Best five wins thread. Lineal / Ring Magazine heavyweight champions.

People keep saying this, but I don't see it myself.

If a small heavyweight's resume legitimately stacks up in the heavyweight division, then I consider that to be a good win period!

 

Ring Magazine's first three end of year rankings might throw some light here:

1924

1. This content is protected
   , Champion
2. Harry Wills
3. This content is protected
4. This content is protected
5. Quintin Romero Rojas
6. This content is protected
7. Luis Angel Firpo
8. George Godfrey
9. Jim Maloney
10. This content is protected

1925

1. This content is protected
   , Champion
2. Harry Wills
3. This content is protected
4. This content is protected
5. Bud Gorman
6. George Godfrey
7. Jack Sharkey
8. Young Bob Fitzsimmons
9. Paolino Uzcudun
10. Jim Maloney
11. Harry Persson
12. King Solomon
13. This content is protected
14. Ray Neuman
15. Jim Keeley

1926

1. This content is protected
   , Champion
2. This content is protected
3. Jack Sharkey
4. Jim Maloney
5. Paolino Uzcudun
6. Harry Wills
7. This content is protected
8. Harry Persson
9. Knute Hansen
10. This content is protected
11. Sully Montgomery
12. Sandy Seifert
13. Jack DeMave
14. Monte Munn
15. Arthur De Kuh

 

1927

1. This content is protected
   , Champion
2. This content is protected
3. Jack Sharkey
4. This content is protected
5. This content is protected
6. Paolino Uzcudun
7. Jack Delaney
8. Vittorio Campolo
9. George Godfrey
10. Knute Hansen
11. Jack Dorval
12. This content is protected
13. Arthur De Kuh
14. Phil Scott
15. George Cook

 

I think that I'd pick Risko over a few names mentioned here. Am I wrong with picking Johnny over Heeney for example?

 

So what to make of this?

Gibbons and Heeney held high rankings when Tunney beat them.

Risko was not yet in the top ten, and his best work was ahead of him.

Renault was probably in the top ten somewhere.

Weinert was beaten two years before the rankings, but he might have been in the top ten, if they had ranked back then.

Spalla was probably around the lower end of the top ten when Tunney beat him.

 

Risko was undoubtedly better, but Heeney was probably closer to his prime.

 

Tunney's only catchweigth win over Harry Greb was in 1925.

Greb was not ranked either at light heavyweight, or at heavyweight in those years, though he was the middleweight champion.

I am not sure that this should be the consensus for the #2 spot.

 

The gripe probably stems from two modes of thought.

1) A weaker 'Dempsey hiatus' era (let's say lull), when the good big boys were either old or underdeveloped
2) Scepticism regarding how Gene would have dealt with bigger men

We're left with a mix of smaller or jaded opponents, partly engineered by Tunney himself. He did a vulture job on Gibbons whom he wanted no part of in 1922. Clever yes, but it leaves a smell.

 

IMO if Tunney stuck around for just 2-3 years and beat guys like Schmeling, Sharkey, Godfrey, and even guys like Uzcudun etc, i could seriously make a case for him being an all time top 10 heavyweight.

At light heavyweight, he is an easy top 10, perhaps top 5 (i rank him #5 all time at light-heavy), but at heavyweight, he is unproven vs punchers (other than Dempsey who barely landed).

Great fighter though

 

A valid point,but Greb was still bigger than some of the names on older champions resumes.Mitchell, McAffrey etc

 

Renault is hard to gauge,I tend to think he may be a bit underated.

 

Loughran never faced a black fighter,but of course he was a lhvy champ.

 

Yes but I don't think that you would argue that Heeney was the better contender in hindsight.