does not necessarily tell the whole story. Obviously, in general, knockouts would give a better indication of a potentially weak chin, because here the fighter was unable to continue. The fighter who gets knocked down, but gets up and wins may actually have better punch resistance and resliance that the one who gets stopped, even if it happens more. Think of Larry Holmes. He hit the canvas several times, but with the exception of the Tyson fight, was always able to get up and win the fight. Joe Louis is another good example here. These guys chins were certainly not rock-solid, but neither are they glass, or even really that shaky.

2. The second key factor, perhaps even more important in assessing punch resistance is the QUALITY of KOs - if a fighter gets knocked down and is completely OUT, this is the hallmark of a glass jaw. Hasim Rahman is a classic example of this. This is even moreso the case if the fighter who knocks him out is not known for his punching power, or gets a reputation for punching power primarily from rendering fighters with weak chins unconscious.

3. Scale (and here I have to also credit my colleague Amsterdam in helping develop this general framework, although his labels for the levels may differ slightly) :

Grade A China - the weakest possible chin strength. Here, a fighter is rendered completely unconscious by either grazing punches or by fighters who are known to be light hitters. A perfect example of this is Fraudley Harrison

Glass - again, a fighter gets knocked completely unconscious, although the fighters are not necessarily light-hitters. Rahman is a good example of this level.

Shaky/Questionable - here fighters may either get TKOd, or perhaps stopped by a hard-hitting fighter. Wlad Klitschko is a good example of this.

Average - doesn't hit the deck very much, but if they do, they always get up. Never is rendered completely unconscious, but may suffer the occational knockdown or TKO.

Solid - rarely hits the deck and has little or no TKOs; may get knocked down, but typically gets up to win fights. Larry Holmes and Joe Louis are good examples of this.

Iron - never knocked down, and only TKOd on cuts or referee discretion while taking multiple punches. Rocky Marciano might be a good example here.

Granite - goes entire career without ever being off their feet. Can take punches and keep coming. Oliver McCall is perhaps the best example of this.

Again, there is, of course, an element of judgement in making these assessments. A person needs to have a good knowledge of fighters' careers, when they were knocked down, how many times, how devastated a fighter was when stopped (i.e. were they unconscious for the ten count, TKOd, etc.) and so on. Like many things in boxing people may disagree about the relative weighting of different factors - but this is a good general guide, I think.








7) Manuals and History Books -- Manuals are absolutely necessary to form a competent understanding of pre-30's boxing. History books give much-needed (free) information on earlier fighters.

While I can't give you an exhaustive list of pre-30's manuals, I can direct you where to look for them. Google book search has pretty much everything under the sun:






8 ) Irrational Hatred of a Certain Fighter -- This is essential for any good boxing historian. With Redrooster, it's Leonard. Zakman prefers Ruiz, Radar hates the Klitschkos, and Dr. Z disliked Johnson. Some industrious over-achievers like Revolver hate everyone. But in order to be taken seriously, you must have a bizarre, incomprehensible bias against a fighter or group of fighters. Me? I loathe that Fitzsimmons character.




9) Newspaper Accounts -- The New York Times works quite well, though there are many other online archives of newspapers that one can refer to when assessing a fight for which there is no film. Ibiblio has several, although many links are broken.











10) Photographs of Early Fighters -- Closeups of physique and facial features.






11) Encyclopedias -- Wikipedia, as mentioned earlier, is sometimes questionable. Boxrec's boxing encyclopedia tends to be more accurate. Both are included for completeness.




Top

Jab, you are a HUGE asset to this forum! You've turned into one of the best, and certainly the most scholarly posters I've seen in quite a while!

Poet

[JAB5239]

Jab, you are a HUGE asset to this forum! You've turned into one of the best, and certainly the most scholarly posters I've seen in quite a while!

Poet

Thanks Poet, thats really cool of you to say! I add what I can, but I learn a lot more from you guys, truth be told.

[The Iron Man]

Thats how it is here, we all learn off of each other! thats what makes this thread so good. Also people tend to debate here rather than argue!