Why is Ingo Johansson in the Hall of Fame?

Legend X,

Cassius Clay was 'white' in 1963.

He was 'owned' by '11' white men of the Louisville Sponsoring Group.

I guess we could say, who the real 'Uncle Tom', excuse me, I mean 'Cousin Cassius' was.

 

A good point:good

 

Ingemar Johansson's wins over Machen and Patterson is one of the best and most impressive pairs of consecutive results against a #1 contender and a reigning champion.

What Johansson dd there was remarkable.

 

Correct sir,,,,

He not only 'pulverized' the two best Heavyweight 'boxers' in the
World at that time (1958 and 1959).

He nearly 'killed' them.

 

No. I am merely telling you what was in the ratings presented at the time from the 1959 magazines.

Dejohn was losing as much as he was winning, he had no rating when he met Liston, had dropped out of the ratings but he was still a name since the time that he was rated ...2 years earlier. Its what it says in the magazines. Take it up with the Ring.

Bethea was not rated. Losing to Liston in 58' was bethea's 3rd loss in 4 fights. He had a good run in 1956 untill folley surpassed him in the ratings. Bethea had been absent from the monthly ratings for a good ten months before he fought Liston.

If Liston fought valdes in 1958 instead of Bethea then he would have faced a curent rated contender earlier than 1960 but Valdes had a bad year in 59' and was not rated by the time he met Liston at the end of 1959.


Williams was not rated until 1961. This means he was not rated in 1959 or 1960. The big cat looked world class losing against Liston but Sonny was Williams's second world class opponent and his 3rd and 4th loss. To be an established world class contender before that point you have to have defeated a world class opponent or am I missing something? Williams was an unproven prospect at that point.
blame the books. Curley Lee was not rated. Ernie cab was not rated.

They were all names who were quite well known on the circuit. They had been on national TV, had been rated but were losing fights when Liston met them. Nobody went up the ratings for losing. A contender is replaced by the guy who beats him. Thats just how it is. Folley, Harris and machen were rated. Bethea and dejohn were has beens ouside the top ten. Williams an unproven prospect stepping up.

 

-Nah, you wouldn't recognize Pacman if he got upset in his next two fights, and somebody KOed Bradley and defended against top guys. Pacman would be out of the top rankings, just like Schemling was. Bradley would be gone too. Primo made his case, he beat #1/Champion Sharkey and #2 Loughran while in the same timeframe Schemling lost to Baer, Hamas, and suffered a draw(Spanish ref though) against a guy Primo would beat.


-Primo was already shuffling around the top 3-5 spots when he became the first person to KO Sharkey since Dempsey and even if you the consider the Schemling Title win a robbery Sharkey was still #1 or #2 in the world. Meanwhile Schemling went on a very bad run where he looked to be on a decline. Could you make a case in 1933 that Primo was Best in the World, absolutely. Not the strongest claim ever, but a solid claim none the less. Same for Douglas, even after beating Tyson we were "iffy" on proclaiming him the best in the World. Much was made of Tyson's poor corner, Douglas rising to the occassion because his mother passed..etc. Even after Evander beat Douglas for the title, the press was still calling Tyson best in the World which is rather telling. So I don't think that's the best standard for differinating these guys.

-Lots of fighters have single massive victories, by that logic you could argue Douglas over so many great fighters, and that doesn't sit well with me. Douglas has decent fringe wins, but he doesn't have any good ones. Primo has decent fringe wins too, as well as several good to excellent wins.

 

I think we crossed wires there, i'll see if I can articulate better.

Considering the absence of floyd and marquez from the ww division, I consider pac the number 1. He didn't lose to bradley in my eyes, infact he beat him quite comfortably underlining his position as number 1 welterweight. Whoever beats him next (in that division) would most likely become my choice for number 1. Max lost a very controversial decision. I treat such fights as a draw. So imo that timeframe goes like this:

Tunney retires.
Jack beats loughran in september 29 to take top spot.
He loses to schmelling.
He doesn't legitimately lose until baer in jun 33.
He doesn't lose until braddock in jun 35.

Thus I see it as sharkey-schmelling-baer-braddock in terms of who the top hw was. Never do I consider primo to have held that claim.

I underrated his resume upon further review so i'll concede that point.

For me douglas has better achievement and primo a better resume. All things considered I put them in the same tier. I rank douglas higher in that tier because I think he's a better h2h fighter.

Douglas(43)
Carnera(45)

 

-I think with the Schaaf, Sharkey, Uzcudun, and Loughran wins Primo has a case for being #1 going into the Baer fight. I don't think there's any doubt Bear and Primo were the top two at the time of the fight, hopefully we can at least agree on that.

-I can agree with that.

-I have Douglas and Rahman on equal footing. I would rank Primo above them. For me..better resume>single individual achievement. Bowe might be closer to Primo if not above him. Bowe has a really great win and some other good wins to back it up.

 

If you think that's enough to better Baer's stoppage victory over Schmelling, that's up to you. I'd say Baer definitely number 1 and yes Primo definitely number 2.

I have Rahman the tier below these two.

Bowe I have massively higher but then again I had him beating holy in the rematch.

I score resume and career achievement equally then rank within tiers based upon h2h. Douglas has the achievement of being number 1, plus the intangibles of going from zero to hero and scoring the greatest upset in history. Primo on the other hand has an achievement of sparking what i'd consider to be a paper champion. Ultimately, I split them on the basis that I think Buster beats Primo.

 

-I understand where you are coming from now. Yes, a case could be made for Baer disputing Primo's reign but I think both men's runs at this stage were near equal and Primo could only fight the official Champion so hard to hold Sharkey's dubious decision against the Italian. That said Primo still did more with his time at the top than Douglas. Rather Primo was THE man at the top is obvoiusly up for debate.

-Bowe/Holyfield II is very close despite the fanman and Bowe not being an ideal shape. Bowe very well could have sweeped the series.

-I don't rate Douglas very highly, he was not a very good contender despite being part of a thinned out bad crop and just happened to pull off the mother of all upsets on one magical night with the fight of his life. I can't put him above Primo, who may not have the name Tyson in his win coloumn but was relevant as a top fighter longer and picked up way more good-excellent wins on his resume.

-I think Primo would beat Buster at least 2 out of 3 times.

 

I don't hold it against him, it's rather I don't hold the dubious decision against schmelling.

Yeah that's how I scored it.

I obviously rank achievement higher than you do. Different strokes for different folks eh?

I think prime for prime i'd favour douglas.