Looking for a consensus HW top100!

Murray was never a champion. He lost 17 times, including several matches to journeyman. He was also KO'd early a few times. Top 100? No way.

Could Murray punch? Sure, but there are many punchers who were better not on a top 100 list.

 

Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore are the top two light heavyweights ever in history. I don't rate fighters twice.

 

I don't see Martin edging Armstrong--He won one decision in five fights with Armstrong. Two were no decisions. The first one I don't know much about--the second saw Martin survive 6 knockdowns. The other two fights were knockouts by Armstrong. I think Armstrong had the better of the series.

Martin's record--after a ko loss to Armstrong in 1899, he goes on a 16 bout streak with 14 victories and two ND's to Armstrong. This is his basic top run, ending with a defeat to Johnson, and ko's by Armstrong and McVea. Martin rallied to edge a ten rounder against McVea and he would also win a six against the aged Frank Childs, but two more ko losses to McVea about ended his career. He was a top man for two or three years at most.

Savold actually also had a 14 bout winning streak which included ko's of Lou Nova, Lou Brooks, and Buddy Knox, ending with a loss to Tony Musto whom he beat in a return.

I would say Martin has the biggest marquee win, the 10 round decision over the teenage Sam McVea, but McVea stopped him on three other occasions. Savold defeated 7 men who were rated in the top five heavyweights by The Ring at one time or another--decisioning Joe Baksi and Gus Dorazio, and ko'ing Lou Nova (2), Lem Franklin (2), Johnny Flynn, Buddy Walker, and Bruce Woodcock.

My own take on these two. Savold was stopped 10 times in 137 fights (1 to 13.7)--Martin 8 times in 39 fights, more than 1 in 5. I think Savold would probably have ko'd Martin if they had fought and it is very arbitrary to say Martin reached a higher peak than Savold. Savold definitely defeated many more good men over a much longer period of time.

 

The fact that you include a win over Lee Brooks(who was never much good anyway) in only Brook's 10th fight after 5 months a pro shows how thin your argument is.
Savold was very durable(much more so than Martin, whoes weak body cost him dear) and had a longer career near the top but on every other level he looses out.
I named Martin's conquerers but look at who beat Lee. Withers, Bobo, Musto, Blunt,Fitzpatrick, Muscato, damn it Al Hoosman whitewashed him! Cant think of any top hw that lost as many to average fighters.These guys dont beat Martin, they are his Ike Hayes, Yank Kenny, Fred Russel's. Savold has some good wins as you point out but if anything the McVea(an outstanding teenager) Armstrong, Griffin, Childs, Klondike wins and his good showing with a peak Johnson top that.v

 

While the list is fine, I have a few questions where I can learn a thing or two from your answers.


Why did the following fighters make the cut:


Tami Mauriello

Harold Johnson

Lou Nova

Bob Baker

Rex Layne

Jack Renault

Bob Satterfield

I think there are better options out there, but I want to learn why you like them where they are.

 

I would agree that Nova, Baker, Layne, Renault and Satterfield are debatable inclusions (not ridiculous, but debatable), but Johnson definitely belongs, and probably Mauriello as well.

You agree that, say, Clarence Henry, Eddie Machen, Ezzard Charles and Arturo Godoy belong on the list, right? Johnson beat all of those guys. He beat top heavyweights all the way from Godoy to Baker to Henry to Valdes to Satterfield to Charles clear up to Machen in the early '60s. He's a shoe-in for the top 100 heavyweights.

Mauriello was not a great fighter, but he was a consistent heavyweight elite for a solid four years in '42 to '46, finishing among the top two contenders every year. He beat most of the staple ranked heavyweights of that period multiple times, and was never stopped in his 75+ fights before Louis did him in for the title.

 

Yes, noting again that Haynes was shot and Thomas was coming off a layoff- the Savold, Walcott and Charles fights were all of Ray's wins over currently-active, prime, viable top fighters, and did, as I say, all come over three years after his fights with Thompson. When this is taken in conjunction with the fact that his general results also improved post-Thompson- pre-Thompson, he was, as I say, coming up with about a 50% knockout average against mediocre to poor opposition, while in his next few dozen fights post-Thompson, he progressed to winning more and more knockouts earlier and earlier, until in 1946 he posted a run of 17 knockouts in a row (including the Savold KO) with only one going beyond five rounds- then I think it is fair to say that Ray looks to have improved substantially over the three years between his fights with Thompson and his fights with Savold/Walcott/Charles.

I think another problem that people have here, although it hasn't been articulated, is that Savold not only doesn't have a "marquee win," he doesn't really even have a "marquee struggle." That is, with Buddy Baer, for example, although he doesn't have a marquee win either, the way he had a prime Joe Louis down and hurt and was competitive with him still lends him credit as a guy who was at least a threat to elite, "marquee" fighters. On the other hand, Savold was pretty much crushed in all of his encounters with fighters of this mold; Bivins and Conn decisioned him pretty easily, Ray obliterated him, and he wasn't competitive in being ground down against either Louis or Marciano. If he had at least managed to score a knockdown or take one of those guys to a split decision or somesuch, people would be more liable to view him as an elite fighter. Also, most of the wins you list for him above were over fringe-level guys- I'd say I'm fairly well-versed in the era, but I wouldn't even have remembered that guys like Ford Smith and Solly Krieger ever made the annual top 10, and although they were a step more influential, the likes of Tony Musto and Johnny Flynn are far from awe-inspiring names on one's resume as well. Only a few of those guys were what you'd call "staple" top 10 fighters.

Savold's results against ranked fighters follow a pretty consistent pattern; he was dominated by cream-of-the-crop fighters (Bivins, Conn, Ray, Louis, Marciano), won and lost his share against second-tier guys (Nova, Baksi, Mauriello, Baer, Woodcock), and got the better of fringe-contender-level opposition (Musto, Flynn, Smith, etc.). His outstanding longevity and resulting depth-of-opposition do set him apart as a noteworthy contender, but I also think his ugly win-loss record and lack of any wins or competitive performances against top-drawer opponents make a solid argument for keeping him outside of this list.

 

I don't think Layne is an arbitrary inclusion. Not many men have victories over two lineal champions who were close to their peak. I would consider top victories the first criteria, myself, and Layne's top victories stand up to most.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Fair enough. You make a strong and balanced argument.

Still, being rated 7 times in 12 years, and defeating seven men who were ranked in the top five heavyweights at one time or another--Baksi and Dorazio by decision, Nova, Franklin, Flynn, Walker, and Woodcock by knockout--is a good showing against the second tier fellows which few other contenders can match.

 

Brooks is on my list because he was rated. Now someone like Kid Riviera wasn't ever rated, but went 29-9 and beat Elmer Ray, Pat Comiskey, Sid Peaks, Abel Cestac, Johnny Shkor, Omelio Agramonte, and Billy Gilliam. Obviously a dangerous opponent. Eddie Blunt was never rated, but beat Leroy Haynes, Jack Trammell, Jorge Brescia, Al Gainer, Abe Simon, Tony Musto, Buddy Baer, and Nathan Mann. Obviously a dangerous opponent. Al Hoosman was an undefeated fighter until he lost to Savold in their first match, having won all 15 or all 26 of his matches depending on the source.

The bottom line comparing Savold with Martin. Martin beat his first good opponent in 1900. His beat his last good opponent in 1904. If he didn't lose to second-tier fighters it was mainly because he stopped fighting top men for the most part in his middle twenties. He beat no one of substance, unless you count the mediocre if famous Victor McLaglen, after 1904. Savold was consistently fighting up to 10 or so fights a year for 15 or so years against top or at least rated competition.

 

Intersting case for Mauriello. I can buy that one.

Still not sold on Satterfield, Renault, or Nova.

I take it modern fighters don't make the cut? IMO, guys like Brewster, McCall, Rhaman, Tua, both K-bros, Chagaev, and maybe Ibragimov or Valuev are better than the above names you made a case for.

If you want to go old school, Corbett, Jackson, Slavin, and Sullivan belong over them too.

 

His standards for the list are in the first post- he's not including guys who are still active and near the top or who were finished before 1900.