The best HW never to hold the lineal title.

Dubblechin has problems with this thread because YOU APPLY THE RULES ONLY AS YOU SEE FIT - and you admit so in your own post.

And then you REWRITE history in this thread and insult people who won't go along with you.

According to you, Schmeling should've been champ but those weren't the RING rules at the time, so you don't want to REWRITE HISTORY.

In the same breath, you say Vitali Klitschko was not the real champ, even though HE WAS according to the RING's own rules at the time .. AND WAS NAMED CHAMP BY THEM ... and you have decided to IGNORE HISTORY with regard to Vitali because you don't like those particular RING rules ... you just want to use the rules that even the RING didn't appy anymore.

If they don't apply to Schmeling because the rules you like weren't in effect, then why should they apply to Vitali Klitschko when they weren't in effect either?

You're a stickler for rules when it's convenient, and you ignore the rules when they don't go your way.

That's Dubblechin's problem with this thread, since you asked.

If you're going to use RING as the all-knowing decider, then do. If not, don't.

Frankly, I don't know why people harp on them so much. RING ratings have basically nothing to do with which fights are made. They never have. And they have their own corrupt history as well.

There's nothing special about the RING ratings. There are magazines that have been around just as long, magazines with better reputations that all rate fighters.

Holding up RING ratings as the standard bearer is as arbitrary as you deciding which RING rules you're going to follow - whether they were in effect at the time or not.

But it's your thread, make up whatever rules you want. That's why I bowed out.

 

Not necessarily.

-- There are black fighters (and white) in later eras who never fought for the lineal title (may have held alphabet titles) and you might well figure they would have been lineal if they'd been given that chance too.
That doesn't mean they are propelled to the top of the list.

-- For example, I might believe Cleveland Williams would have KO'd Floyd Patterson, or that Pinklon Thomas would have defeated an aging Larry Holmes or Michael Spinks in 1985/'86. But I wouldn't automatically rank them above the guys in the 1930s and '40s who didn't or couldn't have defeated Joe Louis.

-- If being lineal champion doesn't automatically put you above those who weren't lineal champion (and it doesn't! No one ranks Leon Spinks above Sam Langford), then why should being considered strongly hypothetically lineal put you above those who aren't ?

Finally, there's never been an era where every deserving contender gets his shot at the lineal championship at the time when they are most likely to win it.

 

I think its between Langford, Wills, and Quarry and don't have a problem with anyone of them getting the nod. Jimmy Bivins arguably had a better resume than any of them, but most of his resume was constructed at LHW.

 

I was talking to Jimmy Glenn about Quarry, he is very high on him.

 

I am too. I think Quarry's career is to be largely admired. And I don't take issue with anyone who claims that he was the best heavy to never hold the title.. But Wills, Langford and possibly a few others have cases as well.

 

I'd rate Jimmy Ellis above Jerry Quarry.

 

There may be a case for it, albeit marginally. Both men received contested decisions over an aged Floyd Patterson so no real points for either of them there. Ellis defeated George Chuvalo where as Quarry lost to George and Jimmy even defeated Quarry himself. Jerry however spent is whole career at heavyweight, fought many more bouts in that division and possibly beat more ranked men.

 

Yes, Ellis beat Quarry. I think the WBA tournament stands as a credible decider of the best heavyweight of that era, outside of lineal champions.
Ellis and Quarry were basically in their primes in 1967-68, and I'd put Ellis just a notch ahead of Quarry.

 

RING magazine's "neutral" ratings placed Braddock third in 1936 behind Schmeling at #1 and Louis at #2.