Top 50 Heavyweights 1930-1960

I looked at the list and thought...Sharkey too low (1920's fighter?), Ray too high. Valdez too high, Cooper too low(and was he better in the 60's?) and then I said-to myself- stop criticising, these lists are difficult, go and do one yourself! So i'll be back! Great work, Lads!

 

impact wise yes. But that’s not all there is to go on charles is it? The beginning and end of Charles resume dosnt start and end with one guy does it?

But Charles had to fight Charles how many times for that to happen? If you fight one guy as often as Charles had to fight Walcott you are bound to get a number of results. Don’t forget Walcott was a great fighter.

yes he fought Patterson for two rounds. Both times he had Floyds number. Sonny never had easier fights. Read this post from old fogey. “A top level fighter being ko'd twice in consecutive fights by a single opponent is, as far as I can figure, unique in boxing history. My take is that such an dual outcome was dependent not only on what Liston brought to the table, but also what Patterson did not, whether because he was intimidated or for some other reason. Therefore I do not push Liston into the stratosphere on the basis of the Patterson fights but try to judge him the basis of his entire career, warts and all, and the Machen, Besmanoff, King, Whitehurst, etc fights were warts, as were some others.” - I concur with this.

Louis was beating Valdes, Henry and Ray during the 80 fights he had between beating Walcott and Fighting Charles. He was still good.

but he beat more fighters than Liston did too. Think of the ratio..

in your opinion. We don’t and can’t know that.

 

I am have no problem disagreeing with this Old Fogey fellow. If you are quoting him correctly, "an dual outcome" should be "a dual outcome." Probably Fogey didn't do all that well in his English classes.

I have to disagree with the Machen fight really being a wart. I think it has to be considered in context a reasonably impressive performance.

"Joe Louis"

My position is that we should note the Louis victory by Charles as a great historical achievement, but put it in its own class, outside typical victories, for was this really the Joe Louis? Louis was old but hadn't lost in 14 years during which he totally dominated the heavyweight division. I can't see denying Charles his accomplishment by naming guys one THINKS would have beaten Louis in 1950, but who really never came within shouting distance of a similar achievement in their own careers. It strikes me as unfair to Charles.

"Patterson"

I think it reasonable to bring up that Liston had more trouble with other, lesser fighters, although Patterson on paper was his toughest test. Was it something about styles? A mental thing with Floyd? Whatever, these were unique outcomes for this sort of match-up.

But it is also unfair to deny Liston his historical accomplishment.

 

I saw Bob Barker once about eight places in line ahead of m at the DMV in Santa Monica.

 

We put Elmer Ray higher because of wins over both Walcott and Charles. He was spotty early, but ran up quite a record once he got proper training and started moving.

Conn is one of those guys with a thin record, but it is hard to imagine Carnera ever doing as well against Louis.

I think Carnera's record is somewhat less imposing than his supporters maintain. The Stribling and Godfrey wins were on fouls. In my judgment, the wins on the way up are average. Maloney, Levinsky, Uzcudun, Lasky, McCorkindale, Campolo.

And, of course, there were the losses to Maloney, Sharkey, and Gains.

Balancing this, Carnera was very active, with scads of wins over trial horses.

At Primo's peak, the Schaaf fight has a cloud over it. I think he legitimately beat Sharkey, but Sharkey was on the cusp of a career collapse. Uzcudun and Loughran were aging and didn't have power. Neusel later was a good win, but it all thuds out for me as well below average for a champion, with no unqualified first-tier victory. I understand that some might look differently at Schaaf, Sharkey, and perhaps Loughran.

I can see putting Farr above Jackson. His win over Baer when Baer was still fairly young is more impressive than any single Jackson win. Jackson got Charles when in severe decline. But Jackson also was much more consistent.

When one gets down into the lower half of this list, there are a lot of disputable ratings.

 

The #40 place is Uzcudun, who beat Baer and Wills. The #46 is Roy Harris, who beat Pastrano and Baker. We judged those two above Rademacher.

Vingo--he had actually lost another one, but was a prospect. But this fight ended his career and so in our judgment he didn't do enough to really be considered for a list like this in place of guys who had full careers.

 

Yes of course Louis fought Henry, Valdes and Ray. You have seen the joe Louis vs Valentino film right? Was that really an exhibition?

Of course Louis beat Nino Valdes. He knocked him out in one round. He knocked out Elmer Ray too.

The 80 fights Joe Louis had between meeting Walcott and Charles were unlicensed fights. Some were set for 10 rounds. Some had newspaper verdicts the next day just like in the no decision era. And many really were exhibitions with head guards as we know them today. Not the ones with well known fighters though. There is a lot of documented evidence that these were real fights with no decision.

 

This content is protected

 

You don’t think Louis knocked out Valdes?

 

Valdes was knocked out in front of a paying audience with a referee, no headguard and no vest. Do you think he was less knocked out because it was not licensed title fight?

 

I agree it would be possible without a terrific stretch to rate Uzcudun higher. It all ends being a little arbitrary. Paulino had wins over both Baer and Wills.

Vingo, well he didn't have a lot of defeats, but if anyone stops their career at the age of 20, they probably won't have all that many defeats. I can't agree with you on putting Vingo on this list.

 

Just on the Joe Louis exhibitions. My take is that obviously the Pat Valentino affair was a "shooting match" as they say. It would be impossible watching the film to think otherwise. Baer-Levinsky was also.

However, I agree with Suzie that we shouldn't base rankings or draw extensive conclusions from them.

There are some gray areas with Louis. The Roscoe Toles KO in 1935 and a couple of other KO's at that time were accepted as fights by The Ring Record Book, and they were there, so I would accept those as real fights, regardless of what the boxrec guys say.