Greatest heavyweight with weakest resume?

A quarter of Mike's career was a year short Marciano's entire career. And Mike didn't hide out in the Providence High School Gym/Convention Center for the first 2/3 of his career either.

 

I already mentioned Marciano as being in this category too though, to be fair.

 

Tyson’s style was perfect for a young guy but as his fighting reflexes declined and he stood straighter and straighter up… as he started to bend from the waist and get on his front foot… they kept trying to make him “Tyson” again all through his career but all they did was make matters worse you can’t recapture your youth… despite an exhausted style he still did great for himself even after, he was half a beat slower but still really good at executing the only plan he knew, for a fighter to be so successful for so long despite so much and one plan everyone knew is special.

 

I could understand the vote for Corbett, but Sullivan basically cleaned house.

 

The house he cleaned up wasn’t very loaded, even compared to the talent pool by the late 1880s.

I do think he’s the GOAT prior to 1888, for what it’s worth.

 

I happen to agree with you here, but surely resume woudl be measured against what was available at the time?

 

True, but you yourself have admitted that some eras are just weaker than others. Sullivan’s era was probably weaker than the 1850s-60s for example. Comparatively speaking, I just think his resume is up there with one of the weakest even if it isn’t his fault.

Youre right that it does seem unfair to put him next to Corbett though, who had many more opportunities to fight top fighters in a deeper talent pool than John L. but just chose not to

 

If you've ever met the guy or been around him, he's a midget. It's amazing what he did with what he had.

 

What? He’s 5ft10 or so I’ve known people who’ve been around him, short for a heavyweight but not a secret 5ft7-8er like people sometimes pretend lol.

 

Leon Spinks. Being an Olympic gold medalist and linear heavyweight champion with the fewest number of pro fights qualifies him for some level of greatness. But his resume is paper thin and also riddled with a lot of defeats

 

Only if you believe this hack beat Ali legitimately - with a half dozen fights under his belt, no less.

Noooo thank you.

 

I thinks Spinks on his best night is a tough match-up for anyone around his size who can't turn his lights out in short order.

 

Jim was the best black HW Jack had never fought in December 1913. This was a consequence of Jack Johnson beating a whose who of black HWs before winning the title. He was not a random guy with a pretty record like Schwarz or Seferi. He was the 5th best black HW after Langford, Johnson, Jeanette and McVea prior to the emergence of Wills.

In 1900s a 10 round title fight wasn't as egregious as Fury doing it 3 times in the 21st century. 10 round title fights and elims were still sorta common. Dempsey v Fulton was even an 8 rounder. When Fury did it there hadn't been a 10 round HW title fight since WW2 and the duration fights were the only ones since Tunney v Dempsey. 12 rounds were very clearly the established distance for not just title fights but virtually every fight of consequence. No such standard existed in 1913.

 

Dude, 5-10 is a stretch.

 

no, I remembered you’re funny .