My Top Ten Greatest Heavyweight Champs Of All Time!

[McGrain]

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Joe Louis
4. Jack Johnson
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Larry Holmes
7. Jim Jeffries (If he had more fights then no doubt he would be higher)
8. George Foreman
9. Gene Tunney (would be alot higher if he had spent more of his career at the weight)
10. Joe Frazier

Honourable mentions: Sam Langford, Bob Fitzsimmons, Ezzard Charles, Ken Norton, Sonny Liston, Mike Tyson, Harry Wills and Lennox Lewis.

I'm a wee bit confused about your list Boxalot. You have Rocky at two which suggests to me that you're conentrating on greatness and accomplishment rather than resume of projected head to head. However you have Tunney at 9, and his achievments (at this weight) are limited to beating a washed up champ over ten rounds twice.

[Boxalot]

McGrain, i do my lists on a mixture of ability and acheivements.

As a Heavyweight, Tunney was supremely gifted and i believe had he fought more at heavyweight not many could beat him. Sadly, he only had a few fights at the weight and you have to rank him more as a light-heavy. I can fully understand why you dispute my list though as the rankings of Jeffries and Tunney can both be considered controversial considering their lack of fights, Tunney more so than Jeffries. For what it's worth, i believe Holmes and Tunney would beat Marciano on points, despite the fact i have Rocky placed above them.

[LondonRingRules]

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Joe Louis
4. Jack Johnson
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Larry Holmes
7. Jim Jeffries (If he had more fights then no doubt he would be higher)
8. George Foreman
9. Gene Tunney (would be alot higher if he had spent more of his career at the weight)
10. Joe Frazier

Honourable mentions: Sam Langford, Bob Fitzsimmons, Ezzard Charles, Ken Norton, Sonny Liston, Mike Tyson, Harry Wills and Lennox Lewis.

** These lists are had to defend, but usually the #1 stands out, and that's Louis. Ali is overshadowed by his mouth and controversies, whereas Louis had few controversies. Maybe the first Buddy Baer and Walcott fights, but Louis knocked 'em out like he did to most others. Plus his record has never been seriously approached like Rocky's has been by Holmes and then Valuev.

I would not rank Holmes, Jeffries, Johnson and Tunney as high as you do. Dempsey would be third, but had Tunney stayed down in the rematch I'd make Jack 2nd and Ali 3rd. Foreman 4th, and I'd seriously consider Langford 5th ahead of Rocky even though he wasn't a full sized heavy. He had a full sized punch and has the best record of his era against the best of his era, challenging even when he was past prime and going blind.

[Boxalot]

Never liked Ali much did you, LRR?

I'm not going to attempt to rip apart Louis' acheivements as i rank him very highly. He was an absoute great that deserves whatever credit he gets. I personally don't think he was the best but i wouldn't argue with anyone that did - he really was great. Under-rated handspeed and his footwork was just as good as Ali's, if not as flashy it was economical and effective.

Holmes has 20 defences and i like the old fighters alot so i am admittedly slightly biased in their favour, hence their high ranking in my list!

Langford lost countless times to Wills and was blind for alot of his career so it's hard to rank him. Do you give him extra credit for being blind but being defeated or do you not rank him at all? Personally, i give him credit for battling on despite being blind, but he had nearly 50 defeats, most of which were when he was past his best and/or blind. As i'm sure you will know, he fought from Lightweight all the way up to Heavy! He never won a world title though and it's hard to place someone in your top 10 if they never won the belt - it's similar to the Charley Burley situation.

[McGrain]

McGrain, i do my lists on a mixture of ability and acheivements.

Fair enough.

[LondonRingRules]

Langford lost countless times to Wills and was blind for alot of his career so it's hard to rank him. Do you give him extra credit for being blind but being defeated or do you not rank him at all? Personally, i give him credit for battling on despite being blind, but he had nearly 50 defeats, most of which were when he was past his best and/or blind. As i'm sure you will know, he fought from Lightweight all the way up to Heavy! He never won a world title though and it's hard to place someone in your top 10 if they never won the belt - it's similar to the Charley Burley situation.

** When they fight the best as many times as Sam did it's easy to rank. Keep in mind that Johnson never fought Wills, and Sam was fighting him when Wills was in his prime and Sam past his. Sam had more bouts against HOFers than Ali has bouts, think about it.

BTW, Sam has 3x the number of bouts Burley had, and Burley wasn't the most dangerous fighter of his era that Sam was, knocking out heavy contenders and all. I was a little slow on the uptake regarding his career, but once you delve in you realize that he was probably the ultimate warrior, el ultimo, le grande.

[Sharkey]

Langford was proclaimed (and rightfully so) heavyweight champion of the world in May of 1909, and was even presented a diamond studded belt courtesy of Lord Lonsdale on that occasion to signify that claim.

[Boxalot]

Langford was proclaimed (and rightfully so) heavyweight champion of the world in May of 1909, and was even presented a diamond studded belt courtesy of Lord Lonsdale on that occasion to signify that claim.

I believe it was July 1909, but i may be wrong. The belt he won was the coloured Heavyweight belt as Jack Johnson avoided him. I don't think that that counts as a legit World title.

Harry Wills defended the coloured Heavyweight belt 30 or 31 times but this doesn't count as a legit belt, or Joe Louis' record of 25 defences would be shattered.

[Sharkey]

I believe it was July 1909, but i may be wrong. The belt he won was the coloured Heavyweight belt as Jack Johnson avoided him. I don't think that that counts as a legit World title.

Yeah, you are wrong.

And for the record, I prefer to use the contemporary articles of the time, unlike you who seems to favour some modern, incomplete and quite often, inaccurate source like boxrec.

[Boxalot]

Yeah, you are wrong.

And for the record, I prefer to use the contemporary articles of the time, unlike you who seems to favour some modern, incomplete and quite often, inaccurate source like boxrec.

I did indeed use boxrec.

However, Langford never won a legit world title. That is a fact.