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

I can agree with that. Briggs was never thought of as great or over hyped.. Wilder and his fans, well...

As for Fury he'll be is this thread. I hold my comment on him for later.

 

Briggs was one of the best puncher's. And he was a fairly decent boxer. My point was he could beat past lineal champions, and would have done better outside the 90's-00's.

30's champ's

[url]Jack Sharkey[/url] The Boston Gob 1932-1933
[url]Primo Carnera[/url] The Ambling Alp 1933-1934
[url]Max Baer[/url] The "Livermore Larruper" 1934-1935
[url]James J. Braddock[/url] The Cinderella Man 1935-1937

IMO, Briggs is going 2-2 or 3-1 here.

Ingo did not hit harder than Klitschko and had a glass jaw himself. Patterson is better in a pound for pound sense but no way could he take Briggs punches. Spinks, both of them were too small. Moorer would liked beat Briggs.

 

Lewis, who fought great opponents, says Briggs was the hardest hitter. Briggs has 37 of first round KO's, which is the record of heavyweight champions. That means something.

Sharkey had a glass jaw ( down 15 times in his career that I know of ), and lost a ton. Canera took him out with one shot. Sharkey could not punch hard either. Briggs would likely do the same as Carnera did.

Baer could stop him, but the man dropped many and could not box as well. Anyone who knows boxing can see Baer had mediocre skills at best and next to no jab.

Braddock for lack of a better word did nothing well, he sucked as a champion. Briggs would take him out inside 3 rounds. The size and power difference here is staggering. Carnera won some lost some but could not take power either.

Spinks beat an aging Homes and a washed up Cooney. He didn't belong at heavyweight and judging how easily Tyson stopped him, Briggs would do the same.

The 1990's will have 8 EIGHT active ATG's: Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Foreman, Holmes, ,Klitschko, Klitschko, Bowe and many good contenders. Way better than the 1930's boxing. Moorer was champion because Holyfield was inconstant, and Foreman because he cashed in late on Moorer.

Ring Magazine, who ranked the decades at heavyweight said the 1930's was the worst. You might like the fighters better, and that's fine but the 1990's is so much better overall. I see no reason why Briggs could not do well in the 1930's. Guys like Galento, Hamas and Nova were #1 ranked. Braddock and many of the top contenders of the time would be waxed vs the best in the 1990's.

I think fighters like Tua, Rahaman, Ike, Mercer, Byrd, Morrison, Ruddock, and Tucker would better #1 ranked guys in the 1930's like Galento, Hamas and Nova, in addition to creaming the standard contenders of the times.

 

You really want me to drill down more to make points. Jack Sharkey was stopped 4 times and retired at age 33. He was down at least 15 times. He lost 13 times, many of which to no names, and drew 4 times. Even with lighter gloves his KO% was just 24.53%.He really did not beat Schmling so make that 14 losses. And Renault according to the press beat Jack Sharkey, now that's 15 losses. This should factor into anyone's reasoning on ranking. If you want to claim age, Briggs had a far better case than Sharkey does...by a mile. Do you really want to go there?

Godfrey could have been handcuffed, Wills was older. Those are the wins to brag about? Foreman is better than that, and likely Laihovich on that night Briggs beat him was too.

Galento had no skills at all. He was short and fat with limited at best skills. He would not rate at all in the 1990's This is 1930's era was mostly small men who couldn't punch, guys who could not box well and few punchers.

The only two guys who could box and punch were Louis and Schmeling, and they would be small in the 1990's and IMO neither took a punch above the level Schmeling could offer. You can gasp on 1 Biggs TKO loss.. Agreed! Now factor in the multiple on no names that old the best in the 1930's. See my point? Why not compare apples to apples?

Yes Briggs was a better boxer than Max Baer. Watch the films. Briggs was an accomplished amateur, and far more technical.

I still can not believe you suggest the 1930's was better than the 1990s.

Why not view Brigg's KO's. I don't see these slow hands you mention. I see skills.

This content is protected