my top 35 heavyweights of all time

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

"Archie Moore proved that he was unquestionably the best heavyweight fighter in the world next to Rocky Marciano. This was established when Archie soundly thrashed Nino Valdes, although a large and very ungentlemanly portion of the Las Vegas crowd disagreed. I suspect that the funds they donated to the betting parlors hadsomething to do with their opinion of the decision, however." - San Bernardino Sun, Sunday, May 8, 1955



i might add archie showed up for this fight at 196lb and out of shape.

archie came in at a much trimmer 188lb when he fought rocky marciano

[pundit]

Moreover, Marciano was on the verge of a knockout against light-heavyweight and 38-year old Archie Moore, was only saved by the ref.

i GOT HIM! PUNDIT HAS BEEN EXPOSED AS A FRAUD!
BY PUNDIT SAYING THIS COMMENT, THIS MEANS HE HAS NOT SEEN MARCIANO-MOORE

True, I haven't seen Marciano-Moore - I've just read the above account of the fight several times. Btw, nowhere did I claim that I had seen it; and there are in fact several significant fights in heavyweight history that I haven't seen. For example, I havn't seen Jeffries-Corbett either - well, there is no film of that fight; so I necessarily I depend on second-hand reports, as does everybody else. So what ? Does this prevent me from any assessment how good Corbett was relative to Jeffries around 1900?

On a different note: if a 38-year-old light-heavyweight (Moore) is considered the second-best heavyweight of his time, this says a lot about the state of the heavyweight division. Even more so if the same fighter one year later is outlcassed by a green 21-year old.

And Walcott was 38 and 39 when he fought Marciano. The old man was still game, good enough to teach limited Marciano a thorough lesson for most of the first fight in 1952, but he was some 5 years beyond his peak. In fact, after the Charles loss in March 1951 Walcott had already wanted to hang up the gloves, knowing that his his best days had passed. Only his mangers had kept him from doing so.

Charles was only two years beyond his peak when Marciano fought him, but Charles deteriorated very rapdily.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

On a different note: if a 38-year-old light-heavyweight (Moore) is considered the second-best heavyweight of his time, this says a lot about the state of the heavyweight division

actually charles and walcott were considered the 2nd best heavyweights of his time.

Even more so if the same fighter one year later is outlcassed by a green 21-year old.

patterson was very much in his prime when he fought archie. i wouldnt call him green at all, he had many bouts before he fought moore including in the amatuers.

also moore won the first 4 rounds vs patterson, so i would hardly say he was outclassed. he just got caught, besides patterson is an ATG heavy. moore also entered the fight dealing with personel problems that made him go into the fight unfocussed

And Walcott was 38 and 39 when he fought Marciano. The old man was still game, good enough to teach limited Marciano a thorough lesson for most of the first fight in 1952, but he was some 5 years beyond his peak. In fact, after the Charles loss in March 1951 Walcott had already wanted to hang up the gloves, knowing that his his best days had passed. Only his mangers had kept him from doing so.

once again u dodge the facts.............

walcott twice beat ezzard charles before fighting marciano. now if walcott was good enough to knock out charles, how was beyond his peak?


"walcott had the legs of a 20 year old, he was having the best fight of his career"- promoter sam silverman who sat at ringside of marciano-walcott I


"no fight that i ever fought did i feel better or more confident in a fight"- jersey joe walcott


so ur saying u disagree with jersey joe walcott?




thorough lesson? did u not forget marciano lost 3 rounds in the walcott fight BECAUSE HE WAS BLIND. THE MAN COULDNT SEE FOR 3 ROUNDS!

Charles was only two years beyond his peak when Marciano fought him, but Charles deteriorated very rapdily.

disagree, since losing to walcott in 1952, he beat everyone he faced except nino valdes.


harold johnson and rex layne losses were ROBBERIES



also many ringsiders believe charles offered one of the best fights of his career in the first marciano fight


"no fighter in the world could have lasted those 15 rounds with ezzard charles that night let alone with the decision"- boxing and wrestling news on marciano-charles I


"although plainly defeated, charles made one of the best showins of his career"- new york times

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

True, I haven't seen Marciano-Moore - I've just read the above account of the fight several times.

go watch the fight, the ref in no way saved marciano. thats a myth. marciano wasnt even hurt, it was a flash knockdown


once again, dont spread bullshit if u havnt seen the fight

[The Great John L]

…besides patterson is an ATG heavy. moore also entered the fight dealing with personel problems that made him go into the fight unfocussed

He is? I don’t think the majority would agree with this assessment. Floyd was a very talented fighter, but to call him an all time great seems to be a bit of a stretch.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

…besides patterson is an ATG heavy. moore also entered the fight dealing with personel problems that made him go into the fight unfocussed

He is? I don’t think the majority would agree with this assessment. Floyd was a very talented fighter, but to call him an all time great seems to be a bit of a stretch.

top 20 heavy of all time, i consider top 20 heavies ATG

[pundit]

On a different note: if a 38-year-old light-heavyweight (Moore) is considered the second-best heavyweight of his time, this says a lot about the state of the heavyweight division

actually charles and walcott were considered the 2nd best heavyweights of his time.

I refered to your San Berandino Sun quote in a previous post prasing Archie Moore after etting the nod against Valdes.

patterson was very much in his prime when he fought archie. i wouldnt call him green at all, he had many bouts before he fought moore including in the amatuers.

also moore won the first 4 rounds vs patterson, so i would hardly say he was outclassed. he just got caught, besides patterson is an ATG heavy. moore also entered the fight dealing with personel problems that made him go into the fight unfocussed

Hmm........ the judges had it 20-17, 18-18, 20-16 Patterson after 4.

once again u dodge the facts.............
walcott twice beat ezzard charles before fighting marciano.
now if walcott was good enough to knock out charles, how was beyond his peak?

Charles was already well on the way down (see below).

"walcott had the legs of a 20 year old, he was having the best fight of his career"- promoter sam silverman who sat at ringside of marciano-walcott I

"no fight that i ever fought did i feel better or more confident in a fight"- jersey joe walcott

.... which may have had to do with how dangerous (or not) his opponent was.

also many ringsiders believe charles offered one of the best fights of his career in the first marciano fight

"no fighter in the world could have lasted those 15 rounds with ezzard charles that night let alone with the decision"- boxing and wrestling news on marciano-charles I

After the Marciano bouts Charles lost 2 out of 3 fights he entered; often against 3rd rate opposition. He was well beyond his peak byt the time he faced Marciano. The fact that he gave Marciano hell in the first fight says a lot about Marciano, more than about Charles.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

pundit, since u hadvnt seen marcianos fights, i dont think its fair for you to comment on him.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Hmm........ the judges had it 20-17, 18-18, 20-16 Patterson after 4.

u mixed it up


those scored were FOR archie moore

After the Marciano bouts Charles lost 2 out of 3 fights he entered; often against 3rd rate opposition. He was well beyond his peak byt the time he faced Marciano. The fact that he gave Marciano hell in the first fight says a lot about Marciano, more than about Charles.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

the reason why charles went rapidly downhill after the marciano fight was because MARCIANO RUINED CHARLES. charles was never the same again.

just take a look what charles did before he fought marciano, he beat unofficially everyone he faced except nino valdes. harold johnson and rex layne losses were robberies....

so in essence charles won 12 out of his last 13 fights before fighting marciano with the only "real loss" being to valdes


take a look what charles did before he fought marciano rather than after





also i doubt u have seen marciano charles I, charles fought better in this fight than he had in a couple years. it was one of his best preformances. he got himself into awesome shape for this fight unlike his recent fights

[pundit]

Hmm........ the judges had it 20-17, 18-18, 20-16 Patterson after 4.

u mixed it up


those scored were FOR archie moore

True, sorry

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

i dont understand why u can't excepct walcott and charles put on incredible preformances in the first marciano fights. it took a great champion to beat charles and walcott in the first marciano fights. ringsiders, historians all claim charles and walcott put on career best preformances in those fights. walcott claims he was at his peak vs marciano. do all the ringsiders that make these claims, are they all liars?


why can't u realize both were still great fighters when they fought rocky in the first fights



IMO walcott was in his prime vs marciano, while charles wasnt

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

pundit, u need to do a lot more studying on rocky marciano. its obvious ur are very unfamiliar with marcianos era.

i suggest reading his biography, buying his fight collection, and reading newspaper reports on his fights


if u ever want new york times articles on marciano-charles I marciano-walcott I give me ur email i will send them too you

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

charles was not in his prime vs marciano. however he still was the # 1 contender and a great fighter. most heavyweight champions in history never beat another great heavyweight in there prime either. i however do believe walcott was in his prime vs marciano.

marciano beat the 3 best fighters of his era, what more can u ask of him?

moore may have been 38 but he was 45-1 in his last 46 fights entering the marciano fight

walcott had just beaten ezzard charles 2x entering the marciano fight


charles was the # 1 contender who "really" won 12 out of his last 13 entering the marciano fight and at 32 years age put on a qawi like preformance vs holyfield



this proves past there prime or not, all 3 were legit dangerous fighters when they fought rocky

[pundit]

charles was not in his prime vs marciano. however he still was the # 1 contender and a great fighter. most heavyweight champions in history never beat another great heavyweight in there prime either. i however do believe walcott was in his prime vs marciano.

marciano beat the 3 best fighters of his era, what more can u ask of him?

moore may have been 38 but he was 45-1 in his last 46 fights entering the marciano fight

walcott had just beaten ezzard charles 2x entering the marciano fight

charles was the # 1 contender who "really" won 12 out of his last 13 entering the marciano fight and at 32 years age put on a qawi like preformance vs holyfield

this proves past there prime or not, all 3 were legit dangerous fighters when they fought rocky

Maybe we start getting some common ground here. I'm not arguing with the above. And, just to keep things in perspective, I'm not saying Marciano is a bum; god beware. He enters my all-time ranking in a lower position than he enters yours - but he's safely in there.

Now compare Marciano's best fights with how Ali, Louis or Holmes defended their titles, against the best contenders of their time. And then see whether Marciano should be be ranked alongside them. How often did Ali, Louis, Holmes hit the floor when they dominated the division? How often did they have to rely on punching power to score come-from-behind knockouts? How old (sorry, but it is relevant) where their opponents?

Cheers,
P

[Ambling Alp]

Well, I will just point out what I thought are the 3 biggest problems with the list.
Archie Moore, George Godfrey, and Cleveland Williams don't belong in the top 35.

please explain more clearly. godfrey beat larry gains, who is just as good as any of the alpha champs of the 80s if not better. in fact i would say hes better.

cleveland williams beat ernie terrell, whos a top 50 heavyweight of all time and a alpha champ


archie moore beat argueably top 50 heavyweight of all time jimmy bivins, and also beat outstanding heavyweight contenders clarence henry, bob baker, nino valdes.



on film, all 3 look great

Well, I thought I was clear the first time, but I will try again.
I don't bleieve that Godfrey, Williams and Moore deserve to be in the top 35.
None of them beat anyone in your own top 35.
There are other guys that were left out that did beat people in your top 35, (andhad other nice wins as well) who I think are more deserving.

As for the victories that you recently mentioned for Godfrey, Williams and Moore:
Godfrey beat Larry Gains? Well, thats not nearly enough to be in the top 35. Ordinary fighters like Martin Burke, Bill Hartwell, and Chuck Wiggins also beat Gains.

Cleveland Williams did indeed beat Ernie Terrell. That was a good win. But again thats not quite enough. He really doesn't have any other big wins. He also lost the rematch to Terrell.

Archie Moore did beat Bivins, Henry, Baker, and Valdes. None of these guys are remotely close to the top 35. I know a lot of people are high on Bivins, but what heavyweight did he beat that's even in the top 100? Bivins isn't even close to being a top 50 heavyweight.

Fitzsimmons, Moorer, and Ellis all beat people that you yourself have in your top 35. They also have other respectable wins as well. They (along with many other guys) were better heavyweights than Godfrey, Williams, and Moore.

[evndrbsn]

here it is, feel free to disagree. its based on head to head, accomplishments, and some historical signifigance


1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad ali
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Johnson- sorry jack i had to take off points for you know wut
10. Mike Tyson
11. James Jeffries
12. Sam Langford
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Evander Holyfield
15. Lennox Lewis
16. Jersey Joe Walcott
17. Harry Wills
18. Floyd Patterson
19. Max Schmeling
20. Ken Norton
21. Peter Jackson
22. Gene Tunney
23. Riddick Bowe
24. Joe Jeanette
25. Jack Sharkey
26. James Corbett
27. Max Baer
28. Jerry Quarry
30. Elmer Ray
30. Sam Mcvey
31. George Godfrey
32. Jimmy Young
33. Archie Moore
34. Tim Witherspoon
35. Cleveland Williams

Your list sucks! Where are Gerrie Coetzee and Razor Ruddock??? Coetzee and Ruddock beat Michael Dokes for goodness sakes! Put them in your top ten!!!

This is bound to come up ...

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Well, I will just point out what I thought are the 3 biggest problems with the list.
Archie Moore, George Godfrey, and Cleveland Williams don't belong in the top 35.

please explain more clearly. godfrey beat larry gains, who is just as good as any of the alpha champs of the 80s if not better. in fact i would say hes better.

cleveland williams beat ernie terrell, whos a top 50 heavyweight of all time and a alpha champ


archie moore beat argueably top 50 heavyweight of all time jimmy bivins, and also beat outstanding heavyweight contenders clarence henry, bob baker, nino valdes.



on film, all 3 look great

Well, I thought I was clear the first time, but I will try again.
I don't bleieve that Godfrey, Williams and Moore deserve to be in the top 35.
None of them beat anyone in your own top 35.
There are other guys that were left out that did beat people in your top 35, (andhad other nice wins as well) who I think are more deserving.

As for the victories that you recently mentioned for Godfrey, Williams and Moore:
Godfrey beat Larry Gains? Well, thats not nearly enough to be in the top 35. Ordinary fighters like Martin Burke, Bill Hartwell, and Chuck Wiggins also beat Gains.

Cleveland Williams did indeed beat Ernie Terrell. That was a good win. But again thats not quite enough. He really doesn't have any other big wins. He also lost the rematch to Terrell.

Archie Moore did beat Bivins, Henry, Baker, and Valdes. None of these guys are remotely close to the top 35. I know a lot of people are high on Bivins, but what heavyweight did he beat that's even in the top 100? Bivins isn't even close to being a top 50 heavyweight.

Fitzsimmons, Moorer, and Ellis all beat people that you yourself have in your top 35. They also have other respectable wins as well. They (along with many other guys) were better heavyweights than Godfrey, Williams, and Moore.

- its ur opinion that none of those guys are close to the top 35.

- u think everything is about quality. what about quantity? moore argueably beat 3 top 75 heavyweights of all time, and 1 top 35 heavyweight of all time. thats DAMM good.

so wut fitz beat a rusty corbett because he cheated and held on to corbett when he was knocked down. ill take victories over valdes, bivins, baker, henry over a controversial win over corbett anyway.


- cleveland williams doest have any other big wins cause all the challengers ducked him


- once again, larry gains is just as good as any of the alpha champs of the 80s which u think highly of


u need to start learning about the black heavyweights during the 20s,30s, 40s. u really do. u say larry gains lost to those men, but most of those fights were fakes.


- george godfrey, cleveland williams and archie moore would have killed fitzimmons


ur one of those guys who horribly overated the 80s lazy heavyweights

[Ambling Alp]

Brockton, did you even read your own list?

You say Moore beat a top 35 fighter? Who? There is no one on your own top 35 list that Moore beat.

He beat 3 guys that are arguably top 75? Are you seriously saying that Valdes, Baker and Henry are top 75? We have gone through this before. Not everyone in the 1940's and 1950's was that great.

Gains was as good as any of the "alpha champs of the 1980's?
Well, once again, I say look at your own list. You have Witherspoon at #34, you don't have Gains in the top 35. You do the math.

Surely you can't have Witherspoon much higher than Page, Thomas, Dokes etc. So logically, they should be just outside of the top 35.
You say that I think so highly of the alpa champs of the 1980's ? Well, actually I don't think that highly of the "alpha champs of the 1980's. However, I have to rate them higher than Godfrey and way higher than Gains because they their record are simply better. I have most of them rated in the 40's and 50's.

So Fitsimmons win over Corbett was controversal, so he is nowhere near Corbett? His record is about as impressive as Corbett. If Corbett is # 26, Fitz can't be that far behind.

All the top challengers ducked Cleveland Williams? I guess that would include Archie Moore. Once challenger Williams did fight was Sonny Liston, who destroyed him twice.

I'm not a big advocate of the 1980's heavyweights. It was an ok decade, better than some, worse than others.

At the beginning of your original post, you said feel free to disagree. Well, obviously people will. Take a chill pill.

[Les Darcy]

i thought it was a good effort at the list, i dont agree with certain parts of it but i'm not going to overly criticise it without doing my own list, the biggest names i saw missing were tom sharkey and bob fitzsimmons

[pundit]

Some revisions.

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Larry Holmes
4. George Foreman
5. Jack Johnson
6. Sam Langford
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Sonny Liston
9. Joe Frazier
10. Gene Tunney
11. Rocky Marciano
12. Harry Wills
13. Jack Dempsey
14. Mike Tyson
15. Floyd Patterson
16. Max Schmeling
17. Ezzard Charles
18. Evander Holyfield
19. Jersey Joe Walcott
20. James Jeffries
21. Peter Jackson
22. Joe Jeanette
23. Jack Sharkey
24. James Corbett
25. Max Baer

I've not remained unimpressed with the argument that Tunney was heavyweight champ for too short to put him as high as 7. Had Frazier retired in 1972, for example, he'd have looked at least as good as Tunney if not better (after the Ali win); one shouldn't penalize Frazier for taking on #4 Foreman and #Ali (again) and loosing. I also did some other modifications; happy to discuss if anyone's interested.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Some revisions.

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Larry Holmes
4. George Foreman
5. Jack Johnson
6. Sam Langford
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Sonny Liston
9. Joe Frazier
10. Gene Tunney
11. Rocky Marciano
12. Harry Wills
13. Jack Dempsey
14. Mike Tyson
15. Floyd Patterson
16. Max Schmeling
17. Ezzard Charles
18. Evander Holyfield
19. Jersey Joe Walcott
20. James Jeffries
21. Peter Jackson
22. Joe Jeanette
23. Jack Sharkey
24. James Corbett
25. Max Baer

I've not remained unimpressed with the argument that Tunney was heavyweight champ for too short to put him as high as 7. Had Frazier retired in 1972, for example, he'd have looked at least as good as Tunney if not better (after the Ali win); one shouldn't penalize Frazier for taking on #4 Foreman and #Ali (again) and loosing. I also did some other modifications; happy to discuss if anyone's interested.

whyd u move marciano up?

[pundit]

whyd u move marciano up?

You may have something to do with it...
He fought better competition than Dempsey (after all both Charles and Walcott are on my list), and was more consistent than Tyson.

[pundit]

My questions:

• Why Langford so high, when he only beat only two people on your list?

He was avoided by many other people on my list; at least Johnson and Dempsey. Btw, higher-ranked Holmes beat only one fighter on my list (Ali), as did higher-ranked Foreman (Frazier).

[*]Why is Langford so high in the first place? He was tiny for a heavyweight, and there's no reason to expect that he'd get by a fighter like Riddick Bowe or Evander Holyfield, let alone Sonny Liston or Joe Frazier!

These are the troubles when comparing 1910s fighters with 1990s fighters. Perhaps one should not start before the late 1920s when boxing technique had advanced to a comparable level as of today.

This said, Langford was exceptionally fast and skilled for his time, and he had enough power to knock out huge men like Harry Wills and Bill Tate. If one lists him as a heavyweight he can't be ranked much lower as Jack Johnson.

[*]Why is Corbett so high? Do you really think he could beat Riddick Bowe, Ken Norton, Jerry Quarry, Tim Witherspoon, Pinklon Thomas or even Chris Byrd with that straight-up, hands-down style of his? Compared to other fighters who used the early, English, straight-up style, he didn't have Johnson's defense, Jeffries's chin or Langford's power. Those little feints of his are obsolete compared to a modern boxer using a hands-up defense, the jab, footwork and modern combinations.

With 1890s figters, the problem is of course even worse than with 1910s fighters. However, Corbett was a skilled, slick operator who would have gained his title back from Jeffries had it not been for one moment of carelessness.

[*]Patterson and Tyson side-by-side makes me think of one word: WRONG!

Consistent high-level performances over a long period vs. inconsistent, short-lived brilliance.

[*]Why is Harry Wills above Jack Dempsey, but not Gene Tunney? I don't see how Wills (who is very overrated) could beat Dempsey, and at least Dempsey signed to fight Wills. Gene Tunney never fought black men.

Dempsey signed Wills only in 1924, after 5 years where the only real contender had been Wills. And even in 1924 could Dempsey rely on Rickards not to make that fight happen.

Tunney would have fought Wills in an elimininator (that Wills refused because he believed (rightly) he had earned a direct shot at Dempsey). But you're right, otherwise Tunney's color line record is much better. But at least he fought the best white men around, notably legend Harry Greb who he fought so often until he had his number.

[*]Why is Peter Jackson on there at all? Are you arguing that he had the skills to beat the people ranked below him? That his accomplishments in the ring beg a high placement?

Mainly this one: an injured Jackson got the better of peak Corbett (according to most observers) in their one fight in 1891.

[*]Since you have a soft spot for black fighters who never got a title shot, where is Ray Mercer?

I'd rather find a place for Ken Norton.

[*]Why is Lewis so much higher than Holyfield and Tyson?

He dethroned Holyfield and was more consistent than Tyson.

[*]Why do you, in particular, rank Louis above Ali?[/list]

I've no problem if someone ranks Ali #1 and Louis #2, but I prefer Louis. Louis was dominant for a longer period. I dislike though if someone ranks Ali or Louis #3 or lower (as Crase does). It's clear that after these two there is a large gap.

[pundit]

I stopped reading when you said that you rank fighters by comparing them to other fighters of their times, instead of against each other. You say that technique has advanced since Langford, yet you rank Langford over Holyfield, who wasmuch better in every measurable way, aside from one-punch power. I don't see a good argument as to why Langford should be above Holyfield.

Overall, I'm not a fan of your rankings. I think your basic assumptions for making them are flawed, and I think that your knowledge of the careers of many of the fighters you're ranking is basic. For instance, you rank Lewis over Holyfield because he "dethroned him," yet didn't Jess Willard dethrone Jack Johnson? Didn't Ezzard Charles dethrone Joe Louis? Why does Lewis get ranked so much higher than Holyfield simply because he beat an old version of Holyfield? Too often, you're ranking fighters based on one single fight, instead of a career. Then, you go around and say that Tyson shouldn't be ranked very highly because his career at the top was short. This is clearly a contradiction.

I really think that your understanding of Patterson's career is deeply, deeply flawed.

Well, this is general complaining instead of concise arguing, which find I find of limited interest only. And btw noone said you need to be a fan of my rankings - I do them as good as I can. If you rank differently and have your reasons so be it. The only thing I dislike about your interventions is that you get personal every second time.

Anyway, Langford was not only stronger than Holyfield but also faster (at HW). That Lewis dethroned Holyfield is of course not the only reason why I have him higher. Holyfield was badly beaten up by Bowe, for example. Lewis lost a couple of bouts against clearly inferior opponents because of neglicience, but was never dominated by any of them. There will always be doubts whether Holyfield was really able to rule the division, or whether he owed his reign to fortunate circumstances (Tyson in prison, Bowe unmotivated); while Lewis did dominate the divison for several years. And of course I wouldn't know of one fighter who I'd rank because of a single fight.

[dr_devious]

Langford had more fights than Holyfield so statistically is likely to lose more. That said, I'd rate Holyfield higher in the heavyweight pantheon than Langford, who was no more than a light heavy at best.
I think Lewis proved himself the better fighter than Holyfield in their two close fights. Lewis also beat everyone he fought in his pro career, and avenged his two losses emphatically. Lennox Lewis was the top heavyweight of his generation, and given that includes Holyfield, Tyson and Bowe he fully merits his high place on any heavyweight all time list; id personally put Lewis at no. 5 and Holyfield at about no. 9