Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-04-2008, 02:05 PM   #31
Dempsey1238
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,015
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senya13
Those are the only 3 London Prize Ring fights he had in his career, the rest were either Queensberry or mixed rules gloved fights.
Mitchell lasted less than 3 rounds under Queensberry rules. I'd take that and the win over McCaffrey (which the latter always claimed was a draw afterwards) bigger wins than over Ryan and Kilrain.
I put some heavy stock in the Kilrain fight. The Sullivan Kilrain fight was relly to show that Sullivan was the RIGHTFUL heavyweight champ. This fight had amazing build up. Yes it was fought in the backward woods, but the build up at the time could be compare to a Ali Fraizer build up. It relly was one of important fights of all time. It was the fight that made Sullivan a legend in the same way that Dempsey Firpo, or Louis Conn, or Ali Fraizer or even Marciano Walcott did. It was thee event of its time.
Dempsey1238 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-04-2008, 02:27 PM   #32
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,398
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
Beating Greb falls in the same place as having wins over Choynski, a young Langford, or Fitz.
Behave! - Greb never proved himself in the HW division the way that Langford and Fitz did

Quote:
Majority opinion changes often. Tunney was usually regarded as a certain top all-time heavyweight only 20 years ago.
I'm not talking about his rating, i'm talking about regarding only fights that are made in the HW division as affecting rankings in the HW division.

Quote:
Hey, I'm not going to make a big deal out of the size thing, because I dont think it's that important, but I'm guessing that the average weight of a Johnson opponent is not much more than that of the average Tunney opponent.
I'll bet that that is right, because there is only one weight division seperating them in a day when the difference between the two biggest divisions was not as pronounced as it is now - however there will be a difference, enough to describe two different weight classes.

This is because Tunney's greatest achievments are in the light heavyweight division, not the heavyweight division. These are non-transferable!


Quote:
I'm not that impressed by Johnson's defenses. The washed-up version of Dempsey looks a lot better than anyone I can see fighting Johnson on film.
I'm not either. But I am more impressed with them than Tunney's one. Throw in Johnson's coloured title run and you have a vastly superiour HW resume, comparing them is ludicrous.


Quote:
The mindset of the era ?
After Baer lost to Braddock and Louis I'm sure they called him a BUM, a gutless bum at that.
Even before that, when he was beating Schmeling and Carnera many were saying he was comically crude and wide open. In the aftermath of losing to Braddock and Louis I doubt they were saying he deserves rating above Langford and Tunney !
Basically I mean that i'm allowing for the fact that the Louis win wasn't a massive win yet. I'm doing my best to tell you what I think I would think if I was around at that time. I certainly wouldn't be kicking Baer out any more than I would be adding LOuis to my list (like Amsterdam and some of the progressives might have).

Quote:
The Baer that beat Schmeling was better, yes.
Basically all I am saying.


Quote:
In their actual careers Baer lost to some fighters I dont see Tunney losing to. And I believe Tunney beats Schmeling and Carnera very comfortably too.
On the other hand, some of those men Tunney beat, I believe they would beat Baer.
I agree with the first part and not the second. But this proves little aside from they were very different.



Quote:
The KO of Schmeling is GREAT, and cant fault his win over Carnera, but we have to keep things in perspective.
You think his record ending at Carnera would result in a high, high, high rating .... ... but you dont rate Tunney !?
There's a lot of posting going on here for basically one reason - I don't rate Tunney for the fights he had outside the HW division, or rate his wins over fighters who have fought outside the division but then fought him at LHW towards Tunney's heavyweight Resume. Keeping this in mind I think that Tunney's HW resume is weaker - much, much, much weaker - than Baer's.

Quote:
Tunney beat Jack Dempsey twice epically and emphatically, was the first man to KO the brilliant Tommy Gibbons (who was closing in on another shot at Dempsey himself, or a fight with Wills), beat Greb 3 times, and beat good B-level and tough C-level heavyweight guys like Weinert, Risko, Heeney, Madden. Didn't lose to any of them (apart from once to Greb).
And utterly dominated most of them.
As you know, I have Tunney at #11 on my list. I'd have no real problem with seeing him at 9 or 10, but I think talk of having him above the likes of Johnson reaks of favourites.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 03:42 PM   #33
Sonny's jab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain
Behave! - Greb never proved himself in the HW division the way that Langford and Fitz did
I think Greb at the time Tunney beat him was more proven against full-sized heavyweights than Langford at the time Johnson beat him.

I haven't trawled through Greb's entire and expansive record to check exactly how many good heavyweights he beat, but I think he beat a good few.

Quote:
I'm not talking about his rating, i'm talking about regarding only fights that are made in the HW division as affecting rankings in the HW division.


I'll bet that that is right, because there is only one weight division seperating them in a day when the difference between the two biggest divisions was not as pronounced as it is now - however there will be a difference, enough to describe two different weight classes.

This is because Tunney's greatest achievments are in the light heavyweight division, not the heavyweight division. These are non-transferable!
I dont go along with this.
The heavyweight division is the OPEN division.
Tommy Burns weighed 170 when Johnson beat him, strictly speaking he was "in the light-heavy division", but it's still a win that I think adds to his legacy in heavyweight ratings.
I think Joe Louis's come-from-behind win over Billy Conn says something about him as a heavyweight champion, despite Conn only weighing 174.

But beating a good 170 pound man is beating a good 170 pound man, whatever way you slice it.

Quote:
I'm not either. But I am more impressed with them than Tunney's one. Throw in Johnson's coloured title run and you have a vastly superiour HW resume, comparing them is ludicrous.
Some of - half of ! - his defenses of the colored AND white man's championship were against men who went 150 or 170. But these are "transferable" because the fights are billed as "heavyweight" ??
I can see we just dont see eye-to-eye on this subject.

Quote:
There's a lot of posting going on here for basically one reason - I don't rate Tunney for the fights he had outside the HW division, or rate his wins over fighters who have fought outside the division but then fought him at LHW towards Tunney's heavyweight Resume.
Again, we dont see eye-to-eye. It seems to matter to you whether the fights were billed as "in the heavyweight division".
Anyway, the Gibbons, Dempsey, Heeney and about a dozen other Tunney fights were "at heavyweight".

I like to strip it down to what it is : two men fighting, weighing whatever they weigh.
Since the guys we are discussing were often campaigning in their limit divisions AND in the open "heavyweight" division, I dont feel we need to close the fights off from the abstract "heavyweight rating".

For example, if a prime 165 pound Fitz fights a prime 175 Langford this can affect both the light-heavy AND heavy ratings, IN MY OPINION.

But I'm rambling now, and I know you have a different view of it.

Quote:
Keeping this in mind I think that Tunney's HW resume is weaker - much, much, much weaker - than Baer's.
I think that's utter nonsense. Baer even lost to guys that Tunney had already beat.

Quote:
As you know, I have Tunney at #11 on my list. I'd have no real problem with seeing him at 9 or 10, but I think talk of having him above the likes of Johnson reaks of favourites.
Fair enough. That's your opinion.
I think your rating of Baer reaks of favourites.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 04:56 PM   #34
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,871
vCash: 765
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
1. Jeffries
2. Dempsey
3. Johnson
4. Tunney
5. Langford
6. Corbett
7. Fitz
8. Jackson
9. Wills
10. Schmeling.

I prefer not to rate Sullivan as a Queensberry gloved fighter since he was at his best under a different rule set.
The list I have is not my opinion per se, but looking at it from the angle; what I might of done if I was alive in 1937. I too would never rate John L in a Queensberry Rules list today.
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 03:30 AM   #35
Senya13
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Russia
Posts: 3,927
vCash: 1210
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

Sullivan looked better in Queensberry rules fights than he did in London Prize Ring. It's silly not to rate him as a gloved fighter.
Senya13 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 06:07 AM   #36
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,272
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senya13
Sullivan looked better in Queensberry rules fights than he did in London Prize Ring. It's silly not to rate him as a gloved fighter.
I still feel Sullivan's best wins are London Prize Ring. Did he look better under Queensberry? Let's as Apollack.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 06:40 AM   #37
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,296
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

1. Jack Johnson
2. Jim Jeffries
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Sam Langford
5. Harry Wills
6. Jim Corbett
7. Joe Louis
8. Bob Fitzsimmons
9. Max Schmeling
10. Max Baer

Sullivan and Jackson not included.

At this point I think that Louis will probably beat Braddock for the title but when I look at his loss to Schmeling I think it likley that his tenure as champion will be a short one. If he manages to beat Schmeling in a rematch I will consider moving him up a place.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013