Heavyweight Champ with Worst Opponents?

I'm pretty sure Johansson is the only champ who never fought an opponent win a negative win/lost record.

 

Right. A guy like Vitali Klitschko will end up really high if you compare them all despite not having that good competition, whereas a guy like Foreman will end really low. He fought some very good opponents, but one Ali, one Norton and two Frazier's are not going to make much impact when there are 65 bums opposed to it.

Unless we're only talking about championship fights of course.

 

The stats would need to be at the time of the fight I suppose...

 

Even if we're only talking about championship fights, it can be skewed...not only for quality of wins but, for example, should only wins at heavyweight be counted?

Tony Tucker was not as good a fighter as Spinks but all of his wins came at heavyweight, so should that count for more as a credible heavyweight contender?

I think determining the answer to this question is possible, but not based on the stats alone. I don't think a win-loss percentage is the answer here.

 

Not sure statistically but Dempsey fought some easy pickings.

 

Jack Johnson had the worst comptition. Utter crap. I'm surprised that his reign wasn't reduced to fighting flyweights.

 

Who?

All his title opponents were legit challengers in his era.

 

Miske was not a legitimate challenge. He was coming off a string of bad fights, and Dempsey gave him a title shot out of shear sympathy for his illness and bad financial situation.

 

Certainly the criticism is more valid than that of Dempseys title opposition but again you have to look at what each challenger meant at the time.

Al Kaufman was the most highly regarded of the white challengers when Johnson fought him and Ketchel although a middleweight was inflated by the press to the point where he was unbeatable.

In short there were a good few soft touches but none of them happened in a vaccum. There was a reason why each oponent was chosen.

 

Miske was certainly seen as a legitimate challenger at the time. He had given Dempsey two close fights before he won the title so there was public demand for Dempsey to fight him.

 

The public was easily deceived in those days.

 

It is no diferent today.

More people wanted to see Lennox Lewis fight Michael Grant than wanted to see him fight Chris Byrd. In hindsight the latter would have been a better legacy fight.

There will always be public momentum for certain matchups that will jnot look logical on boxrec in 100 years.

 

I think you're right, except Michael Grant was undefeated and coming off some good wins going in against Lewis.

 

What had Byrd done tho?

 

When he was champion Dempsey fought some decent challengers.

He fought some has-beens on the way up, but some tough quality fighters among them.