These fellas were not top 100 all-time Hwts.

The only fighters on this list I would even think about fighting for would be Jimmy Braddock and maybe Frank Bruno. I wouldn't argue too hard though.

If you look at Braddock's record from mid 1933 until when he retired, he went 7-1 (1) 1NC overall and 1-1 in HW World Title fights. During this stretch he beat Les Kennedy, Corn Griffin KO3, John Henry Lewis (avenging an earlier defeat), Art Lasky, Max Baer, and Tommy Farr in his last fight. The only loss was to Joe Louis, he did drop Louis though.

Frank Bruno was good enough to give Bonecrusher Smith, Tim Witherspoon, and Lennox Lewis very tough fights... but he was stopped in all of these fights. He gave Tyson about 1/2 a round of trouble in their first fight but was stopped in the 5th, he didn't even show up for the rematch. He did beat Oliver McCall. He stopped past prime versions of Joe Bugner and Carl The Truth Williams. He stopped P. Coetzer. What else can you really say about him?

 

This thread hurts my head. Anyway, it's had to rank Heavyweights in much different eras. The size difference is a big factor. An example is a guy like Ezzard Charles. A P4P all-time great and one of the best HWs in his day, but vs. some of the more modern HWs who may not have even been considered all that good in their own era... he may not do so well. Charles vs. Maskaev for example... I'm not so sure it would go very well for Ezzard.

Let's look at the Champs-

Sullivan
Corbett
Fitzsimmons
Jeffries- retired
Hart- beat Root for vacant title
Burns
Johnson- also beat Jeffries for "lineal" recognition
Willard
Dempsey
Tunney- retired
Schmeling- beat Sharkey for vacant title
Sharkey
Carnera
Baer
Braddock
Louis- retired
Charles- beat Walcott for vacant title, beat Louis for "lineal" recognition
Walcott
Marciano- retired
Patterson- beat Moore for vacant title
Johansson
Patterson
Liston

Ali- stripped of WBA, regained WBA belt by beating Terrell, stripped in 1967
Terrell- beat Machen for vacant WBA belt

Frazier- beat Mathis for vacant NYSAC belt, beat Ellis for WBA belt, beat Ali for "lineal" recognition
Ellis- beat Quarry for vacant WBA belt

Foreman
Ali
L. Spinks- stripped of WBC
Ali- retired (WBA)

WBC-
Norton- proclaimed champion
Holmes- also beat Ali for "lineal" recognition, stripped
Witherspoon- beat Page for vacant belt
Thomas
Berbick
Tyson

WBA-
Tate- beat Coetzee for vacant belt
Waever
Dokes
Coetzee
Page
Tubbs
Witherspoon
Smith
Tyson

IBF-
Holmes- declared champion (recognized as the lineal champ)
M. Spinks- stripped
Tucker- beat Douglas for vacant IBF belt
Tyson- unified WBA, WBC, and IBF belts, beat M. Spinks for "lineal"
recognition

Douglas
Holyfield
Bowe- stripped of WBC

Holyfield- regained WBA/IBF belts, recognized as lineal champion
Moorer
Foreman- stripped, later lost to Briggs

WBC-
Lewis- proclaimed champion
McCall
Bruno
Tyson- stripped
Lewis- beat McCall for vacant belt, beat Holyfield for WBA/IBF belts, beat Briggs for "lineal" recognition

WBA-
Seldon- beat Tucker for vacant belt
Tyson
Holyfield

IBF-
Moorer- beat Schulz for vacant belt
Holyfield

Rahman- beat Lewis for "lineal" HW title
Lewis- regained title, retired

Since, Lewis it's been crazy but the Klitschko brothers have clearly been the best since Lewis.

Other "champs" since Lewis-
Byrd, Ruiz, Jones, Valuev, Haye, Chagaev, Maskaev, Peter, Povetkin, Stiverne

Can't forget the WBO-
Damiani, Mercer, Moorer, Morrison, Bentt, Hide, Bowe, Akinwande, Hide, V. Klitschko, Byrd, W. Klitschko, Sanders, Brewster, Lyakhovich, Briggs, Ibragimov, W. Klitschko

Botha and Toney were both "champs" for a very short time but both were stripped of their belts due to testing positive for banned substances. Botha's win over Schulz for the vacant IBF belt was changed to a NC. Toney's win over Ruiz for the WBA belt was changed to a NC.

I'd rather include these guys. Guys that had belts. Non-Champions who deserve a mention?

Wills, Langford, Jeanette, McVea, Moore, Bivins, Folley, Machen, Young, Lyle, Tua, Ibeabuchi... but honestly Tua and Ibeabuchi were some bad mofos.

 

That list shows me the weakness of considering paper champions,

Between 1882 and 1930 there were 10 champions (Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries, Hart, Burns, Johnson, Willard, Dempsey, Tunney) over 48 years

From 1930 to 1962 there were 11 champions (Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock, Louis, Charles, Walcott, Marciano, Patterson, Johansson) over 32 years

which adds up to 21 champions over 80 years from 1882 to 1962.

In the 1980's alone you list 13 champions (Holmes, Spinks, Tyson, Witherspoon, Thomas, Berbick, Tate, Weaver, Dokes, Coetzee, Page, Tubbs, Smith)

Now of those 13, three were lineal, Holmes, Spinks, and Tyson. How many of those other champions beat any of them? None. Holmes lost only to Spinks and Tyson. Spinks lost only to Tyson. Tyson didn't lose to any of this group in the 1980's.

Why should I consider these paper champions anything more than equal to the contenders of other eras? They certainly were not beating the best out there, as some of the old contenders did now and then.

I wouldn't see any reason to fill a top 100 up with the second-tier guys of the paper champion era when one decade produces more "champions" than the fifty year period from the 1880's to the 1930's.

 

On "second-tier" guys beating Ezzard Charles.

Well, I've heard the argument that second rate modern NFL teams could handle the Bears of the forties, the Browns of the fifties, or the Packers of the sixties due to increased size.

But I guess this is a list of heavyweights of historical significance, who dominated their eras.

A list of the NFL's greatest teams containing mediocre 2013 teams which went 8-8 and excluding the 1960's Packers wouldn't be of any historical interest to me at all. Others might feel differently, I suppose.

 

Thanks for the fun thread and the interesting discussion. I agree with about 95% or so of your choices, and most of your placements, but being the negative type, here are the ones I disagree with.

1 to 25

OUT
Vitali Klitschko--no marquee wins. Lost to only two top men he fought. Drop to 26-50

IN
Sullivan--best fighter in world for close to decade. Only loss when old and fat.

26 to 50

OUT
Ellis (lost badly to best men he faced. Drop to 51-75)
Machen (lost consistently to all his top opponents. Drop to 51-75)
Folley (lost consistently and usually badly to all the best opponents he faced. Drop to 51-75)
Quarry (lost consistently to all the best he faced except aging Patterson. Drop to 51-75)
Young (has big win over Foreman, but overall record pretty shaky. Drop to 51-75)
Ibeabuchi (I think a bit high for only two big wins, one close. Drop to 51-75)
Lyle (looked good for a while against Ali in tactical fight until Ali started fighting. Came close to stopping Foreman, as Firpo did with Dempsey. Otherwise just another guy who was easy to outbox. Drop to 76-100 or maybe out of top 100 completely. If Firpo didn't make it, Lyle perhaps shouldn't)

IN
Loughran (beat more top men than almost anyone)
Bivins (beat more top men than almost anyone)
Douglas (win over Tyson moves him ahead of Ellis, Quarry, Machen gatekeeper level for me. Beat the best guy out there)
McCall (beat all time great decisively)
Rahman (beat all time great to become champion)
Moorer (beat all time great to become champion)
Tua (I would put him ahead of Ibeabuchi because of long career)

51 to 76

OUT
Burns--(beat a lot of second raters. Drop to 76-100)
Norfolk--(two best heavyweights he fought, Langford and Wills, each blew him out in two. Drop to 76-100)

IN
Layne (beat two top 25 men)
Hamas (big win over Schmeling and good overall career record)
Schaaf (solid overall career. A big might have been)

76 to 100

No reason to go over this much as already discussed
OUT--Miske, Stribling, Tate
IN--Valdes, Uzcudun, Schreck

I hope this stimulates you and perhaps other posters to really trash my disagreements with you.

Anyway, thanks again for this thread.

 

Nah, Charles stopped durable strong men Elmer Ray 6'2" 190-210 lb, Joe Baksi 6'1" 210-217 while barely weighing over the LHW limit.

He also beat Coley Wallace who was 6'2 and over 200 lbs. And the 6'3" power puncher John Holman while past his best post-Marciano.

I think he would do a Bernie Reynolds job on the slow chinny Oleg.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m1EUEVZ32g[/url]

 

I bozerd temporarily cheinjn may browser's configureishens jast 2 hailait dis **** list

D yellow wer bad omissions , d red wer worse.
David Bey did not iven menej d omishens list

im sory i traid 2 kontribyut 2 sach e tred .
TS riflects d spirit comon in diz forums.
A general forum survey wud hev hed it beter

 

mattdonnellon

"I don't give as much credit for one massive win"

Yup. Seems to be a fundamental disagreement. For me, the big win is what separates the wheat from the chaff. I don't give as much credit to the type, like Machen, who are very consistent in beating second-tier guys, but never get over the hump against any top men.

What makes horse races.

 

mattdonnellon

Firpo--"he beat nobody of note and even against Dempsey he never had him buzzed."

"never had him buzzed"

This is not how Dempsey remembered it in when quoted on this fight in an article by Dan Daniel in the June, 1945 edition of The Ring.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I remember that right at the start I cut loose with a left hook. Had it landed, the fight might have ended then and there. Though I will say the big guy could take it, and plenty.

"I missed that left hook, and then the grandstand hit me. Some of the reporters were charitable and said I slipped. I didn't slip. I was knocked silly.

"Next thing I knew, looking through a fog, I saw Firpo on the floor.

"I read the next day that I had knocked him down seven times. Well, you can't prove that by me, because I don't recollect anything about the first round except Doc Kearns' face, white, scared, as I sat in my corner after the first round. Doc gave me the smelling salts and said something about me having slipped. He meant I didn't have the old zip any more."

"I said to myself, . . . 'Don't let him hang around for any pictures because this man can stop you cold.'"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like whatever else Firpo could hit and Dempsey was "buzzed".

By the way, Bert Sugar, certainly a strong supporter of Dempsey, mentioned in a TV interview that he had seen an unedited film of this fight in South America and that Dempsey sprawled on the canvas for a seven count from that first rght. This is edited out of the film commonly shown here in the US, and I would note that the film is also clearly edited when Dempsey was knocked out of the ring, making it impossible to know how long he was out of the ring. Tunney was at ringside and wrote an article in which he claimed Dempsey was out of the ring for way more than ten seconds and should have been counted out.

Be that as it may, my take would be that Firpo came closer to winning the championship (questions of Dempsey's fouling aside) than any contender on this list, and to my eyes came closer to knocking Dempsey out than Lyle came to knocking Foreman out. Foreman definitely beat the count despite being hurt.

"beat nobody of note"

A bit harsh. He beat Willard, who was of course 41, but who was coming off a big win over Floyd Johnson, thought by some to be a coming champ who had beaten Fulton, Brennan, and Bob Martin. Hard to judge how much Willard had left, but he was an ex-champ, certainly someone of note. Firpo also KO'd Weinert, the #3 contender in 1924, longtime contender Brennan, and the Euro champ Spalla. A thin resume, but like Martin in 1901 & 1902 he was hot and blowing opponents away. Unlike Martin, he acquitted himself very well against the top man when he got into the ring with him.

*another what makes a horse race.