Hello, I'm just curious how you guys would rate the heavyweight champs (in terms of how good they were in their primes) that came before Louis. Without doing too much analysis into it, my first thought would be: 1. Dempsey 2. Tunney 3. Johnson 4. Schmeling 5. Baer 6. Jeffries 7. Sharkey 8. Carnera 9. Sullivan 10. Braddock 11. Hart 12. Corbett 13. Fitzsimmons 14. Burns 15. Willard Granted, I'm no expert and have just recently gotten into old-time boxing history...hence why I'd like to hear your all's opinions.
Well, here goes 1-----Jack Johnson 2-----Jim Jeffries 3-----Jack Dempsey 4-----Gene Tunney 5-----Max Schmeling 6-----Max Baer 7-----Bob Fitzsimmons 8-----Jim Corbett 9-----Jess Willard 10----Jim Braddock *Dempsey over Tunney--Dempsey did so much more at heavyweight. Tunney was mainly a light-heavy for most of his career. **Sullivan--I just didn't rate him. Would have put him 3rd after Johnson & Jeffries if I list him, but I think boxing was so different that he should be rated more with a Cribb than with a Dempsey.
Thanks for the reply; I think that is a pretty solid list, and I understand what you are saying about Sullivan. He is actually my favorite boxer to read about. The fact he fought so long ago and there is no footage of him makes him somewhat of an enigma to me. I've read a lot on Corbett too, and I think prime Sullivan beats prime Corbett. John L just seems to be one of those guys who got old early...in his case, because of his lifestyle of excessive booze and food.
I would personally put johnson ahead of tunny, Johnson had a lot longer resume at heavy compared to gene. Despite tunney only losing once I feel johnson the much better fighter. I would put fitzsimmons ahead of Carnera. But I'll be careful there saying that cos Carnera s been kinda discussed on here recently. But that s just my take and every ones got a different opinion.
My take on it: 1. Sullivan 2. Johnson 3. Jefries 4. Dempsey 5. Schmeling 6. Fitzsimmons 7. Tunney 8. Baer 9. Sharkey 10. Corbett 11. Carnera 12. Willard 13. Burns 14. Braddock 15. Hart
Dempsey Tunney Fitz Schmeling Jeffries Johnson Sullivan Corbett Baer Sharkey Willard Burns Braddock Hart Carnera
1.Jeffries 2. Dempsey 3. Tunney 4. Johnson 5. Fitzsimmons 6. Schmeling 7. Corbett 8. Sullivan 9. Baer 10. Carnera 11. Willard 12. J. Sharkey 13. Burns 14. Hart 15. Braddock
Top 3 is easy for me. 1. Johnson 2. Dempsey 3. Jeffries Everything else is pretty difficult. Lot's of talent there. 4. Tunney 5. Sullivan 6. Fitzsimmons 7. Willard 8. Schmeling 9. Baer 10. Carnera 11. Corbett 12. Burns 13. Sharkey 14. Braddock 15. Hart Worth noting that this list deserves an asterisk that these weren't the best HWs in the world, because many deserving contenders didn't get title shots due to racism.
Janitor who knows quite a bit on Sullivan can speak for himself, but in my opinion, you can not place him #1 Sullivan lacks big name wins. Isn;t that how you get to #1? His best-gloved win might be Mitchell, a middle weight who also floored him. Sully had no fights with Peter Jackson, Joe Goddard, Joe Choynski, or Frank Slavin. Jackson and Slavin were out there to be made, both ducked. His career at his peak was a short one, the only film on him is out of the ring hitting a bag and he looks awful. Had Sullivan had a very long Larry Holmes or Wladimir Klitschko type of reign, cleaning up what was out there over a period of time, you could rank him higher. But his body of work as champion was a short one. Sulivan himself said the game had changed by the time Jeffries was the champion, and to paraphrase if he meets Jeffries, Jeffries would have put it to me.
Of the four dominant champions on this list (Sullivan, Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey), Sullivan was easily the most dominant on paper. Between 1882 and 1889 he defended his title more than 20 times, and nobody seems to have given him a very competitive fight in a gloved bout. For most of that period it looks like he could have defeated any two available contenders in the same night. There is certainly an issue that he was a big fish in a small pond, but if we assume his era to have had any sort of quality at all, then he has a strong case for the #1 slot.
Does anyone have any recommendations for books on Sullivan and some of the other fighters from around that same time period? I've heard "John L Sullivan and His America" is good but haven't read it yet.
