My top 20 heavyweights of all time

Johnson nor Jeffries had to fight anyone like Louis or Marciano or even some of the murders row opponents Walcott had to fight to get to the title. Big difference in quality IMO. Walcott has an excellent chance against Foreman IMO tougher battle with Tyson but he had the power and the moves to take it into the later rounds and Tyson did not show late power like Louis or Marciano. Different technically advancements were made by the 40-50's and although Johnson was advanced and Jeffries special for the day IMO guys like Charles and Walcott were a horse of a different color then the opponents the JJ's fought

 

Corbett who was a top boxer was slightly behind using round by round reports before Jeffries KOd him. Jeffries was not Abe Simon, who KO'd Walcott.

Putting Walcott in the top 10 is a real reach.

 

Produce these round by round reports and I'll produce primary ones that say Corbett was not only in front, but that Brady his manager climbed up in the corner threw Ryan put and told Jeffries he needed a ko to save his crown.Rewriting boxing history yet again eh!atsch

 

My impressions from the reports is that Corbett was ahead though fading at the time of the KO. Some thought Jeffries had to have the KO to win. I'm not saying Jeffries couldn't have eked a points win or (more likely) draw, as that generation put a lot of weight on finishes, and I do think the fight was closer than Corbett liked to tell it. But I'm skeptical that Jeffries was largely seen to be ahead at the bouts terminus. The immediate advantage, yes, as Corbett was fading.

 

I have listed the NY Times round by round report here, and its primary. Some who read it agree that based on the report, Jeffries was slightly in the lead. I re-write nothing, you fail to learn.atsch

 

I've the NY Times round by round, it says Corbett was in front.

Now just for you liar.

http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19000521.2.86

"The cleverness displayed by the former champion was a marvel to the large crowd present" NY Times.
Brooklyn Daily Eagle "The ex- champion made Jeffries look like a novice"

http://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/50389322/?terms=Jeffries+v+Corbett+first+fight


The Daily True American had Corbett in front at time of stoppage
So did the Durango Democrat , The Brooklyn Eagle ,and the NY TImes
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...09,3285840&dq=jeffries+corbett+favorite&hl=en

PRODUCE ONE CONTEMPORARY PAPER THAT HAD JEFFRIES AHEAD AT THE TIME OF THE STOPPAGE.You are a congenital and deliberate liar.

 

Don't have time to think about my top 20, but I know Jersey Joe is not a top 10 HW. That is crazy talk. You lose credibility by arguing that.

 

I don't have JJW in my top 20 even but different opinions broaden our overall knowledge. It's a stretch for sure-top 10-but lots have say Holyfield top ten, me included. Would he beat Walcott for sure?
Walcott's career is too patchy for me, hanging even with Layne and Ray, losing the peak one's with Charles, good losing effort with Louis and Rocky, and ko'd in returns, but a different poster could argue his career differently. I mean, I rate Jack Sharkey ahead of Schmeling, Charles, Baer, Patterson and Walcott, but I wouldn't do well on a poll, I suspect.

 

I don't have a personal comment, but this is the Associated Press list of the top ten heavyweights of the 20th century-ratings done by a five man panel of experts:

1--Muhammad Ali
2--Joe Louis
3--Rocky Marciano
4--Jack Dempsey
5--Jack Johnson
5--(tie) Larry Holmes
7--Sonny Liston
8--Joe Frazier
9--Jersey Joe Walcott
9--(tie) Sam Langford

This isn't my list. This is from a panel of experts.

 

It's from a panel of five men who think they're experts

 

A case can be made.

Walcott recorded wins over Baski, Murray, Sheppard, Allen, Bivins, Maxim, Oma, Gomez, Ray, Harold Johnson, Agramonte, Hoff, and Charles. He possibly deserved a nod against Joe Louis.

 

Nice resume but his many losses can't be overlooked for top ten material. He lost early in his career, in the middle and at the end. Top ten should be reserved for dominance.

 

Dominance can be manufactured. Walcott tested his skills against the best of his time and won more often than not. He butted heads with all time greats Louis, Maricano, Charles, Bivins, Maxim, Johnson while they were either at their peak or still near top form.

The close losses to Maxim, Ray, and Allen were all avenged. He evened things with Charles and arguably is 1-1 againts Louis. He came up short against Maricano and may have been injured against Layne.

I'm not saying he's a lock but a case is there.

 

Joe Louis was way past prime and the result was debatable. Louis avenged the fight by KO. Marciano won both bouts by KO. So he was 0-4 against the two best heavies he fought with an argument to be made that he was 1-3. All KO losses.

He also has the Abe Simon clunker.
I don't rate Walcott as highly as some ppl do not that I am against him but I just don't see an ATG.

 

I wouldn't say "way past prime" He was only 33 and not long returned from the war. Given that 21 of 32 of the press scored it for Walcott and the footage shows him putting on a clinic, there isn't huge room for debate.

Louis is my #1 and Marcinao is my #3. So I don't seem them just as the best heavies Walcott fought, but the absolute best heavies anyone can fight.

I don't hold Walcott's first career against him.