Top 20 heavyweights all time

[Kid Cauliflower]

I don't know why Ezzard Charles is on there as one of the greatest heavyweights. Just because he might beat guys like Schmeling? Not good enough for me. The Charles worship around here has reached ludicrous proportions IMO. Great light heavyweight does not make him a great heavyweight.

No championship longevity, no huge punch. No particular speed, but decent. No evidence for an AT chin that I can see. Lots of heart, as of course we all know.

Under which criteria do you list Charles as the 14th greatest heavyweight? He still has to get by Schmeling, Braddock, Johannson, Sharkey, Corbett and Tunney, et al, the last of whom who you do not even include. I am not certain Ezzard beats any of them but I am as close to certain as I can be that he would not get by Tunney. So what is your reasoning for making a man with no championship longevity as one of the greatest heavyweights? Tunney did not have any but neither did Charles. I know you can get lots of support from the other Charles worshipers. But what do you have to say?

I like you and I usually like your opinions, but I hate this list.

[Kid Cauliflower]

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Larry Holmes
4. Lennox Lewis
5 Sonny Liston
6. Joe Louis
7. George Foreman
8. Mike Tyson
9 Gene Tunney
10 Jack Dempsey
11 Rocky Marciano
12. Joe Frazier
13 Evander Holyfield
14 Jim Corbett
15. Jim Jefferies
16. Riddick Bowe
17. Alex Usyk
18. Langford
19. Joe Walcott
20. Ezzard Charles

Honorable Mention: Wladimir Klitschko, Floyd Patterson, Max Schmeling, Tyson Fury

My list is probably hated too.

[Dr. Z]

You could switch Ali and Louis and I wouldn't have a problem with it. I happen to prefer Louis 25 consecutive title defenses. Ali has the better resume and is certainly worthy of number one depending on what you prefer.

Ali towers over Louis.

Joe Louis' scorecards vs the best boxers he fought, excluding Maricano.


Some believe Louis, who in my opinion and many others fought in a down era of boxing was a near perfect boxer. I'm not one of those who thinks that way because I have seen his films vs. men who in many cases were giving up height, and reach to him. Yet they had no issues landing on him. With the superior firepower power in all cases, if Louis was this master boxer type ( Offense and defense ) he should have dominated on the scorecards. Yet he was often floored or behind. Vs Cruiser weights, light heavyweights, or super middle weights.

Let's add up the rounds were given to Louis vs the best four boxers he fought. To use a qualifier, I'll average out score cards given, and not penalize Louis for knockdowns in the round because back then there were no 10-8 rounds. In the case of Schmeling vs. Louis 1, I could not find score cards so let's say I'll be very generous and give Louis 4 rounds of the 12.

The best four boxers Louis fought in my opinion were:

Schmeling
Walcott
Conn
Charles


1. Schmeling-Louis and Schmeling fought a combined 13 rounds. Louis won but 5 of 13 rounds, and I'm being generous to Louis. Schmeling was thought to be passed his best for the first fight, meanwhile Louis was coming off his best career filmed performance vs Max. Baer

2. Walcott vs Louis. Both men were the same age in both fights. 26 rounds fought, and an average of 12 of them went to Louis. The first fight was rather controversial and the second one in my opinion had Walcott well out in the lead. But I'm using the judges official cards since we have them.

3. Conn vs Louis. 21 rounds were fought. Conn looked terrible in the rematch and retired the same year, but hey that's part of it as Schmeling was thought to be passed his best in the first Louis fight. The score cards awarded 10 of 21 rounds to Louis on average

4. Charles. This time, it was Louis on the decline. 15 rounds were fought Charles stood right in front of Louis, who was on big time winning streak and still had his jab and power and whipped Louis badly. Louis won three rounds on average and, to be honest, that seems a little high.

Summary. Louis won just 30 of 75 rounds fought. This is just 40% of the rounds fought.

[Bronson66]

All are welcome to criticize, this is my opinion though. You're probably not going to change my mind, but If you're going to try, at least post your own top 20 so we're on an even playing field.

My list is based on resume, level of competition and longevity. Head to head is completely irrelevant when it comes to ranking fighters because it simply isn't something you can apply as factual.

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Larry Holmes
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Jack Johnson
6. George Foreman
7. Mike Tyson
8. Sonny Liston
9. Evander Holyfield
10. Wladimir Klitschko
11. Rocky Marciano
12. Joe Frazier
13. Harry Wills
14. Jack Dempsey
15. Ezzard Charles
16. Ken Norton
17. Joe Wlacott
18. Sam Langford
19. Jim Jeffries
20. Rid**** Bowe

Honorable mention: Oleksander Usyk, Joe Jeannette, Tyson Fury, Max Schmeling, Vitali Klitschko.

I expect Usyk to move up this list before his career is over barring a move back down to Cruiserweight.

I'm not sure I could give a definite twenty ,neither am I sure where I would place them .
I'll give fifteen ,in no order.

Ali I'm definite, he is my no1.
Holmes
Lewis
Louis
Dempsey
Foreman
Liston
Tyson
Bowe
Frazier
Marciano
Johnson
W Klitschko
Tunney
Langford

Wills would be my sub on the bench.I place a lot of emphasis on H2H.
I don't rate fighters until they have retired, so Usyk may creep in later.

[JAB5239]

I don't know why Ezzard Charles is on there as one of the greatest heavyweights. Just because he might beat guys like Schmeling? Not good enough for me. The Charles worship around here has reached ludicrous proportions IMO. Great light heavyweight does not make him a great heavyweight.

No championship longevity, no huge punch. No particular speed, but decent. No evidence for an AT chin that I can see. Lots of heart, as of course we all know.

Under which criteria do you list Charles as the 14th greatest heavyweight? He still has to get by Schmeling, Braddock, Johannson, Sharkey, Corbett and Tunney, et al, the last of whom who you do not even include. I am not certain Ezzard beats any of them but I am as close to certain as I can be that he would not get by Tunney. So what is your reasoning for making a man with no championship longevity as one of the greatest heavyweights? Tunney did not have any but neither did Charles. I know you can get lots of support from the other Charles worshipers. But what do you have to say?

I like you and I usually like your opinions, but I hate this list.

I don't rate on who may beat who. Charles resume at heavyweight is far better than the fighter you named. Corbett gets credit as the first scientific boxer, but outside of Sullivan who did he beat? Tunney has to few heavyweight fights for me to rate him. He was a fine boxer and rates highly p4p, but outside of his wi.s over a Dempsey who was off for three years, I just don't see it. Charles would certainly rank lower h2h, but that isn't probable, wins are.

You can have your opinion and hate mine, I'm OK with that. Rating fighters is very subjective, I just think this is the best way to do it.

[JAB5239]

I like it. I thought Langford would be in your top 5, since you're a big fan of his though.

P4p he's the best in my opinion. At heavyweight he suffers from being relegated to fighting the same fighters over and over. If he had Gotten to Johnson instead of Willard? If he had gotten Willard instead of Dempsey? If he had gotten Dempsey in 1915? Who knows how much higher he would be ranked?

[JAB5239]

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Larry Holmes
4. Lennox Lewis
5 Sonny Liston
6. Joe Louis
7. George Foreman
8. Mike Tyson
9 Gene Tunney
10 Jack Dempsey
11 Rocky Marciano
12. Joe Frazier
13 Evander Holyfield
14 Jim Corbett
15. Jim Jefferies
16. Riddick Bowe
17. Alex Usyk
18. Langford
19. Joe Walcott
20. Ezzard Charles

Honorable Mention: Wladimir Klitschko, Floyd Patterson, Max Schmeling, Tyson Fury

My list is probably hated too.

Apples and oranges. While I don't completely agree we all have our own reasons. At least you posted a list. I hate when people want to nitpick other people ratings but won't post their own. As I've said before it's all subjective.

[Biledriver]

I don't rate on who may beat who. Charles resume at heavyweight is far better than the fighter you named. Corbett gets credit as the first scientific boxer, but outside of Sullivan who did he beat? Tunney has to few heavyweight fights for me to rate him. He was a fine boxer and rates highly p4p, but outside of his wi.s over a Dempsey who was off for three years, I just don't see it. Charles would certainly rank lower h2h, but that isn't probable, wins are.

You can have your opinion and hate mine, I'm OK with that. Rating fighters is very subjective, I just think this is the best way to do it.

If I remember rightly, Gene Tunney only had like 3-4 fights at heavyweight. I don't see how someone can knock Charles for mostly fighting at light-heavy, then turn around and nominate Gene Tunney who was at heavyweight for a cup of coffee and didn't hang around long enough to ask for creamer.

[Dr. Z]

All are welcome to criticize, this is my opinion though. You're probably not going to change my mind, but If you're going to try, at least post your own top 20 so we're on an even playing field.

My list is based on resume, level of competition and longevity. Head to head is completely irrelevant when it comes to ranking fighters because it simply isn't something you can apply as factual.

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Larry Holmes
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Jack Johnson
6. George Foreman
7. Mike Tyson
8. Sonny Liston
9. Evander Holyfield
10. Wladimir Klitschko
11. Rocky Marciano
12. Joe Frazier
13. Harry Wills
14. Jack Dempsey
15. Ezzard Charles
16. Ken Norton
17. Joe Wlacott
18. Sam Langford
19. Jim Jeffries
20. Rid**** Bowe

Honorable mention: Oleksander Usyk, Joe Jeannette, Tyson Fury, Max Schmeling, Vitali Klitschko.

I expect Usyk to move up this list before his career is over barring a move back down to Cruiserweight.

Lot of questions.

Why is Jack Johnson your top five? He lost vs. mature men in Klon***e, Griffin, , Choyski, and Hart. He lost to the best person he faced in his lineal title matches in Willard, did not give a title match to the best 3-5 men around ( Langford, Jeannette, McVey, McCarthy, and Smith ) and drew a lot. Yet he is in you top 5? Please explain.

Where would you place Usyk if he retried tomorrow?

Liston's resume of wins lesser than many people that you rate below him and he barley defend his title. So few title defense and a lower quality of wins, why is he rated this high?

I seldom see Tyson rated above Holyfield who beat him twice. Why do you do it?

[Inoue Body Shot]

Lennox Lewis would ABSOLUTELY DESTROY every active Heavyweight Boxer today.