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

The quotes are all over and of course no modern observer, including Adam Pollack with all his research, actually saw this fight or a film to make any judgment. Here are quotes from Adam's book.

The New York Journal
"When it looked bad for Corbett, even in the 4th when Sharkey fouled him, McVey could see no reason why he should enter the ring. But in the ninth, when Corbett looked a certain winner, McVey saw fit to appear on the scene."

"Corbett left the ring without a mark, barring a scratch or two about the body from the clawing and general roughing . . . He was as strong as Sharkey and was doing the damage in spite of Sharkey's best efforts. The fight looked quite won."

The New York Times
"Corbett had shown himself up to the time to have at least an even break, if not the best of the fight."

The New York World
"The World saw no need for Corbett to be saved"

The New York Sun
"Corbett was not knocked out, nor was the bout stopped because of distress on his part."

Adam on Referee Kelly
"Kelly felt that Corbett had to be penalized for the act of his cornerman. However, because he also felt that Corbett had a good chance to win and the end was fixed, he did not want to give Sharkey gamblers something they did not rightfully earn, nor cost Corbett betters when they might have won."

Just on Sharkey wearing people out. Sharkey only once won a fight which went more than 10 rounds. There is no indication that he was some sort of stamina freak like Jeffries or Marciano. Sharkey did go a long way to lose to Jeff twice. Plus when he twice went past 10 rounds with Ruhlin, he was stopped.

Besides everything else, Choynski and McCoy were really much smaller men than Corbett.
Here are the weights of Sharkey's fights with these three.

Sharkey 178--Choynski 168
Sharkey 173--McCoy 156
Sharkey 176--Corbett 182

Sharkey was the strong man against Choynski and McCoy. But the descriptions of the fight between Sharkey and Corbett seems to show Corbett holding his own toe to toe with Sharkey.

I know there are newspaper reports countering the pro-Corbett ones, but who can say what is true today? It seems a competitive fight was stopped and Sharkey declared the winner on a foul. It differs from the Fitz fight in which an noncompetitive loser was somehow declared the winner.

 

I stand corrected on Sharkey never winning a fight past ten. My old eyes failed me looking at his record. On 10-20-1894 he ko'd Martin Mulverhill (0-1-0) in 20 rounds. I corrected my post. I stand by Sharkey never outlasting a name fighter past ten.

"Sharkey was getting the better of the exchange when his cornerman entered the ring" (Corbett's cornerman McVey)

This isn't true off several ringside reports. The two fighters were in an extended clinch and McVey later claimed he jumped into the ring because of Sharkey's fouling via excessive holding. Some ringside newspapers stated Corbett was in command. Others the opposite, and at the distance of over 120 years, no one knows or can know what is true. I think the reasonable deduction is that the fight was competitive.

Sharkey had already gotten to Corbett, knocking him down in the second round, but Corbett got up and rallied. You take this as proving Sharkey would knock Corbett out, but it is just as plausible to conclude that Sharkey had hit Corbett with his best punch and failed to knock him out and as the fight wore on Corbett's superior skills began to tell. That is how some newspapers describe it.

Sharkey being able to beat Choynski and McCoy, two fighters Corbett KO'd, doesn't convince me that Sharkey is better than Corbett. And an opinion of who would have more gas in the tank is just an unsupported guess. After all, Corbett definitely went further than Sharkey ever did at times in his career. And Sharkey going long distances doesn't prove he carried his power into the later rounds.

Adam Pollack simply quotes newspapers. I see no bias on his part.

As for how this impacts Jeffries, Sharkey being better than Corbett in 1898 reduces Corbett and Jeff's win over Corbett in 1900. As Corbett is actually the bigger name, Corbett still being formidable is probably better for Jeff's resume than Corbett slipping so much he was inferior to a contender who was stopped badly by Fitz and Ruhlin.

 

On Foreman, his top five is actually impressive and will be one of the better ones. The weakness in depth would show between 6 to 10 or 6 to 15 which will probably not match up with quite a few champions and even contenders.

 

I'm not so sure his top 5 are ok, but his 5 slot is weak. Moorer although champion doesn't have a very deep heavy resume either. Lyle is good not great. Foreman has a great 1 and 2. a solid 3-4 and a weakish 5. Then as you said steep decline.

 

Seems like the case for a lot of guys though.

 

George Foreman’s 5 best wins

1 Frazier - Has to be on the short list for best heavyweight wins in history
2 Norton - One of the best number 2 wins so far
3 Moorer - Undefeated and coming off the Holyfield win is enough to put him here
4 Lyle - Probably has a deeper resume than Moorer and a case can be made to move him up a spot
5 Chuvalo - Past his best but Foreman had only been a pro for a year

I think Peralta could be moved into the 5 spot but not Cooney. He had fought 2 fights(6 rounds) in a little over 5 years when he faced Foreman, he was too far past it at that point.

 

Would love to see a top five wins for contenders thread!!!
Kilrain, Sharkey, Wills, Moore, Quarry, Conn, Bonavena, Cooney, Harold Johnson, Tua, Byrd, Povetkin etc. so many options but maybe keep it to the best.

 

That and who is the biggest surprise so far? Sharkey def had a better top five then I thought he would

 

Keep it in mind and start it yourself after this thread runs its course. This certainly could clarify some historical questions.

 

Didn’t want to copy cat Mendoza idea. And yes would certainly answer some question. Plus my knowledge of pre 1930s contenders is limited. Maybe limit it to best three contenders per decade?

 

Frazier got a lot of praise for his top five, but I think Foreman's arguably is better

Here's Frazier's list
1-----Ali
2-----Ellis
3-----Quarry
4-----Bonavena
5-----Machen

I give Foreman a wash on the #1 spot as Frazier was undefeated and had beaten Ali. Norton and Moorer were coming in off wins over the best heavyweights of that decade, Ali and Holyfield. Ellis and Quarry didn't do anything like that, so Foreman in my judgment has the edge for these two spots. Lyle and Bonavena are close, but Lyle won their match, so I think George can reasonably get this position also. Foreman's number five will probably be Chuvalo or Peralta. Machen definitely had a better career at heavyweight than either of them, so I award Frazier that spot.

Comes out 3-1-1 for Foreman.

I did think those praising Frazier's list were overrating the 2 to 5 positions.

 

Give Mendoza the first shot at starting a contender's thread, but if he passes, go for it, because I think it will be very interesting and informative.

 

Leon Spinks could be challenging.