Most underappreciated HW champ? - Page 2

Marnoff · 08-31-2007, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vantage_West

john ruiz.....and vantage runs for the high hills

I agree.

coronacards · 08-31-2007, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vantage_West

this is exactly the point as rubbish as he is he is a 2 time champion to say that he was rubbish is ok i dont mind im not ruiz am i. yet his hugging ability and wreslting prowees beats and wins alot of fights. now do you understand as boring as he is. he wins fights he should lose he doesnt care who he faces he is there to get aggresive with guys.

thats underappreciated when your style is the reaon that got you the title and gets you hate at the same time

DON KING'S GIFT DECISIONS GOT HIS TITLE...NOTHING MORE...

salsanchezfan · 08-31-2007, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coronacards

DON KING'S GIFT DECISIONS GOT HIS TITLE...NOTHING MORE...

..............I'm glad you showed up; witness Exhibit A.

carll68 · 08-31-2007, 11:22 PM

Larry Holmes....Floyd Patterson...

mcvey · 09-01-2007, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slothrop

For my money, this guy:

John Arthur Johnson.

amhlilhaus · 09-01-2007, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coronacards

DON KING'S GIFT DECISIONS GOT HIS TITLE...NOTHING MORE...

we don't flame in here, so I'll be civilized. for those who think this, why would king want someone like ruiz as his champion? he gets options on the other guy so he'd still have the champion, and if anything would have been fixed by king then andrew golota would be champion, but didn't have the guts to fight hard for 12 rnds and thought after the first four rounds he didn't have to try anymore.

I say tommy burns is underrated, he was small for a heavyweight and beat some solid guys, the fact jack johnson manhandled him hurts his standing.

McGrain · 09-01-2007, 07:33 AM

James J Braddock, and by a clear distance. There are many who consider him the worst HW champ of all time and in terms of record he certainly was. In terms of peak - the man who fought Baer, Louis, Farr, Griffith, Laskey and Lewis - he was a handful for anyone, a different fighter from the guy who lost to the proper nobodies of the division two years earlier.

bumdujour · 09-01-2007, 01:42 PM

yes, maybe ruiz. after all look at his resume. its as good as it gets since the turn of the millenium.

TBooze · 09-01-2007, 01:48 PM

James J Corbett

I know the 'smart' fans like to point out that technically he probably did not change boxing the way the masses believe, but he was rightly or probably wrongly the standard bearer for all future 'scientific' fighters, something that IMO he does not get enough credit for.

janitor · 09-01-2007, 03:19 PM

The names to consider as based on the diference between their status among those who saw them and their curent status.

John L Sullivan
In his own time and the following dacades he was regarded as highly as Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Mike Tyson or anybody you care to name.

Based on his level of dominence and contemporary opinion he should be ranked on a par with other champions who dominated their eras such as Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Louis etc.

Bob Fitzsimmons
Up untill the 30s he was regarded as one of the greatest heavyweights of all time. Suggestions that fighters such as Max Schmeling or Max Baer should be ranked above him would have been seen as absurd. Today he is routinely ranked beneath fighters like Schmeling, and Walcott.

Peter Jackson
Not a champion but while Jack Johnson was champion many would have regarded Peter Jackson as the greater fighter of the two. Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons both considered him to be the greatest heavyweight that ever breathed and went to the grave holding that opinion.

dav8d777 · 09-01-2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tobkhan

Sullivan
Willard
Schmeling
Sharkey
Carnera
Baer
Patterson

Tunney too. Which Sharkey are you refering to?

dav8d777 · 09-01-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrain

James J Braddock, and by a clear distance. There are many who consider him the worst HW champ of all time and in terms of record he certainly was. In terms of peak - the man who fought Baer, Louis, Farr, Griffith, Laskey and Lewis - he was a handful for anyone, a different fighter from the guy who lost to the proper nobodies of the division two years earlier.

Yeh, but you have to admit it was a really bad career and he didn't keep the title for more than a minute.

My thoughts are colored by my personal opinion that some of those fights during the mid-30s left an awful smell in one's nostrils. Carnera's record was built up by Carbo and Palermo and, frankly, I can't see Carnera beating Sharkey.

I just am not sure the fight with Baer wasn't set up...

I hope everyone won't flame me like Joan of Arc over this...

dav8d777 · 09-01-2007, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by janitor

The names to consider as based on the diference between their status among those who saw them and their curent status.

John L Sullivan
In his own time and the following dacades he was regarded as highly as Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Mike Tyson or anybody you care to name.

Based on his level of dominence and contemporary opinion he should be ranked on a par with other champions who dominated their eras such as Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Louis etc.

Bob Fitzsimmons
Up untill the 30s he was regarded as one of the greatest heavyweights of all time. Suggestions that fighters such as Max Schmeling or Max Baer should be ranked above him would have been seen as absurd. Today he is routinely ranked beneath fighters like Schmeling, and Walcott.

Peter Jackson
Not a champion but while Jack Johnson was champion many would have regarded Peter Jackson as the greater fighter of the two. Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons both considered him to be the greatest heavyweight that ever breathed and went to the grave holding that opinion.

I especially agree on the Fitzsimmons part. The guy was kind of a holdover from the old bare-knucle days. He knew where a person's organs an other vulnerable places were. Not many folks win the heavyweight title with a one-punch body shot.

janitor · 09-01-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dav8d777

Carnera's record was built up by Carbo and Palermo and, frankly, I can't see Carnera beating Sharkey.

I just am not sure the fight with Baer wasn't set up...

I hope everyone won't flame me like Joan of Arc over this...

Consider yourself flamed.

Carnera is perhaps the most abused and misunderstood champion in history.

Some people on this site think that he was not a real champion but a product of fight fixing. Even people who believe that he beat Sharkey legitimately buy into the stigma on some level.

Were Carnras handelers the scum of the earth?

Sure

Was he involved in some suspect fights?

Yes

Did he legitimately win the fights that established him as a challenger for the title and legitimately knock out Jack Sharkey?

Absolutely

janitor · 09-01-2007, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dav8d777

I especially agree on the Fitzsimmons part. The guy was kind of a holdover from the old bare-knucle days. He knew where a person's organs an other vulnerable places were. Not many folks win the heavyweight title with a one-punch body shot.

He knew more about human anatomy than most biology graduates.

I could make a strong case that he was more dangerous with a single punch than any heavyweight in history.

08-31-2007, 11:22 PM	#19
carll68 Journeyman ESB Jr Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 206 vCash: 1000	Re: Most underappreciated HW champ? Larry Holmes....Floyd Patterson...
Top

09-01-2007, 07:33 AM	#22
McGrain Diamond Dog East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 63,251 vCash: 1000	Re: Most underappreciated HW champ? James J Braddock, and by a clear distance. There are many who consider him the worst HW champ of all time and in terms of record he certainly was. In terms of peak - the man who fought Baer, Louis, Farr, Griffith, Laskey and Lewis - he was a handful for anyone, a different fighter from the guy who lost to the proper nobodies of the division two years earlier. Last edited by McGrain; 09-01-2007 at 10:36 AM.
Top

09-01-2007, 01:42 PM	#23
bumdujour Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: you´re not alive unless you´re almost dying!! Posts: 1,767 vCash: 1000	Re: Most underappreciated HW champ? yes, maybe ruiz. after all look at his resume. its as good as it gets since the turn of the millenium.
Top

09-01-2007, 01:48 PM	#24
TBooze Champion East Side Guru Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: South of London Posts: 9,782 vCash: 1	Re: Most underappreciated HW champ? James J Corbett I know the 'smart' fans like to point out that technically he probably did not change boxing the way the masses believe, but he was rightly or probably wrongly the standard bearer for all future 'scientific' fighters, something that IMO he does not get enough credit for.
Top

09-01-2007, 03:19 PM	#25
janitor P4P King East Side VIP Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 19,024 vCash: 1000	Re: Most underappreciated HW champ? The names to consider as based on the diference between their status among those who saw them and their curent status. John L Sullivan In his own time and the following dacades he was regarded as highly as Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Mike Tyson or anybody you care to name. Based on his level of dominence and contemporary opinion he should be ranked on a par with other champions who dominated their eras such as Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Louis etc. Bob Fitzsimmons Up untill the 30s he was regarded as one of the greatest heavyweights of all time. Suggestions that fighters such as Max Schmeling or Max Baer should be ranked above him would have been seen as absurd. Today he is routinely ranked beneath fighters like Schmeling, and Walcott. Peter Jackson Not a champion but while Jack Johnson was champion many would have regarded Peter Jackson as the greater fighter of the two. Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons both considered him to be the greatest heavyweight that ever breathed and went to the grave holding that opinion.
Top