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, 10:11 AM   #16
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,188
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
No Langford ?
Balls!

Do please excuse me a second.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-04-2008, 10:12 AM   #17
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,188
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

1 - Johnson
2 - Jeffries
3 - Dempsey
4 - Wills
5 - Jackson
6 - Corbett
7 - Baer
8 - Langford
9 - Fitzimmons
0 - Schmeling
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 10:17 AM   #18
Sonny's jab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain
1 - Johnson
2 - Jeffries
3 - Dempsey
4 - Wills
5 - Jackson
6 - Corbett
7 - Baer
8 - Langford
9 - Fitzimmons
0 - Schmeling
That's better.
Though I think it's a shame to see Tunney disappear from the list.
Max Baer had been TOTALLY taken apart by Joe Louis by this time, and for all his charm and power he really doesn't belong, IMO.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 10:26 AM   #19
Holmes' Jab
Master Jabber
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,551
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

Tunney should be above Baer in any case IMO (maybe Schmeling too). An otherwise spot on list though, McGrain.
Holmes' Jab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 10:27 AM   #20
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,188
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
That's better.
Though I think it's a shame to see Tunney disappear from the list.
Max Baer had been TOTALLY taken apart by Joe Louis by this time, and for all his charm and power he really doesn't belong, IMO.

Yeah, it would have been nice to hold onto Tunney.

I disagree about Schmeling & he'd be a good deal higher if i wasn't trying to get into the era - that is, he doesn't get the full credit for the Louis win yet...
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 10:28 AM   #21
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,188
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holmes' Jab
Tunney should be above Baer in any case IMO. An otherwise spot on list though, McGrain.
I always find myself penalising Tunney because he fought so few fights at the weight.

It was an interesting excersise. For the first time I'm wondering if i overate Johnson, who normally makes my top 5. It's interesting looking back with things in a tighter jam than might be normal.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 10:43 AM   #22
Sonny's jab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

Personally, I wouldn't penalize Tunney.
Look at the guys Jeffries, Johnson and Corbett and Fitz were beating. Many of them were 170 pounders, or thereabouts.

I still dont see the argument for Max BAER.
He got totally obliterated by Joe Louis, and also fought a complete dud against Braddock.

We place the list in 1937. Baer wasn't really a major player for even consideration for any of these sorts of honours until he beat Schmeling in 1933, then he beat Carnera in 1934, then fought a dud v. ordinary Braddock, and then got obliterated by Louis, in 1935.
Rise and fall in two years. Two devastating wins, two horrendous defeats, in his big bouts.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 10:53 AM   #23
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,188
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
Personally, I wouldn't penalize Tunney.
Look at the guys Jeffries, Johnson and Corbett and Fitz were beating. Many of them were 170 pounders, or thereabouts.
There is no possible way to place Tunney, who only fought a handfull of times at HW, above Johnson who is a legend of division who beat a wide range of fighters, including some great ones, green or not.

Quote:
I still dont see the argument for Max BAER.
He got totally obliterated by Joe Louis, and also fought a complete dud against Braddock.
He got totally obliterated by the greatest fighting machine in the divisions history whilst past his own prime.

I consider the Braddock that beat Baer a very good fighter, in fact in it stretched to 12 or 13 he probably would have slipped in.

Finally, Baer is one of the greatest punchers the division has ever seen who isn't out of place in a top 20 now in my view. I certainly don't see why he would be anything other than a candidate for the bottom half of a list like this.

Quote:
We place the list in 1937. Baer wasn't really a major player for even consideration for any of these sorts of honours until he beat Schmeling in 1933, then he beat Carnera in 1934, then fought a dud v. ordinary Braddock, and then got obliterated by Louis, in 1935.
Rise and fall in two years. Two devastating wins, two horrendous defeats, in his big bouts.
You leave out a - what was it? - five year unbeaten run of Tysonesque proportions blowing guys out of the ring like they were 170 pounders as well as scoring decisions over up to 20 rounds.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 11:47 AM   #24
Sonny's jab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain
There is no possible way to place Tunney, who only fought a handfull of times at HW, above Johnson who is a legend of division who beat a wide range of fighters, including some great ones, green or not.
Okay, so Johnson gets credit for beating a 150 pound Sam Langford and 170 pound Tommy Burns, to add to his "HW division legend" status, but Tunney's fights with Greb etc. dont count ?
Surely you can see what I'm getting at.
Personally, I WOULD rate Tunney above Johnson.

Quote:
He got totally obliterated by the greatest fighting machine in the divisions history whilst past his own prime.
Well, if Louis is "greatest fighting machine in divisions history" why is he not even on the list ??
And Baer's being past his prime already in 1935, raises the question - what was his prime ?

Quote:
I consider the Braddock that beat Baer a very good fighter, in fact in it stretched to 12 or 13 he probably would have slipped in.
OK. I'm not sure about that. His reputation rests on the Baer win, a fight which was a bit of a dud, IMO.

Quote:
Finally, Baer is one of the greatest punchers the division has ever seen who isn't out of place in a top 20 now in my view. I certainly don't see why he would be anything other than a candidate for the bottom half of a list like this.
..... but you dont even rate GENE TUNNEY in this top 10, a far better fighter. And Joe Louis isn't on your list either, despite smacking the shit out of Baer. Langford was a great puncher with an epic career, and you put Baer above him. I think Baer's accomplishments are very limited. I would love to put Baer in my top 20, but not if it means putting him above guys like Langford and Tunney.

Quote:
You leave out a - what was it? - five year unbeaten run of Tysonesque proportions blowing guys out of the ring like they were 170 pounders as well as scoring decisions over up to 20 rounds
Let's not exaggerate. Max Baer managed a run of 14 wins (8 KOs) from mid-'31 to his win over Carnera in mid-'34. And not all those fights were against world class fighters. He wasn't cleaning up the division or anything.
Baer was the clear betting underdog against Schmeling, so it wasn't as if he'd rampaged his way through the division. The Schmeling win really got people's attention. The Schmeling win is a great one, but you have to consider his losses too.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 12:02 PM   #25
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....

Well you also have to look at the view of the times.

At the time Jeff or Johnson were rated number 1. Flip flop them around of couse.

Corbett was below the, follow by Fitz. At the time of the coming of Louis, there was mabye 12 heavyweight champs. So Jess Willard had a strong case for top ten.
Dempsey1238 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 12:04 PM   #26
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....

Ok 15 heayvweight champs lol.
Dempsey1238 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 12:21 PM   #27
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,188
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
Okay, so Johnson gets credit for beating a 150 pound Sam Langford and 170 pound Tommy Burns, to add to his "HW division legend" status, but Tunney's fights with Greb etc. dont count ?
Surely you can see what I'm getting at.
Personally, I WOULD rate Tunney above Johnson.
I understand what you mean - but no, I don't count Tunney's beating a MW at LHW towards his HW rankings, I think that places me firmly in the majority.

Yes, Johnson beat the small men that you mention but he also beat McVey and Jeanette who are bigger and I know would bothe appear in your top 50 hw's - very good fighters both and HW's.

I enjoy your take on Tunney but you go to far here. Johnson beat some great fighters at the weight and had multiple defences of his HW title.


Quote:
Well, if Louis is "greatest fighting machine in divisions history" why is he not even on the list ??
As I've already explained, i'm trying to adopt the mindset of the era and how I might look at it - I don't think I'd be putting a challenger, a recently beaten one at that, on my ATG list.


Quote:
And Baer's being past his prime already in 1935, raises the question - what was his prime ?
Before he got fired into the booze and the starlets, probably. Boxing is a composite sport, and like Tyson, he can blame nobody but himself, but like Tyson he was a great puncher who went on a cracking run before the fall.

Would you conest that the Baer that beat Schmeling was a better man than the Baer that lost to Louis? If not then you and I agree that Baer was past his prime, if not his physical peak.


Quote:
OK. I'm not sure about that. His reputation rests on the Baer win, a fight which was a bit of a dud, IMO.
I'll leave this for the moement as I'm hoping to open up a thread about it at some point.


Quote:
..... but you dont even rate GENE TUNNEY in this top 10, a far better fighter.
Tunney is certainly a better boxer. And as for him against Baer, he'd probably win 9/10. But I would expect Baer to do better against these other men, overall, than Tunney. He has The Equaliser.

Quote:
Langford was a great puncher with an epic career, and you put Baer above him. I think Baer's accomplishments are very limited. I would love to put Baer in my top 20, but not if it means putting him above guys like Langford and Tunney.

Let's not exaggerate. Max Baer managed a run of 14 wins (8 KOs) from mid-'31 to his win over Carnera in mid-'34. And not all those fights were against world class fighters. He wasn't cleaning up the division or anything.
I'd suggest to you that 14 wins with 8 ko's in that time is nothing to be ashamed of - i'll take your word for that and for the date, please excuse my inaccuracy I was quoting from memory rather than wishing to mislead - and furthermore i'll suggest that the run, including victories over Levinsky, Schmeling, Carnera and an (Admittedly near washed up) Schaaf must have been TERRYFYING for those beholding the division. I think you underestimate it (perhaps fair enough given my initial overestimation).

Put it this way - if Baer retires after Carnera, where abouts do you think he would be placed now? High, high, high. Obviously that didn't happen and what came after is as imoprtant - just trying to put the run into some sort of perspective.
Baer was the clear betting underdog against Schmeling, so it wasn't as if he'd rampaged his way through the division. The Schmeling win really got people's attention. The Schmeling win is a great one, but you have to consider his losses too.


Langford - my choice for #1 at p4p. But not a HW. Vulnerable at the weight it's hard for me to rate him as highly as some do, scientific or not - especially keeping in mind that we're talking about an all time list, not a mix division at the turn of the century. Having said that, his incredible achievments are undeniable and he belongs on the lest. Peronaly, I don't see enough between my 7 and 8 to get upset abotu it.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 12:51 PM   #28
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 Sean Wright
it's hard to say how good jim jeffries really was since there are no good videos of him except when he was over the hill fightin jack johnson.
How about the Ruhlan and Sharkey II fights??? There is film of that.
Dempsey1238 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 01:20 PM   #29
Sonny's jab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain
I understand what you mean - but no, I don't count Tunney's beating a MW at LHW towards his HW rankings, I think that places me firmly in the majority.
Tunney was beating the same Greb that lots of heavyweights couldn't beat. Greb was effectively a top HEAVYWEIGHT contender, ie. a leading contender for a shot at Dempsey. That's what I'm saying. Beating Greb falls in the same place as having wins over Choynski, a young Langford, or Fitz.

Majority opinion changes often. Tunney was usually regarded as a certain top all-time heavyweight only 20 years ago.

Quote:
Yes, Johnson beat the small men that you mention but he also beat McVey and Jeanette who are bigger and I know would bothe appear in your top 50 hw's - very good fighters both and HW's.
Tunney beat at least a dozen men over 180 pounds
Jeanette was about 5'10 and 190, Tunney beat plenty of guys around this size.
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.

Quote:
I enjoy your take on Tunney but you go to far here. Johnson beat some great fighters at the weight and had multiple defences of his HW title.
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.

Quote:
As I've already explained, i'm trying to adopt the mindset of the era and how I might look at it - I don't think I'd be putting a challenger, a recently beaten one at that, on my ATG list.
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 !
Quote:
Before he got fired into the booze and the starlets, probably. Boxing is a composite sport, and like Tyson, he can blame nobody but himself, but like Tyson he was a great puncher who went on a cracking run before the fall.

Would you conest that the Baer that beat Schmeling was a better man than the Baer that lost to Louis? If not then you and I agree that Baer was past his prime, if not his physical peak.
The Baer that beat Schmeling was better, yes. But that's just two fights at the top, and then a disastrous fall, all fresh in the memory as of 1937.

Quote:
I'll leave this for the moement as I'm hoping to open up a thread about it at some point.


Tunney is certainly a better boxer. And as for him against Baer, he'd probably win 9/10. But I would expect Baer to do better against these other men, overall, than Tunney. He has The Equaliser.
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.

Quote:
I'd suggest to you that 14 wins with 8 ko's in that time is nothing to be ashamed of - i'll take your word for that and for the date, please excuse my inaccuracy I was quoting from memory rather than wishing to mislead - and furthermore i'll suggest that the run, including victories over Levinsky, Schmeling, Carnera and an (Admittedly near washed up) Schaaf must have been TERRYFYING for those beholding the division. I think you underestimate it (perhaps fair enough given my initial overestimation).
I respect Baer's accomplishments.

Quote:
Put it this way - if Baer retires after Carnera, where abouts do you think he would be placed now? High, high, high.
He lost a few fights to B-level fighters, and beat some has-beens in there. 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 !?
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.

Quote:
Obviously that didn't happen and what came after is as imoprtant - just trying to put the run into some sort of perspective.
Well, the last thing I want to do is run-down Max Baer's achievements. I like Baer. I often defend Baer as a serious and dangerous fighter against his critics here. I suppose we have different ideas of "perspective".

Quote:
Langford - my choice for #1 at p4p. But not a HW. Vulnerable at the weight it's hard for me to rate him as highly as some do, scientific or not - especially keeping in mind that we're talking about an all time list, not a mix division at the turn of the century. Having said that, his incredible achievments are undeniable and he belongs on the lest. Peronaly, I don't see enough between my 7 and 8 to get upset abotu it
Maybe you're right.
But this goes against the "mindset of the era", IMO.

Last edited by joe the great; 01-27-2007 at 09:04 PM.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 01:46 PM   #30
Senya13
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Russia
Posts: 3,856
vCash: 1210
Default Re: How does an all time great HW list look....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
With Sullivan, I beleive his most significant fights were not Queensberry rules with gloves. Sullvian biggest wins in my opinion were over Ryan, and Kilirain. Both were bare-knuckle fights.
His famous 39 round draw with Mitchell was a London Rules, bare-knuckle affair too.
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.
Senya13 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 10:55 PM.


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