Who?

That's called fredom of speech, Sir, get used to it. Rocky was great - especially against small, old, shot midgets and third raters. Rocky today would not be a ranked cruiserweight, he really was that bad.

 

If we held a round-robin tournament, where every HW champion throughout history met every other HW champ - then the weakest champ would obviously be the one, emerging from such a tournament with the fewest wins.

So who do you guys think, that would be?

 

You think 6'5", 80" reach, 250 lbs Martin... would lose to guys like Corbett, Fitz, Hart, Burns?

 

Uh, I would think if Bent, then Morrison...

 

Baer. Baer bowled over Carnera.

No shame there, though. Louis and Baer were beasts. I will die saying that Baer could have been a first tier ATG, except he was a psychologically damaged man after killing a man in the ring. According to his son, he actually hated fighting, and would wake up screaming at night.

 

Anyone say Maskaev yet? Maskaev is a good shout.

 

The Louis era onwards is very different from the time, where the 4 early champs I mentioned fought!

It's alright to think, that everything modern sucks, and that today's HWs are garbage - but to suggest, that a man who never lost to an opponent weighing under 240 lbs, would get bowled over by these small sub-200 guys from 120 years ago, simply makes no sense at all, imo!

 

Before he messed up his life Morrison was a very good boxer.

 

Right, so will you answer this question:

Do you, or do you not believe Martin would beat those 4 early HW champs, I'm talking about? If you do, then I don't see how you can have Martin as a prime candidate for "weakest heavyweight champion in history".

 

David Hayes heavyweight reigh was awful