It's hard to place a guy who was just KO'd a few months ago above the new champion who also beat good competition in the same year. While I agree Fitz had better wins that year ( 1900 ) , it only showed he was still in his prime and earned him a re-match. For whatever reason, Fitz didn't fight in 1901, only exhibition matches. Jeffries took heavyweight title fights and put in on a calendar. Before him, title fights were not every year affairs. I am still waiting to hear more about 1880-1899 before moving to 1900-1919.
Still more than 100 years ago. Far too early for me to make any comment with any accuracy or confidence on. I’ll be back when you get to the 1950s or 1960’s.
1900-1919 sticking to the theme of who the best heavyweight was in each given year. 1900 Jeffries 1901 Jeffries 1902 Jeffries 1903 Jeffries 1904 Jeffries 1905 Jeffries 1906 Jeffries 1907 Johnson 1908 Johnson 1909 Johnson 1910 Johnson 1911 Johnson 1912 Langford 1913 Langford 1914 Langford 1915 Willard 1916 Wills 1917 Wills 1918 Dempsey 1919 Dempsey An interesting time period, where in the mid to later portion, the lineal champions seldom fought the best in their primes. How long could Jeffries have remained in-active and still be viewed as the best around if he were to agree to a title fight? Could Johnson have beaten Burns pre-1908? When would Langford or Wills have passed Johnson? How do you judge Willards’s in-activity? I'm taking out two lineal champions in Hart and Burns and adding in two men who never held the lineal title in Langford and Wills. The sticky years were thus: 1905-1906 Jeffries was inactive. Hart defeated Johnson in a match in 1905 where the winner was billed to face Jeffries. Jeffries said he'd take the fight with Hart if there was demand for it. There wasn't people saw it as a mismatch. 1907 Jeffries was around 300 pounds by now, and with three years of ring rust, Johnson moves into the #1 spot here, as I believe he would have beaten Burns, and did beat a very light and not fully developed Sam Langford in 1906. 1911 Johnson took this year off, but I tend to think he was the best around, even it was never proven vs. his top competition. 1912 By this time, Johnson was on the slide, and Langford was at his peak, beating much better competition. 1915 Langford began to slip, and Wills was not quite in his prime, so I gave it to Willard, who was at his peak. 1916-1917 Wills now regularly beating Langford, Willard mostly inactive and older. 1918 Dempsey had a sudden rush to greatness. 1919 Dempsey at his peak. After the debate, I'll move on to 1920-1939.
I agree with Wills being the best for the last two years of WW1, but I think there is a case for Hart and then Burns until Johnson takes it in the ring. By all accounts Harts win over Johnson was legitimate and be it as it may that Johnson eclipses Hart with more impressive results elsewhere there is no getting around the fact Hart has a win over him. I have a hard time believing Johnson can be regarded the best without avenging that loss or beating Burns who topped Hart. Burns has the better result over Hart so until Johnson puts that right, as he did in 1908,Burns is the top guy for me. There might be a case of Jeffries still being the best around the time Johnson loses to Hart though. All the same, Johnson thrashed Burns, so there is a case that he was always better than Burns. I can see it from that angle too.
1920-1939 1920 Demspey 1921 Demspey 1922 Dempsey 1923 Dempsey 1924 Tunney 1925 Tunney 1926 Tunney 1927 Tunney 1928 Tunney 1929 Tunney 1930 Tunney 1931 Schmeling 1932 Schmeling 1933 Carnera 1934 Baer 1935 Louis 1936 Schmeling 1937 Louis 1938 Lous 1939 Louis Some hard questions. When would have Tunney taken Dempsey? How long would Tunney have held the title if he didn't retire so young? Was Jimmy Braddock better than Louis or Schmeling in 1935?
There is an argument that Schmeling remains the best heavyweight after being robbed by Sharkey isn’t there?
Yes.I think he would have regained the title from Braddock had he gotten the opportunity he deserved.
If the champion retires in his prime and is still better than the field I give him a year or so as still being the best heavyweight on the planet.
Good list but I think Peter Jackson might have been the best thru 94 as Corbett simply avoided fighting him ..
Sharkey from 29-31 yes.And no way was Jackson number one until at least 1887, probably 1888 but on to 1892. Paddy Ryan was never the best in the world, 1881 Sullivan for sure, 1880 probably Professor William Miller.
1940-1949 Joe Louis 1950 Charles 1951 Walcott 1952-1955 Marciano 1956-1958 Patterson 1959 -1963 Liston* *Liston knocked off Valdez and Clevland Williams in the same year that Ingo beat Patterson. He was better than them.
