Which Heavyweight Champion benefited most from weak competition?

Tommy Burns

 

Are we talking strictly linear champs, or belt-holders as well?

 

I think Louis, Dempsey, Jeffries and Patterson are all good candidates for that title. Joe Louis's best comp came either pre title reign or very early on.. Jeffries fought a lot of smaller past prime men... Dempsey never fought Harry Wills, Sam Langford or George Godrey, but fought Billy Miske, Brennan and a few others in their stead..

An argument can also be made for Holmes, but I don't consider most of his challengers weak.. He just simply didn't face the BEST around...

 

Wlad may be a viable choice here.

Although maybe he could deal with better opposition fine, it's a bit of a mystery.

 

he defended his title 3 times against the same man, his sparring partner!!

burns is a good call

 

He was stripped of a title for not facing a mandatory in Greg Page in 1983, then probably could have faced others such as Pinklon Thomas around the same time frame... Instead he was fighting Marvis Frazier, Scott Frank and Tim Witherspoon.. Still these were decent fighters, so I don't consider Holmes as benefitting from the weakest comp.

 

Mike Tyson
Wlad

 

wlad

 

the two klitschkos won't be enshrined in the hall of fame along with a lot of their challengers.

 

One of those Americans who refused to fight any black guys. Anyone who says Wlad is a ******. Even Tyson fought better guys than some of the old timers

 

wlad

 

Larry Holmes.

how come he never rematched Ken Norton?

 

Well, they both went to have a couple of tune-up matches. Larry won both his tune-ups bouts, while Norton won one then got KO'd in 1 round by Shavers. Larry then fought Shavers. For Norton, he was coming up on the end. He barely made it to the finish line in a draw with LeDoux, (getting knocked down twice in the last round), got a split decision over Cobb, whom Norton would have beaten much easier in his prime, then got KO'd in 1 again and called it a career.

As for the original question, Burns, Patterson, Jeffries, Dempsey, (both weak opposition and largely inactive) Tyson, Wlad, Marciano's title defenses were generally against guys at the end of their careers, (or in the case of Archie Moore, the end of his meaningful career), Holmes didn't fight the best but you might be able to argue that he made it up somewhat in quantity, as he was averaging three fights a year or so after getting the title, and the reign of Joe Louis alternated between contenders who were at least worthwhile and bums.

All IMO, of course.