My greatest heavyweight champs list

mattdonnellon, a lot of people rate sharkey and schmeling prety equal, i chose the fact that sharkey fought 4 linear champs and they all beat him 3 by ko. however he was a good alrounder and was one of only 2 guys to ko tommy laughran and harry wills. schmeling kod a linear champ and did not lose his title on the floor (even if he won it that way) and apart from his blip with bear he was prety consistant for ten years between 1927-37. tyson had so much talent but ended up geting kod by more linear champs than he beat. floyd should and would have been a 3 weight champ had cus not been in such a rush to create the worlds youngest heavyweight champ. such a pity as history would be kinder to his legacy if he had. cus initialy targeted the lightheavy title but swaped ships when rock retired alowing floyd as #1 LH to leapfrog the top 10 (valdes, satterfield, baker) and take the LHchamp for the HW title. Mcbride and jackson were his only heavyweight opponents pre title and if you excuse unrated chalengers he was KOd by the only 2 rated chalengers he defended against- which ever way you look at it. floyd was beter against chuvalo,cooper,bonavena and ellis than he ever was in the 50s but he had no title then.

 

Sharkey also beat two Lineal champs, same as Schmeling and led an ATG until a combo of a foul and great finishing ko did for him. He lost to another ATG in his last fight. He has to be close to Schmeling no matter which ways you toss it, especially their two near prime fights were inconclusive IMO.
Floyd beat I think one lineal champ and lost to two. He could never have made middleweight for a title shot and didnt win a l/heavy title. He probably could have won a lh crown but it's pure speculation. Tyson might have beaten a load of lineals but they didn't exist early in his career but he still beat more than Patterson and Floyd as I said lost to more linears than he beat, a la Tyson. BTW Jackson was rated when FP beat him and Ingo was rated when FP beat him the third time. Harris too, I suspect.
Anyway wins over Lineal champs is way too narrow a criteria., I think

 

i just think fights with linear links bring the best out of fighters and always represent key fights. since most guys are more fired up and bring more to the table for the magic of beating the guy who beat the guy i think its a sure fire way of measuring a champs best. GUYS LIKE ali could labour in marking time fights but woke up for key fights for lineal fights. YES, I LIKE FLOYD, i like sharkey but for me the best champs are closer to unbeatable at their peak than these two were. I am aware all champs benefit from match making and grooming, no man did it on his own but as a rue of thumb the best ones dont get KOd for the title and often lose on points after the fade sets in.

 

pretty good list, I like Walcott higher but good list

 

LINEAL. Read that word. You keep trying to use it.

 

Wow thats 2 list with mediocre Heavys rated over a top 20 Ken Norton.atsch Have any of you heard of Ken Norton:huh

Also the the Threads list reminds me of something frankand frank would post:nut

 

Well Sharkey was handing him his ass as he was doing to Schmeling in their first fight, Jack was as good a pure boxer as any HW ever IMO but he often found a way to lose.
Better boxer than Max, Walcott, Tunney, Charles or Patterson.....

 

yes walcott was a great fighter who would beat a lot of all time greats im sure. i listend to ray leonard say at a dinner show one time that walcott inspired him more syle wise than ali. i get the impresion that for the most part of his career he developed a style where he was looking to hold something back for the next fight. he had some smooth moves and tricks. teddy brenner said he was a cutey for the most part but changed it around in his final few fights and went for it more as time ran out on his career and he had beter sucsses with the agresive aproach.
people who knock walcott talk of his stop start early career where he was not a full time boxer and over matched. its unfair to compare that part of a career with a guy who is groomed acordingly by a team or braintrust of people who have the influence to land learning fights in a shorter route to the title.

 

the reson why sharkey is delt more severly by history is because of his temperment. as you say he had prety much evrything- two handed power, strong fast. the left hook he prety much flattened carnera with in their first fight was the closest anyone came to taking out the big man with one shot. the ref (was it gunboat?) missed primo re-take a knee as he led shrkey to the neutral corner and jack waisted time arguing about it.
however he lost some fights he ought not to have, i feel others les gifted were more consistant at a higher level.

 

Cant argue with that-still a class act to watch, so well balanced, great distance and all the punches.

 

aparently it was all sharkey, im sure i read wills was disqualified for backhanding. wills had agreat record, he SHOULD have got a title shot but i dont think he automaticly beats dempsey. against firpo nat flichster wrote that it was a "dull and dreary" afair over the full distance where as dempsey kept knocking him down. paulino uzcudun knocked out wills and i have seen that on you tube, it was very conclusive. another great win of sharkey was over george godfrey who larry gains rated as just as scary as dempsey to share a ring with although larry admited he only sparred dempsey.

 

Extract from contempory newspaper report;y
"Sharkey weighing 188 conceeded
26 pounds in weight to his gigantic rival, although Wills failed
to fall under the fusillade, he was on the verge of a knockout In the tenth, eleventh and twelfth rounds.
Ringside critics could award the Negro only one, the third, by a
close margin. Tho second was even and the remainder, including the 43 seconds of the thirteenth were all in Sharkey's favor."
Reading detailed round-by-round accounts Jack hammered Harry from round 4 on and Wills resorted to holding, and hitting in clinches. while holding. The disqualification was more a result of continious fouling than the eventual back-hand and the out-classed Wills appeared glad to get out of there.

 

I did not include norton not because i dont like him (i do) but because he did not win a linear title. ok he nearly beat ali for the title but ali was ripe pickings at that time and theres a good argument ken blew it against a guy in decline he had beat before.
ken was a beltholder not a champion. -even if beter than a long line of other mere "beltholders" he was still awarded that belt rather than beat someone for it and he did lose it first time.
norton had some great wins ali, quary, bobick but he lost key fights within his prime against jose luis garcia, foreman, shavers all by KO. just outside his peak but when still rated he drew with ledoux, barley beat cobb before cooney retired him albeit at the end.
had ken got the nod over ali making him a linear champ he would be on this list. NO WAY would i put him over champions who won titles more clearly inside the distance over younger champs. A guy who wins his titls on a split and loses it on a split does not make for a great champ.