My timeline of the premiere HW in the world.

he had, but then again max really did a number on him systematically. Max was clearly the outstanding contender to Braddock's crown after this fight. He was also the outstanding contender until Louis granted him the rematch.

I believe Louis himself echoed the sentiment saying he wouldn't call himself a true champ until he'd rematched max schmelling.

not giving a title shot out of fear the european champion will hide away with his belt (especially after the fights schmelling had already had!) is just as bad as drawing a colour line IMO.

Going into the first fight it was meant to be one last step up before the title shot for joe. I think during the fight it became apparent we had a battle of wills between the best two heavies in the world.

 

interesting viewpoint. I consider until Langofrd fought Jeanette in the "world title belt" Johnson's claim is pretty solid. but he very quickly became uninspiring whilst Langford continued his great run. there is definitely an argument for it though.

wills does take over at the point he beat firpo. you'll see he shares 24: dempsey is the defacto champ, but is getting increasingly more inactive with nothing worthy of usurping him until wills beat firpo.

I think ingo battering patterson was enough to raise him to the top, but then when he got battered in the return, liston smashed folley therefor eclipsing both floyd and ingo IMO.

 

do you think spinks won the first fight with holmes? I do but I believe he lost the return. maybe there's an argument for berbick being above spinks at this point based on his victory over thomas?

Rahman beat Lewis fair and square imo, he fought a great fight and earned his place at the top for a few months.

Who would you rank above Byrd? do you think fres/golota/mccline beat him? if so I'd see where you're coming from. for me, between the wlad fights he was unbeaten.

 

you make a very very valid point. I do believe if you beat the best you become the best but sometimes circumstances change during the fight and or timeline.

If Hart was losing every other fight bar the johnson anomaly I'd agree with you. If I could find significant evidence supporting a robbery I'd agree with you. but if you have two front runners in Jeffires absence (Hart and Johnson) and they face off against each other, the winner has earnt his crown.

definitely food for thought because it seems during the time period Johnson would have beaten everyone bar hart, and the same probably can't be said in return. does the criteria then get a bit too speculative however?

worth pondering!

 

whilst I feel Hart has his place set in stone.

I think perhaps Hart's claim got diluted by Johnson's activity and resume against the guys he did fight and by the time Hart lost to Burns, I think it's apparent that Johnson is the new number 1.

I will make this amendment, during the timescale I see nothing Hart nor Burns did post the hart-johnson fight to be worthy of ranking continually above Johnson.

 

I've backdated my Johnson claim to 1906 (I feel his run post Hart was better than anything Hart or Burns did, underlined with burns beating hart on points whilst Johnson defeats much better opposition).

I'll consider chopping the end of his claim in more detail and see if I can make more sense of the johnson, Langford, Jeanette, McVey 4 some. maybe I was too generous starting it from 1913 and I'll revise this decision in detail

:good

 

I agree. I think hart and johnson were the two leading contenders when they faced off. After the fight I believe johnson did enough to be considered above him again.

Primo, in knocking out sharkey puts himself right in the mix and it's down to preference I think. Given his size and the nature of his victory I think he did pass max in people's eyes. Cinderella man beat the consensus best hw in the world and I think that's enough for his claim.

Moorer, i'd have to rewatch the holyfield fight but I believe he was considered king when big george knocked him out.

Hasim on the night was undoubtedly the better man, lewis had to prove himself in the rematch.

 

Yeah the 30's has many different perspectives because the best consistently fought each other. It's easily the golden era of the heavyweight for me.

I think an argument can be made than schmellin was the best until his loss to baer and them between the louis fights. Such a great period. A lot of arguments are valid really.

 

Yeah once vitali retired there's no heavyweight who would have beaten him imo until wlad got himself back on track. Against peter he still looked beatable and again against tos. Wlad proved himself when he rematched byrd imo.