Greatest Heavyweight Of All Time At Their Peak

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by White Tiger, Sep 24, 2010.


  1. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,405
    48,799
    Mar 21, 2007
    But in order to "put it into context" you have to undermine the entire media for the era and apply a personalised, ill-informed point of view to understanding contender status.


    We - or at least I - am talking about how a fighter was perceived at the time? By his peers? Not twenty five years after he retired. There is at least one poster that ranks Dempsey #2 at heavy, if that helps you further.
     
  2. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,271
    13,300
    Jan 4, 2008
    You can't seriously tell me neither of these three would have been a legit contender if they were white?

    The coloured champions (or the best among the "coloureds") often showed themselves to be quite competitive with the top white fighters when given the chance.
     
  3. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,405
    48,799
    Mar 21, 2007
    Johnson, presumably, would have fought Sharkey or Corbett, say, at some point to cement his claim. Would he have won? It's very hard to say, but I do think both were better than Hart who Johnson lost to some years later. He possibly would have got the '04 shot against Jeffries, but there were special circumstances that led to that fights coming about with Monroe anyway.

    Yes, seriously, I don't think Johnson automatically gets a title shot based upon his resume if he were white. I think he would have been the next natural contender though (he was anyway, up until Hart).
     
  4. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,271
    13,300
    Jan 4, 2008
    Ill informed would be saying that at least one of the three best black fighters of the time was among the best available? One of them being Jack Johnson, not far from his prime. Well, I've just have to live with being ill informed then.

    Most of those will have been contemprorary with Dempsey as well. That they gave their opinion of him later on, doesn't really change this.
     
  5. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,271
    13,300
    Jan 4, 2008
    But this is talking about the specific politics. I'm just talking about "best available". It's a much, much more straightforward concept.
     
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,405
    48,799
    Mar 21, 2007
    Ill informed because you said you were ill informed.



    :lol:

    Bokaj, come on. ALL of these guys are voting for the guy who was champ when they were active/reporting/young. It's generational bias, and we all know about it.

    Furthermore, I totally disagree that a twenty-five year old opinion is no different than a day after opinion. You will not find a single historian or journalist, judge, lawyer or rational human being who disagrees with me.
     
  7. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,405
    48,799
    Mar 21, 2007


    ...I know that Bokaj. It's also totally irrelevant. Firstly, the Ruhlin that Jeffries fought for the title may well have beaten the Johnson who lost to Hart, never mind the Johnson who lost to Griffin or Choynski in '01.

    Johnson got CONSIDERABLY better.

    Still though, nothing like as relevant as his status as a contender. Which you seem pleased to ignore because "best" is "more straightforward".
     
  8. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,271
    13,300
    Jan 4, 2008
    That is a part no doubt. And it's also a reason to why I'm a bit sceptical of those kinds of sources to begin with. But there is no doubt that many have considered Dempsey as the best HW champion. Some do still.

    During those 25 years you will have achieved a larger range to process, though. I think it works both ways. You can also be caught up in the moment and not realise you over enthusiasm until later.

    But as I said, I don't put that much stock in these things to start with. It can be interesting at times, especially to hear what opponents and contemprorary fighters thought of a specific fighter, but there are so many factors to adjust for that I don't really trust it as a strong criteria.

    I prefer the records and, if possible, to watch how they did against the best of their time. That's really been my point from the get go.
     
  9. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,271
    13,300
    Jan 4, 2008
    Yes, and in 03 and 04 he should have been good enough to be considered among the best available.
     
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,405
    48,799
    Mar 21, 2007
    :lol:

    You're sceptical of all contemporary sources, ever?
     
  11. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,271
    13,300
    Jan 4, 2008
    Because "status as a contender" will have been very much subject to politics, not least racial ones.
     
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,405
    48,799
    Mar 21, 2007

    I agree.

    To re-iterate, based upon his resume, if Johnson were white he would not have walked into a title shot in 03, and may not have in 04. Jeffries perhaps would not have retired, and likely beaten Johnson in 05.
     
  13. White Tiger

    White Tiger Boxing Addict banned

    4,476
    4
    Aug 3, 2010
    Rocky Marciano came to Swansea and ko'd a man in the Pub.

    He then knew he could fight.

    Turned pro and became Heavyweight Champ and reitred with 49-0 record.

    Even more impressive than Joe Calzaghes career IMO.
     
  14. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,405
    48,799
    Mar 21, 2007


    ...if he was white. Based upon his resume. It is my opinion that he would not have walked into a title shot.
     
  15. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,271
    13,300
    Jan 4, 2008
    Yeah, when it comes to subjective judging. Absolutely. As you said, there are generation bias, but there's also racial, ethnic, social and just your run of the mill personal bias.

    Records and films are much better sources.