Worst HW champ H2H?

The case for Leon Spinks would be that he is the only lineal heavyweight champion who only has one good win.

 

He has Ali, Evangelista, Mercado, and drew against LeDoux who was 30 lbs heavier than him and much more experienced.

 

If the ABC guys could I would pick Seldon. I could see Joe Chonyski or Ruby Bob knocking him out.

 

Bernardo Mercado?
Alfredo Evangelista?

 

The case against Marvin Hart as the head to head WOAT:

1. We don't have any film of him.
2. His resume isn't particularly close to being the worst.
3. He was the only person who beat Jack Johnson anywhere close to his prime, and the case for the result being a robbery is not as clear cut as many people think.

 

Seldon wasn't actually that bad. Definitely better than Bentt.

 

But the thread title asks for H2H. Spinks looked like a darn good fighter on the night he beat Ali & could probably beat a few of the smaller &/or weaker champs on that night.

 

The only thing stopping Bentt from being the worst is the fact that he beat Morrison.

 

In fairness though Bent was found to have brain damage that probably preceded his professional career. He really should not have been fighting. So yeah, that is actually probably the right call.

 

Peter Maher and Tom Sharkey are the closest. Among more obscure claimants Creedon maybe? I know we differ heavily on how great Sullivan is in the context of the 19th century but are there really 20th century HW champs you'd think Sullivan beats?

Up until the 30s most HW champs should be favored over all the champs that came before them H2H. Sullivans the earliest champ and was knocked out by Corbett.

Braddock was a 6 ft 2 slugger fighting under 185 wrong weight for all but his last few fights. 200 pounds Braddock mixture of size, durability, power and skill should fare very high H2H. After all he did well against Louis coming off a 2 year layoff and beat Baer. With better management Braddock could have been the guy at HW between Tunney and Louis. Pre Sonny Liston its hard to find HW champs Braddock would be a clear underdog against. Theres Louis, Tunney and Dempsey. Theres a few other tossups like Patterson, Charles and Baer but thats really it etc.


The thing with Burns is in the beginning Burns wasn't considered a credible champion. Burns had the O Brien draw and in 1907 there were 2 alternative HW champs named in the US and both had beaten Burns. Think about how this community would handle a 5 ft 7 lineal champ with losses to 2 alphabet guys who was narrowly winning his fights. So when Burns went on a dominant run it was hard for people to shed that impression of him.


Theres also the fact all the guys he beat in that 1907 and 1908 run were from the Commonwealth nations and when Burns lost to Johnson it was easy to chalk up his dominance to the British HWs not being very good. After O Brien Burns would never beat an American again at least not one with a winning record.

Burns also fought Squires and Lang(the best opponent he stopped) a combined 5 times and thats like half his big HW wins. For more modern fans the fact Burns is 5 ft 7 and isn't Sam Langford also means he will be overlooked. Burns also barely fought in his 30s after the last Lang fight. So there are reasons Burns is overlooked. I'm not saying I wholeheartedly buy into these arguments. I think Lang was pretty good and had terrible luck. But that doesn't mean he's "dominant HW champs best win" material.


Interesting thing on Root is he left the sport before his 30th birthday and in 2nd and final HW fight knocked down a 6 ft 3 who was way north of 200 while being under the LHW limit. Root had knocked down Hart weighing 171. Like Braddock he could have been a HW menace. Root did nothing else at HW so Hart doesn't get credit for beating him but he really deserves it tbh.

 

Plausible.

The way I see it you have three tiers of lineal heavyweight champions.

1. Champions who dominated a definable era, and this is a very select group.
2. Champions who did not dominate a definable era, but none the less achieved some dominance.
3. Champions who were not great, but none the less put together around half a dozen good wins. Basically the middle of the pack guys.
4. Champions who only put together one two or three really good wins.

My instinct is that the WOAT lies somewhere in category 4, albeit smaller earlier champions might punch below their weight in this regard.

 

For a start I believe that a prime Sullivan would have beaten Corbett.

By far the most important factor in Corbett's success against Sullivan, was the fact that Sullivan was a washed up alcoholic.

Conservatively I think that his power and hand speed would have made him dangerous for some time after that.

 

The McCoy fight was actually judged as not being a fix by pretty much everyone who actually saw it, the main people accusing it of being a fix were the ex wives of Corbett and McCoy. The spectators themselves seemed quite adamant about it being legit, and they usually sniffed out fixes quite easily.

 

He also KO'd Fireman Jim Flynn, & dominating O'Brien in their title rematch is nothing to sneeze @ either.

 

Its funny the 3 fights that paint Corbett in the best light weren't wins with Jackson, Fitz and Jeffries I. Tbh Corbetts success against all 3 is the biggest mark against them being compared to later HWs. Like I want to put Peter Jackson over Jack Johnson or Tommy Burns then I realize he couldn't knock out Corbett for 61 rounds(its less with the conversion but still).

Corbetts resume is basically Sullivans resume+ with his core wins being Sullivans wins+Sullivan and the Jackson draw. Corbett shouldn't have been considered an undisputed champ but in 1894 thats all well and good especially with Peter Jackson not fighting. Whats insane is Corbett got like a decade of mileage off that with winning 1 fight.