Are top ten rated Ring Magazine heavyweights with 10 or more losses...history?

I know McVey, Klondike, Griffin, Maher, Jeff Clarke had fights not recorded and perhaps Jeffries (But not the Childs or Martin fights claimed IMO) Ruhlin, Jeannette, and Childs had too. But not too many more.
Tunney, it seems to me was the first top guy to "build" a record but i'd be interested to hear other opinions as i just formed this opinion in the last 30 seconds.

 

Your not wrong but I -for one-have a lot of irons in the fire.

 

good info there matt and good thread topic Mendoza.

a fighter who comes to mind is Lionel Butler, who had ten or so losses when he challenged Lennox Lewis in an eliminator bout in the mid nineties. Not sure if that is correct or not, but it is my best guess.

Believe there are many factors for this.

1. The importance of amateur careers for the young promising heavyweights. Fighters can make their mistakes as a non-pro and then wipe the slate clean when they turn pro.

2. The better heavyweights have at least some financial backing on the way up. This means that they are not thrown to the wolves as, say a 1940's fighter who trains in the gym and is not part of a promotional team.

3. TV. As fighters lose, their tv marketability also decreases.
Boxing is a true pyramid scheme of a sport. All the money is for the select few at the top, the main goal for all involved is to get them there. This has always been true, but fighters could lose in the past and still get there, it has become much more difficult for that to happen. So many fight fans will write a guy off after a couple of losses, let alone ten.

4. It's a change in a sport fan's mindset. Nobody expected the Yankees to go undefeated in 1927, even if they were one of the greatest teams ever.
But the world was a buzz when it looked like the Patriots would have a perfect year last year. Everyone is looking for the mythical sports figure who can't be beat, as opposed to the sports figure who has learned and progressed.

 

The obvious question is why haven't they all fought each other if they are the best, like in hte days of Louis or Ali

 

Dr. Z I believe you give modern heavyweights too much credit. Old timers were taking on top contenders every month. Thats equivalent to wlad fighting 10 top 10 contenders in ONE year.

 

<<< Savior.

 

It just proves there is a greater gap between the elite and the trial horses or that the elite aren't even fighting the trial horses. I would point out that in any other sport that I am familiar with, as you move up in competition, from high school to college to the pros, the chances of having outstanding won-lost records or long winning streaks declines.
I am sorry to use an American example, but fans went nuts this year because a pro gridiron team had a shot at going undefeated. It would have only been the second undefeated NFL team. College teams go undefeated all the time, with the record being a 47 game winning streak spread over five seasons. When that college team, Oklahoma, was sweeping its competition, the pro champion Cleveland Browns went 8-3-1 and 9-3. No one thinks Oklahoma could have beaten Cleveland.

So I don't see the logic of saying modern fighters are better because most consistently have better winning percentages, higher knockout percentages, and suffer fewer knockout or other defeats. If one man did this while the others were losing, I would conclude it would point to his being outstanding. If all do it, it merely brings the level of competition into question.


It is interesting that on the list given, Wlad Klitschko, generally considered the best active heavyweight, has the third most defeats and the second most knockout defeats. That is because he has faced tougher competition.

 

The number of losses on a guy's record doesn't necessarily matter. What matters is the quality of the fighters's recent victories. Sometimes fighters get off to lousy professional starts for various reasons, they lose fights early in their career, and it takes them years to begin putting together winning patterns. These kinds of guys have records that don't evince their true ability levels.

Mike Weaver had close to 10 losses when he cracked the top 10 in 1979. Jersey Joe Walcott had well over 10 losses when finally won the championship in 1951. There are numerous examples of these kinds of "late bloomers".

 

:happy We hope:thumbsup

 

Old Fogey, my comments (perhaps they are much better fighters? !!i)were tongue in cheek, I'm actually not that dumb.

 

I make it only 7 fights between the Ring's current top ten, is this a record?

 

I am sorry. There are people who seem to be making this sort of argument on this board, though. I am sorry I put you among them.

 

Do you notice, also, that I think the top current top ten has scored only one knockout against another member of the top ten--Peter against Maskaev--and Oleg was not even off his feet. One issue to explore is whether top men actually score many ko's over other top men or if they run up their high ko percentages mainly against tomato-cans.

I don't know if it is a record, but I did 1940 and got these fights
Joe Louis--ko 4, Max Baer
Joe Louis--won 15, Arturo Godoy
Joe Louis--ko 8, Arturo Godoy
Max Baer--ko 1, Pat Comiskey
Arturo Godoy--ko 3, Otis Thomas
Abe Simon--L 10, Lem Franklin
Abe Simon--ko by 3, Buddy Baer
Buddy Baer--won 8, Lee Savold
Otis Thomas--Draw 10, Buddy Walker
Otis Thomas--Draw 10, Buddy Walker
Lem Franklin--ko 2, Lee Savold

The top ten of 1940 had fought each other 11 times (only up to 1940-post 1940 fights not counted) and had scored six knockouts.