125 top hw's in 125 years

[donnellon]

On another forum I recently proposed rating the Heavyweights in 25 year periods, 1885-09, 1910-34, 1935-59, 1960-84 and 1985-2009. top 25 in each era, a boxer to be included only in the era that they did their best work but ALL of their career to be considered when rating them.
The picks are mine or a composite of picks from the few other posters that took part.
1
johnson
jeffries
fitz
jackson
sullivan
5
corbett
burns
hart
sharkey
choynsky
11
maher
slavin
goddard
ruhlin
o'brien
16
kilrain
mccoy
martin
griffin
childs
21
armstrong
flynn
klondike
root
kaufman

Consensus 1910-34

1
dempsey
tunney
schmeling
langford
sharkey
6
Wills
Baer
Jeanette
McVey
Godfrey
Willard
11
carnera
gunboat
loughran
greb
braddock
16
mccarty
miske
uzcuden
gains
clark
21
wright
walker
schaaf
firpo
stribling

Bodhi/Matt compilation, 1935-59

1
louis
marciano
liston
walcott
charles
6
johansson
moore
bivins
conn
johnson
11
machen
ray
valdez
farr
folley
16
pastor
la starza
savold
williams
layne
21
satterfield
maxim
henry
godoy
murray

1960-84, my picks.

1
Ali
holmes
Foreman
frazier
patterson
6
norton
young
quarry
ellis
terrell
11
tate
dokes
weaver
berbick
lyle
16
shavers
cooney
thomas
page
coetzee
21
bonavena
martin
bugner
ocasio
cooper

1985-2009

1 Lewis
2 Holyfield
3 Tyson
4 Bowe
5 v.Klit
6 W.Klit
7 witherspoon
8 Doughlas
9 moorer
10 tubbs

11 tucker
12 tua
13 ike
14 byrd
15 smith
16 mccall
17 bruno
18 ruddock
19 ruiz
20 rachman
21 golota
22 toney
23 mercer
24 chagaev
25 morrison

[jezzamundo]

Makes interesting reading, no big disputes there.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I have a pretty big dispute with Sharkey over Wills, McVey & Jeanette.

[donnellon]

I have a pretty big dispute with Sharkey over Wills, McVey & Jeanette.

Let's hear it then. Sharkey beat Schmeling, Wills, Godfrey, Carnera, Loughran et al. Why is it such a big call to place him over your guys?

[dempseyfire]

Douglas is way too high for the current list, Byrd is too low.

[donnellon]

Douglas is way too high for the current list, Byrd is too low.

Doughlas, you could be right about. Not a lot there bar the Tyson win and McCall maybe, yeah I agree.
Byrd I'm not so sure about. Probably should be ahead of Tua on achievment alone plus the head-2-head but a lot of close calls against less than stellar opposition and the Ike blow-out and three near shut-outs v the Klits...cant see him much higher.

[Ambling Alp]

Great list. Obviously there a re a lot of really close calls in which two reasonable people could disagree on, whcih I won't get into.
I would do just a little tweaking.

1885-1909 Maybe put in "Old Chocolate George Godfrey". Get rid of Kaufman I guess.

1910-1934 Johnny Risko needs to be in there. Get rid of Bearcat Wright. Ernie Schaaf is too low and Gunboat Smith is too high.

1935-1959 Would do the most changes here. Clarence Henry is too low. Harold Johnson also is a little too low. Moore is too high. Valdez is way too high. Get rid of Satterfield. Replace him with Buddy Baer or Lou Nova.

1960-1984 Obviously a deep era in the heavyweight division. Still, there has to be a place for George Chuvalo. Have to get rid of Henry Cooper. Joe Bugner needs to move up a bit. In this deep of an era, Cooney also has to go. Would replace him with Marvis Frazier,Renaldo Snipes or Carl Williams.

1985-2009 I will probably take some heat for this, but I would move Ray Mercer way up. Yes he lost to Ferguson but almost all of these guys have atleast one poor result. If he would have got the decision against Lewis people would think of him much differently.

Anyway, this was an interesting way to rate them.

[donnellon]

Great list. Obviously there a re a lot of really close calls in which two reasonable people could disagree on, whcih I won't get into.
I would do just a little tweaking.

1885-1909 Maybe put in "Old Chocolate George Godfrey". Get rid of Kaufman I guess.

1910-1934 Johnny Risko needs to be in there. Get rid of Bearcat Wright. Ernie Schaaf is too low and Gunboat Smith is too high.

1935-1959 Would do the most changes here. Clarence Henry is too low. Harold Johnson also is a little too low. Moore is too high. Valdez is way too high. Get rid of Satterfield. Replace him with Buddy Baer or Lou Nova.

1960-1984 Obviously a deep era in the heavyweight division. Still, there has to be a place for George Chuvalo. Have to get rid of Henry Cooper. Joe Bugner needs to move up a bit. In this deep of an era, Cooney also has to go. Would replace him with Marvis Frazier,Renaldo Snipes or Carl Williams.

1985-2009 I will probably take some heat for this, but I would move Ray Mercer way up. Yes he lost to Ferguson but almost all of these guys have atleast one poor result. If he would have got the decision against Lewis people would think of him much differently.

Anyway, this was an interesting way to rate them.

Reasonable, intellegent response!
Godfrey I agree with, consider it done.
Bearcat wasn't my personal pick, so no problem with that. Gunboat too high, maybe but wins over Langford, Willard, Moran etc? Risko, good call.
35-59
I had Nova and B.Baer in my 25 and no Satterfield! Johnson at 8 but Clarence at 18. Valdez at 15- yeah maybe too high.
60-84
Chuvalo I like but except for the Quarry win what has ne to top Henry with Folley, Mildenberger wins and that Bugner fight. Jeeze, cant put Cooney behind these guys. Maybe Ocasio.
85-09
Mercer, you know you might be right. The Damiani, Witherspoon, Morrison and Lewis fights put Ray in top 10 territory.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I have a pretty big dispute with Sharkey over Wills, McVey & Jeanette.

Let's here it then. Sharkey beat Schmeling, Wills, Godfrey, Carnera, Loughran et al. Why is it such a big call to place him over your guys?

Carnera is nothing worth noting and the context of the schmeling victory wasn't exactly like Douglas/Tyson. Sharkey was the clear loser from almost every account. You seem to go more on straight results than when or how in some instances and that is your right. But I tend to do things differently. I toss out wins over faded former greats and don't put much stock in decisions that a fighter didn't deserve. For example, Oscar gets nothing from me on the Whitaker fight. I gave him 3 rounds.

Sharkey beat Wills when he was finished after a year layoff. If you're going to count that than I may as well counter that Wills beat Sam langford 12 times. While Sam was past his best for the majority of them, he was in better shape than Wills against Sharkey for most and better than carnera ever could dream of being.

Sam, Joe & Harry were supremely talented and they proved it against each other over and over again. Harry beat the best Heravyweights of his era that he was able to get fights with. I just don't see Sharkey on the same level as any of them. I'd rate all three of them over Tunney as well, though that one is a bit trickier. A handful of fights at Heavyweight just isn't enough for me to rate Gene ahead of guys who competed at heavyweight for a much longer time.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

It's a solid list though. A couple of other spots.

What's the love for Tony Tubbs about?

John Tate is too high as well for my taste.

Moorer & Witherspoon would be over the Klits imo. They have no substance to their gaudy records. Razor thin losses(I thought he won both fights narrowly) to Holmes & Mercer rate higher than any Klitschko victory for me.

Tua has already been covered.

Shavers knocked out three people in your second tier and arguably beat Ali. Ernie has to at least go up one and conceivably two levels. He has to rate over Tate.

[donnellon]

I have a pretty big dispute with Sharkey over Wills, McVey & Jeanette.

Let's here it then. Sharkey beat Schmeling, Wills, Godfrey, Carnera, Loughran et al. Why is it such a big call to place him over your guys?

Carnera is nothing worth noting and the context of the schmeling victory wasn't exactly like Douglas/Tyson. Sharkey was the clear loser from almost every account. You seem to go more on straight results than when or how in some instances and that is your right. But I tend to do things differently. I toss out wins over faded former greats and don't put much stock in decisions that a fighter didn't deserve. For example, Oscar gets nothing from me on the Whitaker fight. I gave him 3 rounds.

Sharkey beat Wills when he was finished after a year layoff. If you're going to count that than I may as well counter that Wills beat Sam langford 12 times. While Sam was past his best for the majority of them, he was in better shape than Wills against Sharkey for most and better than carnera ever could dream of being.

Sam, Joe & Harry were supremely talented and they proved it against each other over and over again. Harry beat the best Heravyweights of his era that he was able to get fights with. I just don't see Sharkey on the same level as any of them. I'd rate all three of them over Tunney as well, though that one is a bit trickier. A handful of fights at Heavyweight just isn't enough for me to rate Gene ahead of guys who competed at heavyweight for a much longer time.

I dont go on results exclusively but I mean Sharkey was boxing the ears off Max until the Dq and also had the edge on Demsey. Sam, Joe and Harry have their low points, Ferguson over Jeannette, Jack Thompson and how do we know that Wills was shot-because Sharkey beat him?
Good spot on Tubbs (he did beat Witherspoon and gave Bowe a close call-know what I mean !) and Tate, I've always liked them and overate them when compared to their records.
I like Tim too and thought he beat Mercer but lost narrowly to Holmes. Picking him over the Klits is reasonable but I dont see a win/loss to Holy and a ko loss to old George as better than the Klits resumees.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Let's here it then. Sharkey beat Schmeling, Wills, Godfrey, Carnera, Loughran et al. Why is it such a big call to place him over your guys?

Carnera is nothing worth noting and the context of the schmeling victory wasn't exactly like Douglas/Tyson. Sharkey was the clear loser from almost every account. You seem to go more on straight results than when or how in some instances and that is your right. But I tend to do things differently. I toss out wins over faded former greats and don't put much stock in decisions that a fighter didn't deserve. For example, Oscar gets nothing from me on the Whitaker fight. I gave him 3 rounds.

Sharkey beat Wills when he was finished after a year layoff. If you're going to count that than I may as well counter that Wills beat Sam langford 12 times. While Sam was past his best for the majority of them, he was in better shape than Wills against Sharkey for most and better than carnera ever could dream of being.

Sam, Joe & Harry were supremely talented and they proved it against each other over and over again. Harry beat the best Heravyweights of his era that he was able to get fights with. I just don't see Sharkey on the same level as any of them. I'd rate all three of them over Tunney as well, though that one is a bit trickier. A handful of fights at Heavyweight just isn't enough for me to rate Gene ahead of guys who competed at heavyweight for a much longer time.

I dont go on results exclusively but I mean Sharkey was boxing the ears off Max until the Dq and also had the edge on Demsey. Sam, Joe and Harry have their low points, Ferguson over Jeannette, Jack Thompson and how do we know that Wills was shot-because Sharkey beat him?
Good spot on Tubbs (he did beat Witherspoon and gave Bowe a close call-know what I mean !) and Tate, I've always liked them and overate them when compared to their records.
I like Tim too and thought he beat Mercer but lost narrowly to Holmes. Picking him over the Klits is reasonable but I dont see a win/loss to Holy and a ko loss to old George as better than the Klits resumees.

Wills was in his late 30's and off a long layoff, he was never the same fighter again. I think it's fairer to assume that he was finished than it is to act like Sharkey faced the real man. Jack was a solid fighter, Stribling was a better win than many of the ones you mentioned. Truth be told, I'd probably rate Baer over Sharkey as well.

The DQ was in the 4th round, Scmeling gave him a lesson over 15 only to get screwed. Like I said, he just isn't in that league for me. Based on accomplishments or talent.

[jrc26]

Solid list. A couple of things came to mind when I saw the list. Shavers and Weaver's names so close together made me think that would have been a heck of a fight.

Also if you take the top 10 heavyweights from just the 90's, they would stack up, top to bottom, with any decade. I am not going to say better than the 70's or 50's because that would be silly, but just as a 1 through 10...the 90's is looking better and better the further away we get. If those guys had fought each other the way they did in the 70's we might talk about it as the best decade for heavyweights ever.

Lewis
Holyfield
Moorer
Bowe
Tua
Ruddock
Morrison
Foreman
Mercer
Douglas

Don't kill me on the order I was more just naming them in general. The problem is with the longevity. Bowe, Moorer, Morrison, and Douglas were pretty much here then gone.Try to put together that list for 2000 to 2010. It is tough.

[donnellon]

The main gain in doing the exercise this way is that it is easier to compare fighters from different eras eg Hart v Mercer is difficult but Hart v Mcvea is do-able.
Below are the two first eras-in a box-off how do our experts see it?
My picks in bold.
tdu1885-1909
1
johnson v dempsey
jeffries tunney
fitz schmeling
jackson langford
sullivan sharkey

6
corbett Wills
burns Jeanette
hart McVey make a great fight-draw?[/color]
sharkey Baer
choynsky Godfrey

11
maher Willard
slavin carnera
goddard gunboat
ruhlin loughran
o'brien greb

16
kilrain gains
Mccoy mccarty
martin miske
griffin uzcuden
childs braddock

21
armstrong clark
flynn schaaf
klondike walker
root stribling
godfrey firpo

[Adamj1987]

i could never be assed doing a list like this

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Hart/McVea would be a total massacre. Hard to imagine marvin winning more than a round or two on his best day.

Baer, Godfrey & Wills would also win imo without too much trouble.

Stribling schools Root.

[donnellon]

Hart won a lot more rounds v Johnson than McVey did, wins over Root, O'Brien, Ruhlin, Ferguson etc stack up well for Hart and while I can see Sam winning, it is a battle of similar styles, two pretty hard-hitting, durable Hw's with some skill, good stamina and a lack of speed.
I know you like the Langford, McVey, Jeannette, Wills group and so do I, but they had far from perfect records. Draws with Tony Ross, losses to Jack Thompson, Sandy Ferguson, disputed decisions over Carpentier etc means that I for one dont assume that they stampede over other contenders.
By consensus Langford is the best of them yet Smith and Fulton scored wins over him. So no, I dont think that it's agimme that Corbett ,who outboxed Jeffries for long periods when way past his best, couldn't do the same to Wills when at his peak. Godfrey showed lack of grit at times in hard fights and Choynsky was tough, clever and hit hard, he could take big men-I give Joe a real chance. Baer could ko Sharkey, sure but it's as likely that Tom survives and out-lasts Max.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I never said they were perfect, I said they were better than jack Sharkey. Boxing is the theater of the unexpected. It's certainly possible that Hart could beat McVea 2 or 3 times out of 100. Just far from likely.

[donnellon]

I never said they were perfect, I said they were better than jack Sharkey. Boxing is the theater of the unexpected. It's certainly possible that Hart could beat McVea 2 or 3 times out of 100. Just far from likely.

Why?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I never said they were perfect, I said they were better than jack Sharkey. Boxing is the theater of the unexpected. It's certainly possible that Hart could beat McVea 2 or 3 times out of 100. Just far from likely.

Why?

McVea was bigger, faster, stronger and tougher. That's quite a hurdle to jump. Sam would beat him to the punch with harder stuff for as long as marvin was standing. He doled out some nasty beatings and this would be another one. He had a very compact hook for that day and age. Marvin wouldn't be able to avoid it without a horse.

[donnellon]

Sam was heavier and shorter, I suspect he was stronger, I believe slower but I can't be sure of either. Tougher, hard call, both were tough fighters. Dont see the evidence to support the view that McVey distroys Hart for sure.

[granberry]

Sam was heavier and shorter, I suspect he was stronger, I believe slower but I can't be sure of either. Tougher, hard call, both were tough fighters. Dont see the evidence to support the view that McVey distroys Hart for sure.

Johnson didn't have the punch to hurt Hart seriously.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Sam was heavier and shorter, I suspect he was stronger, I believe slower but I can't be sure of either. Tougher, hard call, both were tough fighters. Dont see the evidence to support the view that McVey distroys Hart for sure.

I don't see any evidence to support that he doesn't destroy him. Marvin was a mere footnote in Heavyeight history. Sam was a great fighter. But mythical matchups are almost always subjective. We just see this one in a vastly different light.

[granberry]

Jack Johnson did not look good against Marvin Hart.

[donnellon]

Sam was heavier and shorter, I suspect he was stronger, I believe slower but I can't be sure of either. Tougher, hard call, both were tough fighters. Dont see the evidence to support the view that McVey distroys Hart for sure.

I don't see any evidence to support that he doesn't destroy him. Marvin was a mere footnote in Heavyeight history. Sam was a great fighter. But mythical matchups are almost always subjective. We just see this one in a vastly different light.

More like there is no evidence of anyone else distroying Hart so perhaps the onus is on you to provide the argument otherwise. But I agree with you, neither of us are for turning on this one.