# Your All Time Division Rankings: Starting with Heavyweights!



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

It would be good to get some CHB all time rankings by division. I thought I'd start with heavyweights as EVERYONE has a heavyweights list.

Put your top ten and I'll add it all up in a months time for the official CHB list. 

(hopefully more peeps will be here to vote within the next month)


----------



## Indigo Pab (May 31, 2012)

Lunny said:


> I thought I'd start with heavyweights as EVERYONE has a heavyweights list.


:err


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Except for the hipsters who think heavyweight is too mainstream. Minimum weight will be done in 2014


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

I did this shit on ShitSideBoxing but I can't remember my list laa

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Lennox Lewis
6. George Foreman
7. Larry Holmes
8. Sonny Liston
9. Mike Tyson
10. Jack Dempsey

It's been ages since I;ve reviewed my list and tbh I don't know if I should have Dempsey in there over the likes of Wladimir Klitschko, Jersey Joe Walcott, Harry Wills, Joe Frazier. Dempsey is much more celebrated than them but for me the most objective way to create a list is on resume, and that's obviously something I didn't do just now when I entered Dempsey in at number 10 haha, oh well. Fuck it, I'm going mainstream, Manassa Mauler all day.


----------



## ScouseLeader (May 31, 2012)

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis 
3. Larry Holmes 
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Joe Frazier
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Evander Holyfield
8. George Foreman
9. Roc Marciano
10. Mike Tyson


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

fuckinhell I did the dirty on Evander, not good


----------



## ScouseLeader (May 31, 2012)

If I posted that on the ESB classic I'd probably get murdered for no Johnson or Dempsey :yep


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Lewis
4. Holmes
5. Marciano
6. Foreman
7. Frazier
8. Holyfield
9 Johnson
10. Tyson


----------



## Indigo Pab (May 31, 2012)

Lunny said:


> Except for ****** hipsters who think heavyweight is too mainstream. Minimum weight will be done in 2014


:lol I haven't got a top 10 for any weight tbg.

Do rankings for every weight class by the way, not just the original ones. Because we're better than the other place like.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

No Dempsey is sound with me, he is very overrated when it comes to straight greatness (which I rate on resume more so than anything else). I think you're pushing the boat out a bit with no Johnson but you can say the same about me for having Tyson and no Evander. Evander>Tyson when it comes to resume. There's no two ways about it. Now if I said that on ESB I'd be hit with all the apologist Tyson excuses, ones which I've used myself over the years. It's time to stop the nonsense though


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Pabby said:


> :lol I haven't got a top 10 for any weight tbg.
> 
> Do rankings for every weight class by the way, not just the original ones. Because we're better than the other place like.


 Make one anyway. Do it Pab. You can be my hero Pabby.


----------



## Indigo Pab (May 31, 2012)

Lunny said:


> Make one anyway. Do it Pab. You can be my hero Pabby.


How long have I got? I'll probably post it an hour or so after the deadline, deadlines are overrated and _so_ mainstream.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

shit my reply was to sports sorry, should have quoted



also, yeah lunny, do one for each weight, it might be better to do just a top 5 for some of the divisions which are less stacked with greatness historically due to their age, it's up to you though. I think you should still do a top 10 for 140 and 130 though, as they were around for years but got suspended etc


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Until 3rd of July. So fucking ages tbg.


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

I've never done a proper list before.. but I will for this place :good


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

How do you guys think it should be calculated?

I'm thinking 10 points for first place, 9 for 2nd etc. etc.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

yeah sound, do it like that, take ten lad


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Lennox Lewis
4. George Foreman
5. Larry Holmes
6. Evander Holyfield
7. Mike Tyson
8. Joe Frazier
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Sonny Liston


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Lunny said:


> How do you guys think it should be calculated?
> 
> I'm thinking 10 points for first place, 9 for 2nd etc. etc.


That's it.

Are we doing all of them or just the classic 8?


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> That's it.
> 
> Are we doing all of them or just the classic 8?


Probably start with the classic 8 and then crack on with the rest. I'm thinking of doing a new weight group every 2 weeks so there will be 2 active threads going at all times.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

sounds good, yeah, it's best to do the classic 8 first and foremost, seen as though they have the most history

I think once you've done them, if you want to do more then you should start with 140 and 130, as they have more history than the other non-classic eight divisions


----------



## JamieC (Jun 2, 2012)

1. Muhammad Ali 
2. Joe Louis 
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Larry Holmes 
5. George Foreman
6. Rocky Marciano 
7. Mike Tyson 
8. Joe Frazier
9. Evander Holyfield
10. Sonny Liston


----------



## Casual Benson's Unknown (Jun 5, 2012)

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Lewis 
5. Marciano
6. Frazier
7. Holyfield
8. Foreman
9. Tyson
10. Liston


----------



## DonBoxer (Jun 6, 2012)

1. Ali
2. Lewis
3. Louis
4. Foreman
5. Holyfeild
6. Holmes
7. Marciano
8. Fraizer
9. Liston
10. Tyson

Although i think i change it almost every week.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Ok here goes

Ali
Louis
Johnson
Holmes
Lewis
Foreman
Tyson
Frazier
Holyfield
Wlad Klitschko

I always had rocky above wlad but i've recently decided that whilst rocky has a better resume, wlad has achieved more and would push his shit in.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

lads we need your top ten heavyweight lists in Lunnys 'top ten heavyweighrs of all time thread', please throw them up in there too because he's calculatings scores when the deadline comes and is going to create an official checkhook top ten heavies of all time thread.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

where's his hw thread?


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

this is it mate, haha, sorry, we need our directions sorting out on chb, 

Lunny is studying to be a mapper, he should know better.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

it's growing pretty quick this site.

i liked the boxing trivia question as well haha


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> 1. Muhammad Ali
> 2. Joe Louis
> 3. Lennox Lewis
> 4. George Foreman
> ...


Where the hell is Jack Johnson!


----------



## Swarmer (May 31, 2012)

ScouseLeader said:


> If I posted that on the ESB classic I'd probably get murdered for no Johnson or Dempsey :yep


both of these fighters have taken a lot of hits the last time I was there

i dearly love both guys though, cool styles.


----------



## McKay (Jun 6, 2012)

Ali
Louis
Lewis
Holmes
Marciano
Johnson
Foreman
Frazier
Holyfield
Tyson


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

1- Joe Louis
2- Muhammad Ali
3- Lennox Lewis
4- George Foreman
5- Larry Holmes
6- Joe Frazier
7- Evander Holyfield 
8-Rocky Marciano
9- Mike Tyson
10- Jack Dempsey

I change my list a lot though....


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Nice lists, keep em coming!


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

Louis
Ali
Jack Johnson
Lewis
Holmes
Foreman
Maricano
Frazier
Holyfield
Dempsey

I always had Tyson in at 10, but I'll bump Demps up


----------



## Threetime (Jun 8, 2012)

This is mine from that poll on boxing.com the other week.

Threetime no1 12:33pm, 05/16/2012

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Lewis
4. Holmes
5. Foreman
6. Marciano
7. Frazier
8. Holyfield
9. Tyson
10.Liston

Lewis and Holmes are interchangeable and Dempsey just misses out for Liston.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Larry Holmes
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Jack Johnson
6. Geroge Foreman
7. Rocky Marciano
8. Joe Frazier
9. Evander Holyfield
10. Mike Tyson


----------



## DrMo (Jun 6, 2012)

. Louis
2. Ali
3. Holmes
4. Lewis
5. Foreman
6. Marciano
7. Johnson
8. Dempsey
9. Holyfield
10. Frazier 

My list changes all the time. The top tier being Louis & Ali. The next is Holmes, Foreman, Marciano,Lewis & Johnson. 
Below that Ive got Dempsey, Holy, Frazier, Tyson, Liston & Jeffries.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Vano-irons said:


> Where the hell is Jack Johnson!


Outside the top ten, where he should be.


----------



## Foreman Hook (Jun 6, 2012)

Hook has entered the building.:rasta

1. GOAT Ali

2. Claudius Lenny Lion Lewis

3. Notorious B.I.G.G.G (Big. Invincible. Giant. G. George) Foreman

4. Joey "Bum of teh Month" Louis 

5. Smokey Joe Frazier

6. WARRIOR OG "Hammertime" Holyfield

7. Rocco "Italian Stallion" Marciano

8. Lazza "Habitual Ducker" Holmes 

9. "King" Kenny Norton (for deserving 2 Wins VS GOAT Ali, And a draw with Prime Holmes)

10. "Midget Lisp" Tinkerbell Tyson



Foreman Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooook!:smoke


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

1) Ali
2) Louis
3) Lewis
4) Holmes
5) Foreman
6) Frazier
7) Johnson
8) Marciano
9) Holyfield
10) Tyson


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

I'll admit I find it near impossible to do lists like this and my knowledge of boxing history is weak.. but here goes:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Evander Holyfield
5. Joe Frazier
6. George Foreman
7. Jack Johnson
8. Larry Holmes
9. Sam Langford
10. Ezzard Charles


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

chatty said:


> 1. Joe Louis
> 2. Muhammad Ali
> 3. Larry Holmes
> 4. Lennox Lewis
> ...


Our lists are almost identical 


Flea Man said:


> Outside the top ten, where he should be.


What? Johnson's pre-title resume is quality. Everything after Jeffries sucks arse obviously, but his resume is better than Liston's IMO.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

I sometimes change between Ali and Louis, I think its a close call if you weigh these things up in consideration to how they fared era wise instead of unrealistic head to head battles.

As for Johnson his resume is pretty stacked and he beat a who's who of the times, Ii know some were a lot smaller and some considered past their best but he did clean up the division before he pretty much turned into a part timer and then lost to Willard.

His contendership record boasts Langford, McVey, Hart, Jeanette, Jackson, Fitzsimmons, Hart and Flynn. Add to that burns, Jeffries, Ketchel, O'Brien and Kaufman and his impact on the sport, dominance of his era etc and his overall ability and he is easily ahead of the likes of Tyson, Liston, Frazier etc imo


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

1) Joe Louis
2) Muhammad Ali
3) Jack Johnson
4) Larry Holmes
5) Joe Frazier
6) Lennox Lewis
7) Rocky Marciano
8) Ezzard Charles
9) George Foreman
10) Sonny Liston


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Teeto said:


> No Dempsey is sound with me, he is very overrated when it comes to straight greatness (which I rate on resume more so than anything else). I think you're pushing the boat out a bit with no Johnson but you can say the same about me for having Tyson and no Evander. Evander>Tyson when it comes to resume. There's no two ways about it. Now if I said that on ESB I'd be hit with all the apologist Tyson excuses, ones which I've used myself over the years. It's time to stop the nonsense


I dont know that Tyson needs much in terms of excuses. He was vastly more dominant and presided over a superior title reign to any of Evander's short-lived runs, effectively cleaning out the division. I don't rate him higher with the H2H results being the dagger, but I can see how somebody might.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> I dont know that Tyson needs much in terms of excuses. He was vastly more dominant and presided over a superior title reign to any of Evander's short-lived runs, effectively cleaning out the division. I don't rate him higher with the H2H results being the dagger, but I can see how somebody might.


Years ago I used to rate him higher but I was a Tyson apologist back then. Personally I don't see the case. Tyson is my favourite person in the world who isn't a friend or family too, but I just don't see the case personally. Resume should always be the dominant factor when judging greatness, it's the only way to be objective imo.


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Shieeet forgot about this. Get your picks in peeps. Less than a week left!


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Teeto said:


> Years ago I used to rate him higher but I was a Tyson apologist back then. Personally I don't see the case. Tyson is my favourite person in the world who isn't a friend or family too, but I just don't see the case personally. Resume should always be the dominant factor when judging greatness, it's the only way to be objective imo.


Not wrong by any stretch of the imagination. I do tend to be slightly more tolerant in regards to rating Heavyweights, I guess just for the simple fact that unlike the lower weight classes, they've got only what's available to them in their own time with no divisions to climb or great fighters to chase. So long as you're taking on top rated opposition of your time, you've - at the very least - earned your place in the pantheon. This is something the Marciano fanatics who have the gall to rate him #1 vehemently argue and I don't completely disagree, though you've got to assess the quality of those fighters at the time the fights took place. There were a lot of instances during Tyson's reign where he simply could not have fought a higher rated fighter than he did at the time they took place. He essentially beat four #1 rated Heavyweights (taking himself out of the equation obviously) over a span of nine months. It's not really his fault Butch Lewis was holding out and angling for a higher payday before he got Spinks in the ring. It's not his fault Duva felt Holyfield wasn't ready when Tyson blasted out the #2 rated Carl Williams in 93 seconds. Even post-Douglas when Holyfield was making a defense over a comebacking George Foreman, it was Tyson going to war with the highest rated and most dangerous fighter in the division. Twice, no less. He's got a lot of wins that fall under the B-grade category, but it's puzzling to me when somebody tries to claim (and I'm not talking about you) he didn't clean house, and very quickly at that. :deal


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

@Hands of Iron :happy Why didn't you tell me you were here??! Again :happy


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> Not wrong by any stretch of the imagination. I do tend to be slightly more tolerant in regards to rating Heavyweights, I guess just for the simple fact that unlike the lower weight classes, they've got only what's available to them in their own time with no divisions to climb or great fighters to chase. So long as you're taking on top rated opposition of your time, you've - at the very least - earned your place in the pantheon. This is something the Marciano fanatics who have the gall to rate him #1 vehemently argue and I don't completely disagree, though you've got to assess the quality of those fighters at the time the fights took place. There were a lot of instances during Tyson's reign where he simply could not have fought a higher rated fighter than he did at the time they took place. He essentially beat four #1 rated Heavyweights (taking himself out of the equation obviously) over a span of nine months. It's not really his fault Butch Lewis was holding out and angling for a higher payday before he got Spinks in the ring. It's not his fault Duva felt Holyfield wasn't ready when Tyson blasted out the #2 rated Carl Williams in 93 seconds. Even post-Douglas when Holyfield was making a defense over a comebacking George Foreman, it was Tyson going to war with the highest rated and most dangerous fighter in the division. Twice, no less. He's got a lot of wins that fall under the B-grade category, but it's puzzling to me when somebody tries to claim (and I'm not talking about you) he didn't clean house, and very quickly at that. :deal


yeah. When I say that I don't see the case for Tyson, I'm not saying I don't think he is better than the fighters I rate above him. I treat rating greatness and assessing how good they are as fighters as different things. For example, Willie Pep to me is easily one of the best fighters ever on ability, easily. Now I'm not knocking his resume, his resume was fine, but it was not better than Muhammad Ali's. Muhammad Ali compiled a greater resume than him and to be objective in my opinion the ranking of greatness will always come back to resume, that's the area where you can always back up the argument as opposed to ultimately speculating. But that's not to say that Pep wouldn't be capable of compiling a greater resume than he did, it's not his fault. He beat who they put in front of him and he did it impeccably. The same with Tyson, I'm not saying that he wouldn't have compiled an immense resume in his prime if the greater fighters were there to be fought, he beat what was in front of him, and to be fair, they were good. But I don't see how one is going to rate Holyfield above him on resume. And as I say, that's not to say that prime Holyfield is better than prime Tyson. It's just saying that he compiled a better resume than him.

Tyson in his prime was the shit. I love Mike Tyson forever and a day.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

teeto said:


> yeah. When I say that I don't see the case for Tyson, I'm not saying I don't think he is better than the fighters I rate above him. I treat rating greatness and assessing how good they are as fighters as different things. For example, Willie Pep to me is easily one of the best fighters ever on ability, easily. Now I'm not knocking his resume, his resume was fine, but it was not better than Muhammad Ali's. Muhammad Ali compiled a greater resume than him and to be objective in my opinion the ranking of greatness will always come back to resume, that's the area where you can always back up the argument as opposed to ultimately speculating. But that's not to say that Pep wouldn't be capable of compiling a greater resume than he did, it's not his fault. He beat who they put in front of him and he did it impeccably. The same with Tyson, I'm not saying that he wouldn't have compiled an immense resume in his prime if the greater fighters were there to be fought, he beat what was in front of him, and to be fair, they were good. But I don't see how one is going to rate Holyfield above him on resume. And as I say, that's not to say that prime Holyfield is better than prime Tyson. It's just saying that he compiled a better resume than him.


Logic.

I've pretty much given up compiling lists, but I'd definitely be in agreement that Holyfield > Tyson. Swallowing that pill actually lead me to become a huge fan of _Holyfield_ as well. I used to rate Tyson somewhere between 7th and 9th, depending on the day.



Flea Man said:


> @Hands of Iron :happy Why didn't you tell me you were here??! Again :happy


:lol:

I don't know Flea, maybe because I'm not much more than an average poster - at best? Though it's cool to see where all the great ones migrated to. It's a dump over there these days. You should get that Lester1853 guy over here though because he misses giving you the Ricardo Lopez biz. :yep


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

@chatty for me Mike cleaning out his division in his early 20s, as well as some solid victories past his best, as well asthe incredible ability he had and the way he was wiping quality fighters out are more than enough for me to regard him as one of the best of all time. Truly incredible IMO.

Don't get me wrong, I have watched all the footage of Johnson numerous times. I know the fighters he beat. But his title reign was not impressive IMO. He was a brilliant fighter.

Not something I rate guys on but, just as a hypothetical how do people see Johnson and Mike playing out prime for prime? Johnson wears his gloves, Mike wears his. 15 rounds. Clinching allowed to a degree where it's not spoiling 

Would Mike wipe Jack out or would Johnson employ Bonecrushers tactics with far more finesse and skill to go along with it and wear Tyson out? Or neither of the above?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> Logic.
> 
> I've pretty much given up compiling lists, but I'd definitely be in agreement that Holyfield > Tyson. Swallowing that pill actually lead me to become a huge fan of _Holyfield_ as well. I used to rate Tyson somewhere between 7th and 9th, depending on the day.
> 
> ...


I would if I could, like Lester. But I'm permabanned. How's my man lora doing?


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> Logic.
> 
> I've pretty much given up compiling lists, but I'd definitely be in agreement that Holyfield > Tyson. Swallowing that pill actually lead me to become a huge fan of _Holyfield_ as well. I used to rate Tyson somewhere between 7th and 9th, depending on the day.
> 
> ...


good post man, also, yeah, fuck lists, I think I'll kill digitally kill someone if I get asked to do another list!


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> I would if I could, like Lester. But I'm permabanned. How's my man lora doing?


Where the fuck do they get off pulling a permaban on you? For what? TheGreatA just came back from a multi-month ban. I don't get it? :-(

I'll refer Lester if you want. Haven't actually seen lora post in a while.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

@Hands of Iron you will get permabanned from ESB for PMing Lester about it. Don't do it if you value your account there! Even PMing him asking for his email will land you with a permaban!


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> @chatty for me Mike cleaning out his division in his early 20s, as well as some solid victories past his best, as well asthe incredible ability he had and the way he was wiping quality fighters out are more than enough for me to regard him as one of the best of all time. Truly incredible IMO.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I have watched all the footage of Johnson numerous times. I know the fighters he beat. But his title reign was not impressive IMO. He was a brilliant fighter.
> 
> ...


I can see what you mean with his title run, I think he was past his best then but still managed a few solid victories. Despite that he did beat everyone around his divisions and pretty much was the number 1 guy for a number of years even if he wasn't the champ. He also a long with a few others of the time helped change the way the game was played. he wouldn't beat Tyson if you had a time machine (imo) but I rank on how well they did during their own era rather than compare how they would match up H2H as its its just a minefield of what ifs and hows.

I think Tyson is a casualty of a week era to be fair to him, when he came on the scene and tore everyone apart you can't but admit it was special but other than Spinks (which is kind of underrated in many ways) his competition wasn't the best - some solid B level, lower A level guys but no real greats to contend with. Then obviously he has the upset loss and the exile.

he did have some decent latter career victories but he's more renowned for his big losses to Holy and Lewis. I think scraping the top ten is a fair assessment. I can live with him moving up a few places or down a couple as well depending on who is thrown in there.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

@chatty as I said, was only interested to hear thoughts, I don't rate on mythical matchups either!

Good fighters rather than great but the way Mike was doing it elevates him IMO.

I can see the arguments, but I've never been all that enamoured with Johnson, although I would say he could easily be a latter top ten guy for me. I'm just not 'wowed' by him (neither am I by Liston, Dempsey, Tunney, Patterson, although I like all of them of course)

I would say some of the B level fighters Mike beat were actually better than the fighters regularly brought up as key wins for Johnson (other than the obvious legendary scalps and victories he did have)


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Yeah I dont rate Hart (unofficial of course), Burns or even Jeffries too highly and I would rate many of Tysons victories over them. I can see guys like O Brien, Ketchel etc not having as great an effect in arguments either as they were going against a pretty massive disadvantage in the size stakes although some of the guys did well in the weight despite not naturally being there so I suppose you gotta factor that in for as well.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

@chatty that's where I'm comin' from.

I actually do rate Burns though :good And for me, the Jeffries fight holds weight, despite Jeff's abysmal physical condition going into the fight (he looked horrible of course) and long time out of the game. It's one of those wins that's a bit special despite some of the things going against Johnson when evaluating it. Fact is, Johnson was the only man to beat Jeff'. And he toyed with him.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> @chatty that's where I'm comin' from.
> 
> I actually do rate Burns though :good And for me, the Jeffries fight holds weight, despite Jeff's abysmal physical condition going into the fight (he looked horrible of course) and long time out of the game. It's one of those wins that's a bit special despite some of the things going against Johnson when evaluating it. Fact is, Johnson was the only man to beat Jeff'. And he toyed with him.


Did you see the Burns vs O´Brien Full Footage a guy have on YT Flea??
The Full Fight !!


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Nice one Vic - I think ill watch that tomorrow if I'm not down the hospital again.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> @chatty as I said, was only interested to hear thoughts, I don't rate on mythical matchups either!
> 
> Good fighters rather than great but the way Mike was doing it elevates him IMO.
> 
> ...


This.

Also, the fact that no other division has seen so much dramatic change comparable to that of the Heavyweights through the decades makes me really, really stop to question my own sanity if I weren't to include the following seven fighters (in no order) in a Top Ten list: Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Larry Holmes, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson.

Now, obviously Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano are locks. I couldn't actually see Louis at anything worse than #2 just based on what he did in his own era alone in addition to everything he was in terms of technique and being one of _the_ supreme punchers in boxing history.

That leaves one more spot... :think


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Vic-JofreBrasil said:


> Did you see the Burns vs O´Brien Full Footage a guy have on YT Flea??
> The Full Fight !!


No way!!!! Never thought I'd use this but OMG! :lol:

Cheers Vic :good


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I've settled upon my top 40 HW's.

Here is my final top 10:


Ali
Louis
Johnson
Foreman
Lewis
Holmes
Marciano
Tyson
W. Klitschko
Frazier


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> No way!!!! Never thought I'd use this but OMG! :lol:
> 
> Cheers Vic :good


Damn, it seems it´s not there anymore.....


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

:| didn't have time to rip it :-(


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Damnit, forgot about this AGAIN. I'll sort it out by the end of the week. Any new lists are very welcomed.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Alright, fine.

01. Muhammad Ali
02. Joe Louis
03. Lennox Lewis
04. Larry Holmes
05. Rocky Marciano
06. Evander Holyfield
07. Mike Tyson
08. George Foreman
09. Joe Frazier
10. Sonny Liston

Lewis and Holmes are interchangable; as are 5 through 9, really. I played favorites. :deal


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> Alright, fine.
> 
> 01. Muhammad Ali
> 02. Joe Louis
> ...


Good list. I personally always rate Foreman higher though.......


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Vic-JofreBrasil said:


> Good list. I personally always rate Foreman higher though.......


I used to have Foreman at No. 3 - and would probably still put him as high as five. He's got the demolitions of Frazier and Norton, and winning the title back 20 years after losing it in Zaire. Remarkable, though pretty much the entirety of his case. Lewis, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield all about double him up in terms of beating world-rated heavyweights. The former three all had better title reigns, while Holy's top wins give him a run.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

I have Foreman at 4 myself :good


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Yeah, we've got the same fighters in spots #1,2,3,6,7 and 10.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> Alright, fine.
> 
> 01. Muhammad Ali
> 02. Joe Louis
> ...


I agree with most of your choices but liston above johnson? liston doesn't even crack my top 15!


----------



## DrMo (Jun 6, 2012)

Are we moving onto cruisers? If so my top10 goes


1. Evander Holyfield
2. Carlos de Leon
3. Johnny Nelson
4. David Haye
5. Dwight Muhammed Qawi
6. Juan Carlos Gomez
7. Jean Marc Mormeck
8. Tomas Adamek
9. O'Niel Bell
10. Ancalet Wamba


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

One more time for the sweet souvenir...

01 - Muhammad Ali
02 - Joe Louis
03 - Rocky Marciano
04 - Lennox Lewis
05 - Sonny Liston
06 - Joe Frazier
07 - Larry Holmes
08 - George Foreman
09 - Harry Wills
10 - Evander Holyfield


11 - Mike Tyson
12 - Jack Johnson
13 - Jim Jeffries
14 - Jack Dempsey


----------



## Del Boy (Jun 24, 2012)

1 Joe Louis
2 Muhammad Ali
3 Larry Holmes 
4 Foreman
5 Liston
6 Marciano 
7 Patterson 
8 Dempsey 
9 Johnson
10 W Klitschko / Lewis


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

McGrain said:


> One more time for the sweet souvenir...
> 
> 01 - Muhammad Ali
> 02 - Joe Louis
> ...


So close, yet so far.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

I flip flop on Tyson. But today I feel like he needs to be ranked below Holyfield.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Why does it say Amateur below my name when I'm so clearly a professional?


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

McGrain said:


> I flip flop on Tyson. But today I feel like he needs to be ranked below Holyfield.


:lol:

Rate him wherever you please. What do you think is the acceptable range for him on lists that aren't your own i.e. highest you could see someone else rating him without taking much issue up with it?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

McGrain said:


> One more time for the sweet souvenir...
> 
> 01 - Muhammad Ali
> 02 - Joe Louis
> ...


interested in your criteria that sees a top 10 place for both Liston and Wills.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

I could see Tyson anywhere between 3 and 14 without feeling sick.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

McGrain said:


> I could see Tyson anywhere between 3 and 14 without feeling sick.


yeah pretty much sums him up. I personally see him in the 8-13 range with his h2h ability placing him at the top end of that list.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

I'm honestly at a loss for people who don't consider him just outside the top ten AT WORST.

Tyson's prime didn't last long, but it's made up for with his activity level. Prior to his incarceration, he compiled a 41-1-0 (36 KOs) record over the course of just seven years from 1985-91. That W/L ratio and the number of fights look awfully similar to another heavyweight regularly rated inside the top five. Don't worry, they both beat pretty much the same number of world-rated opponents. You can cite the lack of greats all day long, but the blame certainly doesn't fall on Tyson, who was fighting the best opposition available to him. Need proof? Here's the rating of several fighters he fought during his prime at the time he fought them, not including himself obviously: Trevor Berbick (31-4, #1), Bonecrusher Smith (19-5, #1), Pinklon Thomas (29-1, #1), Tony Tucker (34-0, #1), Tyrell Biggs (15-0, #8 ), Michael Spinks (31-0, Lineal claimant), Carl Williams (22-2, #2), James Douglas (29-4, #7), Razor Ruddock x2 (25-1, #1). He also took care of Frank Bruno (32-2) as a mandatory, who had been and would again be a top-rated heavyweight and future titlist, beat the hell out of Tubbs (24-1) inside two for a large payday in Tokyo, who'd give prime Riddick Bowe all sorts of a fight long afterwards; Alex Stewart (26-1) inside of a round, whom was never on the canvas against Holyfield (and would go the distance with in a second fight) and lost a close decision to Foreman afterwards. 

People continually bring up Spinks the LHW and Holmes the washed up ATG and refuse to acknowledge a few key points here. Spinks beat an undefeated Larry Holmes at Heavyweight convincingly the first go-round, who while no longer prime, was again: undefeated. He's not exactly John Ruiz, folks. Second, it was at the time an absolute public demand that Tyson fight Spinks and The RING had recognized him as the Top Heavyweight until Tyson beat him. A good number of people in and around boxing actually gave him a fair chance to win the damn fight. To see his performance ravaged by revisionist historians is pretty dispicable. 

As far as Holmes, there is quite a lot made about his 21-month lay off between Spinks II and Tyson. He didn't willingly retire so much as he was basically forced into it, partly by his own hand with the comments he made. There's little doubt he won and was screwed out of the Spinks re-match and it left a bitter taste in his mouth. Perhaps the case for it being a worthless win would have credibility if Holmes hadn't decided to come back four years later at 42 and put a schooling on Ray Mercer to EARN himself a title shot against Holyfield, whom he won several rounds against and went the distance with, ditto for Oliver McCall at the age of 44. Nobody stopped or KO'ed Larry Holmes before or after, much less within four rounds.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

@Hands of Iron fantastic post. The Holmes and Spinks fights remain criminally underrated scalps IMO.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Why thank you, Flea.

don't think there's ever been a 215-220 lb fighter more coordinated or who moved so fluidly. He was not up against men of much more similar physical dimensions as the lower weights and he was never going to be able to put on back-foot boxing clinics against world-rated heavyweights. That's only a recipe for defeat and runs the risk of possibly getting himself KTFO in that division. He was cursed to be a come-forward, aggressive natured fighter. It was obviously not a philosophy of his to use his face as a mode of defense and he often effectively jabbed his way in, slipped and countered shots to near perfection, used a variety of angles and planes of movement to create openings, simultaneously able to shuffle his feet quickly into position to gain full leverage on his combinations to the body and head. His defense I do believe was slightly overstated, if energy wasting and used as a tool to get himself into his mid-range sweet spot but it's hard to argue it's effectiveness up through his first 35-37 fights over which he cleaned out most of the division. I think Mike's aggressive style, work rate, effective defense, good chin and lightning quick hands make him just as adept to taking wide points decisions as the next guy and it happened on a few ocassions. He was the P4P #1 fighter in his time for a reason.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

@Hands of Iron agree with all of that (again) I think Mike is so much part of the furniture that it's easy to overlook his achievements and say 'he burned out fast'.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

assuming LHW is next:


1	Ezzard	Charles
2	Archie	Moore
3	Gene	Tunney
4	Harry	Greb
5	Jimmy	Bivins
6	Billy	Conn
7	Maxie	Rosenbloom
8	Roy	Jones Jr
9	Bob	Foster
10	Michael	Spinks

Tommy Loughran and John Henry Lewis miss out by a cats pube.


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

lufcrazy said:


> assuming LHW is next:
> 
> 1	Ezzard	Charles
> 2	Archie	Moore
> ...


I'd try to fit in Fitzsimmons as Langford as light heavyweights. I'll have a think about a top 10 tho


----------



## Yiddle (Jul 10, 2012)

1.J.Louis
2.M.Ali
3.L.Holmes
4.R.Marciano
5.L.Lewis
6.J.Frazier
7.J.Dempsey
8.G.Foreman
9.J.Johnson
10.S.Liston


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Vano-irons said:


> I'd try to fit in Fitzsimmons as Langford as light heavyweights. I'll have a think about a top 10 tho


here's my top 55 for now:

1	Ezzard	Charles
2	Archie	Moore
3	Gene	Tunney
4	Harry	Greb
5	Jimmy	Bivins
6	Billy	Conn
7	Maxie	Rosenbloom
8	Roy	Jones Jr
9	Bob	Foster
10	Michael	Spinks
11	Tommy	Loughran
12	John Henry	Lewis
13	Bob	Fitzsimmons
14	Jack	Dillon
15	Sam	Langford
16	Joey	Maxim
17	Tommy	Gibbons
18	Jose	Torres
19	Billy	Miske
20	Jack	Delaney
21	Dwight	Qawi
22	Matthew	Saad
23	Victor	Galindez
24	Dick	Tiger
25	Virgil	Hill
26	Gus	Lesnevich
27	Willie	Pastrano
28	John	Conteh
29	Bernard	Hopkins
30	Antonio	Tarver
31	Tommy	Burns
32	Dariusz	Michalczewski
33	Battling	Levinsky
34	Lloyd	Marshall
35	Harold	Johnson
36	Micky	Walker
37	Philadelphia	O'Brien
38	Joe	Knight
39	Chad	Dawson
40	Paul	Berlenbach
41	Marvin	Johnson
42	Bob	Moha
43	Iran	Barkley
44	Joe	Calzaghe
45	Mike	Rossman
46	Jack	Root
47	Jimmy	Slattery
48	Jorge	Ahumada
49	Holman	Williams
50	Bob	Godwin
51	Tommy	Hearns
52	George	Gardner
53	Tom	McMahon
54	Leslie	Stewart
55	Jean	Pascal


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

lufcrazy said:


> here's my top 55 for now:
> 
> 1	Ezzard	Charles
> 2	Archie	Moore
> ...


I wonna lick your boxing brain. No ****


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Good list @lufcrazy........I think my guy Galindez is too low though :yep.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Vic-JofreBrasil said:


> Good list @lufcrazy........I think my guy Galindez is too low though :yep.


 Well atm he's in my 21-27 group and I can't see him Qawi nor Saad. at a push, I could give his resume a bit more credit which would put him in the 17-20 group so he could feasibly be as high as 17 on my list. I'm fairly happy with where I rank him though.

An incredibly interesting divsion.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Vano-irons said:


> I wonna lick your boxing brain. No ****


:lol:


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

If you guys don't mind I'm gonna tabulate these lists and cook some shit up in exel to get a quantifiable CHB HW ranking.

I'll go for 1st = 10, 2nd = 9 etc etc but I'll leave it dynamic so if you guys think of a better formula I can easily adjust it.

i'm not saying this has to be official or anything, just saying something needs doing since we've all put effort into posting our lists etc and it's a pretty cool idea imo.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Ok according to CHB this is the HW rankings:


1	Muhammad Ali
2	Joe Louis
3	Lennox Lewis
4	Larry Holmes
5	George Foreman
6	Rocky Marciano
7	Joe Frazier
8	Jack Johnson
9	Evander Holyfield
10	Mike Tyson
11	Sonny Liston
12	Jack Dempsey
13	Ezzard Charles
14	Floyd Patterson
15	Wlad Klitschko
16	Kenny Norton
17	Sam Langford
18	Harry Wills


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

No love for Jim Jeffries?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

GazOC said:


> No love for James J?


he didn't get 1 vote as a top 10 :-(


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

I'd have Norton out on his ear to make room for JJ.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

GazOC said:


> I'd have Norton out on his ear to make room for JJ.


Norton got a vote from Foreman Hook, Jeffries got no votes.

All I've done is tabulate the votes given in to CHB, awarded 10 points for every 1st, 9 for every 2nd etc. then ranked based on the result.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Yeah, I understand that mate. Just commenting on the complied list, thats all!:good


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Yeah, I understand that mate. Just commenting on the complied list, thats all!:good


yeah I know :good

I'm surprised how much love Lewis has on this forum though!


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

I think Lewis/ Holmes and Foreman are shoo ins for 3,4 and 5 in whatever order you like. I tend to have flip between having Holmes ahead of Lewis and vice versa but always have Foreman 5th.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

GazOC said:


> I think Lewis/ Holmes and Foreman are shoo ins for 3,4 and 5 in whatever order you like. I tend to have flip between having Holmes ahead of Lewis and vice versa but always have Foreman 5th.


I rank J Johnson higher than most but these 3 make up the 4-6 spots with Foreman going 4th because I think he'd knock the other 2 out :good


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

lufcrazy said:


> Ok according to CHB this is the HW rankings:
> 
> 1	Muhammad Ali
> 2	Joe Louis
> ...


Is this the final list from everyone's rankings on here then? I'll do an article for the front page later today going through the rankings to see if we can get some further debate and notice out there for the site.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Roe said:


> Is this the final list from everyone's rankings on here then? I'll do an article for the front page later today going through the rankings to see if we can get some further debate and notice out there for the site.


Every top 10 HW list posted on this thread. I compiled the 22 lists by giving 10 pints to 1st place etc. Then ranked the fighters based on totals.


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Satisfyingly similar to my own heavyweight list :yep


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Yeah 9 of my top 10 are in there :good


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

lufcrazy said:


> Every top 10 HW list posted on this thread. I compiled the 22 lists by giving 10 pints to 1st place etc. Then ranked the fighters based on totals.


Cool. Cheers :good


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

http://checkhookboxing.com/content.php?280-Top-10-Heavyweights-of-All-Time


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Nice one, @Roe!


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

@lufcrazy @Lunny Not a bad list really, 9 of my 10 as well I think. Kenny made it? Oh, well better than Walcott making it :hey


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

GazOC said:


> I think Lewis/ Holmes and Foreman are shoo ins for 3,4 and 5 in whatever order you like. I tend to have flip between having Holmes ahead of Lewis and vice versa but always have Foreman 5th.


For me Holmes and Lewis are swappable at 3 and 4 and then Marciano and Foreman at 5 and 6. Though I can understand people's arguments to have Marciano lower.


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

If anyone fancies doing a short write-up for each of the top 10 let us know :good


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Roe said:


> If anyone fancies doing a short write-up for each of the top 10 let us know :good


Hey, I could do it tomorrow afternoon. How short do you want it? I'm not fussed either way.


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

Just a short paragraph for each should be alright. I asked lufcrazy if he fancied doing it in the article comments cuz he asked if anyone was gonna do it. So you might wanna check with him rather than you both doing the same thing @lufcrazy


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

if @Lunny wants to do the writing that's cool, I'm better with the numbers anyways :lol:


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

Cool. Do the biz Lunmeister :good


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I think @Teeto volunteered to do it for the LHW's when that closes in a month :good

all systems go!


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Thanks, @lufcrazy, if I have a go tomorrow and then post it here or PM @Roe or something feel free to change things/add things or whatever. Hell, even ditch the whole thing if it's not good enough, genuinely will not offended one bit. Just fancied having a go, I like the heavies and have never written anything before.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Lunny said:


> Thanks, @lufcrazy, if I have a go tomorrow and then post it here or PM @Roe or something feel free to change things/add things or whatever. Hell, even ditch the whole thing if it's not good enough, genuinely will not offended one bit. Just fancied having a go, I like the heavies and have never written anything before.


no worries mate, I look forward to reading it :good


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Solid List !!


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

yeah @lufcrazy I volunteered to do the LHW ones, I think @Lunny is going to do the HW ones


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Lunny said:


> Thanks, @lufcrazy, if I have a go tomorrow and then post it here or PM @Roe or something feel free to change things/add things or whatever. Hell, even ditch the whole thing if it's not good enough, genuinely will not offended one bit. Just fancied having a go, I like the heavies and have never written anything before.


I look forward to it, you always smash it when you post serious, can't wait to see your write ups


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

@Lunny how's the write up coming?


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

lufcrazy said:


> @Lunny how's the write up coming?


Was a bit busy yesterday but should be done later tonight.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

coolio, can't wait to read it :good


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

@Lunny - you still doing this mate?


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Roe said:


> @Lunny - you still doing this mate?


Yeah, sorry mon ami, been real busy this past week with barbecues and birthdays and camping and stuff. Will get it to you tomorrow, holmes.


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

No worries mate just wondered :good


----------

