Top 100 Heavyweights

[pound per pound]

62. Jim Braddock vvvvvvvvvv

excuse me but thats the dumbest thing ive ever read on this board. braddock should be in the 40's. im sick of everyone calling him a one fight wonder, then they go ahead and rank buster douglas, who was even more of a one fight wonder, at 32. this is garbage and i want to hear someones reasoning. and dont tell me that its because heavyweights of today are better, because then this whole list is nul, because guys like vitali would be top 10.

How so? Braddock was in fact a game journeyman. His ring record was
46-24-4. Braddock only scored 26 KO's in 86 total fights. On film he doesn’t show much speed, skill, power, size, or defense.

Braddock won the title vs an apathetic Max Baer. Baer gave this fight away. One big under dubious circumstances does not vault a man into the top 50 of all time.

If you want to rank Braddock in the 40's, go for it. Just tell me where you rank the following fighters:

Al Stillman, Martin Levandowski, Hand Birkie, Lou Scozza, Tom Patrick, Tony Shucco, Charley Retzlaff, Baxter Calmes, Al Gainer, Joe Sekyra, Babe Hunt, Harold Mays, Billy Jones, Leo Lomski, Leo Lomski, Joe Sekyra, Joe Monte, and Paul Cavalier.

Of course these are just some of the men who beat Braddock. I can list several more.

You can not say with all sincerity that any of the above names are top 100 all time heavyweights. Yet they all beat Jimmy Braddock, a fighter who poster Rory McCloskey's insist must be a top 40-49 all time heavyweight.


As for Douglas, he Ko'd an undefeated Mike Tyson, and looked very good doing it. You do know that Tyson should rate over Baer correct? Douglas
beat some solid guys such as Berbick, McCall, Greg Page and Tex Cobb.
To call him a one fight wonder is ignorant.

Excuse me sir, I have company over and they are beginning to wonder why I am laughing so hard.

[BoxBuzz]

A thoughtful post Pound for Pound, however we tend to truly judge boxer not by their weakest moments but by their strongest moments.

A victory over a great champion will not secure your place in history above him unless you yourself went on to do bigger and better things.

Your point is well taken but it has a strong counterpoint.

[Rory McCloskey]

Berbick, McCall, Greg Page and Tex Cobb. yeah much better competition then max baer art lasky john henry louis tommy loughran jimmy slattery lou scouzza. cmon.

braddock was no journeyman and i think its absolutley ignorant for you to say this. the majority of his fights that he lost were fought with a shattered right hand. show me how many fights buster dougles, muhammad ali, for that matter win with a shattered hand. especially their power hand.

and im quite positive that more people on this site will agree that braddock deserves to be ranked in the 40's, rather then in the 80' or 90's or whever you want to put him... i want you to show me how many fighters in the 80's-90's of this list held a heavyweight title, are in the boxing HOF, beat 2 HOF, contended for title crowns in 2 weight classes, and did it all with the bigggest obstacle facing any champion in the history of boxing, i.e depression, the docks, shattered hand, max baer.

so whos laughing now?

[BoxBuzz]

I think one of Rory's points is well taken. The record alone and without qualifiers does not tell the whole story.

[dan the destroyer]

why discredit Miske? He was naturally bigger (6' 0'' 180-190 without weight gaining products) than many on the list.

Billy Miske ^^^

[pound per pound]

A thoughtful post Pound for Pound, however we tend to truly judge boxer not by their weakest moments but by their strongest moments.

A victory over a great champion will not secure your place in history above him unless you yourself went on to do bigger and better things.

Your point is well taken but it has a strong counterpoint.

After a low blow by Rory, I hope I did not come off to sharply. Baer wasn't always in there to win. Baer often clowned around, or was out boxed by other heavyweights. To call Baer a great champion is simply not true. Great champions do not get DQ’d, quit or throw away fights.

When properly motivated Baer was formidable. Other times he was a lack luster clown who smiled, mixed in back hands, and acted like he simply did not want to hurt the other guy, or risk being hit himself.

Reasons as to why are opinionated, but Baer killed two men in the ring. In my opinion that hurt Baer psychotically. Baer personality was not conducive to being a fighter before these tragic events..

I’d rank Baer in the top 25-40. Lots of guys beat Baer. Beating Baer once is noteworthy, but it does not vault the fighter in question into the top 100 list. An entire career must be validated, and if the fighter in question lost multiple times to journeyman, how good can he really be?

In truth, Baer was rarely motivated, save two fights. In his fight vs Schmeling, Baer was out to prove to the world that a Jew could beat a German in a fair fight. I have seen the TKO. It’s brutal. The other time Baer was extremely motivated was his title shot vs Carnera.

[pound per pound]

Rory McCloskey"]Berbick, McCall, Greg Page and Tex Cobb. yeah much better competition then max baer art lasky john henry louis tommy loughran jimmy slattery lou scouzza. cmon.

Hold on. If you want to compare Douglas' wins to Braddock’s', add in Mike Tyson. Tyson is far better than anyone Braddock ever beat. Let's be fair here. If you want to use the author’s list take note that Douglas holds wins over Tyson ( #14 ) and McCall # ( 53 ) . In fact Douglas is rated higher than Braddock.

It was nice of to duck a direct question of mine. I say again, where you rate the laundry list of journeyman who beat Braddock? If you’re not going to respond directly to what I say, this speaks volumes. A fighter’s career must be judges on wins and losses, not just one big win.

The fact that you felt the need to initially insult me makes me wonder why I should log on to post.

[Collins2000]

Pound For Pound, you make some good points. Don't get upset by the way some people talk on here, some people come across as a bit brusque but when you get to know them more they turn out OK. Rory fits that category for me. He sometimes appears to get angry but he does have a sense of humour and doesn't get upset.

The ones you have to watch out for are those who think their opinions are fact and who get upset when you disagree with them. They quickly resort to abuse too as their limited debating skill let them down. The name Silkov springs to mind for some reason.

[Rory McCloskey]

Rory McCloskey"]Berbick, McCall, Greg Page and Tex Cobb. yeah much better competition then max baer art lasky john henry louis tommy loughran jimmy slattery lou scouzza. cmon.

Hold on. If you want to compare Douglas' wins to Braddock’s', add in Mike Tyson. Tyson is far better than anyone Braddock ever beat. Let's be fair here. If you want to use the author’s list take note that Douglas holds wins over Tyson ( #14 ) and McCall # ( 53 ) . In fact Douglas is rated higher than Braddock.

It was nice of to duck a direct question of mine. I say again, where you rate the laundry list of journeyman who beat Braddock? If you’re not going to respond directly to what I say, this speaks volumes. A fighter’s career must be judges on wins and losses, not just one big win.

The fact that you felt the need to initially insult me makes me wonder why I should log on to post.

pound for pound, the guys you are asking me to rank are light heavyweights... so.??

[Rory McCloskey]

To call Baer a great champion is simply not true. Great champions do not get DQ’d, quit or throw away fights.

getting DQ'ed doesnt make you not a great champion. basically by saying this your saying that champions such as Tyson or Jack johnson or Baer. Theres many more im sure these are just the first that come to mind. boxers arent the most disciplined of athletes but you cant just throw away a guys career cause he got qisgualified or strayed from the path of what is right. you would be throwing away basically every early champion in boxing. the game use to be alot more brutal.

as for the braddock vs. baer fight....

baer did come to fight. he clowned around a bit only because he underestimated braddock. there is no evidence that baer quit or stopped trying. he simply would try to mess with braddocks head during the fight. there were plenty of rounds were baer came out full throttle and tried to pummel braddock. baer lost his confidence after the 11/12 round when he ended his best combo possible with his best punch possible, and braddock didnt budge. max baer didnt know what to do, he never faced anyone who was absolutley unfaced by this. some credit has to be given to braddock.

[Rory McCloskey]

Pound For Pound, you make some good points. Don't get upset by the way some people talk on here, some people come across as a bit brusque but when you get to know them more they turn out OK. Rory fits that category for me. He sometimes appears to get angry but he does have a sense of humour and doesn't get upset.

The ones you have to watch out for are those who think their opinions are fact and who get upset when you disagree with them. They quickly resort to abuse too as their limited debating skill let them down. The name Silkov springs to mind for some reason.

much thanks collins. i can be an ass i know, but its only when i get into heavy arguement i get defensive. i apologize cause we probly had some heated words.

[Rory McCloskey]

It was nice of to duck a direct question of mine. I say again, where you rate the laundry list of journeyman who beat Braddock? If you’re not going to respond directly to what I say, this speaks volumes. A fighter’s career must be judges on wins and losses, not just one big win.

ill say again. fighters of the past have more losses on their records, this is a well known fact. as for braddock, its not fair to rank him on his record. there is no way that a fighter like buster douglas would be able to have accomplished wat braddock did under those circumstances. in fact i doubt there really are many. braddock suffered from a SHATTERED right hand. im not quite sure why you wont accept that. your knocking a fighter for losing because he cant punch. and he has to fight because his kids need to eat. so what you suggest he do? many, i mean many of the losses could be exonerated. the fights from tommy loughran to abe feldman, this is were braddock began to suffer from a shattered hand and the depths of the depression.

so lets say we take that time period out. So now lets take a healthy braddock under normal conditions. His record is 35-5. Now ur asking me to list the lineup of "bums" that beat braddock?

Paul Cavalier- (newspaper gift decision. I still beleive this was an exhibition bout, read jim hague's jim braddock biography)

Lomski/Sekyra- 2 top contenders in the light heavyweight division.

Monte- they finished the series 1-1-1.

Ok theres 1 more bum, i cant exactly think of him. hes the only heavyweight to beat a prime braddock who wasnt suffering from a shattered right hand and the depths of the depression. although he did receive a shot to the arm to num it up before their fight... oh thats right it was Joe Louis. argueably the greatest heavyweight of all time, and he was young and ready to hit his prime

[silkov]

Pound For Pound, you make some good points. Don't get upset by the way some people talk on here, some people come across as a bit brusque but when you get to know them more they turn out OK. Rory fits that category for me. He sometimes appears to get angry but he does have a sense of humour and doesn't get upset.

The ones you have to watch out for are those who think their opinions are fact and who get upset when you disagree with them. They quickly resort to abuse too as their limited debating skill let them down. The name Silkov springs to mind for some reason.

BOLLOCKS!.

[Collins2000]

Pound For Pound, you make some good points. Don't get upset by the way some people talk on here, some people come across as a bit brusque but when you get to know them more they turn out OK. Rory fits that category for me. He sometimes appears to get angry but he does have a sense of humour and doesn't get upset.

The ones you have to watch out for are those who think their opinions are fact and who get upset when you disagree with them. They quickly resort to abuse too as their limited debating skill let them down. The name Silkov springs to mind for some reason.

BOLLOCKS!.

I rest my case...

[silkov]

Pound For Pound, you make some good points. Don't get upset by the way some people talk on here, some people come across as a bit brusque but when you get to know them more they turn out OK. Rory fits that category for me. He sometimes appears to get angry but he does have a sense of humour and doesn't get upset.

The ones you have to watch out for are those who think their opinions are fact and who get upset when you disagree with them. They quickly resort to abuse too as their limited debating skill let them down. The name Silkov springs to mind for some reason.

BOLLOCKS!.

I rest my case...

Ofcourse you do because you can't win. You've been left looking a bit silly on the Bruno thread haven't you. You like asking questions but don't like it when they're answered do you....

[pound per pound]

It was nice of to duck a direct question of mine. I say again, where you rate the laundry list of journeyman who beat Braddock? If you’re not going to respond directly to what I say, this speaks volumes. A fighter’s career must be judges on wins and losses, not just one big win.

ill say again. fighters of the past have more losses on their records, this is a well known fact. as for braddock, its not fair to rank him on his record. there is no way that a fighter like buster douglas would be able to have accomplished wat braddock did under those circumstances. in fact i doubt there really are many. braddock suffered from a SHATTERED right hand. im not quite sure why you wont accept that. your knocking a fighter for losing because he cant punch. and he has to fight because his kids need to eat. so what you suggest he do? many, i mean many of the losses could be exonerated. the fights from tommy loughran to abe feldman, this is were braddock began to suffer from a shattered hand and the depths of the depression.

so lets say we take that time period out. So now lets take a healthy braddock under normal conditions. His record is 35-5. Now ur asking me to list the lineup of "bums" that beat braddock?

Paul Cavalier- (newspaper gift decision. I still beleive this was an exhibition bout, read jim hague's jim braddock biography)

Lomski/Sekyra- 2 top contenders in the light heavyweight division.

Monte- they finished the series 1-1-1.

Ok theres 1 more bum, i cant exactly think of him. hes the only heavyweight to beat a prime braddock who wasnt suffering from a shattered right hand and the depths of the depression. although he did receive a shot to the arm to num it up before their fight... oh thats right it was Joe Louis. argueably the greatest heavyweight of all time, and he was young and ready to hit his prime

Not all fighters of the past have more losses on their records. Who told you this? Never deal with absolutes.

A quick review of Sullivan's, Jackson's, Jeffries’, Tunney's, Ryan's, Wilde's, Louis’, Ray Robinson’s, Leonard’s, and Gibson’s record will prove you wrong. I could list at least 20 more like em’. Every fighter has to deal with injuries or adversity. It wobbles the mind that your making up scenarios to exonerate Braddocks looses. If the deceased fighters who beat Braddock were reading this, they would be spinning in their graves.

Just face facts. Braddock was beaten far too often by journeyman to be considered a top 40-50 fighter. And who is to say that he did not get his share of " gift " decisions?

One more thing to consider. Styles make fights, and punchers can end them quickly. Braddock on film is not fast. He lacks power. He is small, and he is not very defensive. Having a great heart is not enough vs a class opponent. If numerous journeymen could beat Braddock in perhaps the worst heavyweight era of all time, he'd get clobbered in a more competitive heavyweight era.

[silkov]

It was nice of to duck a direct question of mine. I say again, where you rate the laundry list of journeyman who beat Braddock? If you’re not going to respond directly to what I say, this speaks volumes. A fighter’s career must be judges on wins and losses, not just one big win.

ill say again. fighters of the past have more losses on their records, this is a well known fact. as for braddock, its not fair to rank him on his record. there is no way that a fighter like buster douglas would be able to have accomplished wat braddock did under those circumstances. in fact i doubt there really are many. braddock suffered from a SHATTERED right hand. im not quite sure why you wont accept that. your knocking a fighter for losing because he cant punch. and he has to fight because his kids need to eat. so what you suggest he do? many, i mean many of the losses could be exonerated. the fights from tommy loughran to abe feldman, this is were braddock began to suffer from a shattered hand and the depths of the depression.

so lets say we take that time period out. So now lets take a healthy braddock under normal conditions. His record is 35-5. Now ur asking me to list the lineup of "bums" that beat braddock?

Paul Cavalier- (newspaper gift decision. I still beleive this was an exhibition bout, read jim hague's jim braddock biography)

Lomski/Sekyra- 2 top contenders in the light heavyweight division.

Monte- they finished the series 1-1-1.

Ok theres 1 more bum, i cant exactly think of him. hes the only heavyweight to beat a prime braddock who wasnt suffering from a shattered right hand and the depths of the depression. although he did receive a shot to the arm to num it up before their fight... oh thats right it was Joe Louis. argueably the greatest heavyweight of all time, and he was young and ready to hit his prime

Not all fighters of the past have more losses on their records. Who told you this? Never deal with absolutes.

A quick review of Sullivan's, Jackson's, Jeffries’, Tunney's, Ryan's, Wilde's, Louis’, Ray Robinson’s, Leonard’s, and Gibson’s record will prove you wrong. I could list at least 20 more like em’. Every fighter has to deal with injuries or adversity. It wobbles the mind that your making up scenarios to exonerate Braddocks looses. If the deceased fighters who beat Braddock were reading this, they would be spinning in their graves.

Just face facts. Braddock was beaten far too often by journeyman to be considered a top 40-50 fighter. And who is to say that he did not get his share of " gift " decisions?

One more thing to consider. Styles make fights, and punchers can end them quickly. Braddock on film is not fast. He lacks power. He is small, and he is not very defensive. Having a great heart is not enough vs a class opponent. If numerous journeymen could beat Braddock in perhaps the worst heavyweight era of all time, he'd get clobbered in a more competitive heavyweight era.

The truth is Braddock was a mediocre fighter with a decent punch and big heart but nothing more. To compare Braddock with say, Sullivan is foolishness.

[Rory McCloskey]

were not comparing braddock to sullivan we are comparing him to buster douglas, and the rest of the heavyweights ranked in the 80's 70's 90's on this list

[silkov]

were not comparing braddock to sullivan we are comparing him to buster douglas, and the rest of the heavyweights ranked in the 80's 70's 90's on this list

Then he is still mediocre. I'm not having a go at you Rory but have you actually seen much of the heavyweights of the 80s?.... have you watched Holmes title fights?. I have and the fighters he faced were very good indeed. He faced all sizes and all styles including the best boxers and hardest punchers of the era. Shavers is probably the hardest puncher the division has seen and Weaver, snipes, and Cooney are not far behind.

[Rory McCloskey]

silkov, i understand that holmes was a great fighter, but when i think great opponents...

renadlo snipes
tex cobb
gerry conney
tim witherspoon
marvis frazier
david bey
bonecrusher smith

...dont come to mind. although im not sure were holmes came out of this.

buster douglas was more of a 1 fight wonder than James Walter Braddock, and thats final. Braddock fought Hof's, was a top contender in 2 weight classes which were full of talent. won a heavyweight title. lost in his only defence to JOE LOUIS. buster douglas was embarrased by evander in his first defense. douglas ONLY highly regarded win was against tyson, a fight that he wasnt winning on the scorecards when he ko'd tyson.

you might say that he beat McCall(who was only 13-2 at the time, and who i never thought was anything near a great fighter.) and that he beat
Trevor berbick, whos claim to fame is beating pinklon thomas for the WBC, then losing it in his first test.

[Ambling Alp]

Thanks to everyone who replied to this post. I thought I would respond to the opinions that were contrary to my ratings.

Peter Jackson should hvae been higher 0 Yes that was probably my biggest oversight. I should have had him rated around 30-35, not in the 50's.

Joe Goddard should be in the top 100. Yes, I've now came to that conclusion as well. He twice ko'd Choynski and also Maher. Probably should be rated in the 80's.

Tommy Morrison should have been rated. I almost put him in and have now decided that he is worthy.

The following fighter were suggest that should be put in the top 100

Otto Von Porat -Interesting pick, but if you look at hgis record there is not much noteworthy.
Ike Ibeauchi- He did beat Byrd and Tua, but his career was really to brief to knowe how how to rate him.
Gus Ruhlin- Another guy that I seriously considered, but in the end I just don't think he did quite enough.
Tommy Gibbons- Same as Ruhlin.
Arturo Godoy-Except for going the distance with Louis, his best wins were against Galento and a washed up Firpo. That's just not enough.
Battling Levinsky Great lightheavy, but really no big wins against heavyweights.
Jimmy Bivins- Same as Levinsky.

- Other comments about a fighter being rated too high or low.
Jim Braddock- I had him at #62. Some say too high, some too low. Well, he has to be in the top 100. Wins are Baer, Farr, and the respectable performance against Louis are in his favor. Obiously, he had some bad losses to to a lot of journeyman. So I think #62 is about right.
He wasn't as good as Buster Douglas. douglas biggest win (over Tyson) was much impressive more than Braddocks over Baer. Douglas other big wins over Page, Berbick and MCCall are much more impressive than any of Braddocks wins except for the one over Baer.

As for Frank Bruno, its a closer call, but he was 40-5, and all 5 losses were to good opponents. He 2 losses to Tyson, 1 to Smith, and in his losses to Lewis and Witherspoon he was very competitive. He did beat Coetzee and McCall, and always beat the guys he should have, which is something Braddock often didn't do.
Braddocks wins over Slattery and Lasky are really nothing to be impressed about.

Billy Miske was another guy that people had diverse opinions about. I think you could make a good arguement that he deserves to be a little higher than the #92 that I had him at, but not a lot.

Someone didn't think Chuvalo should be rated at all. Well victories over Quarry, Jones a close loss to Patterson in a great fight, never being knocked down in 93 fights are enough to get him rated.

There was also an opinion that Bonavena didn't deserved to be rated. I feel that his wins over, Mildenberger, Chavalo, and Leotis Martin, and almost beating Frazier is enough.

Bruce Seldon was also mentioned. He had some bad fights, but I still feel that he did just enough to be in the top 100.

Leon Spinks and Jim Flynn were mentioned as guys who didn't deserve to be in the top 100 and I have now came to that conclusion as well.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

i actualy think roland lastarza should be higher, i watched him on film he get his hands high, great boxing and defensive skills, he looked very good on film. i would rate him in the 50s area. i think lastarza could possibly outpoint machen. i thought lastarza was a lot better than rex layne.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

elmer ray is too low, he should be in the top 50.


he beat a prime walcott and charles, and too bad he never got to fight louis for the title because of the war years. ray scored an amazing 70 KOs out of 85 wins. one of the hardest hitters of that era









but hell of a list, i agree with almost all of it

[barry]

Gus Ruhlin, Tommy Gibbons, Battling Levinsky & Jimmy Bivins all should be top 100. I might go into it more in-depth tomorrow, but as a quicky...Bat Levinsky has many wins over some of the best heavyweights of the teens, Bivins was consistenly rated in the top ten for many years, Gibbons was one of the better pure boxers ever and Ruhlin was one of the top ten, possibly top five of his era!

[Rory McCloskey]

ill say it again..you cant rank braddock solely on his record. if you just look at his record and his championship, then you probly just rank him inside top 100 just for the hell of it. but you have to disect his career and understand his full capabilities..i have nothing else to say on this matter. braddock should be somewhere in the 40's instead of the 80's or 90's like other people seem to think. but noone listens so why post