These fellas were not top 100 all-time Hwts.

I agree on the greenies.

And of the others, I think, as I have posted, that Hamas should be a lock with a fine overall record and a big win over a prime Schmeling.

 

The Long Coung & mattdonnelion

More on Hamas,

I would consider any debate on the relative merits of Schaaf against Hamas moot, as both would be solidly on my list if I would draw one up. Not in the top fifty, but in the 51 to 75 range for both of them. No where near scraping in at the bottom of the list.

As for the criticisms of Hamas raised,

1--Schmeling was in a down period--I think this is overplayed. Schmeling had lost to Sharkey and Baer, and would draw with Uzcudun, but the Sharkey and Uzcudun decisions were considered squirrelly.

Why do I consider the Schmeling victory first water? Well, from 1929 when Max first broke into the ratings until he left for WWII, Hamas is the only non champ to beat Schmeling. His other losses were to Sharkey, Baer, and Louis. The Sharkey decision was considered bad by the majority. Louis and Baer are generally credited with their career best performances on the nights they beat Schmeling.

I just don't think Hamas' win over Schmeling can or should be minimized.

2--Schmeling is the only champion Hamas faced--well, that might be the fault of the champions. I would ask why Hamas wasn't the one facing Baer in 1935 instead of Braddock. What had Braddock done to get a shot first? Beat Lasky? Hamas had already beaten Lasky. But Braddock gets the title shot while Hamas GOES TO GERMANY to fight a rematch with Schmeling. Braddock seems to have had the right connections.

I don't think anyone would have considered Braddock as being even in Hamas' class until possibly 1935, if then. Sharkey retired for a couple of years after his 1933 defeats which removed him as an opponent. For some reason Baer didn't sign to defend against the #1 contender Hamas even after Hamas seems to have clearly earned a shot.

I don't have inside information, but it looks to me like the heavyweight championship was a closed shop in the thirties and the college educated Hamas just wasn't controlled by the right folks. The other possibility is that Hamas was very poorly managed if his folks went for a rematch with Schmeling rather than a title shot against Baer.

 

Nova--I have read some of the old Ring Magazines from the late thirties and Nova at that point was considered the man most likely to replace Louis. Losing to Galento took off some of the luster, but the two KO's of a slipping Baer kept him at the top, and he had fairly short odds when matched with Louis, but flopped in his big chance. He went to be an unimpressive trial horse for the rest of his career. Fringe at best. I wouldn't put him in, but other evaluations would be interesting.

Uzcudun--I would give him the benefit of the doubt. He had a great run through the Wills fight. Wills was 38 and obviously past his best, but no one for years had blown him out this badly. Uzcudun lost a couple on fouls, and lost a disputed decision to Godfrey. He was thirty by the time of the Schmeling fight and from there on the aging Uzcudun became a win one, lose one, in and outer, but against the top men around. He still had enough left at 32 to handle the young Baer. Because most of the his defeats came on the downside of his career when past 30, and he always gave a decent account of himself, I would be inclined to put him in.

 

Now hold on, let's just think this through.

 

Choynski seems a lock with a win over Johnson and a draw with Jeffries.

What about Schreck? 4-0 against Hart and Burns. Most of his defeats seem to have come late in his career.

 

I'd have a really hard time keeping Miske out of the top 100 with that level of competition.

 

I'll bring up some contemporary names to see if anyone jumps out....

Sultan Ibragimov:
Best wins: Briggs, Holyfield, Whitaker, Javier Mora.
My breakdown: He just retired too soon. If Ibragimov had continued fighting, I think he'd have done well enough to warrant a spot, but retiring immediately after the Wlad fight left too thin a resume. Shame, because the ability was there. 2-0 against former lineal heavyweight champions (although Holy was shot).

Sam Peter:
Best wins: Toney x2, Sykes, Maskaev, Williams, Yanqui Diaz, McCline
My breakdown: Exciting but crude slugger presents stylistic problems for some, but could be outboxed by the skilled operators. The power was real, but his conditioning and lack of discipline with his weight was his own worst enemy. Probably another contender level or two win short, but I'd pick him in a fire fight against some of the chinny bangers who did make the list.


Tony Thompson:
Best wins: Price x 2, Solis, Chazz Witherspoon, Beck, Krasniqi, T. Ibragimov, Guinn, Bean, Diaz

My breakdown: Tony Thompson, in my book, would've beaten a number of the weaker champions and has a respectable, yet unspectacular, ledger of fringe contenders and up and comers on his resume. Avoided for years due to his combination of style, size, and southpaw stance, his overall level of competition suffers, but not enough to weigh down his longevity. Once he hit his stride, only future Hall of Famer Wlad Klitschko and top contender Kubrat Pulev have solved the puzzle; other managers are still weary of sending their prospect to hunt down this Tiger, who's still got some fight in him. Probably the challenger who's had the most success in Wlad in his title reign. Underrated and underexposed for the vast majority of his career.

Eddie Chambers:
Best wins: Peter, Brock, Dimitrenko, Guinn, Rossy
My breakdown: Speedy heavyweight whose lack of activity cost him in key fights, but who has a decent wins list and good level of competition fought at the weight. Was a top contender heading in to the Wlad fight. A fringe guy, but another one I'd favor to outbox some of the guys on the top 100 list- I'd feel more comfortable rating him if he didn't sabotage himself with a lack of workrate at times. A fringe guy, but I don't know if he'd make the cut for me.

Kubrat Pulev:
Best wins: Thompson, Ustinov, Dimitrenko, Walker, Rossy, Guinn, Skelton
My breakdown: Off to a promising start for a fighter with only 20 bouts, it may be too soon for Wlad's current top contender to land the ranking now, but the Thompson win is quality, and he outclasses the journeymen and fringe contenders the way a top contender should. He's on the shortlist to bump someone off the list, if he's not on it already.

Sir Nikolay Valuev:
Best wins: Ruiz x 2, McCline, Barrett, Liakhovic, Holyfield, Donald, Etienne, Beck, Vidoz
My breakdown: The source of endless humor on ESB, SNV was also ranked in the year end Ring ratings for 6 years running and boasts a better than expected resume even discounting the ghost of Holyfield on it. I don't know if I'd include him on a top 100 list, but wouldn't argue much against it. Not an easy man to defeat despite his glaring limitations.

Sanders or Brewster: Neither man has much depth of resume (although fighting Vitali tough and knocking out Krasniqi in Germany are nice performances, respectively), but each brought KO power to the table and are the last two men to beat current king Wlad Klitschko. Sanders was a prototypical frontrunner, while Brewster was a gutsy fighter who wore you down. Given how Wlad barely lost a round since Sam Peter I, those wins each look better and better. The question is, how much mileage can one win get you?

 

Pretty much how I see it. The two off the list I'd consider the strongest would be Thompson and Valuev. It's a shame Thompson didn't have a bigger push, as I think his resume could be significantly better than what it is if he'd had the opportunities. My one vote would go to him although, on paper, Valuev probably has a better case having been ranked longer, beaten more former champions, and having a few ABC title defenses.

Ibragimov is a "coulda been" story, and Pulev will in all likelihood do enough to get in eventually (unless he pulls an Ibragimov and retires abruptly).

The others, they may well trouble (and beat) the right top 100 guys on the right day, but there's not quite enough meat on the resume to demand the ranking.