Which is the best heavyweight contender never to win a piece of the title, and WHY?

Jerry Quarry had all the tools to be
heavyweight champ in other era's.
He simply came along when the
heavyweights were at their zenith .
Bad timing.

 

He first failed his shot at a tile against Ellis, and while Ellis was a good fighter he was nothing that you don't find in other eras. Most also thought Quarry was lucky to get past Patterson in the tournament, so he perhaps shouldn't have got the shot at the title in the first place.

Seeing how most feel that Patterson also was hard done by the judges against Ellis later, he might, at 32, have been the best fighter in the WBA tournament and Quarry perhaps no better than the third best after him and Ellis.

 

Had Quarry been around in the early 80's, I reckon he'd have a good chance to snatch a belt at some point before Tyson came along, though.

 

I think it's got to be, for me, the great Peter Jackson
followed by
Sam Langford
Harry Wills

 

My pick would be Povetkin.

I would favour him over anybody on your first list.

 

For some strange reason I clicked Quarry …

 

Hard to argue against Povetkin in terms of resume, he beat so many good names Takam, Whyte, Charr, Huck, etc. Only problem is I'm pretty sure he got busted for PEDs twice.

Ike had lots of potential and had 2 good world class wins. Had the size, strength, chin, and ability to compete in many eras.

Ruddock also had lots of potential but ruined his own career turning his brain off to become a mindless slugger. He had a very good jab with good fundamentals and was on the right track before he fell in love with his power.

Quarry has mixed results, but was a great fighter at his best and very well rounded. Bear some solid names like Foster, Shavers, Lyle, etc.

 

Not quite the same since he was never a contender because he never actually turned pro, but for me Teofilo Stevenson is the best heavyweight who never won a (professional) world title.

 

I picked Cooney as he was a massive bloke with a huge punch who could and should have won at least a portion of the title. He made the mistake of fighting the Man, Larry Holmes. If he had gone for "the other title" I think he could have held it, even if only for a brief period.

I would also add, from a Brit perspective Henry Cooper, Joe Bugner and Tommy Farr, all very tough fighters who with a bit of luck and different eras may have won it. Perhaps this is just my heart rather than my head speaking though! Out of the three Joe perhaps had the best physical assets for the job and I see a peak Bugner being competitive right through till the late 80s, while Henry and Tommy were perhaps too small to have a chance post mid 70s.

 

I went with Ron Lyle for his wins over Earnie, Oscar, Ellis, etc. Could have maybe went w Quarry…but the real answer is Archie Moore for his wins over Nino, Baker, Henry, Satterfield, Sheppard, Bivins, Maxim, Harold Johnson

 

Even when you factor in many of his opponents weren't at their best, the depth of Harry Wills win resume is absurd:

Sam Langford x 13 (way past prime by the end of their series)
Sam McVea x 3
Fred Fulton
Joe Jeanette
Jeff Clark x 7
Luis Angel Firpo
Willie Meehan
Gunboat Smith
Kid Norfolk
Charley Weinhert
Denver Ed Martin (who was way past prime in his final fight)
Battling Jim Johnson

He only lost to 3 x fighters in and around what I consider his prime years - Langford (13-2-2), McVea (3-2) & BJ Johnson (2-1) - avenged them all & won series against them all. Between his loss to Johnson aged 27 and his DQ defeat to Bill Tate aged 32, Wills went 36-0-2, a run that included many of the above wins.

His record is one of the most underrated at HW, imo.

 

Butterbean

 

Pretty excellent post.

 

I would add that a contender as good as those three, not holding some sort of title today, would be virtually impossible.

They woudl literally have to screw up every eliminator and title fight.