My Top 50 All Time Heavyweights [Archive]

Muchmoore

08-03-2008, 08:20 PM

Bill1234

08-03-2008, 08:53 PM

Tyson is too high IMO, but good list.

TommyV

08-03-2008, 08:55 PM

I feel Tyson's a bit too high. But making a list like that is hard work, so overall an excellent list. :good

natonic

08-03-2008, 09:00 PM

Nice effort. I'd put Buster Douglas in there by virtue of his huge upset over Tyson. I like him higher than Ibeabuchi and Tua. That's if we're talking accomplishments rather than head to head.

Muchmoore

08-03-2008, 09:02 PM

Tyson is too high IMO, but good list.

I rank Tyson as the best Head to Head fighter ever along with Ali, so that moves him up a lot.

Resume/Accomplishments wise it hurts him but even so he was youngest beltholder, unified all 3 belts in seperate fights, 9 title defenses puts him at least top 10.

His lack of beating a great/very good fighter at their peak hurts him but most ATG Heavys don't have wins over prime ATGs. A fact many people overlook.

Russell

08-03-2008, 09:04 PM

Plenty of fights on there deserve to be above Ingo, for starters.

Muchmoore

08-03-2008, 09:05 PM

Nice effort. I'd put Buster Douglas in there by virtue of his huge upset over Tyson. I like him higher than Ibeabuchi and Tua. That's if we're talking accomplishments rather than head to head.

Yeah I was thinking of putting Douglas in there, he's barely out of it.

I tried to make it so it was 50 percent Head to Head, 50 percent accomplishments.

Russell

08-03-2008, 09:06 PM

Also, Jimmy Young needs to be higher for his reign of terror from being robbed against Shaver's and beating Foreman.

Muchmoore

08-03-2008, 09:12 PM

Plenty of fights on there deserve to be above Ingo, for starters.

Ingo beat everyone he ever faced and possessed arguably the best right hand the division had ever seen. His resume is under rated, apart from stopping Patterson, he brutally took out Eddie Machen in a single round (Machen lasted the distance with Liston) as well as beating Cooper, Erkstine who were solid fighters.

Who deserves to be ranked above Ingo that isn't?

About Young, that was one guy I thought I put a little low along with Douglas. He probably should be in the top 40.

Mendoza

08-03-2008, 09:47 PM

Muchmoore

08-03-2008, 09:51 PM

My first comment is what if your criterion. Is this head to head, accomplishment within an era, or satastical analysis? Or a mix of the three?

I think Tyson and Wills are rated too high

I used a combination of Head to Head and Accomplishments.

Who do you have above Wills?

Mendoza

08-03-2008, 10:05 PM

I used a combination of Head to Head and Accomplishments.

Who do you have above Wills?

About 22-25. Wills was pretty much a shade worse vs slightly past their prime versions of Langford and McVey. As they aged, Wills pretty much cleaned up on past their prime greats.

While a title shot with Dempsey did not happen, Wills wanted no part of Godfrey, and did not impress vs some guys Dempsey flattened.

With little prime film, some un-even performances, and no real top test vs elite fighters in their prime, I cannot rate Wills in the top 15. News reads suggest Wills was not fast, or defensive, but he had a big right hand and good body attack. Wills record reveal that he might have had some issues carrying his power into the later rounds. He has some early Ko’s, and a lot of distance fights, but not many TKO/KO’s say from round 8-finish

Sardu

08-03-2008, 10:07 PM

1. Ali
2. Dempsey
3. Marciano
4. Louis
5. Johnson
6. Foreman
7. Lewis
8. Holmes
9. Holyfield
10. Frazier
11. Tyson
12. Liston
13. Tunney
14. Charles
15. Schmelling
16. Walcott
17. Wlad Klitschko
18. Vitaly Klitschko
19. Fitzsimmons
20. Sullivan
21. Wills
22. McVey (tie) Patterson
23. Baer
24. Jeanette
25. Norton
26. Sharkey
27. Quarry
28. Bowe
29. Langford
30. Shavers
31. Young
32. Witherspoon
33. Lyle
34. Tua
35. Ibeabuchi
36. Byrd
37. Bonavena
38. Dokes
39. Weaver
40. Bugner
41. Gerrie Coetze
42. Johansson
43. Page
44. Tubbs
45. Ellis
46. Bruno
47. Willard
48. Godfrey
49. Chuvalo
50. Golota

Brian123

08-03-2008, 10:13 PM

Gene Tunney and Jack Dempsey are regularly rated in the top 10 of all-time in any weight class so I think both deserve to go a bit higher. Good list though.

Muchmoore

08-03-2008, 10:58 PM

Gene Tunney and Jack Dempsey are regularly rated in the top 10 of all-time in any weight class so I think both deserve to go a bit higher. Good list though.

Like I stated 5-12 on my list could be arranged in pretty much any order, I've rated Dempsey as high as 5, 6 in the past.

Tunney is not a top 10 HW, he simply didn't have enough HW fights and his best win and really only solid win at Heavyweight is over a faded Dempsey.

Seamus

08-03-2008, 11:00 PM

have you met these things called girls?

Muchmoore

08-03-2008, 11:04 PM

have you met these things called girls?

:lol:

OLD FOGEY

08-03-2008, 11:29 PM

Here it is. 1-4 are a step above the rest imo, and 5-12 can be arranged in any order. I had Johnson my 11 as high as 5 in the past, same goes for the others.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Mike Tyson
5. Lennox Lewis
6. Larry Holmes
7. Sonny Liston
8. George Foreman
9. Joe Frazier
10. Harry Wills
11. Jack Johnson
12. Jack Dempsey
13. Evander Holyfield
14. Jim Jeffries
15. Joe Walcott
16. Max Schmeling
17. Ezzard Charles
18. Floyd Patterson
19. Riddick Bowe
20. Ken Norton
21. Sam Langford
22. John L Sullivan
23. Ingo Johansson
24. Joe Jeanette
25. Gene Tunney
26. Peter Jackson
27. Wladimir Klitschko
28. James Corbett
29. Sam Mcvea
30. Archie Moore
31. Bob Fitzsimmons
32. Max Baer
33. Tim Witherspoon
34. Harold Johnson
35. Eddie Machen
36. Jerry Quarry
37. George Godfrey
38. Jack Sharkey
39. Mike Weaver
40. Zora Folley
41. Ron Lyle
42. Cleveland Williams
43. Ike Ibeabuchi
44. David Tua
45. Ernie Terrell
46. Jimmy Young
47. Pinklon Thomas
48. John Ruiz
49. Vitali Klitschko
50. Chris Byrd

HM: Tony Tucker, Buster Douglas

Comments? Suggestions to improve it?

A very good list---One could quibble with placement, but your list is excellent.

Some suggestions:

Missing and should/could be added:
1. Elmer Ray--Case for--between 1940 and 1948 Ray went 74-2 with 1 no contest over a 77 bout streak, while defeating two top 20 all-time heavyweights, Walcott and Charles, at or near their primes. He also knocked out longtime top contender, and eventual alphabet champion, Lee Savold impressively.
Case against--His wins over both Walcott and Charles were extremely close. Turkey Thompson blew him out in 1 round in 1943 and he never defeated Thompson.
Bottom line--Impressive statistical record and wins over Walcott and Charles enough to earn him top 50 slot.

2. Rex Layne--Case for--at peak between 1950 and 1952 defeated prime or near prime top twenty ATG's Walcott and Charles. The Walcott victory was decisive. Also defeated 1940's perennial top contender Turkey Thompson and ko'd the dangerous Bob Satterfield. Few contenders hold such impressive victories.
Case against--went back quickly after ko defeats by Marciano and Charles. Was ordinary from 1953 on. His victory over Charles was close and disputed.
Bottom line--Wins over two top twenty prime or near prime heavies, plus the big win over Satterfield, would earn him a spot somewhere in the forties for me.

3. Tommy Loughran--Case for--Few have his heavyweight resume--defeated 3 champions, Braddock, Baer, and Sharkey, and ten men who were ranked in the top five of the Ring's yearly rankings at one time or another, Jack Renault, Paolino Uzcudun, Johnny Risko, Young Stribling, Tuffy Griffiths, King Levinsky, Mickey Walker, Ernie Schaaf, Steve Hamas, and Arturo Godoy. This does not count Harry Greb.
Case against--Somewhat erratic. He was beaten quite a few times-Sharkey, Risko, Stribling, Schaaf, Hamas, and Godoy all defeated him, as did quite a few others, mainly when he was going back.
Bottom line--defeated so many top men that a top fifty placing seems reasonable to me. Probably in top ten of heavyweights in depth of resume.

Take off list:
1. George Godfrey--might have worn cuffs, but his record is just not good enough to justify top 50 placement.
2. Ike Ibeabuchi--didn't do enough-wins over two contenders not enough for top fifty, in my judgement.
3. Chris Byrd

Muchmoore

08-03-2008, 11:34 PM

I had Elmer Ray on my first draft of the list, somehow I deleted his name when I made changes to it :lol:

I had Layne as well, I'm going to edit it now.

Muchmoore

08-04-2008, 12:13 AM

I have no ability to make a top 50 list. My only comment is no person should have Tyson in the top 10, Mike is more like 15-20.

Name 15 fighters that deserve to be ranked above Tyson. Whether you use head to head or accomplishments you can't do it.

Seamus

08-04-2008, 12:47 AM

Name 15 fighters that deserve to be ranked above Tyson. Whether you use head to head or accomplishments you can't do it.

As much as I think some over-rate Tyson, I have to agree. He is a top-ten HW all time. For as much excuses as are given to some ATG's Tyson needs few.

Marciano Frazier

08-04-2008, 02:26 AM

It looks like an all-around reasonable list on the whole. I think Tyson, Lewis and Wills are too high, and that John Ruiz DOES NOT belong on the list. Otherwise, there's nothing I disagree with too strongly.

pugilist_boyd

08-04-2008, 02:59 AM

jeffries at 14 is much to low, his opp. might have been slightly smaller but that dont meen they were any worse than the chunky heavies of today dempsey i.m.o. is in a mix among louis and ali and rocky in the top 4 he -pre title would destroy(very quickly) most of todays heavys a list like this is very hard and constantly changing at least it would be for me so good job sullivan is prob. a little high also

OLD FOGEY

08-04-2008, 03:22 AM

Yeah I was thinking of putting Douglas in there, he's barely out of it.

I tried to make it so it was 50 percent Head to Head, 50 percent accomplishments.

I did notice one more thing looking over the list, so I will bring it up.

What is the justification for Weaver being rated and Douglas not? Douglas has a better record, probably defeated more good fighters, and has the great win over Tyson. Weaver never defeated anyone who could be considered the best fighter in the world at the time. Weaver had a very erratic career, with 12 ko defeats in 60 fights, a terrible percentage.

If Weaver gets this high a rating on the basis of head-to-head, I do not think it is deserved.

Loewe

08-04-2008, 05:07 AM

Very good list! I only have two major things to critizise and a some lesser ones.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Mike Tyson - i don´t think it can be justified ranking Tyson above Louis or in the Top1-7. There are just greater fighters. I sould rank him between 7 and 11 - also i recently decided not to make any rankings anymore.
5. Lennox Lewis
6. Larry Holmes - is imo on the same level as Marciano and Lewis, a step behind Louis and Ali but a step above the rest.
7. Sonny Liston
8. George Foreman
9. Joe Frazier
10. Harry Wills
11. Jack Johnson
12. Jack Dempsey
13. Evander Holyfield
14. Jim Jeffries
15. Joe Walcott
16. Max Schmeling - good to see somebody rank him here, i have seen many who haven´t him in their top20. Thanks!
17. Ezzard Charles
18. Floyd Patterson - good to see somebody rank him here, i have seen many who haven´t him in their top20. Thanks!
19. Riddick Bowe - can´t see him beeing ranked in the top20, there are more deserving fighters
20. Ken Norton - can´t see him beeing ranked in the top20, there are more deserving fighters
21. Sam Langford
22. John L Sullivan
23. Ingo Johansson - a bit too high
24. Joe Jeanette
25. Gene Tunney
26. Peter Jackson
27. Wladimir Klitschko
28. James Corbett - too low
29. Sam Mcvea
30. Archie Moore
31. Elmer Ray
32. Bob Fitzsimmons - a bit too low
33. Max Baer
34. Tim Witherspoon
35. Harold Johnson
36. Eddie Machen
37. Jerry Quarry
38. George Godfrey
39. Jack Sharkey - too low
40. Jimmy Young
41. Mike Weaver
42. Zora Folley
43. Ron Lyle
44. Cleveland Williams
45. Ike Ibeabuchi - doesn´t deserve beeing in the top50 imo
46. David Tua
47. Rex Layne
48. Ernie Terrell
49. Pinklon Thomas
50. John Ruiz - should be hiigher imo

HM: Chris Byrd, Buster Douglas, Vitali Klitschko.

Comments? Suggestions to improve it?

McGrain

08-04-2008, 05:28 AM

ChrisPontius

08-04-2008, 05:43 AM

I like that you rank Wills. He's often forgotten or under-appreciated. Looks like a solid list to me.

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 08:42 AM

About 22-25. Wills was pretty much a shade worse vs slightly past their prime versions of Langford and McVey. As they aged, Wills pretty much cleaned up on past their prime greats.

strongly disagree, i look at it the other way. a very green wills was thrown in against far more experienced live versions of mcvey jenette and langford and in 1914 still very green, willis managed to beat jenette and langford! very impressive. as wills got more and more experienced, he blew these guys out of the water.

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 08:47 AM

Case against--His wins over both Walcott and Charles were extremely close. Turkey Thompson blew him out in 1 round in 1943 and he never defeated Thompson.

i disagree old fogey. Elmer Ray won the first fight, but got cheated by the record books. ray beat the hell out of thompson for 6 rounds when thompson got frustrated because he couldnt win and hit him intellionally low. it should be a DQ 6 win for elmer ray.

That said great list muchmoore, we have pretty much the same top 7 in my new list, different order. i do think elmer ray should easily be in the list, he rates # 22 on my list. he was a tall 6'2 190lb 81" reach puncher-swarmer with excellent defense skills and two fisted power. he has an excellent win resume Charles, Walcott, Thompson(first fight), peaks, O thomas, savold, Obie Walker, Perk Daniels. all these men were top 10 when ray defeated them. peaks and walker were 6'4 225lb powerful black fighters.

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 08:49 AM

2. Ike Ibeabuchi--didn't do enough-wins over two contenders not enough for top fifty, in my judgement.

So you want ike to be taken off since he did not do enough for 2 wins over young undefeated prime top contenders of the era, yet vitali who never beat an inshape rated contender deserves to stay on the list?

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 08:52 AM

Let's hear a little bit about why Ray is riding so high, and what wins he has that are better than those of Bob Fitzsimmons who was world champion

He beat prime versions of Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles. those 2 wins alone are far greater than any wins fitz has. walcott and charles are far better fighters than fitz. also he has wins over a slew of dangerous contenders like Sid Peaks, Obie Walker, Leroy Haynes, Otis Thomas, Lee Savold, Perk Daniels.

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 08:54 AM

Tunney is to low. The man stopped HW's that had never been stopped, .

LOL who a fat slob below average tom heeney?

beat a great HW who had never been beaten

????? who???

OLD FOGEY

08-04-2008, 10:08 AM

i disagree old fogey. Elmer Ray won the first fight, but got cheated by the record books. ray beat the hell out of thompson for 6 rounds when thompson got frustrated because he couldnt win and hit him intellionally low. it should be a DQ 6 win for elmer ray.

That said great list muchmoore, we have pretty much the same top 7 in my new list, different order. i do think elmer ray should easily be in the list, he rates # 22 on my list. he was a tall 6'2 190lb 81" reach puncher-swarmer with excellent defense skills and two fisted power. he has an excellent win resume Charles, Walcott, Thompson(first fight), peaks, O thomas, savold, Obie Walker, Perk Daniels. all these men were top 10 when ray defeated them. peaks and walker were 6'4 225lb powerful black fighters.

"it should be a DQ 6 win for Elmer Ray."

Ray knew the rules he was fighting under and chose not to continue, thus accepting that the fight would be a no contest. You have a point that Ray may have been on the way to a win, but he did not win. I would like to see film before even considering making a judgement to reverse an official verdict.

By the way, the point of my post was that Ray deserved a high rating and you are quoting the "case against" which I reject myself.

OLD FOGEY

08-04-2008, 10:09 AM

So you want ike to be taken off since he did not do enough for 2 wins over young undefeated prime top contenders of the era, yet vitali who never beat an inshape rated contender deserves to stay on the list?

Can't say you do not have a good point here.

Vitali has left this top 50 list, anyway.

OLD FOGEY

08-04-2008, 10:16 AM

He beat prime versions of Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles. those 2 wins alone are far greater than any wins fitz has. walcott and charles are far better fighters than fitz. also he has wins over a slew of dangerous contenders like Sid Peaks, Obie Walker, Leroy Haynes, Otis Thomas, Lee Savold, Perk Daniels.

I think one could make the case that Fitz's win over Corbett outranks Ray's wins over Charles or Walcott because it was a decisive knockout. Ray's wins were close and disputed. Fitz also has ko's of Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Maher, besides Corbett, and was probably screwed in the first Sharkey fight and the Choynski fight, both of which ended with his opponents out cold on the floor.

Fitz was certainly a remarkable p4p fighter in context of time and place and has some impressive achievements at heavyweight.

McGrain

08-04-2008, 10:27 AM

He beat prime versions of Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles. those 2 wins alone are far greater than any wins fitz has. walcott and charles are far better fighters than fitz. also he has wins over a slew of dangerous contenders like Sid Peaks, Obie Walker, Leroy Haynes, Otis Thomas, Lee Savold, Perk Daniels.

Jersey Joe Walcott - I've always read that as a patchy period for Walcott. He loses to Maxim, he beats him. He loses to Ray, he beats him. Beat Bivins by a shade. He wasn't on top of his form during these months in my opinion. As I understand it, the win was disputed?

Where do you rate Joey Maxim as a HW?

Ezzard Charles - I've never read an account that says Ezzard was anything other than robbed.

Fitzsimmons has a win over a younger, bigger incumbent undisputed HW champion on his ledger. You're going to have to go some to convince me that these gifts bring him neck and neck with a win like that.

McGrain

08-04-2008, 10:31 AM

LOL who a fat slob below average tom heeney?

Yes, fat slob Heeney, who, in the months running up to his fight with Tunney had a draw with Sharkey and wins over Delaney and Risko. Nobody had ever stopped him. He was approaching the end of course, so was Tunney.

????? who???

I meant Jack Dempsey, who had, of course, been beaten previously.

Who do you rank higher at HW, Tunney or Ray?

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 10:59 AM

Who do you rank higher at HW, Tunney or Ray?

I think ray. last time I checked i had ray at 22, and tunney around 24 i think.

To me tunney is very unproven at heavyweight. he did not prove himself at this weight anymore than michael spinx did.

Muchmoore

08-04-2008, 11:00 AM

I did notice one more thing looking over the list, so I will bring it up.

What is the justification for Weaver being rated and Douglas not? Douglas has a better record, probably defeated more good fighters, and has the great win over Tyson. Weaver never defeated anyone who could be considered the best fighter in the world at the time. Weaver had a very erratic career, with 12 ko defeats in 60 fights, a terrible percentage.

If Weaver gets this high a rating on the basis of head-to-head, I do not think it is deserved.

Douglas didn't beat more good fighters, he obviously has his big win over Tyson which is superior to any win on Weavers, but other than this is resume is very slim. His only other quality wins are over an aging Berbick and a young McCall, Weaver has wins over an unbeaten John Tate for the WBA, win over Gerrie Coatzee, KO over Carl Williams, and a win over unbeaten James Quick Tillis. He also has wins over under rated Bernardo Mercado, and Scott Ledoux.

His resume is much deeper than Busters, and while he has losses that's mostly because he was thrown to the wolves early and fought much longer than he should of. Head to Head Douglas was only better than Weaver once and while I still may rank him above when you take into account resume Weaver has the edge.

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 11:01 AM

Yes, fat slob Heeney, who, in the months running up to his fight with Tunney had a draw with Sharkey and wins over Delaney and Risko. Nobody had ever stopped him. He was approaching the end of course, so was Tunney.

if thats the best one you got, then tunneys heayweight resume is very weak. heeney was a joke. the fact he got a title shot over sharkey and godfrey is a travesty and shows how corrupt boxing was at the time. heeney couldnt fight a lick.

Nobody had ever stopped him

didnt he get stopped later on his career by guys like baer? what punchers did heeney face pre tunney?

McGrain

08-04-2008, 11:02 AM

I think ray. last time I checked i had ray at 22, and tunney around 24 i think.

To me tunney is very unproven at heavyweight. he did not prove himself at this weight anymore than michael spinx did.

Tunney has the better, cleaner wins at HW than Ray does. He also beat an incumbent champion, and a great one.

McGrain

08-04-2008, 11:03 AM

heeney couldnt fight a lick.

Right.

didnt he get stopped later on his career by guys like baer?

Of course.

Tunney was the first to stop him, is what I said.

Muchmoore

08-04-2008, 11:09 AM

Great top 15. One or two things.

1 - Mike Tyson is to high. Haven't read the thread yet but I am betting everyone is telling you this. You will have your reasons; they won't be good enough.

2 - Nice that you have Wills in the 10 and I love his ranking relative to Dempsey. I think Johnson and Jeffries should both be higher though.

Nice again, but Jackson is to low. I can't think why he should be below Jeanette and Johansson for one second. Wlad's ranking is about right, but Tunney is to low. The man stopped HW's that had never been stopped, beat a great HW who had never been beaten.

Let's hear a little bit about why Ray is riding so high, and what wins he has that are better than those of Bob Fitzsimmons who was world champion? Why is Baer down here? his reign of terror in the HW division is comparable to Mike Tyson's, who is at #4.

I think it's an excellent stab, seriously, despite the list of complaints.

HM: Chris Byrd, Buster Douglas, Vitali Klitschko.

Comments? Suggestions to improve it?[/quote]

Tyson H2H is at the top along with Ali in my view, and H2H is half of the ranking system. Resume wise he makes top ten as well imo.

Jackson may be a bit low, I'll be honest his era is the one where I lack the most knowledge in. With Tunney, he simply didn't have enough HW fights to warrant a higher ranking. He beat a faded Dempsey twice, and only had one other HW win. Putting Tunney any higher would make it so Spinks also would belong in the top 30. I should of added Spinks somewhere in the 40s actually that was an oversight I'm surprised no one mentioned that.

With Ray, he defeated young versions of Joe Walcott, and Ezzard Charles, 2 guys in my top 20. He had a huge win streak during the mid 40s and deserves to be on the list, Fitz is only one spot below him. Pure resume wise it's close between him and Ray but head to head I think he struggles a little bit more than Ray so I put him a spot lower.

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 11:09 AM

I think one could make the case that Fitz's win over Corbett outranks Ray's wins over Charles or Walcott because it was a decisive knockout.

I dont think so. first of all it was not a decisive knockout, it was a fight where corbett knocked fitz down and fitz grabbed on to corbetts leg to save himself from being counted out. he should have been DQed. he was badly behind on points.

Ray won a clear decision over a prime jersey joe walcott in the first fight, walcott was better than corbett IMO. combine that with prime version of ezzard charles(whos better than corbett) in a very close fight that could have gone either way but rays aggresion proved superior, and you have two wins over fighters as good or better than corbett. defintley a huge edge to ray. were talking 2 wins over great fighters, versus 1 win over a great fighter. 2-1 edge.

Fitz also has ko's of Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Maher, besides Corbett, and was probably screwed in the first Sharkey fight and the Choynski fight, both of which ended with his opponents out cold on the floor.

Ray has wins over savold, peaks, haynes, thomas, walker, daniels, and first thompson fight(should have been DQ) many of these men were much bigger and had more modern style than the small bareknuckller types fitz beat.

Ray knew the rules he was fighting under and chose not to continue, thus accepting that the fight would be a no contest. You have a point that Ray may have been on the way to a win, but he did not win. I would like to see film before even considering making a judgement to reverse an official verdict.

.

But the point is thompson illegally intentionally hit ray low after taking a horrible beating, so he could get out of the fight. this in modern rules is a DQ. the fact ray couldnt continue was because he was in severe pain for his balls getting mangled up his ass by a thompson left hook. thompson should have been DQed, it was a travesty the fight was ruled a NC.

Fitz was certainly a remarkable p4p fighter in context of time and place and has some impressive achievements at heavyweight.

sure

Holmes' Jab

08-04-2008, 11:11 AM

Witherspoon and Thomas were better fighters than Ibeabuchi and Vitali.

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 11:15 AM

Tunney has the better, cleaner wins at HW than Ray does. He also beat an incumbent champion, and a great one.

Peak versions of walcott and charles would have easily outpointed the 1927 jack dempsey. maybe stopped him.

better? a far past his prime rusted jack dempsey was not better than prime charles and walcott. no way.

also when you look at quantity, rays wins over savold, peaks, thompson first fight, haynes, daniels, thomas are far more impressive than tunneys 2nd teir wins

tunneys heavyweight wins are terrible. he fought less than 10 pro fights at heavyweight! ray went 74-2 run during his prime years at heavyweight! tunney cant match that at heavyweight!

as for "clean wins" ray did beat them cleanly, this is from a thread last year by MF.

Second, the 1946 Walcott fight:
This one was a razor-thin split decision for Ray. While this match was very close, from the accounts I've seen of it, there seems to be pretty widespread agreement that Ray did deserve the slim nod. According to Sid Roth, "the Violent One, whom they had kept out of lucrative Madison Square Garden for so long, had a clear winning edge." The New York Times account had it 6-4 for Ray

The United Press scorecard had it 5-4-1 for Ray, while the Associated Press card scored the match 5-4-1 for Charles. Here is the description from the Middlesboro Daily News account: "The gallery gods went into ranting hysterics last night when the burly negro who once wrestled alligators for a living smashed the myth which was Ezzard Charles. The boxing bigwigs, who had been grooming Charles for a fight with Joe Louis, laughed. Once more they had given Joe Louis, the heavyweight champion, an excuse to dodge the violent one. For from 10 rows back it looked like Charles all the way. He danced and jabbed and landed a lot on Ray's bobbing pate and Elmer's busy elbows. But inside 10 rows you could see the devastation wrought by Ray's jarring hooks, blasts which raised the sheaf of Ezzard's cheek. “No holding,” was the continual admonition of referee Eddie Joseph. But Ezzard, of the winged retreating feet, had to hold for his life, and in doing so he made of Elmer Ray a modern Sam Langford."
According to the Nevada State Journal, "Ezzard had clicked off 15 straight victories since he received his discharge from the army 18 months ago, including nine knockouts, but he was unable to overcome his heavier and more experienced opponent, and he was unable to score a single knock-down against rugged Ray, who kept marching in, bobbing and weaving and throwing hooks to body and head. Although Ray admits to 31, which would make him at least five years older than his opponent, it was Ray who finished stronger in the 10th round and thereby apparently wrapped up the bout by a close margin."

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 11:21 AM

Jersey Joe Walcott - I've always read that as a patchy period for Walcott. He loses to Maxim, he beats him. He loses to Ray, he beats him. Beat Bivins by a shade. He wasn't on top of his form during these months in my opinion. As I understand it, the win was disputed?

Where do you rate Joey Maxim as a HW?

Ezzard Charles - I've never read an account that says Ezzard was anything other than robbed.

Fitzsimmons has a win over a younger, bigger incumbent undisputed HW champion on his ledger. You're going to have to go some to convince me that these gifts bring him neck and neck with a win like that

younger? Charles was 27 when ray beat him, corbett was 30. Jersey Joe Walcott was only 32 years old, trim lean at his peak reflexes better than ever.

bigger? corbett was only 5lb heavier than charles and walcott was bigger than corbett

Talent wise? charles and walcott was the better fighters than corbett

better yet, ray was 37-38 years old when he beat young versions of charles and walcott. very impressiv.e

Ezzard Charles - I've never read an account that says Ezzard was anything other than robbed.

The United Press scorecard had it 5-4-1 for Ray, while the Associated Press card scored the match 5-4-1 for Charles. Here is the description from the Middlesboro Daily News account: "The gallery gods went into ranting hysterics last night when the burly negro who once wrestled alligators for a living smashed the myth which was Ezzard Charles. The boxing bigwigs, who had been grooming Charles for a fight with Joe Louis, laughed. Once more they had given Joe Louis, the heavyweight champion, an excuse to dodge the violent one. For from 10 rows back it looked like Charles all the way. He danced and jabbed and landed a lot on Ray's bobbing pate and Elmer's busy elbows. But inside 10 rows you could see the devastation wrought by Ray's jarring hooks, blasts which raised the sheaf of Ezzard's cheek. “No holding,” was the continual admonition of referee Eddie Joseph. But Ezzard, of the winged retreating feet, had to hold for his life, and in doing so he made of Elmer Ray a modern Sam Langford."
According to the Nevada State Journal, "Ezzard had clicked off 15 straight victories since he received his discharge from the army 18 months ago, including nine knockouts, but he was unable to overcome his heavier and more experienced opponent, and he was unable to score a single knock-down against rugged Ray, who kept marching in, bobbing and weaving and throwing hooks to body and head. Although Ray admits to 31, which would make him at least five years older than his opponent, it was Ray who finished stronger in the 10th round and thereby apparently wrapped up the bout by a close margin."

Where do you rate Joey Maxim as a HW?

Walcott was robbed against Maxim. new york times described the first fight as "the clevelander winning a very unpopular decision." besides maxim was a lightheavyweight who occasionally had an overweight the weight heavyweight match. ray was a fully fledged heavyweight his whole career with tools 6'2 81" reach for a long armed hard punching swarmer that made him lethal on the inside and outside. rays a nightmare h2h

Jersey Joe Walcott - I've always read that as a patchy period for Walcott

not at all. he beat ray bivins and murray 3 of the best heavyweight contenders of the decade!

He loses to Maxim, he beats him. He loses to Ray, he beats him.

maxim fight was a robbery, walcott won all 3.

ray was a great fighter, he would have beat many champions. walcott went 2-1 vs him

Beat Bivins by a shade.

only on the scorecards. the times described the fight as "walcott won the fight easily going away, dropping bivins for a long count with a sharp counter right hand."

OLD FOGEY

08-04-2008, 11:23 AM

Douglas didn't beat more good fighters, he obviously has his big win over Tyson which is superior to any win on Weavers, but other than this is resume is very slim. His only other quality wins are over an aging Berbick and a young McCall, Weaver has wins over an unbeaten John Tate for the WBA, win over Gerrie Coatzee, KO over Carl Williams, and a win over unbeaten James Quick Tillis. He also has wins over under rated Bernardo Mercado, and Scott Ledoux.

His resume is much deeper than Busters, and while he has losses that's mostly because he was thrown to the wolves early and fought much longer than he should of. Head to Head Douglas was only better than Weaver once and while I still may rank him above when you take into account resume Weaver has the edge.

I think you do a "the glass is one-quarter empty" number on Douglas versus a "the glass is one-quarter full" number on Weaver.

Besides Berbick and McCall, Douglas defeated Page and Cobb--Page ko'd Coetzie and Cobb beat Mercado.

You are right that many of Douglas' wins came over men on the way up or on the way down, but McCall, Berbick, Page, and Cobb still give enough support to the big Tyson win, along with greater consistency, to top a resume of Tate, Coetzee, Williams, Tillis, Mercado, and LeDoux.

Weaver was indeed ko'd early in his career when green. He was also ko'd late in his career when washed up, but he was also ko'd in his prime. He was stopped in 1 of each 5 fights he had. That is pretty bad.

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 11:24 AM

it's close between him and Ray but head to head I think he struggles a little bit more than Ray so I put him a spot lower.

I agree. were talking about a 167lb bareknuckle style standup straight chin out hands low type fighter vs a 6'2 190lb 81" reach long armed puncher-swarmer with excellent defense and two fisted attack.

McGrain

08-04-2008, 11:25 AM

Tyson H2H is at the top along with Ali in my view, and H2H is half of the ranking system. Resume wise he makes top ten as well imo.

In my opinion it is a reach to raise Tyson to such olympian heights based upon head to head peak for peak when he was never able to proove himself against a great fighter at that time. There is a lot of guess-work involved, and as I also know you to be a big Tyson fan, you will understand my reluctance in accepting his ranking at face value.

Not Tyson's fault that he never fought a great peak for peak, but that's the way it goes. "Deciding" he would do well is a bit of a reach in my view.

Jackson may be a bit low, I'll be honest his era is the one where I lack the most knowledge in.

He was probably the last HW I came to too, which may have led me to over-rating him slightly. You should have fun finding out!

With Tunney, he simply didn't have enough HW fights to warrant a higher ranking.

Dempsey x2
Tommmy Gibbons
Johnny Risco
The first man ever to stop Tom Heeney
Harry Greb

Yeah, Greb. He has some decent names on his HW resume including Willie Meehan a couple of times

It's the beginings of an interesting resume. Certainly the Dempsey wins elivate it.

He beat a faded Dempsey twice, and only had one other HW win

Okay, Dempsey was faded, but he also had his best win, the KO of Sharkey, ahead of him. That is, Tunney beat a Dempsey either side of Jack's best victory. I just think it should be kept in mind when writing these wins off.

I should of added Spinks somewhere in the 40s actually that was an oversight I'm surprised no one mentioned that.

Possibly, but are you only interested in results? Spinks' wins over Holmes are suspect - how do you feel about them? - Dempsey did not win a round in the first Tunney fight. It was total, utter domination of an incumbent HW champ with his best win ahead of him.

Yeah?

The second fight was closer, but not a disputable result. Clean, clean win for Tunney.

With Ray, he defeated young versions of Joe Walcott, and Ezzard Charles, 2 guys in my top 20. He had a huge win streak during the mid 40s and deserves to be on the list, Fitz is only one spot below him. Pure resume wise it's close between him and Ray but head to head I think he struggles a little bit more than Ray so I put him a spot lower.

Possibly right on the head to head.

Boxrec quotes Ring on the 174lb Charles's loss to Ray: "Charles apparently won handily. Charles was faster, better and the sharper hitter."

Sounds like a bad SD.

McGrain

08-04-2008, 11:30 AM

Peak versions of walcott and charles would have easily outpointed the 1927 jack dempsey. maybe stopped him.

Ray's wins over these fighters are disputed.

It's nice to read the Middlesbro Daily News account, what do you make of the Ring account which seems to indicate that Charles was robbed?

McGrain

08-04-2008, 11:31 AM

younger? Charles was 27 when ray beat him, corbett was 30. Jersey Joe Walcott was only 32 years old, trim lean at his peak reflexes better than ever.

bigger? corbett was only 5lb heavier than charles and walcott was bigger than corbett

You've misunderstood.

Fitz has a win over an incumbent heavyweight champion who is younger and bigger than him.

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 11:33 AM

Dempsey x2
Tommmy Gibbons
Johnny Risco
The first man ever to stop Tom Heeney
Harry Greb

dempsey far past his prime rusty

tom heeny below average

tom gibbons very old retirement home and 175lb

harry greb 165lb

Johnny Risko- good win but risko was still pretty green

Tunney never took on sharkey, godfrey, wills, schmeling, stribling, gains,

Okay, Dempsey was faded, but he also had his best win, the KO of Sharkey, ahead of him. That is, Tunney beat a Dempsey either side of Jack's best victory. I just think it should be kept in mind when writing these wins off.

LOL dempsey got the shit beat out of him for 6 rounds by sharkey, he beat sharkey by hitting him inna balls!

Dempsey did not win a round in the first Tunney fight. It was total, utter domination of an incumbent HW champ with his best win ahead of him.

dempsey barely won a round vs sharkey! why not rate sharkey over tunney, tunney avoided sharkey and sharkey recorded far and away better wins than tunney did.

The second fight was closer, but not a disputable result. Clean, clean win for Tunney.

Yes I guess its clean when a certain fighter is down for 14 seconds

Possibly right on the head to head.

Boxrec quotes Ring on the 174lb Charles's loss to Ray: "Charles apparently won handily. Charles was faster, better and the sharper hitter."

Sounds like a bad SD.

you use boxrec for all your information?

The United Press scorecard had it 5-4-1 for Ray, while the Associated Press card scored the match 5-4-1 for Charles. Here is the description from the Middlesboro Daily News account: "The gallery gods went into ranting hysterics last night when the burly negro who once wrestled alligators for a living smashed the myth which was Ezzard Charles. The boxing bigwigs, who had been grooming Charles for a fight with Joe Louis, laughed. Once more they had given Joe Louis, the heavyweight champion, an excuse to dodge the violent one. For from 10 rows back it looked like Charles all the way. He danced and jabbed and landed a lot on Ray's bobbing pate and Elmer's busy elbows. But inside 10 rows you could see the devastation wrought by Ray's jarring hooks, blasts which raised the sheaf of Ezzard's cheek. “No holding,” was the continual admonition of referee Eddie Joseph. But Ezzard, of the winged retreating feet, had to hold for his life, and in doing so he made of Elmer Ray a modern Sam Langford."
According to the Nevada State Journal, "Ezzard had clicked off 15 straight victories since he received his discharge from the army 18 months ago, including nine knockouts, but he was unable to overcome his heavier and more experienced opponent, and he was unable to score a single knock-down against rugged Ray, who kept marching in, bobbing and weaving and throwing hooks to body and head. Although Ray admits to 31, which would make him at least five years older than his opponent, it was Ray who finished stronger in the 10th round and thereby apparently wrapped up the bout by a close margin."

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 11:35 AM

Ray's wins over these fighters are disputed.

It's nice to read the Middlesbro Daily News account, what do you make of the Ring account which seems to indicate that Charles was robbed?

disputed maybe, but not robberies. they were fights that could have gone either way, the first walcott fight however is a clear decision for ray. i dont think any papers had walcott winning. charles fight is a toss up, whether you prefer sharper more often hitting/counterpunching vs effective aggresion harder punches?

boxrec's account IMO is very vacant and leaves alot of unaswered questions. it hardly has any round by round accounts. the source MF posted a while back that I used seems far more reliable, giving detail descriptions.

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 11:37 AM

the ray-charles fights seems like one of those fights u were best able to score up close, since you were able to see the full blast of rays damaging blows were doing to charles.

McGrain

08-04-2008, 11:39 AM

LOL dempsey got the shit beat out of him for 6 rounds by sharkey, he beat sharkey by hitting him inna balls!

lol

dempsey barely won a round vs sharkey! why not rate sharkey over tunney, tunney avoided sharkey and sharkey recorded far and away better wins than tunney did.

I could see an argument for rating Sharkey over Tunney, though not a great one. Regardless of your disdain for this win, it is Dempsey's best name win, and he wins it by KO. The punch "inna balls" was not the finishing punch.

you use boxrec for all your information?

Yeah, all of it.

Is the Ring quote bad because it comes from Boxrec? Or because it indicates your fighter got a gift?

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 11:40 AM

Yeah, all of it.

I suggest looking to other sources once in a while. as in the ray-charles I case, some papers have very different opinions on fight compared to others. it gives u a chance to grasp what really happened in the fight

McGrain

08-04-2008, 11:41 AM

boxrec's account IMO is very vacant and leaves alot of unaswered questions

There is no boxrec account, it is a quote of the Ring account.

OLD FOGEY

08-04-2008, 11:41 AM

I dont think so. first of all it was not a decisive knockout, it was a fight where corbett knocked fitz down and fitz grabbed on to corbetts leg to save himself from being counted out. he should have been DQed. he was badly behind on points.

Ray won a clear decision over a prime jersey joe walcott in the first fight, walcott was better than corbett IMO. combine that with prime version of ezzard charles(whos better than corbett) in a very close fight that could have gone either way but rays aggresion proved superior, and you have two wins over fighters as good or better than corbett. defintley a huge edge to ray. were talking 2 wins over great fighters, versus 1 win over a great fighter. 2-1 edge.

Ray has wins over savold, peaks, haynes, thomas, walker, daniels, and first thompson fight(should have been DQ) many of these men were much bigger and had more modern style than the small bareknuckller types fitz beat.

But the point is thompson illegally intentionally hit ray low after taking a horrible beating, so he could get out of the fight. this in modern rules is a DQ. the fact ray couldnt continue was because he was in severe pain for his balls getting mangled up his ass by a thompson left hook. thompson should have been DQed, it was a travesty the fight was ruled a NC.

sure

"Thompson illegally intentionally hit Ray low"

How do you know it was intentional? Did Thompson fess up with a "I was losing so I hit 'im in the balls" statement to the press?

"so he could get out of the fight"

Well, he fought a rematch a few weeks later, so he couldn't have been all that awed or afraid, and Thompson stopped Ray in one in that rematch.

I would like to see film before making judgements on this fight.

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 11:42 AM

I could see an argument for rating Sharkey over Tunney, though not a great one. Regardless of your disgain for this win, it is Dempsey's best name win, and he wins it by KO. The punch "inna balls" was not the finishing punch

if u watch sharkeys face, right before dempsey hits him with a left hook, sharkey is already grimmacing in horrible pain grabbing his balls already on his way down........dempsey hit him with a left hook to make it look like he knocked him out legitley, but sharkey could be seen on the canvas in pain grabbing his balls. i wonder how much the left hook even affected him. it was not a clean knockout whatsoever

McGrain

08-04-2008, 11:44 AM

I suggest looking to other sources once in a while.

You're right.

Maybe i'll dig out my account of light-middleweight Burley owning and knocking out Ray in sparring.

McGrain

08-04-2008, 11:44 AM

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 11:45 AM

Well, he fought a rematch a few weeks later, so he couldn't have been all that awed or afraid, and Thompson stopped Ray in one in that rematch.

Yes he caught ray cold, it happens. happened to archie moore vs leonard morrow. does not mean there better. ray handled thompson with ease according to the papers in the first fight, and IMO was clearly the better fighter h2h. thompson had tons of weaknesses, while ray was a nightmare h2h vs the top guys of the era. Bob Pastor won 2 shutout decisions over turkey thompson, he was easy to outbox, can u imagine what walcott and charles would have done to him?

fact remains under practically any other comission, the ray-thompson fight is ruled a DQ win for ray. how could this not be a DQ win for ray. thompson hit him IN THE BALLS, thats illegal.

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 11:47 AM

Maybe i'll dig out my account of light-middleweight Burley owning and knocking out Ray in sparring.

go ahead why dont u get the account of burley knocking out walcott too in sparring LOL LOL LOL LOL

as far as im concerned, if you dont think that highly of ray u better rethink ur evaluations of louis, charles , and walcott, since louis ducked ray......and walcott and charles lost to a 38 year old elmer ray,.

McGrain

08-04-2008, 11:56 AM

as far as im concerned, if you dont think that highly of ray u better rethink ur evaluations of louis, charles , and walcott, since louis ducked ray......and walcott and charles lost to a 38 year old elmer ray,.

I do think highly of Ray and i've never said otherwise.

McGrain

08-04-2008, 11:59 AM

go ahead why dont u get the account of burley knocking out walcott too in sparring LOL LOL LOL LOL
,.

I've never posted anything about that - ever - because I don't consider the sources serious.

The Ray ownage comes down from a pug-filled gym.

OLD FOGEY

08-04-2008, 11:59 AM

Yes he caught ray cold, it happens. happened to archie moore vs leonard morrow. does not mean there better. ray handled thompson with ease according to the papers in the first fight, and IMO was clearly the better fighter h2h. thompson had tons of weaknesses, while ray was a nightmare h2h vs the top guys of the era. Bob Pastor won 2 shutout decisions over turkey thompson, he was easy to outbox, can u imagine what walcott and charles would have done to him?

fact remains under practically any other comission, the ray-thompson fight is ruled a DQ win for ray. how could this not be a DQ win for ray. thompson hit him IN THE BALLS, thats illegal.

I have a question. Sonny Liston hit Eddie Machen low in the 11th round. Machen was given a minute to recover. If Machen claimed to be too hurt to continue, should he have been given the fight? If not, why not?

A lot of guys are hit low in fights. Few claim to be unable to continue after rest periods and so opt to take a no contest. I would still like to see film of this one. Certainly Ray was winning going into the sixth, but things can turn around fast with big punchers. Perhaps Ray was in trouble before Thompson accidentally hit him low and saw a way to get out of the fight while avoiding a knockout defeat--and took it.

Thompson could punch hard enough to ko anyone and he had a much better chin than Ray. I pick Charles and Walcott to beat him, but he would certainly be a dangerous opponent. Fact remains he ko'd a peak Ray.

"Bob Pastor won two shutout decisions over Turkey Thompson"

They gave Pastor the round in which he was knocked down six times? Under modern conditions, the first fight would have been a first round knockout for Thompson, for whatever that is worth.

Anyway, no one is arguing that on balance Thompson is better than Ray. I argued that Ray deserved to be in the top fifty, not Thompson, although there certainly is a case for Thompson.

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 12:33 PM

Certainly Ray was winning going into the sixth, but things can turn around fast with big punchers. Perhaps Ray was in trouble before Thompson accidentally hit him low and saw a way to get out of the fight while avoiding a knockout defeat--and took it.

But the fight account from mf does not describe any of this. it describes ray as beating the heck out of thompson for 5 rounds, and CONTINUING to dominate thompson in the 6th before thompson hit him low. NOW TAKE NOTE, thompson did not foul ray once, he fouled ray TWICE. thats golota-bowe all over again to me....except in this fight thompson was getting hurt badly.

Modesto Bee account, August 10th, 1943, reads, "Turkey Thompson still wore his crown today after a match with a tough Floridian named Elmer Ray, who punched his better known opponent around the ring for six rounds only to have Referee Lee Ramage atop the bout with no decision after Ray had been fouled twice," and according to the Fresno Bee Republican, "Ray had won all five rounds and was out in front in the sixth when he was hurt by a low blow and Ramage stopped the bout."

Thompson could punch hard enough to ko anyone and he had a much better chin than Ray. I pick Charles and Walcott to beat him, but he would certainly be a dangerous opponent. Fact remains he ko'd a peak Ray.

I would argue, ray hadnt fully peaked yet, he was just catching his stride, but he didnt hit his peak until 45-46. IMO ray deserved a DQ win vs thompson making the series 1-1, but thompson does have a case for top 50. I do think ray, murray bivins were better contenders, but thompson had the punchers chance vs anyone.

SuzieQ49

08-04-2008, 12:35 PM

I have a question. Sonny Liston hit Eddie Machen low in the 11th round. Machen was given a minute to recover. If Machen claimed to be too hurt to continue, should he have been given the fight? If not, why not

If sonny had fouled eddie twice in the same round like thompson did to ray, i would say yes he did deserve to be Dqed. different circumstances, because ray was dominating the fight shutout after 6 and thompson appeared to get dirty and hit him low twice because nothing else was working. liston and machen both were pretty dirty that night.

Muchmoore

08-04-2008, 02:36 PM

In my opinion it is a reach to raise Tyson to such olympian heights based upon head to head peak for peak when he was never able to proove himself against a great fighter at that time. There is a lot of guess-work involved, and as I also know you to be a big Tyson fan, you will understand my reluctance in accepting his ranking at face value.

Not Tyson's fault that he never fought a great peak for peak, but that's the way it goes. "Deciding" he would do well is a bit of a reach in my view.

He was probably the last HW I came to too, which may have led me to over-rating him slightly. You should have fun finding out!

Dempsey x2
Tommmy Gibbons
Johnny Risco
The first man ever to stop Tom Heeney
Harry Greb

Yeah, Greb. He has some decent names on his HW resume including Willie Meehan a couple of times

It's the beginings of an interesting resume. Certainly the Dempsey wins elivate it.

Okay, Dempsey was faded, but he also had his best win, the KO of Sharkey, ahead of him. That is, Tunney beat a Dempsey either side of Jack's best victory. I just think it should be kept in mind when writing these wins off.

Possibly, but are you only interested in results? Spinks' wins over Holmes are suspect - how do you feel about them? - Dempsey did not win a round in the first Tunney fight. It was total, utter domination of an incumbent HW champ with his best win ahead of him.

Yeah?

The second fight was closer, but not a disputable result. Clean, clean win for Tunney.

Possibly right on the head to head.

Boxrec quotes Ring on the 174lb Charles's loss to Ray: "Charles apparently won handily. Charles was faster, better and the sharper hitter."

Sounds like a bad SD.

I can understand why you don't rate Tyson top 4, 5 all time. I hold the opinion that head to head his blend of power, speed, aggressiveness combined with his skills and granite chin would enable him to beat every HW not named Muhammad Ali. Although Liston, Lewis, Foreman, and possibly Holyfield would certainly have a good chance.

Dempsey had his best win after Tunney, but let's be honest that fight was a fluke. They could fight 10 times and Dempsey would of won by KO once. He wasn't anywhere near the raging Dempsey that fought Willard.

You mentioned Spinks, I think he clearly won the first fight with Holmes, Holmes should of won the rematch but that doesn't erase Spinks win. As well as beating Cooney and the fact his style would trouble many people ranked highly puts him somewhere in the top 50 for me.

With Ray, yes he was possibly on the receiving end of a gift against Charles but Charles was a master boxer, and the fight must of been at least somewhat close. Like Suzie has already posted there were many people that thought Ray deserved the win. He also had thewin over young Walcott.

Muchmoore

08-04-2008, 02:37 PM

if u watch sharkeys face, right before dempsey hits him with a left hook, sharkey is already grimmacing in horrible pain grabbing his balls already on his way down........dempsey hit him with a left hook to make it look like he knocked him out legitley, but sharkey could be seen on the canvas in pain grabbing his balls. i wonder how much the left hook even affected him. it was not a clean knockout whatsoever

Gotta disagree with you here Suzie, that was a perfect left hook that finished him :lol:

Muchmoore

08-04-2008, 02:41 PM

Take off list:
1. George Godfrey--might have worn cuffs, but his record is just not good enough to justify top 50 placement.
2. Ike Ibeabuchi--didn't do enough-wins over two contenders not enough for top fifty, in my judgement.
3. Chris Byrd

Ike Head to Head ranks very high in my opinion. Resume wise he's extremely thin but he did have a KO win over future IBF champ Chris Byrd, and is the only man to slug it out with Tua, who was unbeaten at the time, and win.

Byrd was the IBF champ and defended his title several times. He deserves to be on it somewhere.

McGrain

08-04-2008, 02:42 PM

I can understand why you don't rate Tyson top 4, 5 all time. I hold the opinion that head to head his blend of power, speed, aggressiveness combined with his skills and granite chin would enable him to beat every HW not named Muhammad Ali. Although Liston, Lewis, Foreman, and possibly Holyfield would certainly have a good chance.

We can disagree about Tyson's head to head ranking and continue to get along i'm sure. Christ, some people seem to disagree with themselves as regards this issue.

I have him at #7-9 depending.

Dempsey had his best win after Tunney, but let's be honest that fight was a fluke. They could fight 10 times and Dempsey would of won by KO once.

We know two things about that fight - one, Sharkey was the better boxer and two, Dempsey has the power to KO Sharkey.

Knowing that, I would certainly take Dempsey to KO Sharkey more than 1/10, by knockout.

McGrain

08-04-2008, 02:43 PM

Gotta disagree with you here Suzie, that was a perfect left hook that finished him :lol:

A perfect left hook he only threw to cover up the one he'd landed inna balls apparently.

OLD FOGEY

08-04-2008, 03:16 PM

A perfect left hook he only threw to cover up the one he'd landed inna balls apparently.

I remember reading Fritzie Zivic on the art of dirty fighting years ago. Zivic wrote that you should flurry to the body, slipping in the low one, and then when the victim drops his hands, you finish him with a shot to the jaw, leaving the referee confused. Old Fritzie must have studied at Dempsey's knee.

marciano1952

08-04-2008, 04:56 PM

Jeffries nees to be in to top 7 move tyson to 7-12 area(at 4 its laughable) Dempsey also needs to be bumped up along with Johnson

McGrain

08-04-2008, 05:05 PM

I remember reading Fritzie Zivic on the art of dirty fighting years ago. Zivic wrote that you should flurry to the body, slipping in the low one, and then when the victim drops his hands, you finish him with a shot to the jaw, leaving the referee confused. Old Fritzie must have studied at Dempsey's knee.

:lol:

He was such a naughty little monkey.

Bokaj

08-04-2008, 05:19 PM

Jeffries nees to be in to top 7 move tyson to 7-12 area(at 4 its laughable) Dempsey also needs to be bumped up along with Johnson

Why should they be above Tyson? What do Jeffries have that's better than Tyson's blow-outs of fighters as Berbick, Spinks, Tubbs, Stewart, Golota etc and impressive victories over Biggs, Holmes, Thomas, Bruno and others?

Ali, Louis, Lewis, Holmes, Johnson and Marciano are above Tyson in terms of resume, but not many others IMO. I think his record are about on par with Frazier's and Liston's. H2H I have them close as well.

marciano1952

08-04-2008, 07:53 PM

Why should they be above Tyson? What do Jeffries have that's better than Tyson's blow-outs of fighters as Berbick, Spinks, Tubbs, Stewart, Golota etc and impressive victories over Biggs, Holmes, Thomas, Bruno and others?

Ali, Louis, Lewis, Holmes, Johnson and Marciano are above Tyson in terms of resume, but not many others IMO. I think his record are about on par with Frazier's and Liston's. H2H I have them close as well.

Well Jeffries only Beat Corbett, Fitz, Hank Griffin, Tom Sharky, Bob Armstrong a Draw With joe Choynski a draw and win over Gus Ruhlin, Peter Jackson

Head To head Jeffries was Just as Big Better Stamina better Chin, Punch Power is Close and I would Highly Favor Jeffries over Tyson Due to His Chin, Stamina and thoughness

Marciano Frazier

08-04-2008, 11:17 PM

Jeffries nees to be in to top 7 move tyson to 7-12 area(at 4 its laughable) Dempsey also needs to be bumped up along with Johnson
For the note, I also think those guys should be higher than they are, but in my previous post I only mentioned lowering fighters as that would naturally bring these guys up.

Marciano Frazier

08-05-2008, 02:58 AM

Jersey Joe Walcott - I've always read that as a patchy period for Walcott. He loses to Maxim, he beats him. He loses to Ray, he beats him. Beat Bivins by a shade. He wasn't on top of his form during these months in my opinion. As I understand it, the win was disputed?
Actually, according to accounts I've read, Walcott beat Bivins pretty soundly and was nearly robbed (I believe the NY Times referred to it as a match in which "the Easterner had the advantage all the way," for example). You have to remember that going into this fight, Walcott was viewed as just an old pug, while Bivins was the guy on an enormous winning streak who had practically cleaned out both the light heavyweight and heavyweight divisions in Louis' absence. Walcott was brought in as the fodder for Bivins as a tune-up for a potential title shot.
Ray's win over Walcott was not disputed in any of the newspaper accounts I've seen. The NY Times account had it 6-4 for Ray, Sid Roth wrote that Ray "had a clear winning edge," etc. I haven't seen any accounts that indicated they thought Ray didn't win this fight.

Where do you rate Joey Maxim as a HW?
The Associated Press scorecard had Walcott winning 6-3-1 in his "loss" to Maxim. From what I've seen, this was clearly viewed as a questionable or outright bad decision. Moreover, Maxim never had a 50-fight heavyweight winning streak and never beat Charles (in five attempts, no less!) or a comparable heavyweight, aside from Patterson, who was weighing in the 160s at the time of their fight.

Ezzard Charles - I've never read an account that says Ezzard was anything other than robbed.
Then evidently you never read my thread on Ray from earlier this year, which SuzieQ appears to be plagiarizing a bit in his own posts in this thread. The boxrec description is misleading; outside of it, I've seen one or two that were emphatically in favor of Ray, one or two that gave a narrow edge to Ray, and one or two that gave a narrow edge to Charles. It looks to have been a legitimately close fight which, perhaps, was a case of contrasting styles and criteria leading to disparate scorecards.

Fitzsimmons has a win over a younger, bigger incumbent undisputed HW champion on his ledger. You're going to have to go some to convince me that these gifts bring him neck and neck with a win like that.
Corbett wasn't bigger than Walcott or Charles, nor was he younger than Charles when Ray beat him, nor was he as good as either Walcott or Charles, I'd say.

To be explicit about my position here, on my latest list, Fitzsimmons ranked two spots higher than Ray (25 to 27). I think they're fairly interchangeable and that either one could be reasonably ranked more or less anywhere between, say, 20 and 40.

Bokaj

08-05-2008, 05:04 AM

Well Jeffries only Beat Corbett, Fitz, Hank Griffin, Tom Sharky, Bob Armstrong a Draw With joe Choynski a draw and win over Gus Ruhlin, Peter Jackson

Yeah, Corbett and Fitz when they were old, and it was by no means blow-outs. In that case Tyson's demolition of Holmes, who only had been defeated once and never KO'd, is more impressive. Jeffries also blatantly used the colour line when taking on opponents, thus refusing to face some very good opposition. I would never, ever rate a guy who made it easy for himself like this in the top. 10. In no way shape or form is his wins better than Tyson.

Head To head Jeffries was Just as Big Better Stamina better Chin, Punch Power is Close and I would Highly Favor Jeffries over Tyson Due to His Chin, Stamina and thoughness

Personally, I think Tyson would slaughter Jeffries. But there isn't enough film in good enough quality to draw any absolute conclusions really, I would say.

Better chin?! How did Jeffries prove he had better chin? Because he could take the best that Corbett and Fitzimmons had to give him? I know Fitzimmons was a great puncher p4p, but Tyson took bombs from guys like Bruno, Tucker and Razor Ruddock without going down. Not to mention the punches from Lewis and Douglas he stood up to before eventually succumbing.

For me, having Jeffries on a top 10 is obvious bias towards the old days.

McGrain

08-05-2008, 06:28 AM

Then evidently you never read my thread on Ray from earlier this year, which SuzieQ appears to be plagiarizing a bit in his own posts in this thread. The boxrec description is misleading; outside of it, I've seen one or two that were emphatically in favor of Ray

I do remember it actually; I might even dig it up.

Corbett wasn't bigger than Walcott or Charles, nor was he younger than Charles when Ray beat him, nor was he as good as either Walcott or Charles, I'd say.

Corbett was bigger and younger than Bob Fitzsimmons was my point.

I would probably agree that Walcott and Charles should be favoured over Corbett, but I certainly don't see very much in it.

SuzieQ49

08-05-2008, 06:57 AM

Then evidently you never read my thread on Ray from earlier this year, which SuzieQ appears to be plagiarizing a bit in his own posts in this thread. The boxrec description is misleading; outside of it, I've seen one or two that were emphatically in favor of Ray, one or two that gave a narrow edge to Ray, and one or two that gave a narrow edge to Charles. It looks to have been a legitimately close fight which, perhaps, was a case of contrasting styles and criteria leading to disparate scorecards.

woa woa there lol, so I am not allowed to use your amazing sources which you posted in a public forum for all us to see now? not only did I use them in context, i posted in the thread that they came from you. I think you are being a tad unfair, considering I have posted newspaper clippings before that you yourself would go on to use. w/e man.

Mendoza

08-05-2008, 07:22 AM

Actually, according to accounts I've read, Walcott beat Bivins pretty soundly and was nearly robbed (I believe the NY Times referred to it as a match in which "the Easterner had the advantage all the way," for example). You have to remember that going into this fight, Walcott was viewed as just an old pug, while Bivins was the guy on an enormous winning streak who had practically cleaned out both the light heavyweight and heavyweight divisions in Louis' absence. Walcott was brought in as the fodder for Bivins as a tune-up for a potential title shot.
Ray's win over Walcott was not disputed in any of the newspaper accounts I've seen. The NY Times account had it 6-4 for Ray, Sid Roth wrote that Ray "had a clear winning edge," etc. I haven't seen any accounts that indicated they thought Ray didn't win this fight.

The Associated Press scorecard had Walcott winning 6-3-1 in his "loss" to Maxim. From what I've seen, this was clearly viewed as a questionable or outright bad decision. Moreover, Maxim never had a 50-fight heavyweight winning streak and never beat Charles (in five attempts, no less!) or a comparable heavyweight, aside from Patterson, who was weighing in the 160s at the time of their fight.

Then evidently you never read my thread on Ray from earlier this year, which SuzieQ appears to be plagiarizing a bit in his own posts in this thread. The boxrec description is misleading; outside of it, I've seen one or two that were emphatically in favor of Ray, one or two that gave a narrow edge to Ray, and one or two that gave a narrow edge to Charles. It looks to have been a legitimately close fight which, perhaps, was a case of contrasting styles and criteria leading to disparate scorecards.

Corbett wasn't bigger than Walcott or Charles, nor was he younger than Charles when Ray beat him, nor was he as good as either Walcott or Charles, I'd say.

To be explicit about my position here, on my latest list, Fitzsimmons ranked two spots higher than Ray (25 to 27). I think they're fairly interchangeable and that either one could be reasonably ranked more or less anywhere between, say, 20 and 40.

Interesting stuff on Elmer Ray. I wish there was film on him for us to see. I get the hunch Ray might have been more or a boxer with a chip on his shoulder than a pure puncher type. Beating Charles or Walcott on points ( offically or in the press ) and not scoring knockdowns is a reason why I beleive this.

Personally, I do not see Ray as a top 30 guy. History does not remember him, and if he was a big puncher, he did not show it that often vs class guys, nor did he show a good chin…on paper.

SuzieQ49

08-05-2008, 08:53 AM

Personally, I do not see Ray as a top 30 guy

I have Ray at 21 or 22 on my list. He was a very good fighter, certainly a top 30 guy.

History does not remember him

Ever think to wonder that is perhaps because there is no film of elmer ray?

Take Note: Respected Boxing Historian Herb Goldman rates elmer ray # 17 on his all time heavyweight list

I get the hunch Ray might have been more or a boxer with a chip on his shoulder than a pure puncher type.

Papers describe elmer ray as a devastating puncher. he was called "Violent" for a reason. but yes he had skills too.

Beating Charles or Walcott on points ( offically or in the press ) and not scoring knockdowns is a reason why I beleive this.

Charles and Walcott in there prime years were hard to knockout. Ray did hurt both of them several times.

marciano1952

08-05-2008, 07:05 PM

Yeah, Corbett and Fitz when they were old, and it was by no means blow-outs. In that case Tyson's demolition of Holmes, who only had been defeated once and never KO'd, is more impressive. Jeffries also blatantly used the colour line when taking on opponents, thus refusing to face some very good opposition. I would never, ever rate a guy who made it easy for himself like this in the top. 10. In no way shape or form is his wins better than Tyson.

Personally, I think Tyson would slaughter Jeffries. But there isn't enough film in good enough quality to draw any absolute conclusions really, I would say.

Better chin?! How did Jeffries prove he had better chin? Because he could take the best that Corbett and Fitzimmons had to give him? I know Fitzimmons was a great puncher p4p, but Tyson took bombs from guys like Bruno, Tucker and Razor Ruddock without going down. Not to mention the punches from Lewis and Douglas he stood up to before eventually succumbing.

For me, having Jeffries on a top 10 is obvious bias towards the old days.

Corbett in the first fight was boxing surpierly until the 22nd or 23rd round cant remember then won a fight against Kid Mcoy if im not mistaken befor the rematch with Jeffries then it waas Jeffries who was out boxing the guy who had Outboxed everyone

Fitz went on the become the First LightHW champion of the world after he fought Jeffries and in there rematch afte Jeffries beat him for the title removed allt he padding from his Gloves andhe still couldnt hurt Jeffies at all

What about Hank Griffin Dosent He have a Winning Recourd over Jack Johnson also Jeffries managed to Take the Best Shots a prime Choynski could Throw at him one even pushing his lip between his teeth that had to be cut out and still went 20 rounds with him when Johson Couldnt even manage to go 3 with a Washed up Choynski

as for the Color line it wasnt Jeffries himself who drew it it was the media and the times that he fought in that Drew it even Johnson Drew a so called Color line when he was champion

Mendoza

08-05-2008, 09:09 PM

SuzieQ49 Ever think to wonder that is perhaps because there is no film of elmer ray?

No, History does not remember Ray. There is not flim on Greb, P. Jackson or Sullivan, but history remembers them well. Film helps, for sure, but the best in an era can over come lack of flim.

Take Note: Respected Boxing Historian Herb Goldman rates elmer ray # 17 on his all time heavyweight list

Yes, I posted this way back when. I have about 50 or so such lists from Historians. Goldman is one of two historians to have Ray in the top 20. My point is Ray in the top 20 is very rare.

Bokaj

08-06-2008, 04:58 AM

Corbett in the first fight was boxing surpierly until the 22nd or 23rd round cant remember

Yes, he was outboxing Jeffries, wasn't he, or at least kept on even terms until the KO? Tyson destroyed the very highly regarded boxer that was Michael Spinks in 90 seconds. Spinks was younger and bigger than Corbett, and had never been defeated at HW.

Fitz went on the become the First LightHW champion of the world after he fought Jeffries and in there rematch afte Jeffries beat him for the title removed allt he padding from his Gloves andhe still couldnt hurt Jeffies at all

Holmes went on to beat good contenders well into his 40's. He was also destroyed by Tyson. He hardly landed a blow.

What about Hank Griffin Dosent He have a Winning Recourd over Jack Johnson also Jeffries managed to Take the Best Shots a prime Choynski could Throw at him one even pushing his lip between his teeth that had to be cut out and still went 20 rounds with him when Johson Couldnt even manage to go 3 with a Washed up Choynski

Again, how is this better than Tyson pummeling the likes of Biggs, Thomas and Tubbs without breaking a real sweat?

as for the Color line it wasnt Jeffries himself who drew it it was the media and the times that he fought in that Drew it even Johnson Drew a so called Color line when he was champion

He was quite happy to live by the colour line, and that's what really matters. That Johnson also used it during his reign hurts his legacy as well somewhat. The difference is that he had already established his supremacy among the black fighters, and then did it over the white fighters as well.

Sardu

08-06-2008, 01:20 PM

I forgot Corbett, Peter Jackson and I wanted to put Razor Ruddock in there between 45-50. It is just too many names to remember.

SorceryatCaesar

08-06-2008, 04:56 PM

no way mike weaver is behind jimmy young and jack sharkey.

weaver nearly beat holmes in 79.

Marciano Frazier

08-14-2008, 03:53 PM

woa woa there lol, so I am not allowed to use your amazing sources which you posted in a public forum for all us to see now? not only did I use them in context, i posted in the thread that they came from you. I think you are being a tad unfair, considering I have posted newspaper clippings before that you yourself would go on to use. w/e man.
Well, it did appear you were actually taking my personal writing word-for-word in spots there, and I didn't actually see the attribution, but I wasn't being terribly serious. Not as though that was Pulitzer-prize-worthy material on my part anyway, and of course it is a public internet forum. Don't worry about it- it's good the information is getting out there.

Muchmoore

08-14-2008, 03:55 PM

no way mike weaver is behind jimmy young and jack sharkey.

weaver nearly beat holmes in 79.

Weaver also has quite a few losses and isn't nearly as high head to head as Young.

SuzieQ49

08-14-2008, 04:16 PM

Hey MF,

check your pms

janitor

08-14-2008, 04:31 PM

Muchmoore

08-14-2008, 05:10 PM

Unusual picks that I think are inspired are highlighted in orange

What exactly do you mean by this, unusual picks that you don't agree with, or strange picks that you like?

janitor

08-14-2008, 05:20 PM

What exactly do you mean by this, unusual picks that you don't agree with, or strange picks that you like?

Unusual picks that I agree with.

Holmes' Jab

08-14-2008, 06:08 PM

It was a generally solid list. Langford is definitely too low, I'd have Corbett an bit higher too as I think he was a fine fighter and certainly enriched the sport when he emerged with his progressive style. Sharkey maybe a bit higher too: as things go he was very formidable on his best night, possesed very good physical attributes. Where he lacked was that he too often wasn't a thinking fighter as such. Wlad too high also?!

SuzieQ49

08-14-2008, 08:51 PM

janitor, i think denver ed martin deserves to be rated higher than many of those white midgets you listed.

Muchmoore

08-14-2008, 09:05 PM

Wlad too high also?!

Wlad head to head is hell to boxers. Elite punchers, swarmers etc with heavy hands and fast hands blast Wlad out. But if you don't have power, it's going to be a hard fight against Klitschko, he has a long, hard possibly ATG jab, a crushing right hand, and a left hook which when used is impressive. Trying to outpoint someone with his reach, height, jab is a very hard thing to try to do, it takes a real top echelon boxer to do it (Ali, Holmes, Lewis)

Resume wise he is clearly the best fighter of the past 4, 5 years and while it is one of the weakest eras of all time, Brock, Peter, Ibragimov are all solid fighters who he beat. He has a good number of wins over ranked contenders. This warrants his current spot but if he beats Povetkin, and beats whoever the WBA champ is at the time it moves him into the top 25 and maybe top 20 depending on how he looks doing it.