Is this all-time top ten heavyweight/lt. heavy list screwed up?

I know this is a tiresome topic for some. But I have to put together lists for all the divisions and who better to run them by than you guys? Don't come down too hard, though. I'm sensitive over here.

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes (I can hear it now)
4. Foreman
5. Jack Johnson
6. Dempsey
7. Marciano
8. Frazier
9. Lennox
10. Holyfield

Light heavyweight

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Gene Tunney
3. Archie Moore
4. Sam Langford (where to put this man?)
5. Bob Foster
6. Michael Spinks
7. Billy Conn
8. Roy Jones, Jr.
9. Tommy Loughran
10. Harold Johnson

I spent a lot of time deliberating this and have justification if requested. But I'm open to any dissenting viewpoints. Thanks for any help.

Your HW list seems perfectly fine to me.

What about Michael Moorer for LHW ?

Roy Jones at 8?

Ali, thanks man.

Moorer might have been one of the more destructive forces at 175 that I ever saw. But I can't go off of that exclusively. There needs to be the element of credentials too, which is an area where he suffered. Without looking, I struggle to name even a legit contender at 175 that he beat. Swindell? Hassan? That's not gonna be enough.

But I think I know what you mean. Sometimes, you just know a fighter not on the list would clobber someone who is on the list. But credentials speak louder than personal opinions on matchups. But do I think Billy Conn would have had a really hard time with a 175-pound Moorer? Sure I do.

gomez1012 wrote:Roy Jones at 8?

Jones too low, Gomez?

First of all, light heavy is the hardest division in which to come up with a top ten. At the top are a bunch of guys who weren't even champ in that division, like Charles, Langford, and Tunney. It's just a messy proposition.

Jones put in a big bulk of his work at 175, but his best wins were outside that weight class. He didn't notch any gigantic wins at 175. But his ability to clean out the division, longevity as champ, and separation he had over his contemporaries (until Tarver) makes him a solid champ. I could see putting him above Conn, but anymore than that is gonna be tough.

Some fighters, especially division hoppers, don't ever get put at the top of all-time divisional rankings, even though they have clear-cut greatness. Jones falls into that I think. Pacquiao will too. At the end of the day, Pac might be a top 10 all-time guy, but what division would you rank him higher than 5?

ScottLevinson wrote:

gomez1012 wrote:Roy Jones at 8?

Jones too low, Gomez?

First of all, light heavy is the hardest division in which to come up with a top ten. At the top are a bunch of guys who weren't even champ in that division, like Charles, Langford, and Tunney. It's just a messy proposition.

Jones put in a big bulk of his work at 175, but his best wins were outside that weight class. He didn't notch any gigantic wins at 175. But his ability to clean out the division, longevity as champ, and separation he had over his contemporaries (until Tarver) makes him a solid champ. I could see putting him above Conn, but anymore than that is gonna be tough.

Some fighters, especially division hoppers, don't ever get put at the top of all-time divisional rankings, even though they have clear-cut greatness. Jones falls into that I think. Pacquiao will too. At the end of the day, Pac might be a top 10 all-time guy, but what division would you rank him higher than 5?

What I was getting at, his most significant wins where outside of the division

And great point on the fighters who move all over the place, I agree. Hard to really measure their accomplishments

ScottLevinson wrote:Ali, thanks man.

Moorer might have been one of the more destructive forces at 175 that I ever saw. But I can't go off of that exclusively. There needs to be the element of credentials too, which is an area where he suffered. Without looking, I struggle to name even a legit contender at 175 that he beat. Swindell? Hassan? That's not gonna be enough.

But I think I know what you mean. Sometimes, you just know a fighter not on the list would clobber someone who is on the list. But credentials speak louder than personal opinions on matchups. But do I think Billy Conn would have had a really hard time with a 175-pound Moorer? Sure I do.

Great points Scott, I was thinking the same thing when I looked at Moorer's record, none of those title defenses came against any real big names.

Here's a question for you Scott, say Hopkins gets a decision in the Pascal rematch, do you think that would be enough to have Bernard in the LHW discussion ??

I know Hopkins hasn't had alot of fights at 175lb but he's still been impressive at that weight, with the victories over Winky, Pavlik, Tarver, Roy and the close lose/draw with Calzaghe and Pascal.

I see what you're saying Gomez. Jones is a tough guy to rank. Depends how you look at it. But once I start putting him below guys like Tommy Loughran and Harold Johnson, my inner voice says, "C'mon, get real."

And I think Jones catches too much flack for something he had nothing to do with--the state of the division during his heyday. Or maybe he had everything to do with that. He didn't always pick the best opponents to fight, but who did he duck? Even if you claim he avoided Dariusz Michaelshevski, (still can't spell that) that isn't very compelling. I'd say #8 is pretty fair.

Great points Scott, I was thinking the same thing when I looked at Moorer's record, none of those title defenses came against any real big names.

Here's a question for you Scott, say Hopkins gets a decision in the Pascal rematch, do you think that would be enough to have Bernard in the LHW discussion ??

I know Hopkins hasn't had alot of fights at 175lb but he's still been impressive at that weight, with the victories over Winky, Pavlik, Tarver, Roy and the close lose/draw with Calzaghe and Pascal.[/quote]

Wow, that's a toughie Ali.

It's just hard for a guy to compile a resume worthy of all-time consideration within a division he didn't join until he was 40. But amazingly, a win over Pascal might get him hovering over this list. I think his work post-40 won't be enough to get him in the top ten, but it might have accomplished something even more important to his legacy: the guy's gonna go down as a legend.

I always take issue with Holy in the top 10 for Heavys but I get why people like him. I like Liston or Tyson there. Both lists look good. If you can check out the Ninjas Place forum under and search for "immortals" under boxing. There were some good discussions on ranking back then.

scott not to bad..on the heavys no comment outside holmes at 3 sorry..6 th i feel is where he belongs.hollifield in my books not a top tener..dempsey no over marciano..rockys a whole lot better then he gets credit for.especialy balance defense counterpunching thats totaly overlooked cause fans think only of that unreal power and a diamond chin..marciano louis ali the top 3 in any order folks want.i have my order and thoughts on this but thoses 3 stand out well above there competion in there day plus overall anyone else from any era..LH hmm.1.charles2.tunney3.langford4.moore5.foster 6.conn7.spinks8.laughran there locks..the last 2 could be a choice of 3 or 4 guys and hopkins isnt one of them.nor moorer.id take john henry lewis over both thoses guys and hes not in my list for top ten consideration.

Gumby, Holyfield is the toughest guy to rank. I can go a lot of different places with the guy. And I'll check out those discussions you directed me to. Thanks.

DMar. those are really good points. I think Rocky is underrated in a lot of ways. I could possibly give him a bump. And I can see by how much you like Marciano that Holmes isn't going to be your favorite guy. Either way, there are no easy answers here. I might have Holmes high, but can understand the case for him being lower. Personally, I can't get away from this feeling in my bones that the man was the 3rd greatest heavyweight who ever lived. Call me nuts.

At 175, it can get pretty murky after 7-8, with cases being able to be made for a bunch of guys. JH Lewis is definitely up there.

i really have no problem with the HW list. my only problem i could say is that i feel like frazier is the most underrated HW. he absolutely dominated the best crop of HWs you could find and only lost to ali and foreman who are both easily top 5 HWs. ali is #1 for me and foreman is #3. i have frazier at #5. 8 seems a bit low.

with light HW i think that loughran should be higher. i still think that he is underrated too. one of the greatest jabs ever and really should have been HW champion but i believe that his fight with carnera was fixed. plus he beat 2 HW champs (braddock and sharkey). braddock was at light HW too. for me, loughran is at least #5. and i do think that jones should be on there for sure just so you know.

too subjective. the heavyweight guys are set over such a large time period. in that mix up you've got Jack Johnson whop was fighting 100 years ago and was a fucking HUGE heavyweight during his time but look at what he would be compared to todays giants. he was 6'1 and weighed around 200lb in his prime. then down the list you have Lennox Lewis who was 6'6 and weighed 240lb. would Johnson have stood upto that power?? things have changed so much over the 100 years to compare different fighters from different eras in the heavyweight division. and as for Holmes? what was his defining victory, he was a fine fighter but he doesn't have the solid victory over a prime and competitive opponent. he was all out there on his own kind of like the Klitschkos are today.

the light-heavyweight list is quality though and it would take an absolute prick to argue with it

powerpuncher wrote:i really have no problem with the HW list. my only problem i could say is that i feel like frazier is the most underrated HW. he absolutely dominated the best crop of HWs you could find and only lost to ali and foreman who are both easily top 5 HWs. ali is #1 for me and foreman is #3. i have frazier at #5. 8 seems a bit low.

with light HW i think that loughran should be higher. i still think that he is underrated too. one of the greatest jabs ever and really should have been HW champion but i believe that his fight with carnera was fixed. plus he beat 2 HW champs (braddock and sharkey). braddock was at light HW too. for me, loughran is at least #5. and i do think that jones should be on there for sure just so you know.

Powerpuncher, excellent points.

I think #8 for Frazier is above average for where most historians place him, but the argument for him being higher is not an altogether bad argument. It's like most people just don't want to put 3 heavyweight peers in the top 5. But I'm not arguing too vociferously against a placement like that for Smokin Joe.

And you make a pretty good case for Loughran too. i'm gonna deliberate it a bit and see if I can't make a case for having him ahead of a few guys I put above him. Thanks for the input though.

dbudge wrote:too subjective. the heavyweight guys are set over such a large time period. in that mix up you've got Jack Johnson whop was fighting 100 years ago and was a fucking HUGE heavyweight during his time but look at what he would be compared to todays giants. he was 6'1 and weighed around 200lb in his prime. then down the list you have Lennox Lewis who was 6'6 and weighed 240lb. would Johnson have stood upto that power?? things have changed so much over the 100 years to compare different fighters from different eras in the heavyweight division. and as for Holmes? what was his defining victory, he was a fine fighter but he doesn't have the solid victory over a prime and competitive opponent. he was all out there on his own kind of like the Klitschkos are today.

the light-heavyweight list is quality though and it would take an absolute prick to argue with it

Budge, I see what you're saying. It is an almost futile undertaking if you look at it that way. What I'm going for is not so much a head-to-head superiority top-ten, but just looking at each man's accomplishments as they stand on their own. Yeah, I'm pretty sure Frank Bruno woulda clobbered someone like Jack Sharkey, for example. But that's not the way to go about it.

And about Holmes, that's a good point. I just think that that whole group of 80's heavyweights he defeated were not bigtime BECAUSE of Larry. If not for Holmes, some of those guys would be big names. And I think you could kinda say the same thing about Joe Louis to a certain extent. Fair point, though, and well-taken.

no no no, comparing Louis' career to Holmes' has got to be some kind of sick and perverted joke from such a well educated boxing fan i know

dbudge wrote:no no no, comparing Louis' career to Holmes' has got to be some kind of sick and perverted joke from such a well educated boxing fan i know

It is almost blasphemy, isn't it?

But you know, a lot of all-time greats are not like Ali, where you can rattle off his biggest wins to justify his greatness in 5 seconds. But quick, tell me Joe Louis' biggest win. It's not as easy with some guys. Actually, most of 'em.

scott im litterly shocked by the statement the big time heavies larry beat if it not for larry would of been great or realy good..like who.anser no one.his defenses for the most part were against third rate fighters.leon spinks who just was koed in one by cotzeea..marvis frazier.i hope you dont mnean him.david bey who was nothing before hol;mes or after.fat slob called jones who had one fight after larry.surely we dont mean scott leduoex..tex cobb.outside of a chin cobb was zero.larenzo zanon..would he have tore up the division if he didnt fight larry lol..ernie shavers in the first fight.a glass jaw run out of gas fighter who was a big puncher.thats not the ingregdients for big success.before holmes shavers was koed 3 times and whos only notable win was ellis.next fight koed in 1 by quarry.rodriguez scott lol frank...williams as in his 17th fight and beat him.weatherswpoon in his 16th fight and many thought larry lost that.he didnt destroy the careers of thoses guys..a stiff called snipes should of koed him...cooney was the only one that fits your description..no rematch with norton no fight with jimmy young frazier quarry foreman lyle.
its blaswtphamy to compare him with louis in any way..

ScottLevinson wrote:

dbudge wrote:no no no, comparing Louis' career to Holmes' has got to be some kind of sick and perverted joke from such a well educated boxing fan i know

It is almost blasphemy, isn't it?

But you know, a lot of all-time greats are not like Ali, where you can rattle off his biggest wins to justify his greatness in 5 seconds. But quick, tell me Joe Louis' biggest win. It's not as easy with some guys. Actually, most of 'em.

Joe Louis' biggest wins. Max Baer, Max Schmelling, Billy Conn 2wice, Joe Walcott 2wice, Jack Sharkey, Primo Carnera (laugh but its better than Holmes' wins), Tommy Farr...... 25 Undisputed heavyweight championship of the World title defences against proper fighters over a 10 year period. to be the man for over 10 years when you lay claim to the most prestigious prize in Sporting competition is a pretty impressive feat if you ask me, especially against fighters that consistently fought against eachother at the highest level. not 2 fights a year type guys. these were all seasoned pros that had worked their way up to getting genuine World title shots. just watch Joe Louis at work in his prime, the guy was on another level to Holmes. it is blasphemy of the highest order