Since Sullivan, how often has the heavyweight champion clearly been the world's best fighter?

I thought this was about Obed.

 

Assuming you are talking pound-for-pound best fighter, the heavyweight champ has not "CLEARLY" been the best fighter in the world that often.

I can think of maybe two times, both related to youth. Joe Louis from about 1940 until Sugar Ray took over. The other might be Muhammad Ali for a couple of years in the mid-1960s.

Being clearly the best fighter in the world is a very difficult task.

 

Tyson was considered the consensus p4p number 1 fighter in the years 87- 89 by all the boxing writers and broadcast media of the time taking over from Hagler who dominated the p4p rankings and polls for much of the early and mid 80s preceding Tyson.

 

A loss could always happen to even to someone one would not expect(Douglas, Braddock)

I do think young Sullivan was the best of his time, but past prime Sullivan was not as good as Corbett or Jackson when they arrive.
Corbett, mmm. To me it always comes down to is he better than Jackson.
Fitz, I do think Jeffries and others were better in his rein. But he was still a top fighter.
Jeffries, argument when Johnson hit the scene imo.
I do think prime champ Johnson was the best of his day. Past prime, he could of lost to anyone in the top.
Willard. Depended on the rules used, I do think he could be the best in his title rein. Until Dempsey that is. But being inactive makes it so hard to rank it though.
Dempsey will always have his Wills argument.
Tunney, Yeah I do think he was the best until he retire.
Early 30's???? Who really was the best? That title was flip flopping from one person to the next.
Louis was the best in his prime. Past prime, perhaps Walcott or Charles.
Walcott and Charles were the top 2 as there title trading ways show imo.
Marciano was clearly the best until he retire.
Patterson is hard to rank imo.
Liston was perhaps the best during his rein until Ali/Clay show up.
Ali was the best imo. He may lose to Norton or Frazier, but I give him the odds better than most.
Holmes was the best, perhaps even with the Spinks upset.
I do think Tyson was the best when he was at his peak.
Holyfield, Bowe ete is hard with a young Lewis there.
I do think Lewis was the best until he retire.
Wlad was the best until Fury beat him, and as of now I do think Fury is the best.

 

Well that is a completely different animal. It also makes much more sense based on your introduction noting that it might not even be 70% of the time.

 

Good post…I’ll give it a go.
Jeffries
Johnson
Dempsey
Tunney
Louis
Charles
Marciano
Liston
Ali
Frazier
Foreman
Holmes
Tyson
Holyfield
Bowe
Lewis
Wlad
Some are borderline but they were all considered the best for sure when they won

 

John L Sullivan ceased to be the best heavyweight in the world, the moment that he broke his arm in the Patsy Cardiff fight.

After that the argument quickly comes down to Jackson and Corbett.

Bob Fitzsimmons probably was the best for a brief window, before Jeffries hit his stride.

Jeffries was the best at least until Jack Johnson hit his prime, and possibly up to his retirement.

I don't think that either Hart or Burns was ever the best, though their lineage could be argued to be a legitimate one.

Johnson was the best as champion, though it could be argued that somebody surpassed him later in his reign.

It is not clear whether Willard was ever the best, but I doubt that he was by the end of his reign.

Dempsey probably was the best for most of his reign, though there are those who dispute this.

Tunney was the best until he retired.

I guess that Schmeling was the best for most of the time between Tunney and Louis, though you can make a case for others.

Louis was the best up to his first retirement, and I think that Walcott and Charles were the best of what was left after that.

 

CONT
Rocky Marciano was obviously a standout.

I suppose that Patterson was the best that they could have done after Marciano retired, but it is not clear that he was the best for all of his tenure as champion.

Johansen might have been the best, but it is far from clear.

When Liston takes over the picture becomes clearer.

I would say that for practical purposes, Ali, Frazier and Foreman were all the best in the world after they won the title.

Ali probably managed to hang on to the title, past the last point when he was still the best.

Leon Spinks was never the best, and nether was Ali in his last reign as champion.

There is probably a short window where Norton was the best.

Holmes was the best for most of his title reign, but he might have ceased to be the best, before the title was taken from him.

It is far from clear whether Michael Spinks was ever the best.

There might eve be a brief window where somebody like Tucker was the best.

Tyson was the best at some point, and so was Holyfield.

I don't think that Douglas, Moorer, Old Foreman or Briggs were ever the best.

It is far from clear whether Bowe was ever the best.

It probably goes something like Tyson up to a point, then Holyfield up to another point, then Lewis until he retires.

Rahman was never the best, even though he beat the best.

There was no lineal champion for a few years after Lewis retired, so the question becomes moot.

Wlad was probably the best for most of his reign as lineal champion.

I guess that Fury has been the best for most of the period since he dethroned Wlad, though he obviously wasn't while he was eating himself to death.

In any event we might have to revise this, if he loses to somebody who is currently active.

 

So what conclusions do I draw?

The golden era, if thee was such a thing, probably runs from the early 30s to the late 70s.

The fracturing of the titles, might have been more destructive to the quality of the competition, than the color bar.

 

Without knowing what'd he was going to do later, I think you'd have a hard time arguing Schmeling was clearly better than Sharkey during his reign.

 

Yes but I do know.

 

I guess it depends how you intreprate the question. I read it as from what was known at the time, but actually it wasn't specified.

 

I interpreted it as "was there a better man around who was not the champion."