1961 ATG heavyweight list. boxing illustrated.

The April 1961 edition boxing illustrated did an article on how they rated the champions so far.

Whilst conceding that most fans would measure Sullivan, Dempsey Joe Louis as the "standards that all others are measured", Using "exhaustive research" compiled by the editors of BOXING ILLUSTRATED using a point system, combined with with the opinions of such venerable old timers as JOE WOODMAN, a man who has seen "every champion in action from John L Sullivan to Patterson"....They produced a graph listing the scores of each of the 19 champs of the Queensberry era and a short piece on how each champion was regarded at that time.

Key:

outstanding - 90 and above.
Very good - 80 to 90
Good - 75 to 80
Ordinary 70 and below.

These were the results.


1. Johnson. 95 points.
2. Corbett, Jeffries. 90 point's
3. Dempsey, Fitzsimmons. 85points
4. Louis, Marciano. 80 points.
5. Tunney. 75 points.
6. Sharkey. 65 points.
7. Schmeling. 60 points.
8. Willard 55 points.
9. Burns. 50 points.
10. Charles, Walcott. 45 points.
11. Baer. 40 points.
12. Braddock. 25 points.
13. Carnera 20 points.

It was quite interesting how much Willard was defended and how scathing they were of Baer in their summing up.

 

I know! I would have felt Charles and Walcott deserved better but it can't just be that they were too recent or lower profile than other champions if the rating is based on those that saw all of them live?

A lot of stock went into Tex Rikards belief that Jeffries punching power was greater than Dempseys. That and being invincible against Corbett (the boxing master), Fitzsimmons, Ruhlin, Sharkey and Armstrong. Rockys high rating had a lot to do with being "like Jeffries but smaller".

Remarkably a lot of Johnson's high rating goes on beating Jeffries who was six years out of the ring....

 

Here are some quotes from the same article:

"Louis could flatten a man with either fist and had the fastest hands in heavyweight history. But like all men Louis had his weak points. He was a mechanical fighter who fought according to a specific plan. If something upset the plan, as was the case with Schmeling, Joe became confused and thus lost effectiveness. He was also easy to hit with right hands"

"Neither Charles or Walcott were great fighters, far from it. Both received only a 45 rating"

"Despite his explosive temperment Sharkey was an exceptionally good fighter who never received the credit he deserved. We thought him good enough to rate a 65."

"His knowledge of boxing was disgraceful. Some experts say he was the greatest of all time. whilst others insist he was just a strong kid who came along at the right time - when there was no opposition around. We say he was a great brawler who would have given any of the champions more than a run for their money. We confidently give Marciano an 80 rating"

"Fitzsimmons received a score of 85 in our ratings. Had he been heavier, his score would have been much higher, because with more weight Robert would have been just about unbeatable."

 

"For slaughtering Willard as well as inspired performances against such outstanding opponent's as Firpo, Brennan, Fulton, Miske and Carpentier, Dempsey receives a very respectable 85 points in these ratings. This will surely be contested, with many insisting that Dempsey was the greatest of all heavyweight champions. However, the Maulers sweeping hooks would have left him an open target for skilful sharp shooters like Corbett and Johnson. And Jeffries would, we believe, have successfully absorbed all the Dempsey bombs and then swarmed back to win.

Dempsey was a fan fighter. Willingly he took punches to land his own. If ever a man fitted the word "fighter" it was Dempsey. Fancy boxers like Gibbons annoyed him. All he asked was that the other man stand and fight. It was an honest request, but smart opponent's like Gene Tunney rejected the offer"

 

Famed promoter Ted Rickard hadnd this to say about Jeffries: "he had no style, but he was the heaviest hitter I ever saw, and that includes Dempsey" The view was that at his best nobody could hurt Jeffries, he had enormous strength and a thunderous right. He retired undefeated. for those that saw him it is believed he could withstand anything and come back in a fight when the other man was spent. Jeff should have fought Johnson before he retired but I can understand why they would think he was so invincible before retirement.

It amazes me how harsh eye witnesses could be of Charles and Walcott in the standing of things. These were such expert technicians and experienced pros but clearly for them they were not dynamic enough.

those that saw Charles and Walcott as champions could not get past the fact that it took Walcott four chances to win the title. That they finished level in their own serries of fights did not make either great. Their first fight was considered dull where as today we appreciate the skill. Both being good did not come into it. A champion must dominate. Louis still being 2-1 favourite to beat Charles even after being inactive was considered proof that Charles wasn't up to "great champion" expectations.