The dominant heavyweights, 1889-today

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 13 Apr 2006, 19:23

This is relevant for several reasons:

(i) until the 1930s the "color line" didn't allow black fighters to become world champions, with one exception (Jack Johnson);

(ii) world champions avoided superior contenders (e.g., Patterson avoided Liston); decisions went the wrong way (e.g., Sharkey-Schmeling 1932); better men didn't take fights seriously and lost even most would have expected them to win the refight (e.g., Baer-Walcott, Lewis-Rahman)

(iii) multiple champions due to the ABC-belt-inflation from the 1960s onward.

Here is my attempt. The underlying question is "who would have been betting favorite among informed (and color blind) boxing fans in a top heavyweight tourney". Comments welcome.

-----------------------------------

1889-1892 John L. Sullivan
1892-1894 Peter Jackson (considered better than Corbett till about 94)
1894-1897 James Corbett
1897-1899 Bob Fitzsimmons
1899-1903 Jim Jeffries

1903-1912 Jack Johnson (openly ducked by Jeffries)
1912-1916 Sam Langford (Johnson deteriorated, didin't give Langford another shot)
1916-1924 Harry Wills (Started to beat Langford from 1916 with some regularity. Willard and Dempsey ducked Wills. Deteriorated from 1924)
1924-1926 Jack Dempsey
1926-1928 Gene Tunney

1928-1929 VACANT (no obvious candidate around)
1929-1931 Jack Sharkey (took over with Stribling win, still held in higher regard than Schmeling after their first bout)
1931-1933 Max Schmeling (took over with KO over Stribling that convinced most doubter; 1932 loss to Sharkey was widely seen as robbery)
1933-1935 Max Baer (Braddock loss was seen as due to lack of preparation)
1935-1947 Joe Louis (takes over with knockout of Baer. Schmeling loss cost him but he was still considered the best heavyweight)

1947-1948 Jersey Joe Walcott (lost a fight to Louis that most thought he had won)
1948-1949 Joe Louis (the first to come back)
1949-1951 Ezzard Charles
1951-1952 Jersey Joe Walcott
1952-1956 Rocky Marciano

1956-1959 Floyd Patterson (there are doubts - avoided Folley, Machen; but there was no dominant challenger before 1960)
1959-1960 Ingemar Johannson (borderline - many considered Patterson's loss a slip, as it turned out to be)
1960-1964 Sonny Liston (ducked by Patterson, after victory over Folley widely considered the best heavyweight)
1964-1970 Muhammad Ali
1970-1973 Joe Frazier (since the Ellis win)

1973-1974 George Foreman
1974-1978 Muhammad Ali
1978-1985 Larry Holmes
1985-1986 Michael Spinks
1986-1990 Mike Tyson

1990-1992 Evander Holyfield
1992-1993 Riddick Bowe
1993-1994 Evander Holyfield
1994-1995 VACANT (all contenders lost big fights in 94 - Holyfield, Moorer, Lewis and there is noone obvious to pick)
1995-1996 Mike Tyson

1996-1999 Evander Holyfield
1999-2004 Lennox Lewis
2004-2006 Vitali Klitschko
Currently VACANT

--------------------

Fighers with 3 years or more as the dominant heavyweight:

13 years: Joe Louis
10 years: Muhammad Ali
9 years: Jack Johnson
8 years: Harry Wills
7 years: Larry Holmes
6 years: Evander Holyfield
5 years: Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis
4 years: Jim Jeffries, Sam Langford, Rocky Marciano, Sonny Liston
3 years: John Sullivan, James Corbett, Floyd Patterson, Joe Frazier

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Apr 2006, 19:43

actually marciano dominated 4 years 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and then he retired in 1956

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 14 Apr 2006, 02:29

Decagon wrote:Vitali Klitschko didn't dominate shit. He lost to Byrd and Lewis, and beat a couple of fringe contenders. And Dempsey didn't duck Harry Wills. He signed to fight him twice.

agreed

RowanSmith · Post by **RowanSmith** » 14 Apr 2006, 02:45

Decagon wrote:Vitali Klitschko didn't dominate shit. He lost to Byrd and Lewis, and beat a couple of fringe contenders. And Dempsey didn't duck Harry Wills. He signed to fight him twice.

Will Dempsey fans ever get over the fact that he ducked Harry Wills?

The Scranton Assassin · Post by **The Scranton Assassin** » 14 Apr 2006, 05:40

What do you mean by Joe Louis was "the first to come back?"

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 14 Apr 2006, 09:49

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Decagon wrote:Vitali Klitschko didn't dominate shit. He lost to Byrd and Lewis, and beat a couple of fringe contenders. And Dempsey didn't duck Harry Wills. He signed to fight him twice.
agreed

He took as THE MAN at heavyweight over after Lewis retired. 7 or 8 out of 10 boxing fans would subscribe to that view; this is more approval than most "dominant" champs had most of the time.

And OF COURSE did Demspey duck Wills, from at least 1916 througn 1924. This is really silly to dispute. He himself admitted so openly, and he also admitted that he didn't want a part of Sam Langford in the late 1910s. It was only from 1924 - after 5 years of denying Wills a shot at the title - that Dempsey did agree to negotiate a fight (when Wills was visibly slowing), still banking on Tex Rickards to prevent that fight from happening - as it turned out in the end.

I do one correction though: Schmeling didn't take over in 1930 but in 1931. After the first Sharkey fight most believed Sharkey would have beaten Schmeling without the foul. Only after Schmeling knocked out Stribling, and Shrakey struggled with Walker, did people come around to the view that Schmeling was the better fighter; and he entered the rematch as betting favorite.

P

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 14 Apr 2006, 09:49

The Scranton Assassin wrote:What do you mean by Joe Louis was "the first to come back?"

The first who was written off as the dominant heavyweight and who reclaimed that position.

P

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 14 Apr 2006, 09:53

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:actually marciano dominated 4 years 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and then he retired in 1956

Point taken. Will correct it.
P

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 14 Apr 2006, 13:54

pundit wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Decagon wrote:Vitali Klitschko didn't dominate shit. He lost to Byrd and Lewis, and beat a couple of fringe contenders. And Dempsey didn't duck Harry Wills. He signed to fight him twice.
agreed
He took as THE MAN at heavyweight over after Lewis retired. 7 or 8 out of 10 boxing fans would subscribe to that view; this is more approval than most "dominant" champs had most of the time.

It seems an incredible stretch to have Vitali in this list. I think 9 out of 10 boxing fans would say that there hasn't been a dominant HW since Lewis retired.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 14 Apr 2006, 14:02

The Great John L wrote:
pundit wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: agreed
He took as THE MAN at heavyweight over after Lewis retired. 7 or 8 out of 10 boxing fans would subscribe to that view; this is more approval than most "dominant" champs had most of the time.
It seems an incredible stretch to have Vitali in this list. I think 9 out of 10 boxing fans would say that there hasn't been a dominant HW since Lewis retired.

Look, I avoided to put "vacant" in there whereever I could. There were several spells without a clear champ - say, 1927-1930 - but people still knew who they would have favored in a heavyweight tourney for the #1 spot. Identifying this person is the objective of this exercise, no more and no less. Only in one year - 1994 - did I find it impossible to identify that person. 2003-2005 it is possible, and it is Vitali Klitschko.

This leaves totally untouched the fact that heavyweight boxing is in a dire state, and per implication that the #1 of 2003-05 can't measure up to most #1s of the past.

P

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 14 Apr 2006, 14:19

pundit wrote:Look, I avoided to put "vacant" in there whereever I could. There were several spells without a clear champ - say, 1927-1930 - but people still knew who they would have favored in a heavyweight tourney for the #1 spot. Identifying this person is the objective of this exercise, no more and no less. Only in one year - 1994 - did I find it impossible to identify that person. 2003-2005 it is possible, and it is Vitali Klitschko.

This leaves totally untouched the fact that heavyweight boxing is in a dire state, and per implication that the #1 of 2003-05 can't measure up to most #1s of the past.

P

OK, I see. This is simply saying that YOU considered him the top guy 2003-2005, not necessarily that anyone else did. I can’t think of too many people that would have anointed him as THE MAN given his dubious resume and his earlier loss to another title claimant of that period. Or am I missing something?

Dempsey1238 · Post by **Dempsey1238** » 14 Apr 2006, 14:38

I think Corbett and Jackson are about even, they did fight to a 61 draw. And they both did try to get togetor for the title, but Corbett wanted the fight in America, and Jackson wanted it over seas. So it fell though.
Corbett wanted it in San Fansco.

Dont think Corbett used the color bar, he just sat on the title.
Not sure how the rematch would have turn out.

John L would have indeed lost to Jackson in 1892, as he was shot.

Not sure if Wills would beat Dempsey from 1919-24.

Will point out, they BOTH decline at about the same time. So if Wills WAS the better fighter, and going with no bad desions, and color bar ete. Wills could rein from 1919-1926 or so. If Wills sat on the title for 3 years and all.

Patterson duck a lot of the top contenders of the 50's when champ. and when Patterson beat Folly, Folley was pretty much used up.

Not sure how the Willard/Johnson rein would turn out if they fought the best black fighters. I think Johnson is bound to lose to one of top black fighters or white fighters Johnson duck. OF couse he could regain the title.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 14 Apr 2006, 14:41

im sick of this patterson shit, no way machen or folley beats patterson.

i suggest seeing patterson vs machen 1964, machen wasnt shot yet took one of the biggest beatings of all time getting knocked down 4 times, outboxed and beaten the shit out of.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 14 Apr 2006, 15:05

Vitali Klitsckho never fought past 2004 so shouldn't his "reign" be considered from 2003-2004?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 14 Apr 2006, 15:07

Decagon wrote:Patterson still ducked them. Folley and Johannsen are about even in my book. If Ingo could beat Floyd, Folley could.

ingo was much better than folley. ingo flattened MACHEN in one round. ingo was never knocked out 4 times in his prime by B level fighters or light-H. ingo flattened henry cooper easily, cooper beat folley. ingo would have knocked glass jaw folley out quick. ingo was in a different class and A MUCH much harder puncher than folley. two different styles as well. folley didnt have the firepower to threaten floyd.

patterson KO 4 folley

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 14 Apr 2006, 15:09

Decagon wrote:Patterson still ducked them. Folley and Johannsen are about even in my book. If Ingo could beat Floyd, Folley could.

This makes NO sense. They were totally different types of fighters. Ingo was a rather limited fighter, with an OK jab and was a very hard puncher with his right. Folley was a good boxer with a so-so punch and very average chin.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 14 Apr 2006, 15:45

evndrbsn wrote:Vitali Klitsckho never fought past 2004 so shouldn't his "reign" be considered from 2003-2004?

Because he retired in early 2006 only; and until then he would have been betting faovite. However, Lewis announced his retirement in early 2004 only and has to be considered "dominant" till then. I will change this accordingly.

P

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 14 Apr 2006, 15:53

The Great John L wrote:
pundit wrote:Look, I avoided to put "vacant" in there whereever I could. There were several spells without a clear champ - say, 1927-1930 - but people still knew who they would have favored in a heavyweight tourney for the #1 spot. Identifying this person is the objective of this exercise, no more and no less. Only in one year - 1994 - did I find it impossible to identify that person. 2003-2005 it is possible, and it is Vitali Klitschko.

This leaves totally untouched the fact that heavyweight boxing is in a dire state, and per implication that the #1 of 2003-05 can't measure up to most #1s of the past.

P
OK, I see. This is simply saying that YOU considered him the top guy 2003-2005, not necessarily that anyone else did. I can’t think of too many people that would have anointed him as THE MAN given his dubious resume and his earlier loss to another title claimant of that period. Or am I missing something?

No,. it doesn't say this. It says that - as far as I can tell - between Lewis' and his own retirement Vitali Klitschko would have been considered the betting favorite in a heavyweight tournament for the number 1 spot.

Really, this appears pretty undisputable to me. Choices for other years - say, 1930, 1947, 1959, 1995 - seem much less clear in contrast.

But dispute it if you wish - there is obviously an element of subjectivity in this one as in any listing.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 15 Apr 2006, 17:16

Interesting post, and a great job, Pundit.
I would make a few small changes that I don't believe anyone has mentioned yet.

I don't believe that Johnson was the best in 1903. Johnson hadn't quite proven himself as the best yet. Jeffries was still showing no signs signs of slowing, I would go with Jeffries until 1905. By then I would rate Johnson the best even if Jeffries wouldn't haven't retired.

Sharkey wasn't "the man" in 1927. He lost to Dempsey that year, and Tunney didn't retire until 1928, after easily beating Heeney. Sharkey had a draw with Heeney and lost to Risko in 1928. It wasn't atleast until 1929 (After he beat Stribling and Loughran) that Sharkey was the best.

Don't see how Tyson can be seen as the best in 1995. He was coming off his prison sentence and only beat McNeeley and Mathis in 1995. That really doesn't prove anything. Lewis, Bowe, and Holyfield were better and would have beaten him. Betting odds may have been with Tyson over these 3, but most serious fans knew Tyson wasn't the best.

Still, overall very good.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 15 Apr 2006, 22:23

Decagon wrote:Again, why is Klitschko listed as the best fighter of 2005 simply because he'd be a betting favorite against anyone else, while Dempsey, who EASILY would've been a betting favorite against anyone else from 1918 to 1924, isn't? Dempsey wanted to fight Wills just as much as Klitschko wanted to fight Hasim Rahman.

Now your last sentence is REALLY retarded.
P

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 15 Apr 2006, 22:32

Ambling Alp wrote:Interesting post, and a great job, Pundit.
I would make a few small changes that I don't believe anyone has mentioned yet.

I don't believe that Johnson was the best in 1903. Johnson hadn't quite proven himself as the best yet. Jeffries was still showing no signs signs of slowing, I would go with Jeffries until 1905. By then I would rate Johnson the best even if Jeffries wouldn't haven't retired.

Sharkey wasn't "the man" in 1927. He lost to Dempsey that year, and Tunney didn't retire until 1928, after easily beating Heeney. Sharkey had a draw with Heeney and lost to Risko in 1928. It wasn't atleast until 1929 (After he beat Stribling and Loughran) that Sharkey was the best.

Don't see how Tyson can be seen as the best in 1995. He was coming off his prison sentence and only beat McNeeley and Mathis in 1995. That really doesn't prove anything. Lewis, Bowe, and Holyfield were better and would have beaten him. Betting odds may have been with Tyson over these 3, but most serious fans knew Tyson wasn't the best.

Still, overall very good.

OK, Tunney till 1928. But who directly after his retiremenet? One year vacant?

As for 1995, Holyfield had just lost to Moorer, Lewis to McCall. The only other option would indeed be Bowe, who knocked out Herbie Hide in 1995 but still suffered from the Holyfield loss. But I remember quite well that in 1995 people expected Tyson to take back the heavyweight division rather quickly.

As for Johnson, he won the colored heavyweight title in 1903, and had beaten Jeffries' brother a year earlier. But you're right, the handover can be in 1904 or 1905 also, who does really know since they didn't fight each other. It's like with Wills and Dempsey - you can't know with any certainty who was better, only guess, but in case of doubt it's the fighter who was ducked.

Cheers, P

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 15 Apr 2006, 22:42

Decagon wrote:Dempsey signed to fight Wills TWICE. If anything, Klitschko was less enthusiastic about facing Rahman. I mean, how the hell do you get injured four times?

For the umpteenth time: Dempsey signed a deteriorating Wills in 1924 - after ducking him through the entire early 1920s - and well knowing that he wouldn't have to honor the signature as Rickards would prevent the fight from happening. Rickards stated openly that a heavyweight title held by a black man - apparently he expected exactly this to happen if Wills would get a shot - wouldn't be worth a bucket of piss. After two years of nothing happening Demspey signed Wills again in 1926, this time for a non-title fight (!!!!!), but before that fight happened Rickard came up with Tunney. Demspey's signatures weren't worth the paper they were written on.

And Vitali got injured four times - in fact he got injured numerous times in his career, including in the ring against Byrd when leading by 9 rounds while throwing a punch. He was a big man prone to injuries. Get over it.

If you don't believe in serious though that Vitali had anything to fear from the bum Rahman I can't help you.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 15 Apr 2006, 23:48

funny how u degrade jack dempsey so much for never fighting the best black fighter of his day, yet ur man gene tunney dodged george godfrey on multiple occasions

- there were plenty of reasons why jack never fought wills. but jack dempsey was not scared of harry, in fact dempsey would have thrashed harry.

harry was a great fighter whos vastly underated but jack dempsey is in a different league.