we don't flame in here, so I'll be civilized. for those who think this, why would king want someone like ruiz as his champion? he gets options on the other guy so he'd still have the champion, and if anything would have been fixed by king then andrew golota would be champion, but didn't have the guts to fight hard for 12 rnds and thought after the first four rounds he didn't have to try anymore. I say tommy burns is underrated, he was small for a heavyweight and beat some solid guys, the fact jack johnson manhandled him hurts his standing.
James J Braddock, and by a clear distance. There are many who consider him the worst HW champ of all time and in terms of record he certainly was. In terms of peak - the man who fought Baer, Louis, Farr, Griffith, Laskey and Lewis - he was a handful for anyone, a different fighter from the guy who lost to the proper nobodies of the division two years earlier.
yes, maybe ruiz. after all look at his resume. its as good as it gets since the turn of the millenium.
James J Corbett I know the 'smart' fans like to point out that technically he probably did not change boxing the way the masses believe, but he was rightly or probably wrongly the standard bearer for all future 'scientific' fighters, something that IMO he does not get enough credit for.
The names to consider as based on the diference between their status among those who saw them and their curent status. John L Sullivan In his own time and the following dacades he was regarded as highly as Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Mike Tyson or anybody you care to name. Based on his level of dominence and contemporary opinion he should be ranked on a par with other champions who dominated their eras such as Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Louis etc. Bob Fitzsimmons Up untill the 30s he was regarded as one of the greatest heavyweights of all time. Suggestions that fighters such as Max Schmeling or Max Baer should be ranked above him would have been seen as absurd. Today he is routinely ranked beneath fighters like Schmeling, and Walcott. Peter Jackson Not a champion but while Jack Johnson was champion many would have regarded Peter Jackson as the greater fighter of the two. Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons both considered him to be the greatest heavyweight that ever breathed and went to the grave holding that opinion.
Yeh, but you have to admit it was a really bad career and he didn't keep the title for more than a minute. My thoughts are colored by my personal opinion that some of those fights during the mid-30s left an awful smell in one's nostrils. Carnera's record was built up by Carbo and Palermo and, frankly, I can't see Carnera beating Sharkey. I just am not sure the fight with Baer wasn't set up... I hope everyone won't flame me like Joan of Arc over this... :admin
I especially agree on the Fitzsimmons part. The guy was kind of a holdover from the old bare-knucle days. He knew where a person's organs an other vulnerable places were. Not many folks win the heavyweight title with a one-punch body shot.
Consider yourself flamed. Carnera is perhaps the most abused and misunderstood champion in history. Some people on this site think that he was not a real champion but a product of fight fixing. Even people who believe that he beat Sharkey legitimately buy into the stigma on some level. Were Carnras handelers the scum of the earth? Sure Was he involved in some suspect fights? Yes Did he legitimately win the fights that established him as a challenger for the title and legitimately knock out Jack Sharkey? Absolutely
He knew more about human anatomy than most biology graduates. I could make a strong case that he was more dangerous with a single punch than any heavyweight in history.