White Heavys of the last 3 decades

Imagine if the color line existed during this run? Some of these guys would have been in our record books as heavyweight champs while Liston, Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes,Tyson and Lewis would not have been .... this is exactly why I really question the abilities of almost every champ pre-Louis ...

 

Having Coetzee, Cooney above Chuvalo is down right ridiculous. While we're at it, add Scott Frank, Lous Savarese, Alfredo Evangelista and Scott LeDoux to the list, they all were contenders who fought for the HW crown as well.

 

Chuvalo was not slow. In his prime, the man had very good hand speed, and had a hell of a fight with Floyd Patterson. His fight with Bygraves was tremendous. Chuvalo was THE best Canadian HW champion ever, and was a contender from the late 1950's to the mid 1970's, he had incredible longetivity, and was never knocked out and I dont believe he was ever floored. Ali in his prime said Chuvalo was his toughest opponent.

Quarry, on the other hand, lost to Frazier, Ali, and Norton rather easily, getting either cut open early or was entirely out classed. His prime was short, and in truth, while many say he was the greatest HW never to become champion, this is not the case. Quarry was a hell of a fighter, beating guys like Earnie Shavers and Ron Lyle as well as Patterson...BUT...he also lost by KAYO to George Chuvalo, who was no longer in his prime.

 

Vit, Wlad, Ruslan, Oleg?

 

Other than his excellent jaw, Schulz doesn't really have many qualities that stand out, but he should've been the linear champion when he beat Foreman.


It's interesting, most of these fighters excel in one department but are pretty one-dimensional. Quarry was fairly all-round, but weak mentally and somewhat small. Cooney, Morrison, Sanders had a great left hand but were a bit vulnerable otherwise. Coetzee, somewhat similar. I would say these are the first class fighters because they are dangerous and could upset anyone, but also lose one-sidedly to mediocre opponents.



Then there's Cobb and Chuvalo who take a fantastic shot, but are even more limited skill-wise. Botha and Schulz are decent boxers and tough guys, but realistically, barely above European level. I put them a class below the former mentioned, even if head-to-head they might beat a few of them.

 

I think Schulz was pretty skilled when he actually did anything, but that wasn't very often. I'm not sure if it was laziness or cautiousness, but he seemed adept at doing as little as possible in the ring. He never seemed that much of a puncher, though as you say his chin was very good.

Francois Botha, on the other hand, wasn't very skilled but was awkward and always gave 100%. His fight with Briggs was a daylight robbery (Botha dominated the first 8 or so rounds and could have even got some 10-8 rounds, if I remember correctly) and while he got done for steroids against Schulz, I thought he thoroughly outworked Axel in that fight. Botha was also surprisingly competitive with Michael Moorer (in my opinion, he did better than Schulz did) and only lost when he stepped up to the very top against Moorer, Tyson, Lewis and Wlad.

Botha should be rated above Schulz.

 

Strange phrase to use in this context. I think that Coetzee gets very underrated: he wasn't just a big puncher and he could box a bit. When he got the jab working against Dokes and other good boxers of that era he took plenty of rounds. He may have only had two really good punches (left jab and straight right-hand) but he was very good at making those two punches go a long way. If he'd been more durable, he could have been a VERY big player in the 1980s scene.

 

Even an old Joe Bugner might of been favoured to outpoint a few of the tailenders on that list ?

 

While I think it's a pretty good list and have no problems with your picks, Quarry and Chuvalo shouldn't be included as it's limited to "the last 3decades". That is from 79 onwards or the 80's, 90's and 00's and their careers as topfighters were over by then

 

I see where you're coming from, but what do you make of the fact that Schulz should've been given the linear title? Neither of Botha or Schulz were aw inspiring, and i think Lewis and Tyson would've blown Axel out as well, but don't you think that should-have-been-victory pulls them very close?

In a way you gotta appreciate Botha for working like an animal (even if it involves animal-like substances) despite very limited talent... plus, stepping in the ring with Tyson, Lewis and Wladimir takes big balls. But his style was never very appealing to me; doing an Ali-shuffle for a few seconds every now and then but other than that, not very aesthetically pleasing.... at all.

 

I don't think so. Foreman from the Morrison fight onwards either lost or looked terrible in every fight after that, so it's unfair to give Schulz a lot of credit for that and not, for instance, give credit to Savarese... And I'll be cold in my grave before I do that.

If Botha had fought and lost to Foreman, that might be the basis for making a case for Schulz over Botha. As it happened, Botha didn't fight Foreman and did beat Schulz, so if anything Schulz-Foreman shoud elevate Botha as much as it elevates Schulz.

I found Botha quite watchable (he was never boring and always seemed on the edge of being knocked out) but I agree that he never looked very impressive. However, he wasn't THAT easy to hit because of his reflexes and relaxed posture. Basically, it took four of the best heavyweights of his generation to beat him and only two did it in a very impressive fashion; that's a pretty hefty claim and one that Schulz cannot match.