Looking for a consensus HW top100!

Mendoza I would love for you to explain why Lee Q Murray being rated at # 65 is too high a ranking? Ray Arcel called Murray the best puncher of the 1940s next to louis. Murray was 6'3 210lb, he beat oustanding competiton and was Recognized Interm heavyweight champion by maryland and Ohio commissions during world war II. He was a consistent highly rated member of Ring Magazine.

Cleveland Promoter Believes​

Murray Can Take Joe Louis​

BY JACK CUDDY​

NEW YORK, Dec. 7—(UP)—​

Larry Atkins of Cleveland, America's second ranking prizefight promoter, believes that ​

​

​

​

Lee. Q. Murray, big Connecticut negro, is the most dangerous potential threat to Sgt. Joe Louis' heavyweight crown.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

." This Atkins' praise of Murray was so entirely unexpected that a startled reporter inquired of the visiting Cleveland entrepreneur last night, "how come you boost, Murray, when he almost'ruined Jimmy Bivins, your meal, ticket, last week?" Atkins, a youngish, broadshouldered, black-haired chap of 41, fixed the reporter with steely eyes, and remonstrated,'In our Cleveland promotions,we have no meal tickets. We have cards. A Cleveland fighter is a card as long as he can lick anybody we bring in. When he loses to an outsider, the outsider becomes the card."In the case of Murray vs. "Card" Bivins of Cleveland, promoter Atkins was doubly fortunate. Little Bivins won an unpopular 10-round decision over Murray last Wednesday night, after Murray had the Cleveland negro staggering about the ring and dripping with gore. The fans booed the-decision so long, and so lustily that a re-match was as necessary as if by royal command. They'll tangle, again in late February — after both principals recover from their wounds. Atkins, who in four short years changed Cleveland from one of the country's worst fight cities into a promoter's paradise, said, "I knew Murray was a good fighter before I matched him'with Bivins. But during the first two rounds, I thought Murray would ruin me. He never let loose with a punch. Disgustedly, I left my seat at the ringside, and walked to the rear of the arena. But Murray was just mouse-trapping his man. He knew Bivins was a cutie and he was sucking him in. Bivins left himself open in the third round, and Murray hit him. Bivins rolled with that right-hand punch to the chin; but the force was so terrific that Bivins wasn't the same for the rest of the fight.​

 

No. Charles was down 30 times in his career, and lost 25 times. He was a mauling brawler type with less than average power who would not due well against the big men in other eras.

 

Denver Ed Martin was a top class, tall, skilled HW. He beat the likes of Armstrong, McVey,Griffin, Klondike, Childs, Ferguson-all top men at the time, the type of men that Jack Johnson's pre-title fame was built on.He handled Ruhlin with ease while his sparring partner.
Gunboat Smith too was skilled and a hard hitter. For about 5-6 years he was near the top of the Hw ladder and beat loads of top contenders, Flynn, Moran, Willard, Wells, Levinsky, Ross, Morris, Pelkey, Coffey oh and one Sam Langford.
now I'll eat my hat if they are not better resumes than ;
Matthis-Chuvalo and ?
Buddy Baer-best win was inflicting the last of 26 defeats on Galento.
Mac Foster-best win was ...ah...ah...
Bob Satterfield-lost to loads of average fighters at his peak.
Bob Baker-lost to almost every good fighter that he met near their peak.
Uzcuden-Losses near peak to Petersen, King Levinsky,Walker, Risko and more.
Briggs- nearly beat ancient George and Botha?
Savold-His gallant loss to Marciano was his FORTIETH defeat!
Thompson-win over a green Ray and Murray his best efforts.
Murray-only Thompson(see above)and a lone split win over Bivins merit here.
There are many more but surely Martin and Gunboat achieved more in their time that the above?

 

I dont get this obsession on size eg saying so-and-so was 6-3 and 220 pounds or whatever. Surely we are judging these fighters on their accomplishments otherwise lets just measure them all up, remember Turkey Thompson beat Abe Simon!

 

O man I forgot about denver ed martin! cannot believe he is left off!

 

thompson weighed what 210lb?? thats not small weight wise. sure he was a midget, but not a midget in weight(or power) for that matter LOL

Matt Donollen I love your opinions and think your extremley knowledgeabl,e far more so than myself. but I think ur missing a few here.


Murray beat Jimmy Bivins 2x, Turkey Thompson, Harry Bobo, Buddy Walker, Al Hart, Lou Brooks, Perk daniels 2x, hatchetman sheppard 5x, and a spectacular come from behind victory over 6'6 clayton worlds. All of these men outside of worlds, were in the Ring Magazine top 10 when Murray beat them. Murray held claim to Interim heavyweight champion during world war II because of his victory over bobo.


I know your not big on size, but I do think size is relevance...to see how the fighters would do against the modern big men. Murray beat 6'1 225lb al hart, 6'4 220lb harry bobo, and 6'6 clayton worlds.

 

Look. I think it is a weak argument to consider Bonavena ready to tackle an experienced contender like Folley, who was still rated #1 two years later.

And this was also the viewpoint at the time. Even the radio talk show guys had guests on who lamented the state of boxing when a fighter as inexperienced as Bonavena was pushed into a Madison Square Garden main event against a top contender like Folley.

 

Perhaps experience over youth....but I do believe Bonavena was a fast rising prospect when 33 year old folley took him down.

 

Of course size is an important asset as weight can be as well as speed, experience, courage, power, timing, attitude, punch resistance, management, life circumctances and a host of other things that you all know as well as me.The point is that in an exercise such as this , all these have contrived to give us the men and the records that we are evaluating. To-day I watched a clip of Larry Gains against Carnera and marvelled at the boxing brain and skills that he used against a much bigger opponent. I could argue that these are the attributes needed against the bigger, heavier men of to-day and cite Byrd, toney, jones, Spinks, Holyfield etc.
I'm willing to accept that Lee Q Murray may be better than I'm allowing him and he'd be high up on anyone's punchers list but he lost too many times for me to rate him as high as you do, especially without marque wins like say Moorer, Ray, Fulton, Gunboat, McCall, Doughlas had ,to shore up their otherwise average run of good, but not great wins(a la Murray IMO). I think any fighter in the top all-time list of 200 Hw's were decent, top-class fighters and it often comes down to the quality of the opposition and ultimatedly how we rate their period. I don't rate the 1940-50's that high, SuzieQ does and it's his perogative and he may be just as right(or even rightER!) than me.
I respect everyone that can put to-gether a top 100 list that is coherent and makes sense ,as all of the lists here do.

 

I don't think it is fair to say Elmer Ray was green when he lost to Thompson. He had about 34 fights and had beaten top men such as Obie Walker and Otis Thomas.

Savold lost 40 times, but he also won 93 times, more than almost anyone on this list. His winning percentage at 93-40-3 is better after all than Jimmy Young at 34-19-2 and Young is in the top 30. Jimmy Braddock and Mike Weaver also had poorer winning percentages than Savold. You made a big pitch for Denver Ed Martin, but he won only 23 of 39 fights.
The case for Savold is that he was besting rated fighters from the mid-thirties into the fifties, a record for longevity matched by only a few contenders.

 

I think Walker- at least at that stage- and Thomas are pretty dubious in terms of status as "top men," at least if we're talking about the world class level. Per boxrec, Ray was on a 15-0-1 streak going into the Thompson fight, but with only 8 knockouts (a 50% knockout average) and was going the distance with the likes of Phil Johnson and George Fitch (who he later mowed down in short order). His wins over Savold, Walcott and Charles didn't come until over three years after his fights with Thompson. Ray may not have been "green" per se, but I think he was substantially short of his peak.

I think Savold has a case, but would probably leave him out, myself.
Savold did best some contenders, but I believe he lost substantially more than he won against their ilk, and he never really beat a great fighter or a championship-tier one. If he'd managed a win over, say, Conn, Bivins, Ray, Louis or Marciano, then he'd have a better case, I think. Young and Braddock had better "big" wins than Savold, and each had a short-but-sweet run where they were consistently besting name opposition.

 

1. Checking through the Ring rankings, Ray had only 5 victories over fighters who were ever ranked in the yearly ratings by Ring Magazine--Leroy Haynes, Otis Thomas, Lee Savold, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles--He had beaten Haynes and Thomas before he fought Thompson. Thomas was the #9 contender in 1940. He won a fight in early 1941 and then was inactive for a year, dropping out of the rankings, before losing to Ray. Ray's big wins were in the future, but truthfully, he did not fight that many top men. Thomas was certainly one of his better opponents.

2. Savold's record, as best as I can tell, was 17 wins and 19 losses against men ranked by Ring Magazine in their yearly rankings. That is actually pretty impressive. He defeated Ford Smith (2), Erv Sarlin, Solly Krieger, Lou Brooks, Lou Nova (2), Johnny Flynn, Lem Franklin (2), Nate Bolden, Tony Musto, Gus Dorazio, Joe Baksi, Bob Garner, Buddy Walker, and Bruce Woodcock. In comparision, for example, Buddy Baer, whom few question as a top 100 heavyweight, had only 4 wins against 5 losses against ranked Ring heavyweights. Buddy defeated Abe Simon, Nathan Mann, and Tony Galento, as well as edging an 8 round newspaper decision over Savold. Given that his "victory" over Savold was a newspaper verdict, I would consider Savold as having by far the better resume in quality as well as quantity.

No heavyweight contender defeated Louis, Marciano, or Conn, and Savold fought Bivins and Ray at their peaks--In fact, he fought everyone except Louis at their peak.

I guess it is question of how much longevity and the depth of opposition beaten matter, without that one big marquee victory.

 

tHE PROBLEMS WITH sAVOLD ARE TWOFOLD;
1) HE HAD NO MARQUE WINS AND
2) HIS LOSSES ARE SPREAD FAIRLY EVENLY THROUGHOUT HIS LONG CAREER.
Having said that, I'd rate him over Buddy anytime for the reasons you stated.
If the list was on longevity or the number of rated fighters beaten Savold would sail in, but for me it's about acco,plishments(mainly) with a little sprinkling of peak ability. My beef with Savold, Baer,Thompson etc. isnot that its crazy to include them but that ,say, Gunboat and Denver Ed had better claim.
Old fogey wrote;
You made a big pitch for Denver Ed Martin, but he won only 23 of 39 fights.
Ed probably had many more fights but anyway he had only 9 recoprded losses but look at the quality.
Johnson(2)
mcvea(3)-he also beat Sam
Armstrong(2)-part of a long series that Martin edged.
wills
Cowler-about 7 years after Ed's last serious fight.

 

Hmmm....didn't most of his losses come when he was old and shot?
I'll have to check out his fights again.