In the end, by my calculations, there are only fourteen heavies in the history of the ring that are truly deserving of being labelled great?
#20 Jersey Joe Walcott (51-18-2)
Jersey Joe Walcott went something in the region of 50/50 against the considerable Ring ranked opposition he met during his astonishing twenty-three years as a professional fighter. Al Ettore stopped him 1936; he lost to unheralded Joe Louis victim Willie Reddish in his comeback fight and then failed to defeat the middling Billy Ketchel in three efforts before being stopped again by Tiger Jack Fox in 1937. He lost four years to the war, but when he re-emerged in 1944, it seemed a new fighter was among us. A loss to John Allen in 1945 ushered in an unexpected purple-patch as Walcott defeated Joe Baski, Lee Q. Murray, Curtis Sheppard, Jimmy Bivins and Lee Oma. Joey Maxim and Elmer Ray both trimmed his wings in 1946, and then something strange happened; Walcott avenged himself. It was a turning point for him, and one that earned him a shot at Joe Louis.
Post-war, Louis had begun to slide, and in their first contest Walcott ran him close. A majority of newspapermen believed he deserved the verdict, though there were plenty of ringsiders who thought Louis had done enough to retain his title, but the controversy ordained a rematch should be fought. Louis stopped Walcott in the twelfth and probably any chance Jersey Joe had of being ranked a top ten heavyweight was lost to him.
More importantly, the Championship was lost to him ? or so it seemed.
Walcott lost three of his next eight, including two losses to the new divisional #1, Ezzard Charles, and really, that should have been curtain, but somehow, and despite (or perhaps ?because of,? a cynic might suggest) an additional loss to Rex Layne, Walcott was given an unprecedented fifth shot at the heavyweight title and a third shot at Charles.
At his smooth best, Walcott looked like a man who had been poured rather than born and he never looked better than he did for his stunning knockout of Charles in that summer of 1951. It had been a long road, but persistence, drive, necessity and strength of character had born out as Walcott became the oldest man in history to claim the Heavyweight Title via perhaps the most beautiful knockout ever to be perpetrated against an incumbent champion.
He even successfully defended it against Charles in their fourth fight, before Marciano forever separated him from it. Probably Walcott did not deserve either three shots at Charles any more than he deserved five shots at the title, but he got ?em, he took ?em, and it became difficult to leave him out of the top twenty when he did. A deep, wide win r?sum?, outstanding longevity and outrageous skill on film all demand it.
#19 James J. Corbett (11-4-3)
James J Corbett boxed a total of eighteen contests in his professional career, but to quote Henry Hill and Goodfellas, it was just the good half.
In just his fifth fight he matched the equally inexperienced Joe Choynski in a fight staged on a barge anchored in a California bay, in supposed secret. Listed as 1-0 by BoxRec, as Adam Pollack points out in In the Ring with James J. Corbett, Choynski was held in much higher regard. Corbett outboxed him, closed his eyes, stopping him in twenty-seven hard rounds, despite suffering injuries to both hands.
In the next year, 1890, he made his first real mark outboxing Jake Kilrain over the short distance and under the Marquess of Queensberry Rules. Kilrain was fresh from an incredible contest with the Champion, John L. Sullivan, who had bested him under London Prize Ring Rules over seventy-five tough bare-knuckle rounds. Corbett?s hallowed status as ?The Grandfather of Boxing? should be more widely questioned, and I would argue that Peter Jackson or Nonpareil Jack Dempsey are better choices, but there is a certain significance in this result. Gloves, jabs and pugilistic defense were all stressed by Corbett having been notable by their absence in Kilrain?s war with Sullivan.
Corbett smiled his way through his outpointing of the elite Kilrain, and if he didn?t smile all the way through his 1891 contest with Peter Jackson, it is only because that was one of the most difficult wars of that hard time. Outweighed by one of the best fighters of the era at any weight, it was Corbett who shouted the louder about continuing the bout, declared a No Contest after sixty-one hellish rounds. The fight in which he lifted the title was far easier, Corbett taking out the past-prime Sullivan in something of a canter over twenty-one rounds. Corbett would add Charlie Mitchell before his losing the title, but his legend was already by then secured.
As to his skill, Pollack notes that Corbett could ?hit, elude and neutralize opponents almost at will, and keep it up indefinitely?he should be remembered in his prime as the shiftiest, quickest, most skillful and most intelligent boxer in the world, with the best pair of legs ever seen on a heavyweight.?
And that is not unreasonable.
#18 Floyd Patterson (55-8-1)
Floyd Patterson beat more ranked heavyweights than George Foreman; he was the Champion of the world for more months than Rocky Marciano; he won more heavyweight title fights than Jack Dempsey; he was the youngest ever man to lift the title, and the first man to lose and regain it; he ranked in Ring magazine?s top ten heavyweights for more total months than almost any other fighter on this list ? and in beating Tommy Jackson, Archie Moore, Ingemar Johansson, Eddie Machen, George Chuvalo and Oscar Bonavena, he defeated many more men that appear upon The 100 Greatest Heavyweights of All Time than the likes of Gene Tunney and Ken Norton. And yet, there will be objections to his inclusion despite all of this statistical evidence to the contrary.
Those objections are often centered upon his chin which is dismissed as vulnerable. Patterson was dropped, and plenty, but he was stopped only by three men, two of which are in the top ten ever at heavyweight. The first man to turn the trick was Ingemar Johansson, perhaps the second most devastating puncher of the era, but one who fell twice in rematches. Later in his career Patterson was crushed utterly by Sonny Liston in two title-fights and twice stopped on accumulation against Muhammad Ali. And that?s it. Losses to two of the most devastating punchers ever to have lived and to arguably the single greatest heavyweight of all time apparently denote Patterson chinny.
Both of Patterson?s other losses at the weight were disputed, his 1968 loss to Jimmy Ellis something like a robbery both as it appears on film and to ringsiders, as was his loss to Jerry Quarry in 1967; the draw he made with Quarry that same year should certainly have been ruled a Patterson favor too, meaning even his outstanding paper record should arguably have been even more impressive.
Forty stoppages facilitated by the fastest hands in the history of the division, the type of heart that, had it beaten in Rocky Mariano?s chest, would have been the subject of poetry. If you don?t believe me just check out either of Johansson?s punching cavalcades against Patterson in their first fight and count, if you can, the number of times Patterson drags himself, senseless, from the canvas.
A near-lock for the top twenty, it is his size that prevents his obtaining a slightly higher ranking, not his supposedly weak chin. As it stands, he more than warrants inclusion at #18.
#17 Ezzard Charles (93-25-1)
Ezzard Charles entered the heavyweight division in the world class, taking on the superb Joey Maxim in back-to-back fights late in 1942. He won both, and between those victories and his 1952 loss to Jersey Joe Walcott he came of second best just once at heavyweight, against Elmer ?Violent? Ray on a desperately narrow split in 1947. In that ten-year spell he beat:
Jimmy Bivins three times, Joey Maxim on an additional two occasions, took his revenge upon Ray by knockout, battered Jersey Joe Walcott twice, dominated ranked men like Pat Valentino, Lee Oma, Freddie Beshore, Gus Lesnevich and Joe Baksi, all while weighing in just above the light-heavyweight limit. He established himself as the number one contender to the title held by Joe Louis, who retired before facing him but returned only to be savaged by Charles in what remains, to this day, one of the single greatest technical performances ever turned in at the weight. He also became the Champion of the world and staged multiple defenses against strong contenders, but something Charles never succeeded in doing was establishing his credentials as a pre-eminent heavyweight in his own era.
Like Joe Frazier and Larry Holmes who summited after Muhammad Ali and suffered for it, Charles was not welcomed in the wake of the mighty Louis, and beating his face into a different and less appealing appearance brooked no change in that area. I also believe that every bit as much as Gene Tunney before him, Charles suffered as a fighter who used technical brilliance rather than power or violence to establish himself, only Charles lacked the pigmentation and otherworldliness that came with Gene?s exceptional defensive capabilities to make himself a millionaire regardless. According to Nat Fleischer, writing in 1950, named him ?uninspiring? and ?primitive? and happily picked Joe Louis in their approaching contest. He was wrong; he and many other spent their entire careers being completely wrong about Ezzard Charles.
It took three attempts but Jersey Joe Walcott eventually got to the Cincinnati Cobra and he began his inevitable slump into mediocrity, but he added to r?sum? on the way down, gathering himself to outbox a new generation ? Cesar Brion, Rex Layne, Tommy Harrison, Billy Gilliam, Bob Satterfield and John Holman, ranked men all.
A past-prime challenge to Rocky Marciano was a bridge too far even for him, but still, even The Rock knew he had been in a fight such was the excellence of the man in the other corner ? and there was a brief moment when Charles tottered on the brink of true top-ten immortality as Marciano sought for the new gear that would rescue him from the terrible cut Charles had inflicted upon him; when he found it, Charles would be made to settle for a spot in the top twenty but it is one that he richly deserves.
#16 Wladimir Klitschko (62-3)
The changes Wladimir Klitschko has made to his fighting style since his last loss a full decade ago are astonishing and vastly underappreciated. It may be the single greatest transformation by a mature boxer in the history of the entire sport.
Aesthetically, it has been displeasing. Only his sometime-status, inarguable upon the occasion of both of Vitali Klitschko?s retirements, as the very best heavyweight in the world has allowed him to thrive in spite of a jab-and-grab style that has all but alienated the American market. Aesthetics are not a factor in determining success however, and success is the core of what makes a fighter great. Despite a chin that has been revealed as vulnerable and despite concerns over stamina and related work-rate, Wladimir has built a style that has made him the indisputably greatest fighter post-Lewis. It is his brother, Vitali, who has provided the stiffest competition in this department, but despite the fact that some fans are of the opinion that Vitali would have defeated Wladimir in combat, their careers are not really comparable in terms of competition bested. Here, Wladimir dominates his brother like just another contender.
Firstly, he has established a new lineage, healing a heavyweight title fractured by the ABC caldron to near meaningless in the wake of the departure of Lennox Lewis. A youth to lineal defenses, having only made himself a part of the lineage inhabited by Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis against #2 contender Alexander Povetkin last autumn, he has nevertheless successfully defended one strap or another on twenty-two separate occasions. His domination of top five contenders is outstanding, with Povetkin, David Haye, Chris Byrd and Ruslan Chagaev hardly winning a round between them on the way to painfully one-sided defeats. Byrd is neatly positioned to testify to the changes Wladimir has undergone in the early part of the last decade in an attempt to remedy his habit of losing by devastating knockout. Byrd describes a fighter much changed. ?Emanuel Steward really changed him, made him stand up. He uses his height and reach now. He systematically breaks you down with the jab. I got in the ring with him and I was like, man, this isn?t the same guy.?
Emanuel Steward was the chief architect in building the first heavyweight great defined entirely by his weaknesses. It was the greatest work of a great trainer who built a fighter that controls range absolutely in protection of his chin, who controls tempo absolutely in protection of his stamina. Standing at 6?6 with an 81? reach and a legitimate 245-lb. build, Wladimir is also surprisingly light on his feet, more agile than Lennox Lewis and according to Steward, a harder puncher than Lewis, a feeling shared by Phil Scott, a man with the terrible luck of having shared the ring with both men.
Only the lack of a true marquee win keeps Wladimir from the very heights of this list, and continued dominance and increased longevity will without doubt do so anyway, should he obtain them.
#15 Sam Langford (179-30-39; Newspaper Decisions 31-14-16)
Sam Langford was a genius and a monster. That is a genuine rarity, even near the very top of this list. Ali was a genius, but lacked the punching power and aggression to be labelled a monster. Mike Tyson had both of those attributes in deeply wrought spades, but lacked the adaptability and generalship of a thinking fighter. Langford combined what was best of both of them to become an arguably unequalled trapsmith and one of the most devastating punchers to have laced ?em up pre-Liston.
All this from a fighter standing just 5?7 who was capable of making the middleweight limit into his mid-twenties, and one who did so when matching no less a figure than Jack Johnson. Langford was handled by Johnson, but Johnson was nevertheless impressed, calling Langford ?the toughest little son of a bitch who ever lived.?
That quote has taken on a small modicum of fame, but less well known is that Johnson actually agreed to rematch Langford in London for the heavyweight title should he succeed in dethroning Tommy Burns in Australia. It is said, by Langford scholar Clay Moyle, that Johnson signed an agreement stating he would do so in return for the National Sporting Club funding his trip to Sydney and his date with destiny. Triumphant, Johnson suddenly wasn?t so keen to meet with Langford.
?I don?t want to fight that little smoke,? Johnson reportedly told Australian promoter Hugh McIntosh. ?He?s got a chance against anyone else in the world. I?m the first black champion and I?m going to be the last.?
Johnson might well have beaten Langford, I would have favored him to do so in 1909 I think, but that is not the point. The point is that Langford inspired fear in his peers every bit as much as Mike Tyson and Sonny Liston did, and that that is now forgotten.
By the time Johnson had lifted the title, Langford was a middleweight no more, and had already began his near-total domination of the two other world-class black heavyweights of his era, men ranked here in the top thirty all-time, Joe Jeannette and Sam McVey. Jeannette named Langford the single greatest fighter of all time and picked him to beat Johnson ?any time Johnson would have given him a fight.? Jeannette met both men, multiple times.
Gunboat Smith, who met both Langford and Dempsey, picked Langford to beat Dempsey at a canter. Harry Wills, who eventually mastered Langford when ?The Boston Tar Baby? inevitably began to slip, but who was dominated in the early part of their series, opined that the only way one could be sure of beating Langford was to ?hit him from behind with a club and when he turns around in surprise, bust him again?just don?t miss the second shot, that?s all!?
All agreed that he was the best puncher that they ever met ? including Smith, who suffered the tender attentions of Jack Dempsey.
Sam Langford also crushed English champion Iron Hague, Klondike Haynes, Jim Barry, Jim Johnson, Jim Flynn, Jeff Clark, Bill Lang, Stanley Ketchel, Jack O?Brien, Bill Tate, Kid Norfolk, basically anyone who would dare to step into the ring with him and a veritable who?s who of the era. He remains the only man to have knocked out Harry Wills in his fearsome prime, and he went on winning when a near total blindness had overtaken him, feeling his way around the ring against shadows and shades, still able to terminate those savage punches on the tender chins of his opponents.
The twenties were not kind to him, and fighting, as he did, twenty times a year while partially sighted, it can come as no surprise, but in his prime he can probably be regarded as being as brilliant as the likes of Rocky Mariano and Larry Holmes were in theirs.
Perhaps only Jack Johnson?s stubborn refusal to meet, at any point in his career, his number one contender prevents Langford appearing among the true heavyweight greats.
The True Heavyweight Greats
A top fifteen would have been nice; a top ten even nicer. In the end, by my calculations, there are only fourteen heavies in the history of the ring that are truly deserving of being labelled great. Probably every man on this list had fleeting and wondrous moments of greatness ? #100 Luis Firpo dashing a helpless Dempsey from the very ring; #77 David Tua crushing John Ruiz in mere seconds; or more famous instances such as Hasim Rahman?s glorious and unforgettable moment of towering history at the expense of Lennox Lewis. But the men listed above were consistently great without exhibiting the vulnerability of Wladimir Klitschko or suffering the physical handicaps overcome by Sam Langford. They had everything a great heavyweight needed to be great and with one tragically unresolved instance aside, each was clearly the greatest heavy in the world for an extended period.
In real terms these are the greatest, the most brilliant, the most dangerous many ever to box, symbols of heroism and strength no matter which era they lived in. So little separates them that by my reckoning there is almost nothing to separate them, and just as the man I have chosen to rank at #3 could legitimately be ranked at #14, so the man at #14 could legitimately be ranked at #3, dependent upon perspective and criteria.
This then, is my truth:
#14 Jim Jeffries (19-1-2)
Jim Jeffries retired in 1904 at his absolute peak.
His last fight was against Jack Munroe at a time when Jack Johnson was clearly the outstanding challenger, but it must also be stressed that Jeffries was regarded as being outwith even Johnson?s class; he was widely regarded as the best fighter ever to have pulled on the gloves, a ?Goliath? according to The San Francisco Chronicle, ?the undisputed champion of all champions.? Both Sam Langford and Bob Fitzsimmons regarded him a man apart and referee Eddie Graney, trainer Billy Delaney and Jim Jeffries himself were of the opinion that Jeffries improved with every fight of his career, culminating in what amounted to a dismissal of Munroe.
Fighting out of a crouch discovered by accident upon being struck by a disabling body punch early in his career, Jeffries was the deluxe pressure fighter of his time, moving his 220 lbs. into range on opponents relentlessly and regardless of the punishment his enemies wrought upon his monolithic frame. Six feet flat, Jeffries was big like nature is big, a sublime sense of inevitability moving in his shadow as he pivoted and stalked his more skillful opponents, getting nearer with each passing round until the ordained collapse occurred.
Such a collapse befell men of the caliber of James J. Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons while a more tortuous long-route was how he dominated Jack Sharkey and Bob Armstrong. Lesser mortals such as Munroe, Jack Finnegan and Pete Everett were dismissed out of hand in short order by a puncher who has become underrated in the department of powers with the passage of the years.
There is little doubt he hit harder than Jack Johnson, for example.
It was Johnson who unmanned Jeffries in the end, coming out of retirement during the former?s absolute prime and absorbing a beating terrible in its humiliation. Karma, perhaps, had the final word here ? had Jeffries not insisted upon drawing the color line in 1904 and instead met Johnson he would likely have taken Johnson out six years before Johnson would have had a chance to lay a glove upon him, possibly changing history forever.
As the man once said, it is not in the stars to hold our destiny.
#13 Jack Dempsey (55-6-9; Newspaper Decisions 4-0-2)
Some will read no further than the thirteenth entry in this series; the very sight of ?The Manassa Mauler? languishing outside the top ten will be enough to have them tuning out of the remainder. Of all the great heavyweights it is possible that none inspire such a hard-core of hero worship as Dempsey, and I understand why. On film, he is the embodiment of what many people feel boxing should be, aggressive, direct, uncompromising.
No unthinking savage, Dempsey exhibited tremendous footwork too, the technical ability to move himself out of danger in the unlikely event he met with a more dangerous jungle-cat, and more importantly that worked to bait direct opponents onto his punches. He came by a reputation for heedlessness due to the violence inherent on the film of his destruction of Champion Jess Willard, as hideous a butchery as can be seen in the ring, and certain technical deficiencies anathema to the modern eye, chief among them the lack of a working jab.
Nevertheless, he is Tyson nearly one-hundred years before Tyson, more beloved and nearly as reviled in a career that saw him worshipped as a hero and dismissed as a war-slacker in the same decade as his own journey was mirrored in the eyes of a young America which roared out of the Great War and into the twenties. Dempsey fed down-on-their-luck fighters in the kitchen of his mansion and slipped them a few bucks before they left, brutalizing sparring partners with uncommon savagery the next day.
A legend made flesh who ranks here outside the top ten when many people will find his ranking outside the top three unacceptable.
The men Dempsey beat in title fights were a decent bunch, and several of them, Billy Miske (#58), Tommy Gibbons (#69), Willard (#80) and Luis Firpo (#100) made this list ? Bill Brennan and Georges Carpentier also had more or less reasonable qualifications to fight for the title, but the problem is that at no time were any of these men the number one contender, nor even the number two.
Harry Greb (#47) thrashed Miske, Gibbons and Brennan in search of a shot with Dempsey and was passed over in favor of his victims, whom he entirely outclassed. More than that, the shadow of Harry Wills looms large in any cohesive telling of the story of Jack Dempsey. I do not doubt that Wills, the other extraordinary heavyweight of Dempsey?s era, was serious when he said he would fight Dempsey for free, but somehow the fight was never made. It is true that the era?s most powerful promoter showed little desire for the contest and it is true that some powerful men did not want to see it, but it is also true Wills was made an early variation on the mandatory when New York banned Dempsey from fighting anyone other than the black heavyweight in that state. When the Champion instead went to Philadelphia to be thrashed by Gene Tunney, it is probable, when combined with Dempsey?s years of inactivity whilst in possession of the title, a duck.
That is arguable, but what is inarguable is that Dempsey?s failure to meet his #1 contender for his entire reign ? seven years ? takes the shine of the defenses he did make. Prior to lifting the title, he immaculately displayed a breathtaking violence, but often in a low class. A step up, results were more mixed. He swapped first round knockouts with journeyman Jim Flynn, decisions with obese former flyweight Willie Meehan and boxed a draw with African-American John Lester Johnson, but defeated Carl Morris, Fred Fulton and Gunboat Smith. Perhaps his best win was over the superb Jack Sharkey, who he brutalized between the thrashings he took from Gene Tunney, past his prime and with his savage heart on his sleeve.
Judged upon the things he did do, Dempsey is unarguably great; taken as a whole, I do not think his career locks him into the top ten ? even more controversially, I don?t think Dempsey was the best heavyweight of his own era.
#12 Harry Wills (68-9-3; Newspaper Decisions 19-1-3)
One fight Jack Dempsey failed to take that could never be held against him was Sam Langford. ?He?s too good for me right now,? Dempsey is said to have protested. ?I need more experience before I take on someone that good.? The year was 1916 and by BoxRec, Dempsey was 19-1-5.
Two years previously Harry Wills stepped into the ring with Sam Langford and boxed a ten-round newspaper draw. BoxRec lists him at 12-1-2 going into that fight. One source has him edging Langford in seven of ten rounds at a time when he had less experience than Dempsey felt he needed to even fight the terrifying ?Black Death.? Incredibly, another ten-round draw followed against another elite veteran in Joe Jeannette (#29). Wills then dropped and dominated Willie Meehan, who was about to get into the business of beating Jack Dempsey over four rounds before Langford and Sam McVey (#30) restored the natural dominance of that era?s veterans over its prospects by stopping and outpointing him respectively. 1914 was over. In September of 1915, Wills met and outpointed Sam McVey over twelve rounds; in the following ten years, he lost one fight by disqualification, pulled out of one fight due to a broken wrist, was stopped once by Sam Langford in the nineteenth round and that was it; that was all ? the only legitimate loss he suffered was at the hands of the man who Dempsey would duck that same year, of whom he admitted he was terrified. The run was 43-3-1 and only one of the losses was really legitimate. He beat:
Charley Weinert, Luis Firpo, Tut Jackson, Jeff Clark, Bill Tate, Denver Ed Martin, Gunboat Smith, Fred Fulton, Jim Johnson, Sam McVey, Joe Jeannette, Kid Norfolk and John Lester Johnson. He beat many of them on multiple occasions and he beat many of them with great ease, including Firpo who nearly stopped the Champion and John Lester Johnson who boxed a draw with him. Most importantly of all he absolutely mastered Sam Langford, going 5-1 against him for 1915 and 1916.
Many have sought to stress that Langford was getting older at this point and perhaps beginning to creak. I would agree that he was. But I would also point out that the first time Wills beat Langford, he had little more experience than Dempsey had when he ducked him; in other words, Wills, like Dempsey, was improving vastly as a fighter during the series and that this may be the more significant factor.
I do not say that Wills is locked above Dempsey; but I do say that he had greater longevity, defeated better fighters, and that in Langford he dominated a fighter that, although aging, was at least approaching the class of Dempsey, as well as being rather like him in note of danger. For his part, Dempsey never defeated a heavyweight as special as Wills, nor even one as special as Langford ? and perhaps not one as special as the aging McVey, or Jeannette for that matter. For these reasons, I prefer Wills over Dempsey here, even though it was Dempsey who held the title.
The fact that they never met in the ring is perhaps boxing?s single greatest failure and had they done so, the victor likely would have ranked as high as #3 here ? for the record, I would favor Dempsey.
But I believe history should favor Wills.
#11 Evander Holyfield (44-10-2)
To get it out of the way early thereby explaining my less flattering view of Evander Holyfield?s feted longevity, I do not consider that ?The Real Deal? was robbed versus the giant Nikolay Valuev. That controversy was trial by internet, a fact illustrated by the near universal judgement of ringsiders that Valuev was the winner, including Ring magazine which scored the fight against the legendary American. Ring also reported that a straw poll taken by a Swiss magazine found that almost every reporter in attendance agreed ? the story goes that Valuev?s jabs, which appeared grazing and limp on film, were more crackling from a few feet away.
By the time of that 2008 Zurich clash, Larry Donald, Sultan Ibragimov, Larry Donald, James Toney and Chris Byrd had already taken advantage of Holyfield?s declining abilities, and he was a fighter for whom the top 1% represented a higher percentage of possible return. To put it more simply, Holyfield?s heart was too big for his body ? literally, at one point, though over-hydration and misdiagnosis seems a more likely explanation to the residence of the condition that ailed him in the wake of his 1994 loss to Michael Moorer than the faith-healing experience Holyfield claimed to have undergone.
Taken in tandem with the series loss to Riddick Bowe, the series loss to Lennox Lewis, and the swampy trilogy he fought against John Ruiz as the final act of the last American heavyweight hero?s career heaved into view paints a picture of inconsistency, but if it is so, let it be known that that inconsistency was born of a love of war. Holyfield went there over and over again and although it was sometimes to his detriment, it was always thrilling.
This was a serious compromise to his generalship and in combination with middling power it should have cost him more than it did, but an iron heart, iron will, superb fluid combination punching, an excellent jab and a mastery of the dark arts spared him. It also brought him dual wins over the fading Mike Tyson in 1996 and 1997, fights Holyfield believed himself born to win, and he treated them with the expected reverence. He never really looked like losing and when Tyson cracked and twice bit him upon the ear in their rematch, the matter was settled forever in his favor.
Holyfield has a superb r?sum?, stacked with quality from the moment he invaded the division from below against James Tillis, Pinklon Thomas, Michael Dokes, and Alex Stewart before taking the title from James Douglas. Aging versions of George Foreman and Larry Holmes followed, as did Riddick Bowe and Michael Moorer; but it is those dual defeats of Tyson that snaffles him the #11 spot at the expense of the more celebrated Jack Dempsey and Jim Jeffries. His range is 9-14 by my reckoning, but he could give anyone from 1-100 the fight of their lives if they were unlucky enough to fall upon him in the right mood.
The 100 Greatest Heavyweights of All Time Part One: 100-91 The 100 Greatest Heavyweights of All Time Part Two: 90-81 The 100 Greatest Heavyweights of All Time Part Three: 80-71 The 100 Greatest Heavyweights of All Time Part Four: 70-61 The 100 Greatest Heavyweights of All Time Part Five: 60-51 The 100 Greatest Heavyweights of All Time Part Six: 50-41 The 100 Greatest Heavyweights of All Time Part Seven: 40-31 The 100 Greatest Heavyweights of All Time Part Eight: 30-21 The 100 Greatest Heavyweights of All Time Part Nine: 20-11
