1910-19 1 Dempsey 2 langford 2 mcvey 4 willard 5 norfolk 6 clarke 7 mccarty 8 g.smith 9 miske 10 dillon 11 moran 12 fulton 13 carpentier 14 levinsky 15 b.j.johnson 16 palzar 17 coffey 18 morris 19 wells 20 P.Flynn 1920-29 1 tunney 2 wills 2 godfrey 4 sharkey 5 gibbons 6 greb 7 loughran 8 firpo 9 gains 10 stribling 11 brennan 12 griffiths 13 uzcuden 14 weinert 15 heeney 16 renault 17 risko 18 maloney 19 Delaney 20 VonPorat 1930-39 1 schmeling 2 m.baer 2 braddock 4 carnera 5 pastor 6 farr 7 schaaf 8 hamas 9 walker 10 rosenbloom 11 lewis 12 nova 13 galento 14 neussel 15 fox 16 retzlaff 17 poreda 18 lasky 19 mann 20 ettore
I really don't understand why Wills is in the twenties, by which time he was himself in his thirties? And if you put Wills up against Dempsey or Tunney, why is his resume inferior? And why is Dempsey's career resume necessarily better than Langford's?
Dempsey and Langford is a close call, no doubt. One point I would make is Sam had some ugly losses for an all-time great also. I suspect a lot of these are set-ups but I cant assume this. Losses to Fulton, Smith, Jeannette, Clarke etc.-all good fighters but still a lot of losses. Similarly Wills was often not that impressive. Great fighter that he was he also lost to all the better fighters that he defeated. Career-end losses to Sharkey and Uzcuden also hurt him a little, despite his age as does the avoidance of Godfrey. I know that is rich considering Dempseys and Tunneys avoidance history but Tunney has a solid record if a little short at heavyweight but Risko, Heeney, Greb, Loughran and Dempsey is not bad esp. as he usually was pretty dominant. Having made the arguments I can easily see how to make a case for Wills and Langford as number ones. Wills as a 1920's guy -it could go either way and I actually moved him from a previous efford. I believe he was only 27 at the start of 1920 and wins over Fulton, Firpo, Norfolk are pretty ok and I think compare well with his series with the fading McVey, Jeanette, Clarke and Langford. In short I think you could call this one either way.
I do like most of the pick in general. The 1930s was a down year in talent if you take out Joe Louis. For my money, Carnera was better than Braddock. I think Farr is a bit over rated. Did he ever win a fight in the USA? Larry Gaines should make the cut in the 1930's. Check him out.
I have Gains in the 20's. Carnera over Braddock, yeah I could live with that. Farr had a few close calls in America and the Baer, Neusel wins and losing effords to Nova, Louis and Braddock enhance him in a period when the opposition was'nt imposing. To Janitor, I actually like the Louis fellow but rated him in the 1940's. I should have added the preface from part 1 to stop myself seeming really stupid. "I am in the process of rating the top 200 Heavyweights of alltime, a daunting task. The methodology I am applying is to rate the top 20 for each decade, a total of 260 boxers and then use this template to do up the 200. I intend to post my ratings for the decades in four parts as the total would be too big a post for forum readers to absorb in a short span of time and offer their criticisms and opinions. NB A fighter is rated in only one decade, the one in which IMO he did his best work. Sometimes this can be arbitary, think Jeffries, Louis, Doughlas for example but in the final shake-up it wont matter. NB2! While I have rated the men by decade I'm rating them on them on their career body of work. The main criteria is career accomplishments, not potential or peak performance. Head to head comes into play only when I find it hard to split two fighters and I'm sure the biggest factor is my own biases and lack of knowledge"
harry wills simply has a more extensive resume at heavyweight than tunney, gene didn't fight often enough although he did win the title. lists like these are hard, but your effort is noble.
