That's called fredom of speech, Sir, get used to it. Rocky was great - especially against small, old, shot midgets and third raters. Rocky today would not be a ranked cruiserweight, he really was that bad.
If we held a round-robin tournament, where every HW champion throughout history met every other HW champ - then the weakest champ would obviously be the one, emerging from such a tournament with the fewest wins. So who do you guys think, that would be?
Tough one, my pick would still be Charles Martin. I think Bruce Seldon, Bermane Stiverne, Leon Spinks, John Ruiz would all do pretty poor. Some the older champions who were smaller may naturally struggle but I think guys like Marciano and Louis would easily be able to beat some of the more modern champions.
Considering 6’6 Carnera was getting bowled over by Louis and Sharkey I can see some of those guys beating Martin. It’s tough to say as those guys fought a long time ago and given modern training and nutrition it may be very tough to beat many of the current crop, including a guy like Martin who is big and packs a decent punch. I think most champions from the Louis era onwards though would take Martin apart.
Baer. Baer bowled over Carnera. No shame there, though. Louis and Baer were beasts. I will die saying that Baer could have been a first tier ATG, except he was a psychologically damaged man after killing a man in the ring. According to his son, he actually hated fighting, and would wake up screaming at night.
The Louis era onwards is very different from the time, where the 4 early champs I mentioned fought! It's alright to think, that everything modern sucks, and that today's HWs are garbage - but to suggest, that a man who never lost to an opponent weighing under 240 lbs, would get bowled over by these small sub-200 guys from 120 years ago, simply makes no sense at all, imo!
I just said the opposite though? Where did I say the modern era was trash? I was just stating some of the more modern champions have not been good, such as Charles Martin.
Right, so will you answer this question: Do you, or do you not believe Martin would beat those 4 early HW champs, I'm talking about? If you do, then I don't see how you can have Martin as a prime candidate for "weakest heavyweight champion in history".
Because as I explained earlier, this thread is not really determined by hypothetical head to heads. It’s determined by how good a fighter was for their respective eras, what they achieved as champion, who they beat to became champion, and overall ability. Those 4 you mentioned clearly rank far higher than Martin in all those categories. I don’t know how they would have done against Martin, I would say that the size could have been too much and they would have lost. What I can say for certain however is they were all better heavyweight champions than him. I also maintain there hasn’t been a heavyweight champion in history who for their respective era and their overall achievements (winning the belt against a guy with one leg) has been as weak as Charles Martin.