Top 15 atg Hw's is easy but try rate these!

Tunney
Sharkey
Schmeling
Walcott
Charles
Patterson


Walcott to me was the most skilled with the best power and fought a still dangerous Louis and Marciano and did well.

Charles also beat some excellent heavyweights and had an excellent resume.

Tunney was an excellent fighter but only fought a less-than prime Dempsey and Heeney and took a long count in 1 fight. Great fighter but thin in HVWT


Schmeling had the win over a young Louis and beat Sharkey but lost some time and had the loss to Baer

Patterson was Ko'd by Ingo and Liston 2 times, dropped by almost every challenger but had excellent wins over Ingo,Moore,Jackson, then later robbed by Ellis, beat Bonevena,drew with Quarry

Sharkey had some good wins over Wills,Risko,Etc. and fought the best black and white guys to get a title shot but was Ko'd by an old Dempsey and Carnera

Walcott
Charles
Tunney
Schmeling
Patterson
Sharkey

 

Good points.

Max's second fight against Sharkey probably equals Walcott's losing performance against Marciano. Tunney's second-best win trumps Max's second best performance, but then again, it was against the same guy as his best win.

 

Which version of Holyfield?

 

Schmeling, Walcott and Tunney are all in my top 15. I rated them here H2H.

 

Hm, I don´t think this is that hard. That´s how I have them:

12-15 Patterson, Schmeling
16-19 Walcott, Charles

Tunney, Sharkey outside the Top20, probably Top25 both.

 

Head 2 head at their very peak at hw I would have it like the following:
Walcott
Sharkey
Patterson
Tunney
Schmeling
Charles

I disagree here. Schmeling definitly has the power to knock him out and with his oxing brain and feints I see him fabricating it not once but nearly everytime they meet.

True but he also hit him low and that´s clearly visibly on film. The DQ was a hard but right decision.
Schmeling´s second best win? Walker who came of a draw with the man who just got a gift against Schmeling, Sharkey. At the time this fight was seen as the number one against the number two heavyweight. And while Walker was small no heavy was able to do to him what Schmeling did. another fight worth mentioning is his win over young Stribling. Schmeling´s resume has more depth than it seems on first glance, look a bit into the time, he fought many many Top10 ranked contenders in fact enough to be ranked Top10 when you go by this lone criteria.

 

Ezzard Charles made me what I am

Plus I think you're being harder on me (for asking for answers on this one ) than I am being on any of these guys for judging them in any particular order

BUT

Prime Ez is p-4-p up there with your Robinsons and your Burley's (IMO) - none of the others are really the high - Walcott Closest

Walcott - masterful boxer - literally toyed with Louis (only man ever to), gave Rocky Marciano his toughest fight (probably would've beat him had it been 12 rounds) and KO'd (!!) the guy above

Tunney - beautiful boxer to watch (if a limited time & resume at heavy)- as clever and disciplined as any in history - far better pure boxer than Jack Sharkey (IMO)

Patterson - speed kills most at around his level - good heart (in and out of the ring) and his focus on the night of the second Johansson fight was unshakable - did seem fragile at most times but was a class fighter. Ali called him 'the most skilled as a boxer' he ever fought. The Liston thing (a bit like Tyson-Spinks for me) I think could've happened to anyone on any given night against Liston (no matter where you rank them) - Liston said of Floyd, "Patterson's trouble was his size. But he's the best man I've fought. He's twice the fighter Clay is."

Schmeling's best win (first Louis-Schmeling fight) is probably best result of anyone in boxing history for me - so on the basis of that he just edges Sharkey

Sharkey - poor old Jack - just where he ended up I'm afraid - well schooled boxer but a confusing mix for me of...great performances but then losing it doh!! (Dempsey).... throwing fights away doh!! (Schmeling I).... not being decisive enough when should've really (Mickey Walker)....being brilliant (Loughran I).... being unreliable (Carnera II)....uninspired (King Levinsky/Loughran II)....being very good (Wills/Godfrey)

wierd footnote on Sharkey - check out this report on his 1935 match with UnKnown Winston (was he one of those Murderers Row types??):

Sharkey's first bout in two years. He kayoed Winston in the first round after two blows but, as there had been "ugly talk" before of a "fix," the fans surrounded the ring shouting insults. Referee Martin tried to assure them that Winston had tried, which was greeted with louder insults. Sharkey suggested they start the bout all over. Martin consulted with the judges, and a few minutes later permitted the bout to start all over again. The fans returned to their seats. In the second round Sharkey caught Winston with a left to the jaw to floor him for an eight-count. He then slammed him with a right to the jaw and Winston was down for good. The fans booed and went home. (Often incorrectly recorded as occurring Nov. 25.) The State Boxing Commission then suspended Winston for one year for not giving his "best efforts."

 

I love all these guys. excelent fighters. I think its razor thin, i would posibly rate most equal to the other but with a gun to my head i think you have to decide who dominated who beter.
sharkey tunney and charles did not KO linear champs, for me the best guys turn it on in key fights and PROVE their dominance when it counts. that seems harsh beacuse sharkey hit hard with both hands and charles was very explosive also.
Tunney was a great over achiever who set his sights on a goal and did what he set out to do by basicly using a long term plan to be the guy to beat dempsey. Although gene was a fine technician and showed immense fortitude to overcome the greb loss, he treated boxing as a means to an end and his record (the nd's etc) posibly flatter him. having said that you cant entirely rule out such a clever guy who knew what was required to win and belived in himself more than patterson and more reliable than sharkey. tunney more than any other champ knew his capablity and given any task would find a formular to win.

schmeling KOd a greater champ in louis and apart from disputed decisions against guys he beat and a loss against an in form baer prety much was the best heavyweight for ten years - more consistancy than any of these.

walcott kod the best heavyweight of his time to win his title, that realy says it all.

patterson may have KOd a linear champ but had he beat ingo first time around ingo would never have been a champ anyway. I break my own rule by placing floyd behind charles because ezz KOd more rated heavyweights like baksi, bivins, elmer ray, satterfield, walace and layne than pattersons best guys who he seemd to edge like machen, chuvalo, bonavena, ellis (he did win that!) i dont realy count harris, radmacher, london, jackson and mcneely as anywhere near bivins and co for class.
I think sharkey is beter than tunney but just did not claerly win the title or ever dominate his division in his time like the others so for achievement i mark jack down but theres not much between the top and botom.
1. schmeling
2. walcott
3. charles
4. patterson
5. tunney
6. sharkey

 

This would be pretty much my view, Mendoza.

 

A few variables:

Jack Sharkey fought the deepest body of opposition of all the fighters listed by a significant margin. We would also have to regard him as being the least consistent. Even so his volume of opposition is so high that the number of top fighters he beat probably outstrips the other names listed.

Jersey Joe Walcott probably made the cleanest sweep of the top contenders duting his prime. In the run up to his fight with Louis he prety much cleaned out the top 10. Few names in the annual rankings from 1945 to 1949 were sparred.

Max Schmeling was probably winning at the absolute elite level for longer than anybody else listed. He was in the top two of the Ring Magazine annual ratings all but two years from 1929-1937. Those are 33 and 34 where he was ranked #4. The guy was basicaly beating top three oponents periodicaly for eight years.

Floyd Patterson was beating ranked contenders over a longer period than anybody else listed being ranked in the top four of the annual ratings all but one years from 1956-1966. He won the title in his first year in the ratings (1956) and was beating some of the best names of the 60s ten years later.

Gene Tunney probably has the thinnest resume of the list but he might well have been the best head to head.

Ezzard Charles is the greatest fighter on the list pound for pound and has the greatest resume overall, but his heavyweight resume is thinner than that of Walcott, who he might in practice have beaten 3X head to head.