Pick The Darkhorse Heavyweight GOAT.

They said the same things about Charles, Lloyd Marshall and many others too...

Charles had 25 losses too, few would decline from calling him great and Marshall & Holman Williams.

12 losses in a 35 fight career 'might' go against said Fighters, but 30 losses in a 150 fight career not so much...

Timing too, Early & Late career losses usually don't detract from, Career Peak losses are usually the only ones analyzed for context in grading Fighters and even a good showing loss doesn't often detract.

as I state all the time Real Life, Facts and Timing spell it out for All Fighters not just some.

anyway people will rate & judge by the many different criteria, i.e Achievements, P4P, Lineal (better choice), and the Only One as far as I'm concerned would be H2H - who is, might be, better than so & so all things even and at there best of course...

None are absolute full proof, but some measures obviously better considerations

Respect to all efforts though.

 

Jack Johnson.

Never really got a chance to show how good he really was or could be. Talent wise ahead of his time.

 

Darkhorse? Usyk for me. Never beaten and has beaten all but one of the significant heavies in this era.

 

I love this thread. Nice one, all. Well done!

 

Double H, I hear ya and see your point. But I just wouldn't call anyone a coward that enters the ring, especially twice against Tyson. He made not be as brave as others, but he made it into the ring. Just saying.

 

You judge a man by two things. Who have they beaten? How were they at their best? The beginning of Walcotts career means nothing to his greatness. Literally nothing. Much like the end of Holyfield’s or Charles or Roy Jones Jr (who I know u like) careers means nothing on their legacy. Walcott had a poor beginning to his career he had no management, no money for training, no style yet. He developed those things much later. And to bring insults by prior sparring partners like Baer when he was young is dopey. Everyone gets their butt kicked in sparring when young. Charles insulted Liston Baer insulted JJW and so on. Who cares. Judge Walcott for racking up great wins against Charles, Maxim, Elmer Ray, Lee q Murray, Baksi, Harold Johnson and what should have been a win against Joe Louis, and a great performance against Marciano. Not many fighters have that great of scalps. Certainly a better resume than Fury. Take your irrational hate of Marciano out of it and you have an ATG fighter with a poor start

 

He should have fought black contenders then.

 

No, I judge a man by many factors.

One factor is that when a man loses every third time he steps into the ring he can not be an ATG.

 

In 1951, when Ezz had already laid waste to the lightheavy division and was taking on heavies, over his natural weight, he was 70-5, one of those losses being a robbery to Elmer Ray, the others including losses to Overlin, Marshall and Bivens. Walcott was never at such a point, not even close.

 

Context is important. You can dent it all you want but you know it’s true. When he became a good fighter he wasn’t losing a third of his fights. And he was going against better competition. Your rational is off.

 

You think he was given a fair chance to defend his title? What about the riots? How much $ would 2 black heavyweights have drawn circa 1911?
Then they literally ran him out of the country. It was a bad situation.

 

He did fight them. Just not when he was champ.

 

I agree with this.

 

It definitely was, but he managed to fight Battling Jim Johnson in France. Sam Langford also fought in France. There would be no riots if they squared. The public was actually calling for that fight.

 

Larry Holmes.

But if you wanna talk hypotheticals, Ike Ibeabuchi, might have been ONE of the heavyweight head to head goats.

How many heavyweights in history beat a prime IKE?