The heavyweight GOAT, another way of looking at it

If you think that the heavyweight GOAT is Ali then sombody must have held that distinction before him, which would in itself have be no mean distinction.

If you think that Louis held the GOAT honours previously, then sombody must have been the GOAT before him, lets say Dempsey. In turn sombody must have been the GOAT before Dempsey.

What I want you to do is trace the sequence back as far as you can, in terms of you was the greatest heavyweight ever to have breathed for a greater or lesser period. In my case the gloved era would go:

Louis

Johnson

Jeffries

Sullivan

Mace

Feel free to push further back if you want.

 

Interesting idea.

I don't know much about boxing of the 19th century, but shouldn't the list look like:

Ali

Louis

Dempsey

Johnson

Jeffries

etc

This is going by what they thought at the time, of course. I think Dempsey might even be ranked ahead of Louis by some.

 

That is how the structure of the list would go, except that it is based on your opinion.

Go back as far in time as you feel qualified to judge. If you dont want to go back into the 19th century, then perhaps make the cutoff point the introduction of boxing gloves.

 

What about if we go by consensus Newspaper Decision of the GOAT.

I think it would look something like this:

Sullivan - I dont think Corbett, Jackson or Fitz quite reached Sullivans level in the eyes of the press.
Jeffries (1904), - Very close as many thought the Sullivan, Fitz, Corbett era was much stronger, but Jeffries was considered an advancement on Sullivan by others. They were probably a clear to 2.
Sullivan - (1910) - Sullivan, Jeffries and even Corbett seemed to make a comeback here and Johnson was held in awe also. It could have went to either of these three, but i would lean towards the older Sullivan as being considered the man.
Dempsey - (1920) - The destruction of Willard impressed and this combined with the dying out of the fans of Sullivan and the old timers. Also the length of reign of JackJohnson must have impressed as well. I think it was between Jeffries, Dempsey and Johnson quite clearly, in the presses eyes, and I will give Dempsey a slight edge as those supporting the older fighters probably split between Johnson, Jeffries and maybe even the very occassional Sullivan supporter, whereas fans of modern boxing and spectacular KOs only really had Dempsey to pick from. I should also note, that at the time, Willard would have received a few votes, prior to Dempsey's destruction of him, because many thought his size was unbeatable (it is a common fallacy held to this day).

Johnson (1928) I think that Johnson might have emereged as slight favourite with the Tunney losses effecting the longevity of Dempseys reign, and again some jeffries supporters dieing out a little. Tunney might have got the odd supporter but at this stage, I think JOhnson held the crown.

Joe Louis- (1950) - There obviously would have been a few calls for Louis much earlier, but i think he would have started to really build his case about the time of his retirement and comeback when the media started pushing the fact that he was a great but he was no longer the greatest like he used to be. Also, Johnsons fans would have almost died out and so to many of Dempseys.

Muhammed Ali (1984) - He had calls through the early part of his reign and he probably might have even surpassed Louis when he beat Foreman for many, or some time after this. But i think that by the time he had retired and was diagnosed with Parkinsons he challenged Louis whose fans had started to die off further.

Mike Tyson 1988 - controversial one here, but with his age and his destructive KOs, he really had a large fan base in the media. World record pay per views, destructive one round KOs etc Many many people, particularly casual media considered him no 1.

Muhammed Ali (1990) - With Tyson being KOd, it came back to Ali. His nickname the greatest, coupled with his appearance at the Atlanta games where his Parkinson disease made it impossible to do anything but praise him in the media, and also the astonishing comeback of George Foreman where he not only competed with champions of the 90s but eventually won the world title (a man Ali dominated at his best), and of course not to be forgotten, the dying off of fans of Louis, Dempsey, Johnson and even many of Marcianos fans. I think Ali holds this title to this day, and will, at least until some time after his death, as it seems that even though his fans who saw him are dying off, the young fans of today are recognising him, plus his career was caught in full technicolour, as was that of most of his better opponents. His biggest challenge is going to be dealing with the perception of weight as the years go on.

 

Great thread and Idea...

But I hate to be the one to burst the bubble. John L Sullivan was not better than Peter Jackson. I think Jackson would have outclassed and humiliated Sullivan, and Sullivan knew it...which is why he never fought him.

 

The two fighters primes didnt really overlap much (if any) at all. I agree that Jackson would have beaten Sullivan towards the end of his reign and to be honest would have no problem with him slotting in above Sullivan, Fitz and Corbett. But, if this is done, it shouldnt be done on the basis of John L avoiding him, and if it is done, you need to be aware that if done at the time, it would been seen as just as radical as Nat's rating of Fitz at no 3 is seen today.

 

Ludicrous claim of certitude in picking Jackson over Sullivan in their respective primes. Great match-up for sure. But the level of certitude wreaks of an agenda.

 

Muhammad Ali
Joe Louis
Jack Dempsey
Jack Johnson
James J. Jeffries
John L. Sullivan
Jem Mace
Tom Sayers
Tom Gribb
Jack Broughton
Jim Figg

 

I'm not sure if Johnson was ever regarded as being the GOAT, at least in the press. I remember seeing an old Ring cover which asked "Who would win, Dempsey or Louis?" It was Jack Dempsey who was the standard with which champions were compared.

Anyway, I would list it like this-

Louis

Jefferies

Sullivan

Beyond that is totally out of my area of knowledge.

 

or perhaps, like Corbett, Peter Jackson actually knew how to box, was modernly skilled, and knew how to avoid big haymakers from a bareknuckle boxer.

 

For the most part, Dempsey fans didnt die out until the late 80's early 90's imo.

I agree with Johnson fans dieing out in the 50's, though I might want to push that to the 60's.

 

OK

If they had ever fought in their time line, it would have been a case of Jackson acting as an overpaid grave digger.

Prime for prime is another matter.

It is worth noting that Jacksons manager (Parson Davis) said that a prime John L Sullivan was the only fighter who would have beaten Peter Jackson in his prime.

If you think that Peter Jackson was literaly the best heavyweight who had ever drawn a glove at some point in history then say it.

You would not be saying any more than some of the contemporary champions.

 

As I would have it , from today down to bare knuckles...
One caveat--Who really knows today how great a sober and trained
John L Sullivan was in his prime,if he had a William Muldoon on his tail ?

 

I give Sullivan a little more credit as he was possessed of a high degree of what people in these parts call athleticism. He was cat-quick, extremely powerful and could hang in there for a long duration. And I'm not sure a fit and healthy Sullivan gets beaten by Corbett.

My bigger point is that certitude is not possible in regards to the question.

All this aside, the phrasing of the question here in regards to the GOAT is very interesting. Good, new way to approach the subject.

 

I wonder when, or even if, Ali will be replaced? With the exception of Tyson he's the last heavyweight champion with true mainstream appeal, plus there's loads of high-quality footage of him, PLUS the heavyweight division is in the dumps and shows no sign of coming out. I'll bet the next GOAT will be not be from the U.S.