Who is the best of the worse Heavyweight Champions?

of the champions i rate them
douglas
willard
sharkey
carnera
braddock
spinks

the others are mere beltholders or semi claimers of titles that translate to contenders. its like rating good chalengers like godoy and tom sharkey.

I like buster douglas. for me he had more going for him than riddick bowe who i feel is VASTLEY over rated. buster beat a beter in form champ more convincingly for starters. busters record does not read so well since he was matched harder than most "groomed prospects" but he was an excelent seasoned fighter who broke through and if we rate champs on their best night hes up there with the greatest of all time.
a jab like holmes, smoother footwork and snappy heavy shots. he just lost his focus and could never of had the desire the realy great ones had.
sharkey did not win his title clearly, however good he was he did not prove he was the best heavyweight in the world. then jack was kod in his 1st defence. sharkey did not ko a linear champ so i have to rate the guys who did above.

 

I'll go with Primo. KOed a great fighter in Sharkey to win the Championship and managed to squeeze in a couple of solid defenses before dropping the title. Very underrated.

And really the worst lineal Heavyweight Champions are Moorer-Foreman-Briggs. Just bleh, an all time low for the division, none of the fighters were even recognized as the best during their reigns. Alphabet Champions really shouldn't count either.

 

Sister Sledge=Slave to boxrec

 

I do not like to refer to any of them as bad ... lowet rated , fine ...

Hart was a strong bruiser but limited.
Carnera for sure.
Braddock was tough but limited. Really a light heavyweight at his best.
Ingo was a one dimensional guy with a weak chin ,

That's my lower tier ...

 

gotta throw pink man pincklin thomas in there

 

What people who take a quick look over Sharkeys resume somtimes miss is the sheer volume of fights that he had against elite level fighters of the era.

It is getting up there with some of the black dynamite crew of Jack Johnsons era.

From 1925-1933 he fought 32 times with only 5 losses and a couple of draws but the most of those 32 fights were against fighters who were among the elite crop of the period.

You have a lot of scope to decide where you would rank Sharkey when weighing his losses against this, but I would suggest that he should not be regarded as being among the weakest teir of heavyweight champions.

 

I agree with you Janitor, 100% ...

 

You probably have to know the period re Sharkey-or indeed any historical fighter-to understand the full picture. Now a job for boxrec warriors.
Sharkey was not a weaker champion, simple as that.

 

Its actually Pinklon Thomas and he was actually a pretty good fighter.

 

I have often felt that he is sold short for his wins over Wills and Godfrey.

Those were two cats that none of the top white contenders wanted to face without them being cuffed and Sharkey dismantled them both back to back.

Jack Dempsey even talked about Godfrey being "the best contender out there" after he retired.

 

I dont think Willard is one of the worse, if you cant blast Willard out in the first 3 rounds, you will be in for a fight in a 20 rounder plus fight. I dont think Ali could beat Willard under thsos 1900's rules imo. Or if he did, it would not be easy.

 

On film Willard is not that impressive, but certainly tough and shows some touches in te bits of the Johnson fight I have seen.

But Carnera for me was much better, and underrated. He moved pretty well for a big lump, and had average skills, but shot his jab out fairly well and tried to get back out of range after doing it.

He was tough as old boots and could whack a bit, I have heard someone say Sharkey took a dive but he just got overwhelmed.

Carnera was good.

 

Willard look impressive vs Moran though.

He was more active because of the ten rounds.

In Johnson, Willard KNEW the fight was for 45 rounds, so he slow the pace down to out last Jack Johnson.

I pretty sure had it been 15 or 12, Willard would have been more active in this fight as well.

Rules of the bout determinds for the most part how one fights.

 

willard at least won his title by KO against (however overwieght and faded) the best heavyweight in the world at that time -something gene tunney, sharkey, bradock, the spinks boys, and even frazier and larry holmes did not do. But ali would win every round against willard. gunboat smith beat him. however you are right, willard would not be an easy fight for amyone.

 

your absolutly right. carnera improved after the first sharkey loss by having something like the amount of fights frazier had in his entire career till they met again.
people forget carnera outboxed baer in all the rounds of their fight he just kept toppling over because his ancle was broke. primo even gave baer quite a beating in an exhibition some years later. schmeling rated primo and so did larry gains, carneras legacy was shattered more by bud schulbergs film than anything he did in the ring. there was no shame in any of his defeats. primo fared just as well against louis as baer did yet people laugh at primo. its not fair realy.