These fellas were not top 100 all-time Hwts.

He did beat Chuvalo two times out of three and has a win over Cleveland Williams, though I think Chuvalo was still a work in progress while Williams was washed up.

 

I think there is a case to make for putting Baksi above Mauriello.Baksi was well regarded in the Uk because he wrecked both Wood**** and Mills , but he never really set the US on fire.

 

Battling Jim Johnson ?
His stats are nothing special but his level of competition is a big factor in that.imo.

He holds wins over Jeannette x2+ a draw.Three draws with Langford which may possibly flatter him,.A draw with McVey.A draw with Johnson ,we know the history of that.A ko win over Pelkey.A win over Cowler,A stoppage win over Clarke and a draw with him ,and an injury stoppage over Wills.

 

"Feel free to bash or replace"

I will take the liberty to consider this as applying to your entire list.

Out--Gibbons--He was a light heavyweight and did little at heavy except go fifteen with Dempsey to lose rather one-sidedly. I don't think that gets him into a top one-hundred. Might rate in top 20 light-heavies, but not at all at heavy.

In--Tommy Farr--He went 15 with Louis and did at least as well as Gibbons did against Dempsey off the film, but also beat several top heavies, including Baer.

Out--Kid Norfolk--another guy who would rate highly at light-heavy but why is he in a top heavy list?

In--Gunboat Smith--big wins over Langford and Willard should get him a spot I think.

Out--Greb--for the reasons given in another post. Walker actually might rate higher at heavy as his big wins over Uzcudun, Risko, and Levinsky, and the draw with Sharkey, were against men who were actual heavies at the time he fought them. Greb's biggest wins were over men who were light-heavies when he beat them (Tunney, Gibbons, Loughran). I don't think either should be rated in the top 100 heavies.

In--Paulino Uzcudun--wins over Wills and Baer should put him in, but also was a good contender over a fairly long period of time.

Out--Henry--just doesn't have enough big wins to overcome a short career, losses to the best he fought, and embarrassing defeats to Buford and Slade. Seems to always get overrated.

In--Valdes--big win over Charles and lots of wins over second-tier guys earn him a spot. Did a lot more over a longer period than Henry.

Out--Denver Ed Martin--another with a short career. A couple of big wins followed by KO defeats to Johnson, Armstrong, and McVey. Don't really see why he should rate above Armstrong, for one.

In--Bob Satterfield--definition of erratic, but wins over Johnson, Baker, Valdes, Oma, Holman, etc., earn him a spot. Like Martin, had weak jaw which betrayed him often, but also extremely dangerous on the right night. I can certainly see the case against him.

Out--Miske--just didn't do much at heavy except draw with Dempsey. That is a fairly good argument for him.

In--Bettina--held his own with a prime Bivins, one win, one loss, one draw, and beat every other heavy he fought over about a six year period, rising to #1 contender. Stronger candidate than Miske, I think.

 

What makes a thread like this fun is that there is so much to disagree on.

I see Hamas as about the strongest non-champion candidate from the 1930's. He rose to #1 contender and was considered a coming champ before falling victim to Schmeling (as did Louis, after all). I think he was injured in that fight which ended his career. It was certainly a total pasting.

Overall, though, he held his own with every opponent he fought, and they were right at the top of the division. He was 1-1 with Schmeling, and his win was decisive. He was 2-2 with Loughran, and KO'd him once. He went 2-1-1 with Ramage, and beat Lasky when Lasky was highly rated. He only other non-win was a draw with Massera.

Every fighter who pinned a loss or draw on Hamas were rated fighters. And none won the series with him. He had no embarrassing defeats.

 

Just on Maxim going into the top 100, i think this is very interesting (not saying i disagree).

Without derailing the thread, does this mean that if the fought in airconditioning, Sugar Ray Robinson could potentially (and according to most people probably would)beat a top 100 all time heavy?

 

Potentially. We'll never know since Maxim had to adjust his own game plan to the heat, as well.

 

TBH. I think you put your head above the parapet with the title of your thread, but that has never bothered you in the past.
You won't please every one with your picks ,but thats ok, you will have provoked worthwhile discussion that will mean posters including myself will learn from it. Respects to you.:good

 

Let me commend you on an excellant list, most people after they go beyond a top 25 or so, the list becomes rife with heavy bias, on whoever the so called list maker likes. I can tell you are trying to put together as good a list as possible based on your criteria.
As for the guys you mentioned, in the era between 1925-1935 to place them it depends upon what you value. The post Tunney era, lacked a dominant champion until Joe Louis arrives, that created a terrific round robin of fights over the decade where many of the men that became champion appear on each other's ledger. Similiar to the early 90's although I rate that era as better.
I wouldn't rate Maxie Rosenbloom, at heavy he was more of a spoiler with his defensive style and he just doesn't have enough big wins, yes he beat Braddock, the weakest of the five champs but overall his hw record doesn't crack the top 100.
Young Stribling another fighter with a high volume of fights, although for the large part against lesser southern circuit competition, is tough to call. He was shop worn by the time he got his chance for the HW crown against Schmeling and he still put on a game challenge(being stopped in the 15th only time in his career).
Steve Hamas, another poster feels he was the best of the Non Champions of this era, I respectfully disagree as I believe it was Schaaf. It is true, as the poster points out that he was injured in the Schmeling rematch, I can't recall if it was a tricep tear or shoulder tear but I know that during the course of the match it eventually prevented him from being able to hold his guard high, which sadly was a disaster against a good puncher like Schmeling. His loss was so brutal he was ruined and never fought again. Yes he beat Lee Ramage, and Schmeling which does count, but he got Schmeling during his brief down streak and he didn't face any of the other champs. An argument can be made for him especially if you like few losses on the ledger, and no disaster losses, as the other poster points out.
Ernie Schaaf is the guy I like, like his mentor Sharkey he crossed the color line when not all fighters were doing so yet, he has two of the champions on this list in Max Baer and Braddock. Baer was green and Braddock was not yet on his historical comeback. Schaaf was also only stopped once, as was Hamas, Stribling, and Uzcudon. Very Durable era.(and shows why Schmeling is sometimes underrated puncher stopping two of those mentioned) Which sometimes goes unnoticed. As for Schaaf, he got to Loughran before he became a win one, lose one heavy. A lot of guys from the early 30's have Loughran's scalp because due to his bad hands and being shop worn he began to just trade victories. Schaaf also has Stribling as well. He has a pretty deep resume.
Mickey Walker jumped to heavy and won 5 bouts and for a brief time was considered the best Heavyweight in the world. Most viewers felt he deservd the nod over Sharkey in their Draw and when Schmeling was robbed in a Sharkey rematch, Schmeling and Walker squared off in a fight many fans felt was the real title of the world. That was the end of the toy bulldog as a heavy as Schmeling slaughtered him.
Uzcudon lost alot, it all depends on how much you value the Wills KO-if you give it merit, then that coupled with defeating a Young Baer could place him. If you feel Wills was shot as most would agree-then he becomes more of a guy who was tough against everyone but consistently came up short. (His draw with Schmeling was an out and out robbery by three Spaniard judges)
Braddock again comes down to how much you merit his win over Baer. Alot of posters said he belongs because he defeated a prime Lineal champion. I understand that line of thinking, and would likely include him for historical purposes, although I would place him late. His other big wins are Tuffy Griffiths, and Corn Griffin, his robbery over Farr in his final fight and John Henry Lewis.
Carnera it's how many of his fights were on the level. He certaintly has some names on his ledger but alot of fights, including his Dq's bouts with Stribling are believed to be fixed. IF you give him the benefit of the doubt unless you have hard evidence he makes the list.

 

Seeing names like Brian Nielsen and Dickie Ryan bandied about has me shaking my head a bit. You guys have covered a lot of fighters here and I see you did mention Larry Gains and Jeff Merritt, who are heads and tails above the aforementioned Ryan and Nielsen. Also just for consideration I would throw in Lou Nova, Walter Neusel and Buster Mathis, whom I don't think were yet mentioned.