Best heavywights of the 1940s

[Boilermaker]

Same as the other lists. Not totally finished looking at the major contenders but it looks pretty close to correct. Any one think of major ommissions or have others to insert/consider?


1. Louis – W Walcott, Conn, Baer, Simon, nova
2. Charles - W Walcott, Bivins, Moore, Valentino, Lesnevich, L Marshall, Tunero D Ray
3. Walcott – W Sheppard, Bivins L Louis Charles Simon Allen D Maxim, Ray
4. Ray – W Savold D Charles, Walcot Lovett, Reddish L Riviera, Holman, Thompson
5. Conn – W Lesnevich, Pastor, Savold, Barlund L Lous
6. Moore - W Bivins, Satterfield, Sheppard, Marshall, Lytell, D Hall, Holman Williams L Charles, booker
7. Bivins – W Bettina, Sheppard, Pastor, Murray, Thompson, Valention, Marshall D Maxim, L Walcott,Charles, Moore Johnson
8. Pastor – W Thompson, Lesnevich, Franklin L Conn, Bivins
9. Thompson - W Ray, Yarosz, Blunt D Simon, Musto, Daniels L Pastor, Valentino, Bivins, Murray, Hart
10. Bettina W Valentino, Barlund, Sheppard, Blunt D Bivins, Apostoli L Flynn, Fisher, Lesnevich, Christorifidis
11. Valentino – W Thompson D Maxim L Charles, Bettina, Bivins, Bosnich
12. Maxim – W Bivins, Lesnevich, Satterfield, Muscato, D Sheppard, Thomas, Valentino L Charles, Walcott, Marshall, Flynn,

[Ambling Alp]

This is a very hard decade to rate heavyweights. There are several guys who were about even. You could conisder adding guys like Nova, Simon, and Mauriello to this list. There are probably a few others. A lot of guys had their ups and downs.

Some of these fights should not count. There are several fights on here that were contested between fighters who were not heavyweights. For example, Moore and several of opponents (Satterfield, Williams, charles) were light heavyweights when they fought. Moore and Booker were middleweights when they fought. These fights should have no bearing on their heavyweight rankings.

Charles and Ray did not have a draw. Ray won the first by decision, Charles won the 2nd by knockout. You also have to factor in that Charles was still only a light heavyweight when Ray won.

[Boilermaker]

This is a very hard decade to rate heavyweights. There are several guys who were about even. You could conisder adding guys like Nova, Simon, and Mauriello to this list. There are probably a few others. A lot of guys had their ups and downs.

Some of these fights should not count. There are several fights on here that were contested between fighters who were not heavyweights. For example, Moore and several of opponents (Satterfield, Williams, charles) were light heavyweights when they fought. Moore and Booker were middleweights when they fought. These fights should have no bearing on their heavyweight rankings.

Charles and Ray did not have a draw. Ray won the first by decision, Charles won the 2nd by knockout. You also have to factor in that Charles was still only a light heavyweight when Ray won.

It is hard to know what to do with fights between two non heavyweights. Particularly in these days where weights were less important, and most fighters simply fought at their optimum weight and didnt bulk up or down. Do we (for example) not consider a fight like Dempsey vs Gibbons because both were under the current Cruiserweight limit? Certainly, it would make for an interesting Lineal world title (if somewhat meaningless). At the end of the day, the heavyweight division is about the best fighters not the heavyiest fighters, so i considered all fights that took place. If one of the top 10 ends up being a middleweight or light heavyweight, then so be it. If middleweights end up doing what heavyweights cant then they probably deserve credit. Interesting in the current decade i suppose, does Dawson deserve a higher ranking than Adamek for example. At the end of the day, i have listed them (pretty much straight off boxrec). If it effects their rankings then their position can be argued up or down accordingly.

We have discussed the situation of split series with Ray and Charles and a win a piece being considered a draw, in previous decades. I am not sure if you are suggesting that a KO win over a points win should account to a win. If you are, there are quite a few "drawn" series between big name fighters and others that should be credited to the other fighter. In theory, while a KO is decisive, a points win can be too. I see no reason why a points win should be considered less than a KO win, even if it is close. Obviously if it is undeserved this can be argued.

I am interested in what you think about the first Ray/Charles match. Do you think it was an unfair verdict? Boxrec does give credit to Charles as being a deserved winner but this is not always a good guide. Is the verdict so unfair that it needs to be overturned, or could it just be considered a close win like say Ali Norton or Ali Shavers? You make a good point about Charles' weight, but surely this would be cancelled out by the fact that Charles was coming into his prime and starting his best win streak, while Elmer Ray was clearly past prime and starting to decline.

Either way, it doesnt really effect the ratings for Elmer. Whether he draws with or loses to Charles, his ranking of the decade stays the same, because Charles proved himself (albeit by a slim margin) a better fighter over the course of the decade.

Nova, Simon and Mauriella are three good picks. I did look into each of these three very briefly. I think they would rate at the end of the fighters that I did, with Simon being the closest to making the list. All three (from memory) had an awful lot of losses to the guys on the list and others and not many (if any) wins over others on the list. If anyone wants to summarise their wins and losses I am happy to try to include them in the list at some stage, or i may look at doing them at a later date.

[Ambling Alp]

You raise some interesting points.
As far as weight classes go, there are certainly gray areas, but I think you have to use some commonsense rules of thumb;
If both fighters are not heavyweights, then it should not count all as far as rating them as heavyweights. Archie Moore was not the same fighter at middleweight as was against heavyweights. It is totally different.

If you don't do this, you are opening the door for bizarre cases. Are you really going to count Manny Pacquios ko loss as a flyweight against him when rating featherweights?

If one guy is and the other isn't, that is a little different. If the fighter who was not a heavyweight was the winner, then he should get credit for beating a heavyweight. However, if the fighter who really was heavyweight wwas the winner, he normally should not get credit for beating a man in a lower weight class.

There are exceptions; for example a heavyweight beating Fitzsimmons should count for something since he was able to beat other quality heavyweights. As for cruiserweights, I don't think you can only count the weight classes that existed at the time the particular fighter fought.

As for Ray and Charles, I thought you were mistakely saying they fought to a draw. I never saw their fight that was controversial.As sort of tie-breaker, I do think a ko trumps a points win, However, not always. A Ko or TKo fight is sometimes more competitive than a fight that went the distance.

[Boilermaker]

You raise some interesting points.
As far as weight classes go, there are certainly gray areas, but I think you have to use some commonsense rules of thumb;
If both fighters are not heavyweights, then it should not count all as far as rating them as heavyweights. Archie Moore was not the same fighter at middleweight as was against heavyweights. It is totally different.

If you don't do this, you are opening the door for bizarre cases. Are you really going to count Manny Pacquios ko loss as a flyweight against him when rating featherweights?

I think Sam Langford is the best example of what you are trying to say. Deadly Ko Power as a heavy, with a Ko record not nearly as good as a lightweight. I take your point regarding Manny's losses but, it all changes if Singsurat (for example) beats a featherweight or two. Or if singsurate loses to other fighters that are not as good as Manny. Then Manny would clearly jump over Singsurat despite his loss. If we are rating flyweights only or featherweights only, that is probably a different scenario (for example you cant really rate Monzon as a light heavyweight even though he may beat all bar a handful of light heavyweights, because we just do not know would he would or wouldnt do. But if Singsurat had beaten say Pacman as a flyweight, cleaned out the the flyweight division and then beat Marquez right after he drew with Pacman, you would have to think about rating the best fighter under 126 wouldnt you?

If one guy is and the other isn't, that is a little different. If the fighter who was not a heavyweight was the winner, then he should get credit for beating a heavyweight. However, if the fighter who really was heavyweight wwas the winner, he normally should not get credit for beating a man in a lower weight class.

There are exceptions; for example a heavyweight beating Fitzsimmons should count for something since he was able to beat other quality heavyweights. As for cruiserweights, I don't think you can only count the weight classes that existed at the time the particular fighter fought.

I agree.

But cruiserweights and other divisions are quite interesting. Even today, When World Champions at these lower divisions go up, they virtually always beat at least some of the top 10 contenders. See for example Haye, Adamek, Toney, Huck, etc. In fact, the same can still be said of most world light heavyweight champions. Particularly if they are clearly the best in the world at their weight such as Jones Jr. And strangely, those fighters dont always have the same success when going backwards in weights. Eg Byrd, Jones Jr etc. There is no doubt that the Klitchskos are the two best heavyweights in the world. There is also no doubt that fighters can improve by putting extra weight on. Still, there is no guarantee that they do. If Adamek were accepted as the third best heavyweight in the world, who is to say that he would beat Dawson in a rematch. Or that he would beat one or two other light heavys for that matter. He is much older now than he was when he was a light heavy and closer to his prime. Is it really likely that he is a better fighter now than when Dawson beat him? These are questions we assume, but dont really know. And it is also blurred nowadays, (worse than ever) because of so many champions and intermediate weight divisions. In the end, the adjusting, i think needs to be adjusted more on how close a fighter was to prime rather than how much he weighed, which is an irrelevant question in the heavyweight division. If a fighter improves like Johnson did after Choynski, it is more a case of adjusting for the fighter not being prime. This happens usually at the begining or end of a fighters career. All fighters are different. In rating these decades I usually give as limited as possible consideration to these factors when i put them up, because this gives the chance for others to discuss and part their knowledge. It is impossible to do it any other way, because even boxrec usually doesnt list weights and half the time, even after extensive research we do not know. there is still dispute about the weight of fitzsimmons when he won the world title. Ray for example wrongly thinks he was over 158 pounds D

As for Ray and Charles, I thought you were mistakely saying they fought to a draw. I never saw their fight that was controversial.As sort of tie-breaker, I do think a ko trumps a points win, However, not always. A Ko or TKo fight is sometimes more competitive than a fight that went the distance.

It is easy to make mistakes such as this. It is more laziness than anything else that i dont list each win and loss. I can see where you are coming from about a KO trumping a points win. The best example is Lewis and Rahman. Although Louis and Schmelling is one example where a ko trumped another KO. In reality though, each fighter has one win a piece and that is even, i think. It seems to me, that when the first fight is an upset that result is often overlooked by most people. If Douglas had lost by KO to Tyson instead of Holyfield i think that Tyson universally would have considered tyson to have won the series. I can see an argument that Charles bettered Ray even though it was one all, but really i dont know enough about the points decision. Boxrec seems to indicate it as controversial. Does anyone else have more info?

Either way, i dont think it enough for Ray to rank higher than Charles. And i think Ray would probably stay where he is, even without the Charles result.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You raise some interesting points.
As far as weight classes go, there are certainly gray areas, but I think you have to use some commonsense rules of thumb;
If both fighters are not heavyweights, then it should not count all as far as rating them as heavyweights. Archie Moore was not the same fighter at middleweight as was against heavyweights. It is totally different.

If you don't do this, you are opening the door for bizarre cases. Are you really going to count Manny Pacquios ko loss as a flyweight against him when rating featherweights?

I think Sam Langford is the best example of what you are trying to say. Deadly Ko Power as a heavy, with a Ko record not nearly as good as a lightweight. I take your point regarding Manny's losses but, it all changes if Singsurat (for example) beats a featherweight or two. Or if singsurate loses to other fighters that are not as good as Manny. Then Manny would clearly jump over Singsurat despite his loss. If we are rating flyweights only or featherweights only, that is probably a different scenario (for example you cant really rate Monzon as a light heavyweight even though he may beat all bar a handful of light heavyweights, because we just do not know would he would or wouldnt do. But if Singsurat had beaten say Pacman as a flyweight, cleaned out the the flyweight division and then beat Marquez right after he drew with Pacman, you would have to think about rating the best fighter under 126 wouldnt you?

If one guy is and the other isn't, that is a little different. If the fighter who was not a heavyweight was the winner, then he should get credit for beating a heavyweight. However, if the fighter who really was heavyweight wwas the winner, he normally should not get credit for beating a man in a lower weight class.

There are exceptions; for example a heavyweight beating Fitzsimmons should count for something since he was able to beat other quality heavyweights. As for cruiserweights, I don't think you can only count the weight classes that existed at the time the particular fighter fought.

I agree.

But cruiserweights and other divisions are quite interesting. Even today, When World Champions at these lower divisions go up, they virtually always beat at least some of the top 10 contenders. See for example Haye, Adamek, Toney, Huck, etc. In fact, the same can still be said of most world light heavyweight champions. Particularly if they are clearly the best in the world at their weight such as Jones Jr. And strangely, those fighters dont always have the same success when going backwards in weights. Eg Byrd, Jones Jr etc. There is no doubt that the Klitchskos are the two best heavyweights in the world. There is also no doubt that fighters can improve by putting extra weight on. Still, there is no guarantee that they do. If Adamek were accepted as the third best heavyweight in the world, who is to say that he would beat Dawson in a rematch. Or that he would beat one or two other light heavys for that matter. He is much older now than he was when he was a light heavy and closer to his prime. Is it really likely that he is a better fighter now than when Dawson beat him? These are questions we assume, but dont really know. And it is also blurred nowadays, (worse than ever) because of so many champions and intermediate weight divisions. In the end, the adjusting, i think needs to be adjusted more on how close a fighter was to prime rather than how much he weighed, which is an irrelevant question in the heavyweight division. If a fighter improves like Johnson did after Choynski, it is more a case of adjusting for the fighter not being prime. This happens usually at the begining or end of a fighters career. All fighters are different. In rating these decades I usually give as limited as possible consideration to these factors when i put them up, because this gives the chance for others to discuss and part their knowledge. It is impossible to do it any other way, because even boxrec usually doesnt list weights and half the time, even after extensive research we do not know. there is still dispute about the weight of fitzsimmons when he won the world title. Ray for example wrongly thinks he was over 158 pounds D

As for Ray and Charles, I thought you were mistakely saying they fought to a draw. I never saw their fight that was controversial.As sort of tie-breaker, I do think a ko trumps a points win, However, not always. A Ko or TKo fight is sometimes more competitive than a fight that went the distance.

It is easy to make mistakes such as this. It is more laziness than anything else that i dont list each win and loss. I can see where you are coming from about a KO trumping a points win. The best example is Lewis and Rahman. Although Louis and Schmelling is one example where a ko trumped another KO. In reality though, each fighter has one win a piece and that is even, i think. It seems to me, that when the first fight is an upset that result is often overlooked by most people. If Douglas had lost by KO to Tyson instead of Holyfield i think that Tyson universally would have considered tyson to have won the series. I can see an argument that Charles bettered Ray even though it was one all, but really i dont know enough about the points decision. Boxrec seems to indicate it as controversial. Does anyone else have more info?

Either way, i dont think it enough for Ray to rank higher than Charles. And i think Ray would probably stay where he is, even without the Charles result.

Who won a decision between Lewis & Rahman? Or is that yet another "typo"?

[Boilermaker]

You raise some interesting points.
As far as weight classes go, there are certainly gray areas, but I think you have to use some commonsense rules of thumb;
If both fighters are not heavyweights, then it should not count all as far as rating them as heavyweights. Archie Moore was not the same fighter at middleweight as was against heavyweights. It is totally different.

If you don't do this, you are opening the door for bizarre cases. Are you really going to count Manny Pacquios ko loss as a flyweight against him when rating featherweights?

I think Sam Langford is the best example of what you are trying to say. Deadly Ko Power as a heavy, with a Ko record not nearly as good as a lightweight. I take your point regarding Manny's losses but, it all changes if Singsurat (for example) beats a featherweight or two. Or if singsurate loses to other fighters that are not as good as Manny. Then Manny would clearly jump over Singsurat despite his loss. If we are rating flyweights only or featherweights only, that is probably a different scenario (for example you cant really rate Monzon as a light heavyweight even though he may beat all bar a handful of light heavyweights, because we just do not know would he would or wouldnt do. But if Singsurat had beaten say Pacman as a flyweight, cleaned out the the flyweight division and then beat Marquez right after he drew with Pacman, you would have to think about rating the best fighter under 126 wouldnt you?

If one guy is and the other isn't, that is a little different. If the fighter who was not a heavyweight was the winner, then he should get credit for beating a heavyweight. However, if the fighter who really was heavyweight wwas the winner, he normally should not get credit for beating a man in a lower weight class.

There are exceptions; for example a heavyweight beating Fitzsimmons should count for something since he was able to beat other quality heavyweights. As for cruiserweights, I don't think you can only count the weight classes that existed at the time the particular fighter fought.

I agree.

But cruiserweights and other divisions are quite interesting. Even today, When World Champions at these lower divisions go up, they virtually always beat at least some of the top 10 contenders. See for example Haye, Adamek, Toney, Huck, etc. In fact, the same can still be said of most world light heavyweight champions. Particularly if they are clearly the best in the world at their weight such as Jones Jr. And strangely, those fighters dont always have the same success when going backwards in weights. Eg Byrd, Jones Jr etc. There is no doubt that the Klitchskos are the two best heavyweights in the world. There is also no doubt that fighters can improve by putting extra weight on. Still, there is no guarantee that they do. If Adamek were accepted as the third best heavyweight in the world, who is to say that he would beat Dawson in a rematch. Or that he would beat one or two other light heavys for that matter. He is much older now than he was when he was a light heavy and closer to his prime. Is it really likely that he is a better fighter now than when Dawson beat him? These are questions we assume, but dont really know. And it is also blurred nowadays, (worse than ever) because of so many champions and intermediate weight divisions. In the end, the adjusting, i think needs to be adjusted more on how close a fighter was to prime rather than how much he weighed, which is an irrelevant question in the heavyweight division. If a fighter improves like Johnson did after Choynski, it is more a case of adjusting for the fighter not being prime. This happens usually at the begining or end of a fighters career. All fighters are different. In rating these decades I usually give as limited as possible consideration to these factors when i put them up, because this gives the chance for others to discuss and part their knowledge. It is impossible to do it any other way, because even boxrec usually doesnt list weights and half the time, even after extensive research we do not know. there is still dispute about the weight of fitzsimmons when he won the world title. Ray for example wrongly thinks he was over 158 pounds D

As for Ray and Charles, I thought you were mistakely saying they fought to a draw. I never saw their fight that was controversial.As sort of tie-breaker, I do think a ko trumps a points win, However, not always. A Ko or TKo fight is sometimes more competitive than a fight that went the distance.

It is easy to make mistakes such as this. It is more laziness than anything else that i dont list each win and loss. I can see where you are coming from about a KO trumping a points win. The best example is Lewis and Rahman. Although Louis and Schmelling is one example where a ko trumped another KO. In reality though, each fighter has one win a piece and that is even, i think. It seems to me, that when the first fight is an upset that result is often overlooked by most people. If Douglas had lost by KO to Tyson instead of Holyfield i think that Tyson universally would have considered tyson to have won the series. I can see an argument that Charles bettered Ray even though it was one all, but really i dont know enough about the points decision. Boxrec seems to indicate it as controversial. Does anyone else have more info?

Either way, i dont think it enough for Ray to rank higher than Charles. And i think Ray would probably stay where he is, even without the Charles result.

Who won a decision between Lewis & Rahman? Or is that yet another "typo"?

More like an early morning clanger.

So, do you have an opinion on who should be mentioned as top fighters in the decade, or do you not follow any fights from this era? Charles is one of your favourite fighters, what do you say about the Elmer Ray decision fight, Just, unjust or you simply dont know anything about it?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I don't find you worthy of a discussion. I just read it and got a great laugh out of that.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I don't find you worthy of a discussion. I just read it and got a great laugh out of that.

This

[Boilermaker]

Are you two the same person?

[Goodnight, Irene]

Yeah...because it just couldnt be that more than one person could find your interpretations lacking?

[Boilermaker]

Yeah...because it just couldnt be that more than one person could find your interpretations lacking?

What interpretation?

So far you have not been able to list a single fighter who you think should be added to the list. I am waiting.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Thats because unlike you, I learned the folly of your lists and arguing them.

[Boilermaker]

Thats because unlike you, I learned the folly of your lists and arguing them.

Can you even name 10 heavyweights from the 40s?

I havent seen you try to argue anything (boxing related) at all yet. Give it a try, i am sure after a while, you will learn enough to argue a few topics, give it a go sometime.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I do...just not with the likes of dilettantes like you

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I do...just not with the likes of dilettantes like you

I would put this dolt on ignore if not for the unintentional humor. His typos and sleepiness come with the goods like no other.

[Ambling Alp]

Same as the other lists. Not totally finished looking at the major contenders but it looks pretty close to correct. Any one think of major ommissions or have others to insert/consider?


1. Louis – W Walcott, Conn, Baer, Simon, nova
2. Charles - W Walcott, Bivins, Moore, Valentino, Lesnevich, L Marshall, Tunero D Ray
3. Walcott – W Sheppard, Bivins L Louis Charles Simon Allen D Maxim, Ray
4. Ray – W Savold D Charles, Walcot Lovett, Reddish L Riviera, Holman, Thompson
5. Conn – W Lesnevich, Pastor, Savold, Barlund L Lous
6. Moore - W Bivins, Satterfield, Sheppard, Marshall, Lytell, D Hall, Holman Williams L Charles, booker
7. Bivins – W Bettina, Sheppard, Pastor, Murray, Thompson, Valention, Marshall D Maxim, L Walcott,Charles, Moore Johnson
8. Pastor – W Thompson, Lesnevich, Franklin L Conn, Bivins
9. Thompson - W Ray, Yarosz, Blunt D Simon, Musto, Daniels L Pastor, Valentino, Bivins, Murray, Hart
10. Bettina W Valentino, Barlund, Sheppard, Blunt D Bivins, Apostoli L Flynn, Fisher, Lesnevich, Christorifidis
11. Valentino – W Thompson D Maxim L Charles, Bettina, Bivins, Bosnich
12. Maxim – W Bivins, Lesnevich, Satterfield, Muscato, D Sheppard, Thomas, Valentino L Charles, Walcott, Marshall, Flynn,

I will have to go through this in greater detail when I get a chance. I am most skeptical of Valentino. Only one notable win and the draw with Maxim. He also lost to Porter and Fitzpatrick as well those mentioned.
I am also skeptical of Bettina. A few decent wins but none special at heavyweight.

As I mentioned before, many of these results need to be tossed out when rating fighters as heavyweights. I will also update that sometime.

As for the 3 heavyweights I think are worth considering:
Tami Maurillo- Won against Barlund, Nova and Woodcock. Was 2-1 vs Oma. Had a draw vs Pastor. Lost to Bivins (the scores were fairly close.) Also lost to Baski, Louis,Shkor, Lesnevich, Dominic, and Brion.

Lou Nova -Won against Max Baer and Barlund. Lost to Mauriello, Louis,Savold, and Oma.

Abe Simon- Won against Walcott, Barlund and Toles. Has a draw vs Turkey Thompson. Lost to Franklin, Jim Thompson, Reddish and Louis.

[Boilermaker]

Same as the other lists. Not totally finished looking at the major contenders but it looks pretty close to correct. Any one think of major ommissions or have others to insert/consider?


1. Louis – W Walcott, Conn, Baer, Simon, nova
2. Charles - W Walcott, Bivins, Moore, Valentino, Lesnevich, L Marshall, Tunero D Ray
3. Walcott – W Sheppard, Bivins L Louis Charles Simon Allen D Maxim, Ray
4. Ray – W Savold D Charles, Walcot Lovett, Reddish L Riviera, Holman, Thompson
5. Conn – W Lesnevich, Pastor, Savold, Barlund L Lous
6. Moore - W Bivins, Satterfield, Sheppard, Marshall, Lytell, D Hall, Holman Williams L Charles, booker
7. Bivins – W Bettina, Sheppard, Pastor, Murray, Thompson, Valention, Marshall D Maxim, L Walcott,Charles, Moore Johnson
8. Pastor – W Thompson, Lesnevich, Franklin L Conn, Bivins
9. Thompson - W Ray, Yarosz, Blunt D Simon, Musto, Daniels L Pastor, Valentino, Bivins, Murray, Hart
10. Bettina W Valentino, Barlund, Sheppard, Blunt D Bivins, Apostoli L Flynn, Fisher, Lesnevich, Christorifidis
11. Valentino – W Thompson D Maxim L Charles, Bettina, Bivins, Bosnich
12. Maxim – W Bivins, Lesnevich, Satterfield, Muscato, D Sheppard, Thomas, Valentino L Charles, Walcott, Marshall, Flynn,

I will have to go through this in greater detail when I get a chance. I am most skeptical of Valentino. Only one notable win and the draw with Maxim. He also lost to Porter and Fitzpatrick as well those mentioned.
I am also skeptical of Bettina. A few decent wins but none special at heavyweight.

As I mentioned before, many of these results need to be tossed out when rating fighters as heavyweights. I will also update that sometime.

As for the 3 heavyweights I think are worth considering:
Tami Maurillo- Won against Barlund, Nova and Woodcock. Was 2-1 vs Oma. Had a draw vs Pastor. Lost to Bivins (the scores were fairly close.) Also lost to Baski, Louis,Shkor, Lesnevich, Dominic, and Brion.

Lou Nova -Won against Max Baer and Barlund. Lost to Mauriello, Louis,Savold, and Oma.

Abe Simon- Won against Walcott, Barlund and Toles. Has a draw vs Turkey Thompson. Lost to Franklin, Jim Thompson, Reddish and Louis.

The Walcott win and Thompson draw definitely lift Simon into the top discussions, dont they. The Louis loss is nothing and the Thompson win was the third fight, in a series he had already won 2-0 albeit not in 1940. And according to boxrec at least, it was a disputed decision. The biggest problem with simon, is that he was only in the decade for such a short time. The common line of thinking is that Walcott improved a lot after the Simon fight, and this does need to be factored in, but still a win is a win, and Turkey Thompson was a pretty good win. There is also a drawn series with Blunt. Obviously the losses to set Simon back a little, particularly when he didnt fight for so long, but being fair to him, you would have to think that he couldnt be rated to far from Thompson and Walcott. Maybe just below Walcott, because Walcott does ahve some other good wins and did improve after his loss to simon. This means somewhere between 4 and 10 I am thinking probably just below Bivins at 8. Would you agree with this?

[Ambling Alp]

Probably somewhere between 8 and 10 is fair for Simon.

Hard to say about Walcott. At the end of the decade he was a much better fighter than earlier on. I guess # 3 is fair.

Might drop Conn a bit. I don't count the win over Lesnevich as a heavyweight fight, beating Barlund and Savold is not that impressive. His win over Pastor is not as impressive as seems at first glance. Conn fouled Pastor repeatedly and could have been disqualified. On the other hand, doing as well as he did against Louis has to count for something.

This really is a hard to decade to rate. There is have a weird combination of inconsistent heavyweights (many lost multiple times to lesser fighters) and a high amount of light heavyweights who had some success against heavyweights.

When I get a chance, I will go over this more thoroughly. Also have a feeling we are missing someone else worth considering.

[Ambling Alp]

I guess this is what I will go with:

1. Louis
2. Charles
3. Walcott
4. Ray
5. Moore
6. Bivins
7. Conn
8. Pastor
9. Simon
10. Maxim
11. Thompson
12. Mauriello

Very difficult to rate many of these guys. Some had one or two good results but several losses to inferior fighters. You have several guys who were mostly light heavyweights but who had some notable success against heavyweights.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Lee Q Murray should easily be in the top 7