40+ best HWs from 1935-1945

Savold was not a top 20 HW for his era. Despite sometimes being ranked 4th or 5th. Derek Chisora is his reincarnation. The NYT was making fun of Savold for losing all his big fights. He got his alphabet belt on the backend probably because the British were searching for a beatable American for Woodcock to beat.

Nathan Mann was an elite fighter, one of the best 5 ft 10 HWs ever. On the "top 10 Louis opponents" thread he made my top 10 and those of some others. While he quite literally was a regional fighter after 25 that was by choice like with Godoy. Besides Mann and Savold Buddys good opponents tended to be large HWs and he beat Abe Simon. While his resume was padded by the standards of that time(which were insane) the 10 or so quality wins he got are a really nice 10. You can hardly accuse him of taking advantage of his size like a Tony Galento. I might not hold Savold and Galento in high esteem but Mann and Simon are as good a pair of wins as any. Best giant and best little guy.

" Baer wasn’t just outboxed; he was obliterated." Its peak Joe Louis. So? Some champions don't lose 4 rounds a fight and let their opponents regularly go the distance.

John Henry Lewis was Louis's best opponent and he lost in a round. Schmeling beat Louis and lost in a round.

Zhang has lost to 3 of his 5 top opponents and he is utterly dependent on scoring knockouts at the top level. It is night and day between him and Buddy Baer but you've got it backwards which direction. While you can look at him getting KDs in all 3 of his losses as a positive the fact top fighters can regularly come back from his knockdowns(even 2!) contradicts everything you wrote. Even if you were right about Buddy Zhang is the absolute worst example you could have picked to demonstrate Buddy being one dimensional. Louis came back from KDs against everyone, Zhang is the inverse of this.

3 of Buddys 5 non Louis losses were speed boxing fights to guys who were ranked in Rings top 10(none of whom made my list on the first post of this thread) when he was 19-20. He avenged 1 of those by 1st round knockout. He lost to Gunnar Barlund badly at 22. Buddys win loss record over top flight competion isn't amazing but besides Louis the W columm is not just much better than the L columm its closer to his prime. Gunnar Barlund and Eddie Blunt beating him badly wasn't him hitting a wall it was a young guy fighting experienced veterans. Gunnar was 0-3 against Mann and Simon and Blunt had a losing record against Buddys wins which included them and Galento/Savold.

Buddy retired at 26 as the 2nd best HW with a record of 60-7. I don't think Ford Smith or Lenglet belonged in Rings top 10, I actually think them making it was an outrage but catch some 20 year old today fighting guys like that. How many 26 year olds in the modern era have Buddys resume? They don't.

 

When putting him outside the top its cause hes not better than everyone ranked in front of him not cause hes that far removed. Still when the division got worse in the late 40s he was able to rise to 3rd in the rankings. Savolds the level of Louis's lower title defenses. I'd have him 5th or 6th from last with Dorazio and McCoy. But those guys were still really good.

Godoy did the same thing after losing to Louis except he went to South America. With no hope of dethroning Louis as champ other Louis opponents like Buddy and Simon just retired. They went back to being big fish in a small pond but they'd already shown they belonged in the big pond. Mann DID fight Lesnevich and go the distance though. He also missed 3 years during WW2 probably served.

In terms of Mann being one of the best 5 ft 10 fighters he really is. Post 1950 you've really got Tyson, Marciano and the best non champs would probably be Roman, Tua and Thad Spencer if we're including 5 ft 9 and below. Pre 1950 theres a lot more great guys that size but very few are better than Mann especially guys who didn't start at LHW like Bivins or Lesnevich. Since 1910 Langford and Jeanettes are really the only HOF level HWs under 5 ft 11s who didn't fight at LHW much. Theres not that many of the LHWs either. Uzcudchins really known for just having a great chin? I have a list of HW contenders sorted by height and I'm skimming it for 5 ft 10 and below and other names I come up Tom Heeney, Iron Hague, Al Ettore, Dudas, Jim Johnson. Mann is one of the best 5 ft 10 HWs ever. Unlike Langford, Tyson, Marciano who did it with unusual power for that size, Mann did it without that. Isn't that why you say Usyks the greatest?

Abe Simons resume was even more padded than Buddys but he KO Walcott and went 3-1 against Blunt and Barlund. Knocked out another respected giant in Roberti. He was a good fighter. If Buddy didn't beat Simon you'd say Buddy didn't prove himself against guys his size since he did fight him you can just say "Simon wasn't that good". Its like trashing the winner of Fury v Valuev if that fight had happened.

Louis is not just "someone skilled" hes arguably the greatest HW and at that time very clearly was the greatest and most lethal HW ever. Before Louis lost his power in 46/47 only 2 of Louis's 24 title opponents went the distance with him and 3 others made it double digit rounds. Louis even knocked out Uzcudchin in 4 rounds. Louis knocked down Carnera, Simon and Buddy Baer a combined 15 times.

"Zhang isn’t perfect, but he’s shown skill against top competition". Its funny you're calling Buddys resume padded but its only padded by the standards of the era you're saying wasn't that good. Buddy has more fights against top competition than Zhang, has a better record in those fights than Zhang and has .

"Zhang isn’t perfect, but he’s shown skill against top competition". The double standards here are something. "He gets knockdowns because of timing and patience. The fact opponents recover doesn’t make him worse—it shows he's at least operating at the elite level. Baer never even got that far." How else are you going to get them when you stand still and you can't do anything else? Them recovering shows he isn't good enough to capitalize on the momentum against guys like Parker much less Hrgovic and Kabayel. Most opponents aren't Louis who shrugged off knockdowns like its nothing. A fighter shouldn't be losing decisions where they had knockdowns and their opponent didn't...over and over. That suggests their opponents are better then them and they are relying on their power and its not enough to bridge that gap. Zhangs best win is Wilder whose the face of one dimensional size and power. But you're going to write off Buddy beating prime Abe Simon? A win which proves he wasn't winning just because of his size advantage. The double standards are unreal.

"Buddy’s record is impressive on paper, but it’s inflated by era and matchmaking. He never evolved beyond size and power, never figured out speed, and retired without proving he could overcome adversity at the top. The myth is fun, but the film tells the truth."

How can it by deflated by era and matchmaking compared to the modern day when fighters don't fight major opponents without belts on the line? And in Buddys era they did that more than almost any other. Buddys record is only padded by the standards of his era. He fought top guys as a prospect. How was he supposed to overcome adversity at the top when the champ was Joe Louis? Got destroyed by Joe Louis "couldn't figure out speed".

 

The crazy thing is theres major champions like Lazek, Hower and Koeblin getting left out.

 

He IS a HW champion and many of the guys I think are better aren't so theres that. Still had to beat Woodcock. Besides Paycheck, Musto and Roper there really weren't "weak links" among Louis title opponents. The lower category above that is Harry Thomas, Galento, Red Burman, Al McCoy and Dorazio who were all excellent. Being 6th from last in that group doesn't mean he wasn't really good.

Usyk doesn't have power either and isn't that a big part of why you act like hes a P4P great. You act like hes much smaller then he is but its the same core argument. The guys who do hang around at HW the smallest do tend to have power which compensates and being able to win without that is more impressive. Except Langford who is the smallest HW contender ever the "P4P greats" who come up to HW tend not to have unusual power. Mann might beat Marciano and if he didn't he'd put up a better fight then the small guys Marciano did beat like Matthews and Cockell.

Lesnevich became the LHW champ in his next fight so it actually was the 2nd toughest fight of his career.

Every version of Walcott was inconsistant he just got bombarded with title shots for it later on.

Fury is no Buddy Baer.

Schmeling beat Louis and lost the same way. The best fighter Louis ever fought IMO was taken out in 1 round. Braddock, Farr, Godoy and Conn were pretty much the only Louis opponents pre Walcott that didn't embarass themselves by your standards.

I didn't say Zhang was talentless I said he'd be guilty as anyone of all the stuff you accused Buddy Baer of. If a power fighters best opponents all comeback when he successfully land the big shot maybe thats not about the opponent. And Kabayel and Hrgovic are great but the Parker win was not a testament to Parkers resilance, Zhang handed him that fight. Theres no excuse for losing a decision you had 2 10-8s to none. The deck is stacked too far in your favor.

By the standards of this period I've acknowledged Baers resume is padded with 10 or so good wins of the 60 even if they proved alot. When you bring up Zhang whose beaten like 4 top 100 fighters as the example to compare favorably to him its just a blatant double standard. Joyce is currently the 8th or 9th best British HW. Theres nothing wrong with Joyce sure but 2 wins over him and Wilder doesn't outweigh Mann, Simon, Galento, Savold and Jack London.

"Modern fighters don’t have inflated records because they’re held to higher standards. They don’t get 20 gimmes between each real test."

Are you serious? Listen I've defended contenders reasons for it but top rated fighters are not willing to fight top fighters before fighting for belts. And if they do maybe 1 carefully picked one. Yeah the systems less forgiving and modern fighters are punished severely for losing but they do not fight top guys as often or as early as a Buddy Baer. Much less the guys whose resumes weren't padded. With alphabet belts its easy to poo poo a number 2 HW riding into the sunset young when there was only 1 belt held by a young seemingly unbeatable champion. There was no WBO interim belt for Buddy Baer to chase. No NABF or USBA for Americans either which facilitated many of the great 70s and 80s non title fights at HW. When people look at a contender and say "he hasn't REALLY fought anyone" that whole culture comes from the modern era. Even back then 60-7 at 26 was not normal.

 

I don't disagree with what you're saying about Savold just that hes an opponent worthy of respect.

Musto might be filler to a degree but he had wins like Bivins, Lem Franklin. McCoy at least at 175 was a truly great fighter. He had as much of a chance as you'd expect a top 5 LHW to have. Truth is almost nobody had a chance until Louis lost his power.

In other threads you make it sound like there aren't a lot of successful 6 ft 3 HWs either.

Did food poisioning inspire the Rocky franchise? Going the distance with a champ means something. Mann also caught Lesnevich a few times. But if they go the distance it doesn't matter if they get destroyed they were exposed.

Simon was the only superheavyweight Walcott ever fought and Walcott struggled with top opponents his whole career. I don't know how Walcott losing to the biggest opponent of his career is Simon making good on his punchers chance?

The best guy Buddy faced is Joe Louis. The best guy Zhang faced is Kabayel. I think Kabayels might be the best HW in the world bless his heart but he is not Joe Louis. Saying Buddy got nuked in the face by his best opponent and Zhang didn't, thus Buddy was exposed and Zhang belongs is just absurd. Heck if Zhang fought Wilder a few years earlier he might have gotten "nuked in the face" too. Hey in the 1st fight Buddy Baer lasted 6 rounds and against Kabayel Zhang didn't.


Yes but Zhang beat 2 of his 5 top opponents, 3 if we include Rudenko. Buddys fights v Simon, Mann, Galento and Savold don't exonorate Buddy for a 60-6 padded resume but beating Wilder,Joyce twice and maybe Rudenko exonerates Zhang for his 27-3? Losing to Kabayel, Hrgovic and Parker proves Zhang belongs but Buddy losing to Louis twice exposed him? Buddy scoring a KD against Louis doesn't matter but Zhang getting knockdowns in his losses proves he belongs? Buddy retired at 26 and Zhang made his pro debut at 31. But Buddys losses to good fighters when he was young are held against him while Zhang starting his amateur career 1-5 at a similar age is not. Double standards double standards. When you don't have facts you fall back to the idea this era of boxers are superior to prior ones.

So you admit fewer belts raised the bar but are saying that doesn't matter when comparing a WBO interim champion to a 2x failed lineal contender? "the second he climbed past regional bruisers, he got wrecked". Buddy went 5-0 against Louis opponents and beat a Commonwealth champion. This is just false. Buddys best opponents had an overwhelming winning record against Barlund and Blunt. And if you consider fighting Joe Louis to be "the second he climbed past regional bruisers" thats just plain unreasonable.

I admit fighters being punished more for losses makes getting title shots harder in the 2020s but in the 1940s there being one belt meant there were less belts and made becoming a champion harder. Thats just an honest observation about both eras.