Log in or Sign up

GUILALAH: My Current AT Heavy Rankings

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by guilalah, Dec 3, 2008.

Page 6 of 7

Quickhands21 Well-Known Member Full Member

Joined:

Nov 10, 2007

Messages:

2,084

Likes Received:

10

Is That Bert Sugars list or something?? Awful rankings. I dont care what way you spin it..

Quickhands21, Dec 12, 2008

#76

OLD FOGEY Boxing Junkie Full Member

Joined:

Feb 18, 2006

Messages:

7,670

Likes Received:

98

janitor said: ↑

Fair enough but the fact remains that Fulton was better scalp than Wills endless repeat wins over the empty shells of the black dynamite crew.

Fulton was also more highly regarded than Wills himself at the time having beaten Langford far more convincingly.

I submit that Wills was in a bit of a rut when Dempsey was coming up and only established himself as the outstanding contender after he beat Fulton. I also submit that by this time his repeat showings against Langford were getting prety irrelevant.

This might be so but again Miske was probably a better scalp than the ageing black dynamite boys at this point.

You know the controvesy surrounding this fight as well as anybody.

Because rightly or wrongly Fulton was the No1 consensus challenger. Given Wills recent wins (perhaps constrained by who would fight him) it was a reasonable placment.
Click to expand...

"Miske was probably a better scalp"

Miske lost to Kid Norfolk both right before and right after his first two bouts with Dempsey. He also lost twice to Greb. He simply was not the world beater you are making him out to be.

"Fulton was the No 1 consensus challenger"

If so, only because they did not consider black contenders. Anyway, what difference does it make what they thought in 1918 when Fulton was blown away by Wills in 1920. No serious observer could possibly have maintained Fulton was superior to Wills after 1920.

"aging black dynamite boys"

Wills had beaten them when they weren't that aged, and anyway, what is the evidence they had slipped so far they wouldn't have been very formidable opponents for Dempsey--McVea was losing only to Wills and Langford-He never lost to a white fighter--Jeannette was losing mainly to Wills and Langford. Jeannette was still good enough in 1918 to beat Norfolk, which Miske could not do. I think Langford, Jeannette, and McVea would still in 1918 have been among the five or so toughest opponents Dempsey could have fought.

"Wills was in a rut"

ALL the white fighters ducking you will do that to you. (as an aside, I think this is a criticism you should retire. You are blaming the victim)
Click to expand...

OLD FOGEY, Dec 12, 2008

#77

ChrisPontius March 8th, 1971 Full Member

Joined:

Oct 4, 2005

Messages:

19,404

Likes Received:

278

OLD FOGEY said: ↑

McVea was losing only to Wills and Langford-He never lost to a white fighter
Click to expand...

Hopkins, take notes. :yep

ChrisPontius, Dec 12, 2008

#78
Dempsey1238 Boxing Junkie Full Member

Joined:

Jul 10, 2005

Messages:

12,724

Likes Received:

3,565

In regards to Wills. He should have goting his title shot way before 1926. I mean how many NUMBER 1 contenders seat at top of the number 1 rank for ten long years, being denie a shot???

Wills didnt need to face Tunney in 26 or some other bout to get a shot at Dempsey. Wills earn it long before Tunney went heavyweight.

Dempsey1238, Dec 12, 2008

#79

Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Joined:

Jan 4, 2008

Messages:

28,145

Likes Received:

13,104

Do anyone think a case can be made for having Holmes at the same level as Louis and Ali?

Bokaj, Dec 12, 2008

#80
Quickhands21 Well-Known Member Full Member

Joined:

Nov 10, 2007

Messages:

2,084

Likes Received:

10

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Marciano
5. Foreman-as much as im not a fan 2 times capturing the title that far apart means a ton.
6. Lewis
7. Holyfield
8. Tyson
9.Frazier
10. Liston
11. Johnson
12. Dempsey
13. Patterson
14. Walcott
15. Charles
16. Tunney
17. Norton
18.Jackson
19. Langford
20. Bowe

Quickhands21, Dec 12, 2008

#81
Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Joined:

Jan 4, 2008

Messages:

28,145

Likes Received:

13,104

Quickhands21 said: ↑

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Marciano
5. Foreman-as much as im not a fan 2 times capturing the title that far apart means a ton.
6. Lewis
7. Holyfield
9. Tyson
10.Frazier
11. Liston
12. Johnson
13. Dempsey
14. Patterson
15. Walcott
16. Charles
17. Tunney
20. Bowe
Click to expand...

It looks good. I personally wouldn't have Foreman as high, though. He's probably not even in my top 10, but I'll admit that he's a hard one to place.

Much more serious is the fact that Wills isn't on this list. A man who was arguably the best in the world for some 10 years have a very good case for top 5 in my book. I think it's ironic how Dempsey's blatant ducking of him may well have hurt Wills's standing more than Dempsey's own.

Bokaj, Dec 12, 2008

#82

Quickhands21 Well-Known Member Full Member

Joined:

Nov 10, 2007

Messages:

2,084

Likes Received:

10

Your right..Wills should be in there..I had thoughts of Jackson to..I need to sitdown one day n really put some thought into a top 20 list

Quickhands21, Dec 12, 2008

#83
janitor VIP Member Full Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 2006

Messages:

71,599

Likes Received:

27,272

Mendoza said: ↑

How can we say for sure that he was dominant when he did not fight Jackson, Or Slavin? Both fights could have been made before Sullivan meet Corbett.

Click to expand...

He was dominant over the considerable period that he was active before these fighters became relevant on the world stage. They simply wernt in the picture until the late 1880s.

If you want to use the 1886 date as a cut off when Sullivan for Sullivan's prime, then you are saying John L was past it after age 28!

Click to expand...

Given Sullivans riotous living habits this is eminently plausible.

I was not using this period to outline his prime but the period before Jackson, Slavin and Godard were in the picture.

Still, given the date of 1886, fights with Fitzsimmons, Goddard, Maher, Dooley and Jackson could have been made. All of these people would rate as Sullivans best glove win.. Check the reocrds, you'll see they were the best out there.

Click to expand...

Even in 1886 these guys would not have been ranked among the obvious challengers.

You are skewing the timeline a little here.

I think Sullivan cleaned up on a weak era in the early 1880's, then was not tested much outside of the Kilrain fight, and the Mitchell fight
Click to expand...

It might have been a weak era but the fact is that Sullivan was so far ahead of his peers at this stage that he could probably have taken any two of them in the same night.
Click to expand...

janitor, Dec 13, 2008

#84
janitor VIP Member Full Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 2006

Messages:

71,599

Likes Received:

27,272

OLD FOGEY said: ↑

"Miske was probably a better scalp"

Miske lost to Kid Norfolk both right before and right after his first two bouts with Dempsey. He also lost twice to Greb. He simply was not the world beater you are making him out to be.

Click to expand...

While Miske had his ups and downs over this period he was probably a better scalp than what was left of Sam Langford in terms of the overall heavyweight picture. I would also point out that the Norfolk fights were close and at least one of them was scored for Miske in some of the press.

"Fulton was the No 1 consensus challenger"

If so, only because they did not consider black contenders. Anyway, what difference does it make what they thought in 1918 when Fulton was blown away by Wills in 1920. No serious observer could possibly have maintained Fulton was superior to Wills after 1920.

Click to expand...

Fulton was thought to be better than Wills at the time because he had dominated Sam Langford twice while Wills was still having mixed results against him. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but the consensus in the contemporary press was that Fulton had been the outstanding challenger for Willards crown for some time. Some even called him an "uncrowned champion". Nobody thought Dempsey would have an easy time with him. After the fight it was like: "Holy f***. Where did that come from"?

This content is protected

"aging black dynamite boys"

Wills had beaten them when they weren't that aged, and anyway, what is the evidence they had slipped so far they wouldn't have been very formidable opponents for Dempsey--McVea was losing only to Wills and Langford-He never lost to a white fighter--Jeannette was losing mainly to Wills and Langford. Jeannette was still good enough in 1918 to beat Norfolk, which Miske could not do. I think Langford, Jeannette, and McVea would still in 1918 have been among the five or so toughest opponents Dempsey could have fought.

Click to expand...

Even if they were loosing to black fighters they were still loosing repeatedly and moving further and further down the rankings. I dont doubht that they were great fighters when Wills first met them but repeatedly beating a declining fighter you have already beaten repeatedly will not maintain your position in the rankings if another guy has done it better and then gos after the young meat.

"Wills was in a rut"

ALL the white fighters ducking you will do that to you. (as an aside, I think this is a criticism you should retire. You are blaming the victim)

Click to expand...

I dont hold Wills responsible for his choice of oponents over this period (you can only fight who will fight you) but it certainly didnt help his case for a title fight.

Maybe Wills would have been champion before Dempsey if he had got to Fulton first but he didnt and Dempsey got him.
Click to expand...

janitor, Dec 13, 2008

#85
ChrisPontius March 8th, 1971 Full Member

Joined:

Oct 4, 2005

Messages:

19,404

Likes Received:

278

So you're saying that Wills didn't do enough to earn a title shot because he kept beating the black dynamite crew that Dempsey was and had been ducking? :admin

By the way, i have an article that calls Dempsey "a relatively unknown fighter" in 1918. Goes to show you how local the information was back then, and maybe Fulton wasn't as widely recognized as the heir apparent as that article claims.

ChrisPontius, Dec 13, 2008

#86

janitor VIP Member Full Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 2006

Messages:

71,599

Likes Received:

27,272

ChrisPontius said: ↑

So you're saying that Wills didn't do enough to earn a title shot because he kept beating the black dynamite crew that Dempsey was and had been ducking? :admin

Click to expand...

Basicaly yes.

Wills fought them repeatedly because nobody else would fight him. Fulton beat Langford convincingly then went after the new blood, and Wills kept slipping further down the rankings.

We know with hindsight that Fulton was not worthy to lace up Wills gloves but at the time he fought Dempsey he was seen as the NO1 challenger for Willards title.

By the way, i have an article that calls Dempsey "a relatively unknown fighter" in 1918. Goes to show you how local the information was back then, and maybe Fulton wasn't as widely recognized as the heir apparent as that article claims.

Click to expand...

Dempsey was a relativley unknown fighter in some quaters.

Anybody who followed the fight game at the time would have heard of Fred Fulton and thought of him as the heir aparent.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9F01E2DC153EE033A25750C0A9649D946496D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=980DE5DC1F3FE433A25752C2A9629C946996D6CF
Click to expand...

janitor, Dec 13, 2008

#87
guilalah Well-Known Member Full Member

Joined:

Jul 30, 2004

Messages:

2,355

Likes Received:

306

I'm moving Holmes up a bit, from #10 to #8.

guilalah, Jan 5, 2009

#88
guilalah Well-Known Member Full Member

Joined:

Jul 30, 2004

Messages:

2,355

Likes Received:

306

I'm switching Johnson (#5 to #7) with Sullivan (#7 to #5). I previously moved Holmes (from #10 to #8), dropping Tunney and Frazier a notch; I'm dropping Liston (#13 to #15), raising Tyson and Foreman a notch.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Jack Dempsey
5. John L Sullivan
6. James J Jeffries
7. Jack Johnson
8. Larry Holmes
9. Gene Tunney
10. Joe Frazier
11. Lennox Lewis
12. Evander Holyfield
13. Mike Tyson
14. George Foreman
15. Sonny Liston
16. Bob Fitzsimmons
17. Ezzard Charles
18. James J Corbett
19 Sam Langford
20 'Jersey' Joe Walcott
21 Peter Jackson
22 Riddick Bowe
23 Max Schmeling
24 Harry Wills
25 Max Baer
26 Jack Sharkey

guilalah, Mar 1, 2009

#89
janitor VIP Member Full Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 2006

Messages:

71,599

Likes Received:

27,272

guilalah said: ↑

I'm switching Johnson (#5 to #7) with Sullivan (#7 to #5). I previously moved Holmes (from #10 to #8), dropping Tunney and Frazier a notch; I'm dropping Liston (#13 to #15), raising Tyson and Foreman a notch.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Jack Dempsey
5. John L Sullivan
6. James J Jeffries
7. Jack Johnson
8. Larry Holmes
9. Gene Tunney
10. Joe Frazier
11. Lennox Lewis
12. Evander Holyfield
13. Mike Tyson
14. George Foreman
15. Sonny Liston
16. Bob Fitzsimmons
17. Ezzard Charles
18. James J Corbett
19 Sam Langford
20 'Jersey' Joe Walcott
21 Peter Jackson
22 Riddick Bowe
23 Max Schmeling
24 Harry Wills
25 Max Baer
26 Jack Sharkey
Click to expand...

It is a prety ballanced list in terms of old dog and new dog.

I think two gentlemen who might deserve to be a bit higher are Peter Jackson and Sam Langford.

janitor, Mar 1, 2009

#90

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 6 of 7