Whose "left on table" hurts their legacy most?

No I don't think 185 was a good weight for Sam, and neither did most people. Sam didn't even think he was at his best at that weight. So why do you keep wanting him to have the weight, as if the extra 15 pounds is what is needed to beat Johnson. It's not. Johnson didn't have years more experience, when Sam had more fights than Johnson. You can experience by fights not years. If somebody fought 50 people in 10 and another fought 15 in 15.. I don't say the guy with 15 fights has more experience. I think he think okay against Jeanette, from a technical standpoint, but I don't believe the weight on Sam looked great for him. I do think he'd be in good shape for the fight, but the point is, Johnson has the clear stylistic edge here. He abused Sam when they met. Why would Sam putting on 20 pounds and Johnson also putting on 20 more pounds lead to a different result?

 

,

As Ive told you, Curley made the shortfall up out of his own end and he lost money on the fight .That's twice now.
Just how ****ing dumb are you?
Don't make comments about books you haven't read, it just emphasises how bloody ignorant you are!
Pollacks biographies on the heavyweight champions are universally accepted as the bench mark on them.
And you have read exactly NONE of them!

Keep getting your information from that sad twat Dan McCaffrey who made just one attempt at a boxing biography and made a thoroughgoing debacle of it!
Fact1 . Johnson's purse for the proposed fight with Langford that he pulled out of was for £3,000 ,not $30,000!
Fact2. Johnson was on a $30,000 guarantee,for the Flynn defence.
Fact3."Shortly before noon that day [the day of the fight],Jack Curley handed the champ a certified cheque for $30,100,which represented his purse and expense guarantee"Adam Pollack," Jack Johnson The Reign"

Page 612.!
Now why don't you spend some of your misbegotten time looking for those offers of $30,000 for Johnson to defend against the black trio that you say he ignored? The offers I've been requesting from you for 9 years!
You DUMB ****!

 

.

Johnson was fat at 205lbs?Who says so?
1.FACT Here he is at 208lbs,3lbs more in what he himself described as," the best shape of my life," does he look fat to you?

This content is protected

This content is protected

2.FACT Langford had more fights under his belt when he faced Johnson ,so he was the more experienced fighter.
3.FACT Neither Jeannette nor Langford weighed in for that fight.
Read Moyle's biography of Langford!
Don't you agree that Johnson would be in equally good shape for a title defence against Langford?Lol
4.FACT Johnson pulled out of a fight with Langford because he signed for it when he was broke and for a purse of only£3000.Once Champion he felt he was entitled to a lot more, [his price for a defence was $30,000,]The National Sporting Club which had made the original offer refused to increase their offer and the fight did not happen.


I just eat this up with a spoon!

 

If Boxrec disagreed with Pollack, I would go with Pollack every day of the week, and twice on Sundays!

 

But then you are a reasonable man! One whom, even when I disagree with you I can see why and where you are coming from.

 

Catch, you're clearly a Marciano fan, and so am I. I feel he would have beaten Johnson and Holmes, who the question was about. I clearly stated that I felt Rocky would have beaten both Valdes and Baker. The question here was who left more on the table and I do feel that the question that has been bandied about across this site for years, is Rocky's lack of 'big' opponent. And I think a victory over Valdes and/or Baker would have settled that. You can't denigrate Holmes just to fit an argument. I really didn't like the guy when he was champ but he put the title on the line, very often and against all shapes, sizes and styles. Bad argument there, dude. And I for one think he would have cleaned up on Pinklon Thomas. Regarding Baker, I have only year-end Ring ratings to go by. I wish I had the ratings during the year but this is what it is. He was ranked #4 at the end of '54 and #2 at the end of '55. He absolutely was deserving of a title shot. I'm not going to say he deserved it more than Moore because he did not. I am saying he deserved it more than Cockell. Don sat on his haunches since July of '54 until his title shot in May of '55. I think that was a done deal. Another nice small heavyweight. I don't blame Rocky. Weill protected his investment with an easy defense. But Baker deserved that shot more than Don. He stayed active, fighting 8 more times before Don's shot, against far more relevant heavies than Don ever fought. I simply feel a fight against Baker or Valdes erases the question.

 

If any of those fighters that Holmes didn’t fight like Thomas,Dokes, Page and Coetzee had gone on to be dominant champions in their own right then yes you could say that Holmes rep would have benefited greatly from fighting them but the fact that they were all losing amongst each other and other peers who were around at the same time like Berbick, Witherspoon,Tubbs and just passing versions of the title around meant that Holmes legacy didn’t really suffer for not meeting them.

 

I think this is a valid point.It was "pass the parcel," time.

 

Since Johnson agreed to defend against all the black trilogy ,only to have the fights vetoed by forces outside his control . I can't hold him accountable for them not happening.
However the fact remains defences against Jeannette ,McVey ,& Langford did not occur. So I think those names missing as defences on his record must harm his legacy.I therefore pick Johnson.

 

YOU DO. And say this anytime I bring up the O'brien fight. Check on Johnson's listed weight at box rec. Should I re-quote you to shame you once again? : )

And he was 20 by the book on him with a guess weight of 156 pounds! How many heavyweights did Langford beat at or above 180 pounds when he met Johnson? Do tell, and do not duck my questions as you usually do!

FACT Johnson pulled out of a signed contract to meet Langford in 1909! OWNAGE and DAMAGE Control. He would have made more vs. Langford than he did vs Flynn. Fact again.

How much did Johnson make vs Jim Battling Johnson? What does Pollack say, and honest reply, if that is possible from you, is requested! Are we going to see a 2nd duck of questions? Time will tell!

That depends, he wasn't in shape according to you in many fights. Why would Langford be much different?

If you want to compare Johnson and Langford's results vs common opponents from 1909-1915, Sam puts him to shame, beating the same opponents easier.

 

Stylisitc edge? Johnson did not do well vs aggressive punchers with stamina. See Marvin Hart. Sam at 175-185 was strong, skilled and hit hard. He's not some dope that will walk into a clinch. The best punchers Johnson fought that landed on him Ko'd Johnson in Klondike, and Choysnki. If you use an exhibition match, gun Boat Smith, did the same.

Marvin Hart was likely better than the versions of Jeannette and McVey that Jonhnon fought s they were very green. What happened? Hart won.

Smith and Choynski were likely between 170-180 pounds when when they stopped Johnson. So what can't Langford do the same at 175, 180, or 185? Let's be logical, he sure could.

The first fight means nothing. You see very few sub 160 pound guys at age 20 beat 185 pound guys in their primes.

Add 20 pounds to Langford and you get 176 pounds. ( though I think he'd be a bit more ). Add 20 pound to Johnson and he's 205.

History of full of lighter punchers beating heavier men. Langford would have a slight reach advantage here, he hits much harder, has the better chin, and more activity.

 

Marciano.

For a fighter who retired undefeated at 49-0 its awfully surprising he isn't a lock for any realistic Top 3 ATG Heavyweight list let alone taking the number 1 spot.

Part of the reason for it is quite frankly, his resume. Marciano lacks depth and a big opponent. Between 1953-1955 wins over Bob Satterfield, Nino Valdes, Hurricane Jackson, and Bob Baker in addition to what he already had would've given him the type of boost that would see a bump in most people's lists. Adding these 4 fighters was very realistic given Marciano's relatively "light" schedule of fighting twice a year.

As of now I rate at Rocky at #5 behind Holmes, Johnson, Ali and Louis. Add these 4 defenses to his list of 6, he has 9 consecutive defenses, 10-0 in title fights and a 53-0 record. He'd a lock for Top 3. And quite frankly, this was very realistic. I'd favor the Rock to beat all of those fighters.

I have Johnson at #3. Avenging his earlier wins against Mcvey, Jeanette and Langford won't move him up a notch. Yes they had improved and they were top contenders, Langford especially, but the politics of the day made these fights difficult to make and the trio were fighting with mixed results anyway. This isn't a Dempsey vs Wills situation, Johnson had already made his way up beating those guys. Even if he gave them another shot, he remains at #3 for me.

I have Holmes at #4. If he beat Page, Thomas, Dokes, Coetzee and Tubbs instead of fighting Scott Frank, Marvis Frazier or David Bey and adding 2 fights in '84. He would have broken Marciano's 49-0 record right before Spinks.

He still would've had a 7 year Rule, 22 Title defenses, beaten Marciano's 49-0 streak with a stronger resume. Page and Thomas would be close fights if not upsets assuming he maintains the timeline while incorporating these fights? I'd definitely move him up. He would gunning for the 1 or 2 spot. Thing is, I think given the closeness of the Witherspoon fight and the Williams fight, he was due for a loss and less likely to pull this off.

Therefore my pick is Marciano, he was in a position to give title shots to Baker, Valdes, Jackson and Satterfield. And quite frankly, he was capable of winning those fights.