Historians All-Time Heavyweight Rankings

[Jersey-Jim]

Nat Fleischer, Founder of Ring Magazine, 1958, 1971.

1. Jack Johnson
2. Jim Jeffries
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Jim Corbett
6. Joe Louis
7. Sam Langford
8. Gene Tunney
9. Max Schemling
10. Rocky Marciano

Charley Rose, 1968

1. Sam Langford
2. Jack Johnson
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Joe Louis
5. Jim Jeffries
6. Gene Tunney
7. Sam McVey
8. Rocky Marciano
9. Jim Corbett
10. Max Baer

Nat Loubet, 1975

1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Dempsey
3. Jim Jeffries
4. Jack Johnson
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Gene Tunney
7. Bob Fitzsimmons
8. James J. Corbett
9. Muhammad Ali
10. Joe Frazier

Bert Sugar, 1991

1. Jack Dempsey
2. Joe Louis
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Jack Johnson
5. Gene Tunney
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Joe Frazier
8. Larry Holmes
9. Sonny Liston
10. Mike Tyson

Nigel Collins, 1997

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Evander Holyfield
4. Larry Holmes
5. George Foreman
6. Jack Johnson
7. Rocky Marciano
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Sonny Liston

ESPN, 2007

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Jack Johnson
5. Gene Tunney
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Ezzard Charles
8. George Foreman
9. Joe Frazier
10. Larry Holmes

ESPN was a reader's poll, but it's interesting to see the opinion of those who saw fighters from the earlier and later eras.
I think that Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson and Gene Tunney are examples of fighters who are dismissed as being overrated by many of today's newer fans.

[bear]

IBRO did a membership poll on 8 traditional weight classes,

The results can be found at:
All Time Rankings

Herb Goldman did a couple of lists. one appeared in one of the last Ring Record Books in the mid 80's. He revised it in the early 90's.

Bear

[Jersey-Jim]

Originally Posted by bear

IBRO did a membership poll on 8 traditional weight classes,

The results can be found at:
All Time Rankings

Herb Goldman did a couple of lists. one appeared in one of the last Ring Record Books in the mid 80's. He revised it in the early 90's.

Bear

Their rankings are interesting. Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano are rated higher than in a lot of the rankings you see out there. Usually one makes it to the top while the other hovers between 8 and 10. They put a lot effort into their research, that's for sure.

[Mad Bomber]

Bear, as you probably know I have read the list a number of times, and although I agree with a lot of what is there I in no way can fathom Roy Jones
Jr rated ahead of Harold Johnson, as he simply wasn't that great as a Light Heavy, or can I see Ray Leonard ahead of either Henry Armstrong or Jose Napoles, and I have seen Leonard and Napoles fight live. Just one man's opinion.

I have also expressed interest in joining the IBRO, and will probably join next year.

Greg

[Jersey-Jim]

I was surprised to see Ray Leonard ranked so high. A lot of old-timers placed him up there, though. Logic would tend to lean towards Armstrong. Many rank Henry Armstrong in the top 5 P4P ratings and I've seen some rank him as #1 above Robinson.

I can see ranking Leonard high, but I would personally cast my vote Armstrong as #2 behind Robinson.

[bear]

Originally Posted by Mad Bomber

Bear, as you probably know I have read the list a number of times, and although I agree with a lot of what is there I in no way can fathom Roy Jones
Jr rated ahead of Harold Johnson, as he simply wasn't that great as a Light Heavy, or can I see Ray Leonard ahead of either Henry Armstrong or Jose Napoles, and I have seen Leonard and Napoles fight live. Just one man's opinion.

I have also expressed interest in joining the IBRO, and will probably join next year.

Greg

Greg
Jofre is the man to talk to about IBRO membership.

I had Jones at #10 on my ballot. If I re did my vote today he'd drop into my afterthought category. He was still undefeated at the time of the ballot. Armstrong was my #2 welter followed by Leonard, Walcott followed Leonard and I had Napoles at 5, first inmy second group. My "low" rating for Napoles was influenced by a ranking of Cuban fighters once done by Hank Kaplan. Hank ranked Black Bill ahead of Napoles.

The Julio Maderos incident inluenced my not including Johnson until my group four. There are a ton of great light-heavies.

[bear]

My IBRO Heavyweight submission looked like this

IBRO ALL-TIME POLL selections of Donald R. Koss


I have tried to follow the custom of the Ring’s rating system and added groupings. When a boxer is rated in more than one class I’ve placed a parenthetical weight class to indicate where he’d be placed were these ratings limited to one man in one division. For instances when this occurs I’ve added a couple of positions in to indicate what my ratings would be in a one man one division format. I also added a 16th boxer to the list, because that number would make more sense in a hypothetical tournament. I plan to add more boxers to the groupings when I incorporate my era by era rankings. Ill-fated and unfortunate top rankers like Justo Suarez, Steve Hamas, Art Lasky, Jackie Darthard, and Ernie Schaff need be remembered, so this is still, very much, a work in progress. The greatest problem I encountered was attempting to rank good men in junior classes in the traditional weight classes. Men like Kid Berg, and Flash Elorde suffered here. One thought on the classification of eras, welterweight seemed to me to be the least distinguishable group. Each era’s positives and negatives seemed most balanced.

Heavyweight All-Time Ranking

Group One
1. Joe Louis, #1
2. Muhammad Ali, #2
3. Jack Dempsey, #3
4. Jack Johnson, #4
Group Two
1. Gene Tunney, #5 (LHW)
2. James J. Jeffries, #6
3. Rocky Marciano, #7
4. George Foreman, #8
5. Larry Holmes, # 9
6. Sonny Liston, # 10
7. Joe Frazier, # 11
Group Three
1. Sam Langford, #12 (LHW)
2. Lennox Lewis, # 13
3. Evander Holyfield, #14
4. Bob Fitzsimmons, #15 (MW)
5. Mike Tyson, #16
6. Elmer Ray, #17
7. George Godfrey, #18
Group Four
Ezzard Charles (LHW), Riddick Bowe, Jersey Joe Walcott, Peter Jackson, Max Baer, Max Schmeling, Joe Jeanette, Harry Wills, Ken Norton, James J. Corbett, Jimmy Bivins, Jack Sharkey, Sam McVey, Jimmy Young, Floyd Patterson, Lee Savold, Tommy Burns, Marvin Hart, John L. Sullivan, Henry Cooper.

BEST ERAS Rank the Eras (1 = best, 2 = next best, etc.)

1880-1900 ____5______
1901-1920 ___ 3______
1921-1940 ____2_____
1941-1960 ____4______
1961-1980 ____1______
1981-2000 ____6______

[Jersey-Jim]

I like the idea of ranking the eras. It really puts things into perspective.

[bear]

Originally Posted by Jersey-Jim

I like the idea of ranking the eras. It really puts things into perspective.

Yes, it does Jim. In the case of my submission I also added the groupings. I stole that idea from the old Ring anual rankings presented in February, and later in March issues where thousands of active fighters were ranked an grouped.

Bear

[Mad Bomber]

Bear, I used to think that was a great idea the way they broke down the rankings especially when it came to the fighters that were seldom seen on TV in those days.

Greg

[Syd Thrift]

Arbitrarily breaking down "eras" into 20 year periods just isn't accurate. You're combining the Demsey/Tunney era with without a doubt what was the worst period in the history of heavyweight boxing, that bit where the title went from Schmeling to Sharkey to Da Preem to Max Baer to the Cinderella Man (nice story or no, when a guy like that wins a title, it's not a good sign for the quality of the division) to Joe Louis completely cleaning things out for a decade. Or you lump the later Louis years along with Ezzard Charles, Rocky, Jersey Joe, and Archie Moore (definitely a good run) with Floyd and the Hammer of Thor. Even the period 1961-1980, while good as a whole, constituted either a couple or several different eras, the Sonny Liston/early Ali period being far different from the "When We Were Kings" portion.

Likewise, it's unfair to rate the crappy mid-80s that were sort of pulled out of their drudgery by Mike Tyson for a few years with the 90s, which had a whole bunch of quality fighters engaging in a lot of quality boxing. Evander Holyfield, Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, Lennox Lewis, the second run of George Foreman... maybe that group doesn't quite add up to Ali/Frazier/Foreman but IMO outside of the 1970s guys I don't think you can find a group of HWs who were that good and in their prime all at the same time.

1. The "When We Were Kings" era (1972-1978)
2. Dempsey/Tunney and co. (1920-1929)
3. Joe Louis, Ezzard, Jersey Joe, and the Rock (1948-1955)
4. The 90s
5. The Great White Hope Era (1909-1920)
6. Sonny Liston/early Ali/Quarry/Frazier et al (1963-1972)
7. The Second World War (not much fighting going on, period, but you did at least have a stud at the top in the Brown Bomber)
8. The 80s... Holmes was good but they never could get things unified
99999999999999999999999. The 30s.

[professordp]

And what I have to say is of little value--but here it goes. Doing the research for my current Teofilo Stevenson simulation, I've been going through my moldy old copies of The Ring and Boxing Illustratd along with boxing records and am about to commit a serious act of heresy.

The so-called "When We Were Kings" era is a bit overrated in my opinion. Moreover, with regard to consistency and quality, the 1960s has not been truly appreciated.

I like Syd's classifications. They are creative and serve a useful purpose. Furthermore, they provide a realistic evaluation of the division. Neverhless, there are a few points where I must disagree.

Extending the "Kings" period to 1978 is a little generous. I'd argue that by the end of 1976, the heavyweight division was heading downward, in somewhat rapid fashion. Ali's skills had oviously corroded. His last good fight was the "Thrilla in Manila" in 1975. After that he fought the likes of Dunn, Coopman, and Evangalista. Of course there were fights against Kenny Norton, Jimmy Young, and Earnie Shavers, top contenders all. The fights were overall yawners. A strong argument could be made that Norton and Young both got jobbed. Nevertheless, theire performances were lackluster. Like Norton, Shavers was a little long in the tooth (he was thirty-three) when he fought Ali. After losing to Holmes the following year he just seemed to fight to pick up paychecks.

Also, Frazier and Quarry were pretty much retired as 1976 drew to a close. By March 1977, Foreman was also gone from the scene not to return to the ring for a decade. Bobick was a bust, Stevenson didn't turn pro, and do I really need to go on about Leon Spinks???

So I'd readjust this "Kings" era to run from 1971 to 1975, with the first and third Ali/Frazier fights as bookends. Of course the fighters were great, but it's best remembered for the classic bouts. Ali/Frazier, Ali/Foreman, Ali/Norton, etc. But after 1975, the only classic fight prior to 1979 was Holmes/Norton.

So what I see is a somewhat brief period here of about five years--and yes these fighters were "Kings"--but they were not gods!

I think where I really quibble with you, Syd, and please, this is not personal, is your placement of the post-WW II era as third (1948-1955) and your classification/ranking of the 60s heavyweight era sixth, not to mention placing the 1930s dead last.

By 1948, Joe Louis was a mere shell of the Brown Bomber. He got a gift when he won a decision over Ezzard Charles, who was really a pumped up light heavy. And Jersey Joe Wallcott??? As a lifelong Jersey guy, I've always had a warm spot in my heart for ol' Arnold Cream, but come on! He was in his mid-thirties during this period.

I think the Rock was one of the true greats. And I don't want to take anything away from him, but beyond two old men (Louis and Wallcott), a beefed up light heavy (Charles) and an old man who was a beefed up light heavy (Archie Moore) who was there to fight? Rex Layne? Lee Savold? Don Cockell? Maybe Roland LaStarza---hmmmmm.

This had to be one of the weakest periods in heavyweight history. Personally, I feel it was far inferior to the 1930s. The fact that a title changes hands on a frequent basis is not always an indication of a lack of talent. It could be seen in the opposite light---an era that had a number of evenly matched, skilled boxers. I leave that open to interpretation as it relates to the 1930s.

Now to my main point-the 1960s. Not only did you have some talent in the division, it also was consistent--the quality was there for a full decade. I'll disagree with Syd once more and run the era from 1960 to 1969. At the start of the decade, you were in the middle of the Patterson/Ingo thing with Sonny Liston serving as a threatening, dark cloud over the division. His mere presence defined the early 60s heavyweight division.

Also, in the early part of the decade you had a number of fighters who most likely would have defeated Patterson for the crown if Floyd would have given them a shot. Henry Cooper, Eddie Machen, Cleveland Williams, and Zora Folley stand out in my mind.

Of course you had the first coming of Muhammad Ali. Once Ali secured the title, he was a fighting champion, defending it nine times in less than three years. Sure he gave over-the-hill guys like Cooper, Williams, and Folley title shots they deserved when they were in their prime. But he also fought Karl Mildenberger, Ernie Terrell, and George Chuvalo who were more than a shade better than what was in the division between 1948-1955.

And there was certainly enough to sustain the division for the remainder of the decade after Ali was banished in early 1967. Beside the above mentioned, there were young American heavyweights like Jerry Quarry and the talented, but often-overlooked Tony Alongi on the scene. Joe Frazier was a major factor for the second half of the 60s. And Buster Mathis showed promise. And you have to mention Oscar Bonavena as well as Jimmy Ellis.

With Ali in exile, there was the WBA elimination tournament which dominated the division for most of 1967 and 1968. How many decades of heavyweight history had eight top boxers vying for the championship in this fashion?

What was lacking of course, were classic battles. And here, the "Kings" era properly deserves to be held as the greatest period in the division's history. But it was really a short period, and over the long term, the 1960s was a much more interesting period. And, let's never forget that many of the fighters who are part of the "Kings" period (Ali, Quarry, Frazier, to name a few) established themselves in the previous decade.

[professordp]

My good friend Greg (aka, Mad Bomber), pointed out to me that I confused the Charles/Louis fight with the Walcott/Louis fight---my bad! And I stand corrected. Nevertheless, this boner does not detract from my statement that Louis was sliding quickly down the hill by 1948 and hit bottom a couple of years later.

And thanks again Greg for correcting this error--you are a real class act!

[PittPanther]

Unlike football, baseball, hockey, etc. I'm still of the mind of thinking that fighters can be compared across the eras.

You may disagree and later I will present my reasoning, but for now, I'll leave it at that cause I'm going to watch this.

[Jersey-Jim]

[quote=professordp;2546762]
And Jersey Joe Wallcott??? As a lifelong Jersey guy, I've always had a warm spot in my heart for ol' Arnold Cream, but come on! He was in his mid-thirties during this period.quote]

I met Jersey Joe 4 times when I was a kid. Someone in my family knew him. I always used to tell my friends and they said, "Who is Jersey Joe Walcott?"

I said, "He was the oldest fighter to ever win the Heavyweight Championship of the World."

They would look at me and slightly dazed and I'd add, "Rocky Marciano became Champion by beating him."

Then, the light bulb would go on. "Rocky Marciano, yeah, he was a great fighter." So basically, in the non-boxing fans world, poor Joe is a footnote on Rocky's resume.

The last time I saw Joe was in Altantic city back in the 80's. He was coming out of the bathroom and I was walking in. He had a cane at that point in his life. I was there to see Holyfield fight (I think it was against Alex Stewart?). When they announced him, they shined the spotlight on him and he got a roaring ovation. Now, since Foreman topped Joe's record, I have to say, "He was the oldest man, at the time, to ever win the Heavyweight Championship of the World!"

[professordp]

[quote=Jersey-Jim;2547162]

Originally Posted by professordp

And Jersey Joe Wallcott??? As a lifelong Jersey guy, I've always had a warm spot in my heart for ol' Arnold Cream, but come on! He was in his mid-thirties during this period.quote]

I met Jersey Joe 4 times when I was a kid. Someone in my family knew him. I always used to tell my friends and they said, "Who is Jersey Joe Walcott?"

I said, "He was the oldest fighter to ever win the Heavyweight Championship of the World."

They would look at me and slightly dazed and I'd add, "Rocky Marciano became Champion by beating him."

Then, the light bulb would go on. "Rocky Marciano, yeah, he was a great fighter." So basically, in the non-boxing fans world, poor Joe is a footnote on Rocky's resume.

The last time I saw Joe was in Altantic city back in the 80's. He was coming out of the bathroom and I was walking in. He had a cane at that point in his life. I was there to see Holyfield fight (I think it was against Alex Stewart?). When they announced him, they shined the spotlight on him and he got a roaring ovation. Now, since Foreman topped Joe's record, I have to say, "He was the oldest man, at the time, to ever win the Heavyweight Championship of the World!"

The important point to remember was that there was only one heavyweight title when Jersey Joe won it. He certainly didn't have the luxury of venue shopping that's enjoyed by today's boxers.

[Jersey-Jim]

[quote=professordp;2547451]

Originally Posted by Jersey-Jim

The important point to remember was that there was only one heavyweight title when Jersey Joe won it. He certainly didn't have the luxury of venue shopping that's enjoyed by today's boxers.

That's true, and that's what made winning a title for fighters like Joe Walcott, Jim Braddock, etc. such an honor. They came from all types of adversity to win what was then considered the most prestigious title in sports.