Johnson: pre title he'd already established a top 15 resume and once he'd beaten burns and jeffries between 08 and 10 it was more icing on the cake than establishing his greatness. Liston again he'd almost entirely secured his legacy prior to defeating floyd. Probably a top 20 resume until that point with the victories over floyd making his h2h ranking fly into the top 5 or so. Rocky comes last because his legacy is pretty much entirely based on his title capture and defences. Essentially if I remove the career of these guys from the title victory onwards I think i'd rank them in this order based on resume.
Rocky's opponents were abysmal while building his record. Most had lots of losses and many had more losses than wins. Quite a few .500 fighters too.
Jersey Joe Walcott has to be right up there among the best resumes pre title. By the time he won the title, his resume was about as good as it was ever going to get. Not wishing to get off topic.
I don't think the wins over Patterson should add an awful lot to his h2h rating, but that's just my personal perception. Floyd, a terrified, somewhat chinny, short-reach, blown-up light-heavy who utilized quite a come-forward attacking style. With hindsight maybe, but he's almost the perfect foil for Liston. I think Liston's wins over Cleveland Williams and Eddie Machen, (and probably Folley), and the manner of the victories are more insightful to Liston's h2h ability.
Probably Johnson has the best resume pre-title. I'm not too familiar with the details though. Marciano and Liston .... it's close. I guess I'd say Marciano 'cos he beat Joe Louis. A washed-up Louis, 137 years old etc., but it's still kind of Joe Louis, isn't it.
Perhaps but i'm a huge believer in significance. Liston's destruction of patterson underlined how supreme he was in relation to that 60-64 era.
Yeah, despite his victory over bivins being quite controversial and dubious, I think he actually beat every man in the top ten consecutively before fighting louis. It's a shame the full footage isn't available of that first title fight because reports are split on who deserved it. Jersey's reputation could significantly improve if the full fight was there and he deserved even just a draw.
He certainly did deserve AT LEAST a draw Luf.. I thought that much was clear. When the majority of ring side reporters and spectators fell Walcott won.. I think that is enough to say he either deserved a close decision or at least a draw... I didn't think at least a draw was ever in question. Even in the second fight.. you can see how the first fight probably went... Walcott dominated the second fight and was ahead by a good amount.. until his CONSTANT showboating finally caught up to him.
Well I think the ringside reports are actually fairly split upon the deserved victor. The rematch just shows that louis came from behind to stop him, it doesn't show anything about the first fight. When reports are split and sufficient footage isn't available, I have no choice but to take the result at face value.
That is just the thing... the reports AREN'T split.. they favor Walcott.. As me and Janitor discussed before. Some say they clearly favor walcott..while janitor believes they slightly favor walcott. In either case, it's not split. So when reports are favoring and or slightly favoring... how can you accept the result at face value? Further, how can you claim the second fight didn't show what probably went down in the first fight. Louis had time to adjust his tactics and learn from the first fight, and yet, walcott was clear and away dominating the second fight... Some say again. So, I'm not sure how you can give littlle meaning to the second fight and how it factors into the first fight... when people more people were claiming walcott won the first fight. It's not like most people felt like Louis won the first fight.. and the second fight was a totally different look before the KO. It's actually the opposite of that... More people thought Walcott won the first fight and was clearly winning the second fight before HIS SHOWBOATING cost him dearly. Do you also not think the outcome might've been a lot different, and even probably different, had Walcott not continued to showboat?