The best HW never to hold the lineal title.

Vitaly sanders was 1 v 3. Altought i believe sanders should have been rated 1 and vitali 2. Why? Byrd beat vitali wlad beat byrd sanders beat wlad who was at the time rated 1.

 

Here's what I do in my ratings document:
I type in the publication name, the issue date on the cover, and the date the publication states that they compiled the ratings (the "as of" date).

If the publication doesn't state an "as of" date I estimate it as best I can based on the fights covered in that issue as well as on the dates of fights based on ratings movements. The "as of" date is extremely important. As we know cover dates are usually a few months after the events in the magazine.

I don't think it serves a publication in any way to not be truthful as to what dates their ratings were compiled. What good would it do to lie? It also would do me no good to change published ratings in my own research. These are very useful primary source documents. (I don't THINK I'm being accused of posting false ratings here, but I'll make that statement just in case anyone is questioning...)

Now, here's what I think Ras Al-Ghul is getting at: Back in his time I think Nat Fleischer would sometimes give newspapers Ring ratings in between issues of the magazine. You can easily find them on Google News. When comparing these Ring ratings from the newspaper with those published in the issue of the magazine before and after the newspaper date, they're sometimes a little different. So it's certainly POSSIBLE that Ring's ratings changed between April 7, 2004, as published in the Summer 2004 issue, and the April 24th date of the fight. It wouldn't be unprecedented. I have no evidence that they did or didn't.

I did a quick search of YouTube and couldn't find a complete version of the V.Klitschko-Sanders fight, so I couldn't find a ring announcer or TV commentator stating that Sanders was indeed elevated to #2 by Ring by the time of the fight. Nor could I find a contemporary news source confirming it in my quick search.

FWIW, here again are the Ratings from Ring Magazine in the two issues prior to the V.Klitschko-Sanders fight as well as the issue immediately afterward.

The Ring – July 2004
(as of March 10, 2004)

World Champion:
Vacant
1. Vitali Klitschko
2. Chris Byrd
3. Corrie Sanders
4. Roy Jones
5. James Toney
6. David Tua
7. John Ruiz
8. Wladimir Klitschko
9. Fres Oquendo
10. Hasim Rahman

The Ring – Summer 2004
(as of April 7, 2004)

World Champion:
Vacant
1. Vitali Klitschko
2. Chris Byrd
3. Corrie Sanders
4. Roy Jones
5. James Toney
6. John Ruiz
7. Wladimir Klitschko
8. Fres Oquendo
9. Hasim Rahman
10. Monte Barrett

The Ring – September 2004
(as of May 5, 2004)

World Champion:
Vitali Klitschko
1. Chris Byrd
2. John Ruiz
3. James Toney
4. Hasim Rahman
5. Monte Barrett
6. Andrew Golota
7. Fres Oquendo
8. Lamon Brewster
9. Jameel McCline
10. Joe Mesi

 

Unfortunately I sold off my boxing magazines, something I regret from time to time, so I can't look up fight coverage. I did a Google News search on the Klitschko-Sanders fight. The articles all seem to focus on the fight being for the WBC title; one article says Klitschko is #1 and Sanders is #2. I presume that's the WBC. I don't collect organizational ratings past 1975; that's the point where they turned ridiculous.

Ring stopped doing the part explaining ratings changes long ago, maybe in Fleischer's day IIRC (did Burt Sugar do it during his tenure?). That was a very useful feature and I wish I would have put them in my ratings document before I sold my mags.

I suspect Sanders announced his retirement after the V.Klitschko fight, which would explain the ratings exit, though I have no proof of it. Corrie did resurface for a few issues at the #9 spot after beating Varakin in December 2004.

 

Patterson was ranked in the top ten by Ring Magazine, for more years than any other heavyweight in history.

He was a great fighter, who didn’t quite have a weight class that he was suited to.

 

I think Chris Byrd also has a good case for being the best heavyweight in that time especially given that he had a win over Vitali previously.

 

Also, it is very difficult to know who the worlds best heavyweight is when the best guys don't face each other. Lennox Lewis defeated Holyfield in 1999 but we can't be sure what the outcome would have been in 1997, 1996, 1995, etc.

 

Comments

The Vitali thing is over my head. I will let it to those more into and understanding of bureaucratic thinking. As no one beat the man who was the man, I don't know who would end up lineal, but I thought Vitali was widely viewed as the top man and the champion for a while.

As modern fighters are so much bigger than the old timers, I see how one could view someone like Wilder as the best guy not to get a shot, but he probably will.

As for the for me more interesting question of who was in his own time the most outstanding fighter who did not get a shot, I think the black fighters during the color line era stand out. Jackson. Langford. Wills. I would take Wills as the one with the best claim for a title shot of the three.

Quarry and Ellis--the overrated twins with all the support they have gotten on this thread. The two of them fought Ali and Frazier seven times and went 0-7 with 7 stoppage defeats, and none of the fights was competitive.

Billy Conn, who I don't think has been mentioned, certainly has a much better claim as he gave Louis a terrific tussle when he got the chance, rather than just proving he was a mile over his head against the top man.