Which heavyweight champ had the weakest title challengers ??

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 19 Jan 2006, 02:18

Decagon wrote:Jeez. You're like a fundamentalist Christian telling an atheist, "there's no PROOF that God doesn't exist!"

Your wit and charm are boundless. One more time for your many fans. Exactly what is it that you teach?

barry · Post by **barry** » 19 Jan 2006, 02:51

Jorge Luis Gonzalez was very experienced but as a professional he fell way short, just like Rademacher, who never won an important bout in his career. Gonzalez did have several fights before facing a test...the same cannot be said for Rademacher for he would more than likely would have lost...as he usually did when tested, but he was possibly, probably at the very top of the list of worst challengers...and true he was knocked down several times in the bout with Patterson, but he also managed to drop Patterson...a seasoned great like Tunney would easily handle Patterson, but Patterson did face a couple of very worthy challengers and was brutalized in couple of those bouts. Patterson falls into the realm of not having to good of a chin. But without question, the absolutely worst competition would be from one of the alphabet title holders.

cybox · Post by **cybox** » 19 Jan 2006, 09:11

what about Floyd Patterson?

He faced
Tommy Jackson
Pete Radmacher 0-0
Roy Harris
Brian London
Ingemar Johnassen
Tom McNeely

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 19 Jan 2006, 15:01

cybox wrote:what about Floyd Patterson?

He faced
Tommy Jackson
Pete Radmacher 0-0
Roy Harris
Brian London
Ingemar Johnassen
Tom McNeely

Read my post at the top of this page. I basically argue that, though Patterson clearly did not have anywhere near the best competition of a long reigning heavyweight, based on how deserving his opponents were of title shots he wasn't the worst either. I gave him an overall grade of C. Johansson was very deserving of a title shot, and even more so for the third fight. Liston was the #1 contender for years. Hurricane Jackson hade a legitimate claim to a title shot. Roy Harris faced largely weak competition, but was young, undefeated, and had beaten a future light heavyweight champion. London and McNeely were definitely NOT deserving of title shots.

And as for Rademacher...well...yeah...that's just wrong

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 19 Jan 2006, 15:05

jack johnson belongs at the top of the list, i mean he never faced mcvey, jeanette, or langford during his title reign and a couple others that were more deserving.

tommy burns defintley is up at the top, veyr weak title defenses

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 19 Jan 2006, 18:49

Decagon wrote:But during Johnson's reign, there were few or no "top ten" lists, and I don't know of any rankings that were published and updated monthly until Ring magazine in the 1920s. Usually, the top contenders were the World Light Heavyweight Champion and the World Middleweight Champion. Those guys always got a shot at the title, and Johnson faced both of them. Johnson also faced former World Heavyweight Champion (and still Lineal World Champion), Jim Jeffries. Flynn, Johnson and Moran weren't exactly nobodies, either.

Let's not forget the newspaper decision that Stanley Ketchell got over Sam Langford. That was a heavyweight eliminator of sorts; some say that Langford held off a bit so that the two could fight 40 or 50 rounds in California, but he didn't know that Ketchell would die soon thereafter.

ya but they were no jeanettes, langfords, or mcveys. not even close. those are the guys that should have got title shots. what i dont understand is why a black fighter like jim johnson got a shot but not the better black fighters like a jeanette or langford?

the best fighters johnson faced were jack o brien and ketchell but they were both middleweights.

barry · Post by **barry** » 19 Jan 2006, 19:19

>>>Let's not forget the newspaper decision that Stanley Ketchell got over Sam Langford.<<<

Stanley Ketchel did not win the newspaper decision. Half of the papers said Langford had the better of the bout and half said Ketchel had the better of the bout and many said it was even...if anything it was a draw, but Ketchel most certainly did not beat Langford or get the newspaper decision. While all the papers were half and half as to who had the better of the bout they all were pretty much in agreement that Langford was holding back and not giving his all as he had hoped to get a 20+ round bout with Ketchel for the title, but that never happened!

barry · Post by **barry** » 19 Jan 2006, 19:25

>>>what i dont understand is why a black fighter like jim johnson got a shot but not the better black fighters like a jeanette or langford?<<<

In most cases, the fighter just got lucky to be the best available competition and who just happened to be in the same part of a certain country at the right time. There were many fighters who got title shots in that time period simply because they were just in the right place at the right time, which Battling Jim Johnson falls into that category, but if the bout had occured today then Battling Jim Johnson would be champion as Johnson was forced to retire because of a shoulder injury and instead of a TKO over Johnson it was called a draw!

JC · Post by JC » 19 Jan 2006, 19:39

BoxBuzz wrote:Blocky I'll give you arguing rights on Patterson though I'll never sign on, But Carnera is just a matter of hitting the books and watching the films.
I admit my bias regarding patterson, but with Carnera it's purely a clinical skills call, no more no less.

Sorry BoxBuzz, you've probably explained it before but what have you got against Patterson? He was an exciting fighter and I always thought one of the more likeable champs, despite the odd error of judgement ie pre the ali fight.

barry · Post by **barry** » 19 Jan 2006, 20:20

Well I can tell you this...many papers don't matter because they are just passed on reports, but from those papers that were at ringside in Philadelphia well they are the ones that count. I have several accounts from different newspapers for the fight of which I might sit down and go through them and count, but I don't really need to, I'll already know what they say...some were in favor of Ketchel and some were in favor of Langford and other than the fact that most felt that Langford was certainly holding back none of them give enough advantage to one fighter good to enough to call one of the fighters the winner...the bout was very even and that is what all the newspapers that I have read say. Now exactly what source do you base your statement on?

barry · Post by **barry** » 19 Jan 2006, 20:55

Here are two Philadelphia newspapers ringside accounts of the fight, if I can get the image to come up!

Well I cannot get them to come up so if someone else knows how to upload photo's then send me a pm with your e-mail and I'll send you the two fight reports.

http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/bc/43911803_6a ... DBTJwoInl_

barry · Post by **barry** » 19 Jan 2006, 21:38

Here are some other newspaper results and how they listed the fight. Feel free to look them up if you wish, or any other papers for that matter:

Boston Globe—Langford Won
Chicago Tribune—Langford Won
Los Angeles Times—Langford Won
Nebraska State Journal—Called it very close, but if a winner were to be named it would be Langford.
Gettysburg Times—Langford Won
Philadelphia Record--Langford Won

Unknown Philadelphia Newspaper--Ketchel Won
Washington Post—Ketchel Won

Atlanta Constitution—Draw
New York Times—Draw
Syracuse Post Standard—Draw
Reno Evening Gazette—Draw

Two, or three months ago you said the exact same thing in that Ketchel won the newspaper decision and I told you then that was incorrect and that Ketchel did not win...well you didn't choose to listen to me then and you come right back and make the same incorrect statement again, but what do you say now with irrefutable proof?

That is why I say that people can tell very, very little, except for win, or lost, from a fighters record and you can not tell anything from one line on a record, which I am assuming that you are going by the record for Ketchel on the CBZ, since that was what you used as your source in your determination of Klondike as a fighter, which the CBZ record states that Ketchel was better, but like I always say...just looking at a record will not tell you anything about a fight!

If anything Langford had the better of the fight according to a large majority of reports, but anytime there are mixed results in ND bouts and the writers pretty much agree on it being a close bout then I will list the newspaper decision as a draw, which is the only fair way to call it. I would prefer that it was a win for Langford, but since a primary source gave Ketchel the nod and another gave Langford the nod then to call it in favor of one would just be bias toward that fighter! But one thing is certain; it was not a newspaper decision for Ketchel!

barry · Post by **barry** » 19 Jan 2006, 21:43

The other:

http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/bc/43911803_6a ... DBIMqZNYw7

barry · Post by **barry** » 20 Jan 2006, 09:19

Your welcome. Just curious and not trying to be a smart ass, but will you now say that Ketchel won the decision?

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 20 Jan 2006, 09:30

barry-i can't find the weights for this fight.do you know what they weighed?.i'm sure the report i have says langford outweighed ketchel by more than ten pounds but doesn't say what sam actually did weigh.it also says langford was a lightheavy at this point of his career,could he have gone back down to middle and be as effective as he was in the heavies?

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 20 Jan 2006, 09:32

dalek wrote:barry-i can't find the weights for this fight.do you know what they weighed?.i'm sure the report i have says langford outweighed ketchel by more than ten pounds but doesn't say what sam actually did weigh.it also says langford was a lightheavy at this point of his career,could he have gone back down to middle and be as effective as he was in the heavies?

Great question

barry · Post by **barry** » 20 Jan 2006, 09:39

I don't know off the top of my head what they weights were, but I'll see what I can find. Actually I don't know if I have seen their weights, or not, but in 1910 if he was much over 160, Langford could have fairly easily gotten down to the middleweight limit as he had not balloned up in weight at that point and being still that early in his career if he had trained that hard to get down to 160 he would have been an monster to go against...especially if it had been for a world title. He may have had a difficult time, but I think that had he gotten a shot for Ketchel's title then Ketchel would have been in big, big trouble as I think Langford could have taken him out just as easily as Johnson did, when he wanted to. Ketchel was one of the greatest middleweights ever, but I just don't think he could hang with Langford if Langford was at his very best!

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 20 Jan 2006, 10:11

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Decagon wrote:But during Johnson's reign, there were few or no "top ten" lists, and I don't know of any rankings that were published and updated monthly until Ring magazine in the 1920s. Usually, the top contenders were the World Light Heavyweight Champion and the World Middleweight Champion. Those guys always got a shot at the title, and Johnson faced both of them. Johnson also faced former World Heavyweight Champion (and still Lineal World Champion), Jim Jeffries. Flynn, Johnson and Moran weren't exactly nobodies, either.

Let's not forget the newspaper decision that Stanley Ketchell got over Sam Langford. That was a heavyweight eliminator of sorts; some say that Langford held off a bit so that the two could fight 40 or 50 rounds in California, but he didn't know that Ketchell would die soon thereafter.

ya but they were no jeanettes, langfords, or mcveys. not even close. those are the guys that should have got title shots. what i dont understand is why a black fighter like jim johnson got a shot but not the better black fighters like a jeanette or langford?

the best fighters johnson faced were jack o brien and ketchell but they were both middleweights.

So Johnsons opposition is worst than Pattersons and Carneras?.... very strange.... how about Moran and Jeffries?.... they weren't Middleweights, nor was Jim Johnson... and unless you don't know Johnson beat Mcvey, Langford and others before he won the title...... if he had defended the title against them you would probab;y say that he kept fighting the same people!.....

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 20 Jan 2006, 13:09

So Johnsons opposition is worst than Pattersons and Carneras?.... very strange.... how about Moran and Jeffries?.... they weren't Middleweights, nor was Jim Johnson... and unless you don't know Johnson beat Mcvey, Langford and others before he won the title...... if he had defended the title against them you would probab;y say that he kept fighting the same people!.....

well carnera had too little title defenses to really judge. was it worst than pattersons? no. i would say its about the same. patterson did defend against INGO whose better than anyon johnson defended against.

and unless you don't know Johnson beat Mcvey, Langford and others before he won the titl

unless u dont know, johnson beat them all when they were inexperienced and green, and in langfords case when he was underweight.

if he had defended the title against them you would probab;y say that he kept fighting the same people!

no i would say johnson completely wiped out his era.

how about Moran and Jeffries?.... they weren't Middleweights, nor was Jim Johnson.

moran was a good fighter but there were more deserving challengers than him. jeffries was shot. jim johnson was a big heavyweight and a good fighter but he wasnt close to the same league as jeanette, langford, or wills.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 20 Jan 2006, 13:33

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

So Johnsons opposition is worst than Pattersons and Carneras?.... very strange.... how about Moran and Jeffries?.... they weren't Middleweights, nor was Jim Johnson... and unless you don't know Johnson beat Mcvey, Langford and others before he won the title...... if he had defended the title against them you would probab;y say that he kept fighting the same people!.....

well carnera had too little title defenses to really judge. was it worst than pattersons? no. i would say its about the same. patterson did defend against INGO whose better than anyon johnson defended against.

and unless you don't know Johnson beat Mcvey, Langford and others before he won the titl

unless u dont know, johnson beat them all when they were inexperienced and green, and in langfords case when he was underweight.

if he had defended the title against them you would probab;y say that he kept fighting the same people!

no i would say johnson completely wiped out his era.

how about Moran and Jeffries?.... they weren't Middleweights, nor was Jim Johnson.
moran was a good fighter but there were more deserving challengers than him. jeffries was shot. jim johnson was a big heavyweight and a good fighter but he wasnt close to the same league as jeanette, langford, or wills.

Johnson was young himself when he beat Langford and co... the reason he didn't fight them again was because their was no call for such a match... people were only interested in seeing a white man win back the world title... thats why they had the 'negro' heavyweight title.

Also most of Primos fights were fixed.... one of his defences was against a light-heavy 100 pounds lighter than him!.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 20 Jan 2006, 13:38

silkov wrote:Also most of Primos fights were fixed.... one of his defences was against a light-heavy 100 pounds lighter than him!.

Ah yes, but Loughran was one very fine LH!!

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 20 Jan 2006, 13:59

The Great John L wrote:
silkov wrote:Also most of Primos fights were fixed.... one of his defences was against a light-heavy 100 pounds lighter than him!.
Ah yes, but Loughran was one very fine LH!!

Without a doubt but he was more or less shot by the time he fought Primo. I actually have a lot of respect for Primo the man, and theres no doubt he had a lot of heart, which he showed against Louis for instance, but to denigrate Johnsons title reign in preference for say Carnera's is ridiculous really. Why don't we talk about Dempsey not fighting Wills or an aging Langford? at all, not just during his reign....

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 20 Jan 2006, 14:07

silkov wrote:
The Great John L wrote:
silkov wrote:Also most of Primos fights were fixed.... one of his defences was against a light-heavy 100 pounds lighter than him!.
Ah yes, but Loughran was one very fine LH!!
Without a doubt but he was more or less shot by the time he fought Primo. I actually have a lot of respect for Primo the man, and theres no doubt he had a lot of heart, which he showed against Louis for instance, but to denigrate Johnsons title reign in preference for say Carnera's is ridiculous really. Why don't we talk about Dempsey not fighting Wills or an aging Langford? at all, not just during his reign....

well the only blot on dempseys title reign is not fighting wills, but fact is dempsey and wills signed to meet, but the match fell through due to the promoters. at least dempsey signed for the match. dempsey was still young in 1917 when he turned down the langford offer. i dont think dempsey reached his peak until 1918. i guess u could say dempsey should have fought kid norfolk as well but the puclic wasnt craving for the match.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 20 Jan 2006, 14:17

silkov wrote:
The Great John L wrote:
silkov wrote:Also most of Primos fights were fixed.... one of his defences was against a light-heavy 100 pounds lighter than him!.
Ah yes, but Loughran was one very fine LH!!
Without a doubt but he was more or less shot by the time he fought Primo. I actually have a lot of respect for Primo the man, and theres no doubt he had a lot of heart, which he showed against Louis for instance, but to denigrate Johnsons title reign in preference for say Carnera's is ridiculous really. Why don't we talk about Dempsey not fighting Wills or an aging Langford? at all, not just during his reign....

Oh I agree with you completely. Johnson also had the added burden of not being able to set foot in the US for most of his title reign, which made it harder to fight the top challengers. I was just sticking up for Loughran, who you didn't even name. And while Tommy was on the down side of his career he still had enough to beat Sharkey, Hamas and Levinsky in the 18 months or so before the Carnera fight. So he did have something left going into the title fight.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 20 Jan 2006, 14:22

The Great John L wrote:
silkov wrote:
The Great John L wrote: Ah yes, but Loughran was one very fine LH!!
Without a doubt but he was more or less shot by the time he fought Primo. I actually have a lot of respect for Primo the man, and theres no doubt he had a lot of heart, which he showed against Louis for instance, but to denigrate Johnsons title reign in preference for say Carnera's is ridiculous really. Why don't we talk about Dempsey not fighting Wills or an aging Langford? at all, not just during his reign....
Oh I agree with you completely. Johnson also had the added burden of not being able to set foot in the US for most of his title reign, which made it harder to fight the top challengers. I was just sticking up for Loughran, who you didn't even name. And while Tommy was on the down side of his career he still had enough to beat Sharkey, Hamas and Levinsky in the 18 months or so before the Carnera fight. So he did have something left going into the title fight.

i dont care about the big size advantage carnera had on tommy, how did he beat tommy? tommy was beating guys like max baer but losing to carnera? did tommy getting his toe broken during the fight cause him to slow down and not be able to fight his best fight?