I'm just a casual but didn't he beat some difficult fellas as an underdog? I see he lost to Joe Louis in the 8th round and Joe respected him. This guy has a big hollywood film made about him called Cinderella Man which depicts the time when he started stomping out top competition like Max Baer etc. He was mauling guys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Braddock I don't see many big hollywood films about micheal tyson.
I don't count Prince Chuckles Martin who was gifted a belt due to injury. So it's likely Bruce Seldon. Buffet Stiverne was pretty rubbish but did have decent power. Tyson Fury has only 2 more title defences than Seldon. Just saying.
Martin, followed by Stiverne & Seldon. Both Martin and Seldon are known for giving almost 0 effort in their biggest figure (AJ and Tyson respectively); but Martin beat no one, while Seldon at least best Tony Tucker while Stiverne has those two wins against Arreola. Martin's best win is probably Gerald Washington (not counting Glaskov's horrendous injury).
Ofcourse he was a great fighter ! but most of his ko wins were in the 175 weight class.... I think that Leon Spinks or even Charles Martin would have beaten him
Seldon was terrible but he had 1 defense of his title before getting hit with the phantom hook by Tyson.
Right. Braddock had 24 losses and failed in a challenge for the light heavyweight title previously. It's difficult to imagine someone who lost a title challenge against Bivol winning a heavyweight title these days, no matter how many belts there are. Braddock was 35-5-6 when he lost his bid to win the light heavyweight crown. It would be like if Isaac Chilemba won one of the major heavyweight titles. As much as people want to crap all over the modern heavyweight division, there aren't any failed light heavyweight challengers winning major heavyweight titles any more. Nobody is worried Lyndon Arthur is going to win the unified world heavyweight title in the coming years.
I mean...Usyk is pretty clearly the best active heavyweight, and he lost to Shawn Porter (a pro light middleweight) in the amateurs.
Usyk didn't lose a challenge to one of the light heavyweight champions. And he doesn't have 24 losses as a pro. Usyk couldn't even make 175 as a pro. Braddock was a nobody before scoring a couple out-of-the-blue upsets and getting a gift title shot. That's why his points win over Baer was THE biggest upset in history to that point.
I'm not sure that's entirely fair to Valuev. Yes he was extremely limited technically, and he was glacially slow... BUT - he had a cast iron jaw and he was physically huge. And just because his physical advantages are the only thing that bail him out doesn't mean he wasn't a more solid fighter than the likes of Martin or Stiverne, etc. Otherwise, by that logic, you'd have to have Wilder on the list for being extremely technically limited and with a questionable chin... But with the power and speed to bail him out. (And unlike Valuev, Wilder avoided fit contenders for 11 defences - he didn't fight a single fit and legit contender until Fury 2). But even as one of the most outspoken detractors of Wilder, he doesn't belong among the absolute worst*** outright because he'd have beaten the likes of Martin, did beat Stiverne... And Valuev would've beaten them too. (***Though if you were looking at guys with 10+ defences, you'd struggle to get close to him!)