The Rings Top 20 2017 All Time Heavyweights!

Good post. Very good reason why Tyson deserves a high rating, and one of the reasons he should be higher than Holy. But Lewis deserves a MUCH higher rating for some of the same reasons. A. He more than anyone else ushered in the SHW era. That changed hw boxing forever. B. He more than anyone else, ushered in the international era in HW boxing. That also changed hw boxing forever. Honesty, I'm talking myself into replacing Marciano with Lewis at # 3 all time. Nobody outside of Louis and Ali in hw history combined such an impact on the sport itself with such a great resume.

 

I agree that there is a strong case for Lewis here.
His is a story not often understood, let alone actually told.
I would have no problem with him being placed higher up that list.

 

I see a whole lot "fit the narrative" rationalization and not as much result based and opponent based explanation.

This isn't a list of best historical or sociological figures but a list of best heavyweights... supposedly.

 

I feel you have not addressed this with a list of his best heavyweight opponents.

I feel thatcyou fear that requested list might seem flimsy compared to some much lower on the ranking.

I feel there is a certain canonical conservatism at play which must exalt bygone heroes at the expense of rational, objective observation.

 

Of which you are an exemplar?

 

Ad hominen.

Address the issue.

 

Really?

Since when was asking a fair question characterized as ad hominem? (Don't worry, I know the answer already)


Oh well - Just in case...

In respect to your feeling that "there is a certain canonical conservatism at play, which must exalt bygone heroes at the expense of rational, objective observation."

I can't contemplate too long on how you might have reached the use of the term: “canonical conservatism”, other than to suggest that you might have been reading political theory and/or moral philosophy - perhaps recently.

Do you really view Boxing fandom and varying historical perspectives on the sport, as some sort of multi-denominational sectarian institution?

Whatever your opinions on Boxing are, that’s fine - I might even agree with some of them but, it seems to me that you would rather demand people declare and explain their position so that you can dismiss their reasoning, without providing your own rationale for doing so. At the same time, it really does look as though your attitude is underpinned by this demented idea that a clique of Boxing fans, pundits and historians exists, consisting of "olds", with a “rose-tinted” agenda.

This theory of yours will grow very old, very quickly - if it hasn’t already.

So, with regard to the sense of grievance you have, with opinions that do not match yours, being formed "at the expense of rational, objective observation", I would suggest you perhaps demonstrate some of what you feel is being lost, yourself. Perhaps you could start with ridding yourself of the view that Boxing fans, who disagree with you, belong to a 'Dan Brown' type of conspiracy against modern day Boxers.


Now - You can call the above what you like but, I am going to call it 'the issue addressed - in full'.

 

The fact that there were no rankings during Johnson’s era, makes it hard to pin down exactly where is opponents sat, and what the wins were worth after he had already beaten them.

This is how I would interpret matters.

He fist becomes seen as a factor in the world scene when he defeats George Gardner in 1902.

His run of form after that is very impressive. He defeats Denver Ed Martin twice, Sam McVea three times, and Sandy Ferguson five times.

Now bear in mind that all three were being touted as opponent’s off Jeffries when Johnson first beat them, and in some cases after.

I don't put as much stock in is wins over Langford and Jeantte as some do, because they were not contenders yet.

Obviously Burns was the champion, so we can’t deny him any credit for the win.

Johnson's title opposition was lacklustre, but it does contain significant contenders.

Kaufman, Flynn, and Moran were logical challengers.

Jeffries was shot; but that doesn’t mean that he was not a significant challenge.

None of these wins are great, but when you put them all together, he is consistently toppling contenders over a 13 year period.

 

Pretty solid list. If any two deserved to be tied it was Lennox and Evander.

 

Not exactly Janitor.

Tommy Burns was likely Johnson best win. And I would rate Jess Willard as his best opponent, who KO'd him.

When Choynski, Hart and Griffin were near their primes, they beat Johnson. No excuses.

Johnson never fought heavyweight prime versions of Langford, Mcvey, or Jeanette, who's prime years were approximately 1908-1914. Johnson never fought GunBoat Smith ( wins over Willard, Moran, and others Johnson fought ) , who was a hot fighter for a while, but Smith did TKO'd Johnson in a 4 round exhibition match.

A match with McCarty would have been interesting, but McCarty died.

So who did he beat?

Once again:

1 ) a 156 pound 20 year old Sam Langford, * weights and age are estimates *
2 ) A teenage Sam McVey
3 ) A very green and raw notice in Jeannette who sometimes had a losing record.
4 ) A decently skilled, but soft bodied and chined Martin.
5 ) 5'7" 168 Tommy Burns, for the title.
6 ) A decent, but not great " white hope " in Moran. Surviving films show a close match.
7 ) An over weight, old and in-active Jeffries
8 ) Flynn, though ringside observers wonder what would have happened in later rounds if not DQ'd

Draws to O'Brien, and Jim " Battling " Johnson take luster off of Johnson's championship star, as does being knocked down by blown up middle weight Ketchel. Could you imagine if something like this happened in modern history? The heavyweight champion would be ridiculed.

Sorry, while I agree it was a long run, I also want to communicate its not a very impressive run. Not one of the above men in their state of condition WHEN Johnson fought them would be in the top 5 today.

 

Johnson beat a lot of good guys.

Jeanette
Mcvey
Langford
Burns
Jeffries

He fought some of them early in their careers. And matchmaking at the time was still a fledgling practice. But wasn't the consensus that he was the best around?

I think Burns and Jeffries were his best fights.

Also, he had to box while people were calling him the N word from ringside and threatening to kill him.

 

I am not sure that Johnson ever did it. Yes he beat Jeffries and Langford, but I don't think that either was the best heavyweight in the world apart from him when he beat them. I don't think that Burns was either.

You could argue that Foreman never did it, since in hindsight Ali would have been the best heavyweight in the world, even when Frazier held the title. That is perhaps being a bit harsh.

You could argue it of any of the 90s heavyweights, because it is always hard to pin down who the best in the world is during that era.

 

To be honest with you I stopped taking your posts about Johnson seriously some time ago, because your agenda is painfully transparent, and you are incapable of any sort of objectivity regarding the issue.

What you are doing is ultimately self-defeating, because e everybody knows that you are doing it, and views what you write accordingly.

 

Well it might matter in some assessments, depending on your criteria.

Two of the WHITE names on your list had credible reasons for never facing the second best.

Dempsey lived with the colour barrier, and I don't know enough about the era to guess at whether not he could have defied the convention.

Klitschko on Klitschko was not viable for, IMO, even stronger reasons, and even if they had fought, we would never have known if the fight was on the level. My take there is that the older brother was better h2h and would probably have taken it, but despite that, the younger brother will always rank as greater on account of his much stronger resume.