No, not always. You did get bumped into the rankings if you were European Champ or perceived to the best Europe had to offer. That was pretty much a default setting no matter what, even if in reality you would struggle to a crack a world top 20/30, let alone top 10. It was a political statement by Fleischer.
folley was much better than monte barret level. without an undisputed title zora would have unquestionably been a belt holder. foley was at least tim witherspoon level - he was the second best heavyweight for about 4 years - with more titles on the go he would have easily bagged one and was capable enough to succsesfuly defended it - unlike a lot of minor title holders like pinklon thomas, mike dokes, greg page, tony tubbs, herbie hide, corrie sanders and henry akinwande who for some crazy reason are taken more seriously than they deserve to be by many historians.
Corrie Sanders has a very impressive resume of wins and even his losses are far more forgivable than Folley's , just look at his resume : 1st rd stoppages : Al Cole , Michael Sprott (not the fairest stoppage though) , Carlos De Leon , Johnny Duplooy , Levi Billups (b4 his deterioration) , Mike Williams . 2nd rd stoppages : Wladimir Klitschko , Bobby Czyz . 3rd rd stoppage : Bert Cooper 12 round decision : Ross Puritty . 10 round decision : Johnny Nelson. If this is not a rich resume , no heavyweight in history ever got 1 . Even d rest of the names you mentioned are disturbingly wrong , I will try to make it short by just writing that at least most of them (Page aside) , their stoppage losses are not as humiliating (in terms of losing to extremely undersized opponents) and frequent as in Folley's case . And Folley's wins were usually close decisions that if 1 watched them , 1 might have disagreed with their majority .. But Corrie Sanders was the extreme mistake , just shows how underrated he is , to compare him with Zora Folley seriously and doubt who comes on top . Even in 2 of his losses : Rahman and Vitali , he was not far from destroying his opponents . Such a dangerous fighter Corrie Sanders was . Very few could remain upright against him . I stick to my post : Zora Folley was a lesser Monte Barrett . Folley would not have been a belt holder even nowadays unless a major corruption had occured . Alexander Povetkin would have taken him as a mandatory defense and stopped him :yep , after Folley's WBA ranking is suddenly and surprisingly boosted . After losing to Povetkin , he takes on beaten Adamek/Briggs , loses by stoppage again and then Haye picks him as a stay busy fight and KOs him in 2 :yep . Now I believe Gomez/Johnson want reprove their worth against some weak name opponent . Losing to Clifford Couser is not as bad as losing to some of the guys that stopped Folley .
so when was monte Barrett considered the second best fighter in the world? I liked corrie sanders but you are getting too carried away with him. He was never taken seriously until the cigarette end of his career. hot for one year. Apart from vlad klitschko nobody corrie faced was rated when he fought them! he was 1-2 against elite fighters of his time. How can You diss folley for losing to jimmy summerlin (who was a rated fighter) but not sanders for getting KTFO by unrated Nate "ice cream" tubbs? folley won over 8 fights against genuine contenders, while they were rated.
Cooper was an overrated bleeder, Ali produced 50% of his cut stoppages. In those particular fights he was cut to shreds though.
1) Sanders' era was so much better than Folley's that his unranked opponents were still better than Folley's ranked opponents. 2) Sanders won convincingly , Folley did not. 3) Sanders in 2 out of 3 his losing efforts that mattered , still shocked his opponents , hurt them , knocked them down , whatever you call it. 4) Nate "ice cream" Tubbs that I saw (vs Sanders & Tua) would have most probably been 2 much 4 Folley and his likes . 5) Numbers aside , Barrett did challenge 4 a world title (twice ?) , not that it matters 2 me , but seemingly it matters 2 u . Was it because Valuev & Wlad looked 4 d easiest opponent back then ? I don't think so . 6) Shot Tua would've still been 2 much 4 Folley , yet a shot Barrett lasted 24 completed rounds with him. 7) Barrett avenged his stoppage loss to Couser with a similarly quick stoppage win. How many stoppage losses (and he had a lot 2 choose from) did Folley avenge ? Seriously , how can u compare Sanders 2 Folley if u watched both of them fight ? And while Folley was about as brave as Barrett in his picks of opponents , he didn't fight as brave inside d ring despite fighting lesser opponents .
Can't argue with frankenfrank there. Nate Tubbs would have ran through the 1960's heavyweight division like a hot knife through butter.
Damn ! , Folley being ranked #2 in d world is not so shocking , considering the heavyweight division's state during his time .. It is also not so shocking , as it seems that he was willing 2 fite any1 in his division (which was very weak) . But look at his outcomes vs. his opponents . When he won he didn't seem like winning , but when he lost , he left no doubt (Folley vs. Cooper #1 aside) .
woh, there!!!! the 1960s heavyweight division consisted of sonny liston, cassius clay, floyd patterson, eddie machen, prime jerry quarry, prime jimmy ellis, prime oscar bonavena, prime george chuvalo....Nate Tubbs? You gotta be pulling my chain "greatA"!
2) Sanders won convincingly , - at a lower level 3) Sanders in 2 out of 3 his losing efforts that mattered , still shocked his opponents , hurt them , knocked them down , whatever you call it. -at a lower level 4) Nate "ice cream" Tubbs that I saw (vs Sanders & Tua) would have most probably been 2 much 4 Folley and his likes . -when was nate rated? 5) Numbers aside , Barrett did challenge 4 a world title (twice ?) , not that it matters 2 me , but seemingly it matters 2 u . Was it because Valuev & Wlad looked 4 d easiest opponent back then ? I don't think so . 6) Shot Tua would've still been 2 much 4 Folley , yet a shot Barrett lasted 24 completed rounds with him. - yet shot folley beat prime oscar bonavena? 7) Barrett avenged his stoppage loss to Couser with a similarly quick stoppage win. How many stoppage losses (and he had a lot 2 choose from) did Folley avenge ? - zora beat cooper back- who was better than cliff "un ranked" couser.
You could even add Bob Cleroux , but look at who d 1990s-2000s heavyweight division consisted : Nearly prime mike tyson , nearly prime evander holyfield , prime david tua , nearly/ prime as possible oliver mccall , nearly prime chris byrd , nearly prime ike ibeabuchi , prime lennox lewis , prime riddick bowe , prime orlin norris , prime corrie sanders , nearly prime/prime bert cooper , prime ross puritty , jeremy williams , tommy morison , herbie hide , frank bruno , supposedly post prime but somehow better larry holmes , still durable tony tucker , a very big , technically sound , yet unstopped henry akiwande , prime/up and coming hassim rahman , maurice harris , some will say donovan ruddock and andrew golotta .. , michael grant , ray mercer , jesse fergusson , and the haunting spirits of james douglas , tim wiherspoon , james smith , pinklon thomas , carl williams and more and then came the klitschkos and valuev ..
yes, a long list of fighters who I also enjoyed watching myself. However, I cant help thinking you get so excited about them just because you are more familiar with them than the 1960s. why not ask yourself why akinwande, mo harris, herbie hide and bert cooper - no matter how exciting their fights in losing efforts- never beat real elite fighters? Then ask yourself why you bothered to mention them. why not put it to the pepsi chalenge and post a thread asking if zora folley really was a lesser monte barrett?
Hand speed was one of Cooper's(may he rest in peace) main problems. Only one can imagine what would have happened if he had fought Marciano.
1) where did my #1 argument disappear ? merged in2 d below arguments 2) Sanders won convincingly , - at a higher level 3) Sanders in 2 out of 3 his losing efforts that mattered , still shocked his opponents , hurt them , knocked them down , whatever you call it. -at a higher level , unless 1 believes that Young Jack Johnson & Johnny Summerlin were worthier opponents , at heavyweight , than vitali klitschko and hasim rahman 4) Nate "ice cream" Tubbs that I saw (vs Sanders & Tua) would have most probably been 2 much 4 Folley and his likes . -when was nate rated? he could still punch , take a punch and knew how 2 fite , not his fault that he competed at d golden era of d heavyweight division . 5) Numbers aside , Barrett did challenge 4 a world title (twice ?) , not that it matters 2 me , but seemingly it matters 2 u . Was it because Valuev & Wlad looked 4 d easiest opponent back then ? I don't think so . 6) Shot Tua would've still been 2 much 4 Folley , yet a shot Barrett lasted 24 completed rounds with him. - yet shot folley beat prime oscar bonavena? oscar bonavena would have been picked as d opponent 4d quick ko in tua's farewell fite , broadcasted by maori tv of course , taking place in new-zealand . oscar would have been paid better than he was used 2 . 7) Barrett avenged his stoppage loss to Couser with a similarly quick stoppage win. How many stoppage losses (and he had a lot 2 choose from) did Folley avenge ? - zora beat cooper back- who was better than cliff "un ranked" couser. d question was about avenging stoppage losses , not robbery decisions . So Folley wasn't all that brave , stirring away from all d men that annihilated him , and he had a lot 2 stir from , didn't he ? What matters here is that Barrett would have beaten most of d men that stopped Folley , while Folley would've still gotten stopped by every1 who stopped barrett , maybe , just maybe aside from Couser (did i type etienne previously ? ) and then he would've been stopped by jirov , Mesi and Rahman as well