These fellas were not top 100 all-time Hwts.

mattdonnellon

one other slight disagreement.

"Layne . . . short elite career and lost too many"

Depends on what "elite career" means, but Layne was rated in The Ring's yearly ratings in 1950, 1952, and 1954, and in monthly ratings in every year from 1950 to 1955. I don't think that is all that short.

"lost too many"

I don't think you are consistent on this.

Layne--70 fights, 50 wins, 17 losses, 3 draws.

Young (rated 26-50)--56 fights, 34 wins, 19 losses, 2 draws, 1 NC

Weaver (rated 51-75)--60 fights, 41 wins, 18 losses, 1 draw

Martin (rated 75-100)--35 fights, 23 wins, 9 losses, 2 draws

All these men have a higher loss percentage than Layne, and none have two wins over lineal champions (or your top 25 heavyweights).

What makes a horse race.

Anyway, thanks again for this fun thread.

 

Layne needs to be included over Weaver. I'm a big fan of Hercules but I see no argument for him having a better resume.

As for grouping their "win/loss", Layne peaked early and briefly. From 1950-1951, he fought 24 times against the likes of Marciano, Charles, Walcott, Satterfield, Henry Hall, Turkey Thompson, Kahut, Whitlock x4, Brion...etc. In that time he only walked away with 3 losses.

That is a 19-3-2 record against heavy competition, surpassing any run you mentioned with a top notch win over a future lineal Champion.

 

Lies, damn lies, and stats, and also double standards.

We all use double standards in evaluations, for one reason because we all know more about some eras than others.

But this post strikes me as distorted.

Thompson--on losing streak. True enough, but also only two fights and a few months from being rated the #3 heavyweight in the world behind only Charles and Oma.

Brion-nothing special. Depends what special means, I guess, but Brion went 49-11 while Scott LeDoux listed as a big win for Weaver went 33-13-4 and Brion also fought the best of his era and generally acquitted himself respectably. I would rate him as being more "special" than LeDoux or Mercado, at the least.

Hall--Nothing special. Actually he was 27 and had beaten Archie Moore only two and a half years earlier. As is often the case, it is possible to select runs in his career to paint him as losing, but the opposite is also true. When he fought Layne he was in a 13 bout streak in which he lost only to Layne and Harold Johnson. Anyway, it is impossible for me to see how a prime fighter only a couple of years removed from beating a prime Archie Moore can be listed as proving anything negative about Layne, who defeated him.

Joe Kahut-only big win Maxim. But he was the #9 rated heavyweight in 1946, two years before he fought Maxim. Likewise, Whitlock was the #7 rated lightheavy the year before he fought Layne.

"Weaver beat Mercado, LeDoux, Tate, Coetzee, Carl Williams, and drew with Michael Dokes"

Amid all kinds of losses, but this list isn't all that impressive to me. For example,

take Bill Gilliam, never in The Ring's yearly rankings. He beat Bob Baker, Nino Valdes, Leonard Morrow, Omelio Agramonte, and Hein Ten Hoff.

I find that a more impressive list than Weaver's.

"what's his next best win"

Bob Satterfield. I would rate Satterfield over Weaver, myself, but I admit this is a close call. Both were big punchers with glass jaws which often betrayed them. But I think Satterfield on the whole had more big wins and more impressive wins, and stayed near the top longer.

Makes horse races.

 

Yeah, I don't understand how Chagaev could be rated in the top 50.

But to be fair to Tony Tubbs, I will point out that he only narrowly lost to Tim Witherspoon over 15 rounds, while being much the worst conditioned of the two. He also arguably beat, or deserved a draw, v. Riddick Bowe.
And outpointed Orlin Norris when Norris was a genuine ranked contender (resulted changed to NC on a Tubbs drugs tests sample for cocaine only.)
Way past his prime he outpointed prospects Zolkin and ('future titlist') Seldon.
I'd definitely have him in my top 100 HWs, maybe getting close to the top 50.

 

-Absolutely heavy competion. We are talking maybe 10 genuine contenders, many tough gate keepers, and 3 future/former lineal Champions in a 24 month span.

-Kahut beat Fritzpatrick multiple times and knocked out Bernie Reynolds, he was a fringe gate keeper at this time. Solid win.

-Whitlock was a top 10 LHW. Good win.

-Brion was a tough durable prospect hanging around the top 10 and fringe level. Good win.

-So? Hall had been mixing it up with all the top LHWS at this time and taking short notice opponents. Not long removed from a win over Archie Moore. He would beat a few future contenders after Layne. Solid win.

-Thompson was coming off two narrow losses to contenders and just a year removed from being a top tier contneder. Good win.

It's not these names in isolation that are "heavy" but this grouping as a whole.

-His next best win is Satterfield. An upset and an impressive one with him standing up to the Satterfield onslaught.

-Dokes and Coetzee are good but not on the level of Walcott and Charles. They are Satterfield level. The rest are no better than the Layne scalps you tried to discredit. Unless you really want to argue a sliding LeDoux is better than a sliding Turkey THompson.

 

Well what the **** do you know?
Did you ever meet Gunboat Smith?

 

Can I see your top 100? I disagree on Tubbs, and Ike. Both should make it.

Chagaev I think did enough. Remember he was a shorter man in a time that had many punchers, spoilers, and skilled fighters. He used skills and smarts at times to win. Only Wlad crushed him.

 

Francois Botha... Top 50... or Top 30?