Weakest heavyweight world champions

[Ambling Alp II]

Agreed. It's not perfect, but it is infinitely better than going by WBS title holders.

[Crease]

Historically looking at the earlier Heavyweight Champions - Marvin Hart was generally considered an inferior to his peers' (Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries, Burns). Marvin was the World Champion we can't take that away from him, but he is considered the weakest of the "early period" circa 1885-1915.

Out of that time period, I would rate Jack Johnson head above everyone else's shoulders... Although it's outright impossible to say how good Sam Langford was during this period but undoubtedly he was one of the top fighters of his day, of that there can be no doubt.

So if you were to move on in 20 year cycles, you could start looking at the Heavyweight lineage and comparing the Champions from around that particular cycle.

1915 to 1935 - the Champs were Willard, Dempsey, Tunney, Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer & Braddock.
1935 to 1955 - the champs were Louis, Charles, Savold (questionable), Walcott & Marciano

Then things start getting tricky in the late 60s. And trickier still in the late 70s with split recognitions for Champions.

[gilgamesh]

Carnera, Braddock and Willard are weaker Champs than anybody in the Louis-Marciano era...except for maybe that Lou Savold, but I don't remember him ever being Champ.

[HomicideHenry]

Carnera, Braddock and Willard are weaker Champs than anybody in the Louis-Marciano era...except for maybe that Lou Savold, but I don't remember him ever being Champ.

Savold became the champion after he defeated Bruce Woodcock. Only the BBBC recognized that title though. They revoked recognition the moment Ezzard Charles defeated the comebacking Joe Louis.

It was pure politics, but Savold was railroaded. It's similar to when Graciano Rocchigiani clearly won the vacant title Roy Jones dumped, only for "the powers that be" to say it was a typographical error.

[HeavyHitters]

Bowe is not top-tier given his lack of title defenses and thin resume. He would have needed to dominate the division for an extended period to be rated alongside guys like Louis, Marciano, etc.

Yes, but when Bowe was "at his best", he could of beaten any heavyweight champ of any era.

Same goes for James "Buster" Douglas on the night be upset 'Iron" Mike Tyson.

That highly motivated Douglas could have beaten any heavyweight.


On the note of worst heavyweight champion ever:

Charles Martin
Nikolay Valuev
Manuel Charr
Herbie Hide

Those come to mind.....

[DrDuke]

Manuel Charr

I won't even call him a champ, he holds a paper belt, that "Regular" shite or whatever.

[Ambling Alp II]

Historically looking at the earlier Heavyweight Champions - Marvin Hart was generally considered an inferior to his peers' (Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries, Burns). Marvin was the World Champion we can't take that away from him, but he is considered the weakest of the "early period" circa 1885-1915.

Out of that time period, I would rate Jack Johnson head above everyone else's shoulders... Although it's outright impossible to say how good Sam Langford was during this period but undoubtedly he was one of the top fighters of his day, of that there can be no doubt.

So if you were to move on in 20 year cycles, you could start looking at the Heavyweight lineage and comparing the Champions from around that particular cycle.

1915 to 1935 - the Champs were Willard, Dempsey, Tunney, Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer & Braddock.
1935 to 1955 - the champs were Louis, Charles, Savold (questionable), Walcott & Marciano

Then things start getting tricky in the late 60s. And trickier still in the late 70s with split recognitions for Champions.

I don't think Johnson was head and shoulders better than Corbett, Fitzsimmons, and especially Jeffries; though I do think he was better. Savold was not a lineal champion and really nobody considered the champion. If you are going to count him then you should count fighters who held the "Black Championship" like Langford, McVey, Jeannette etc.

It's best to just ignore all the WBS titleholders and just count the lineal champions.

[APerno]

I am ignorant on Charles Martin, I have not seen him fight nor read any articles on him, but from an outsider looking in Charles Martin looks to me to be 'much maligned." - Being stopped by Anthony Joshua as your only loss is not something that should put you at the top of this list, yet you all not only place him there without hesitation, but say things like 'the gap between him and second place is a wide one.'

With 25 wins (23 KO), half of which are against fighters with winning records, and only one loss to AJ, after which he came back to stop two journeymen (quickly), someone needs to explain to me why everyone is lining up to take turns spitting on this guy.

I am not saying this guy is great, or even good, but I am saying that his record does not scream out 'worst ever.' What do you all know that I am missing?

[Controversial]

I am ignorant on Charles Martin, I have not seen him fight nor read any articles on him, but from an outsider looking in Charles Martin looks to me to be 'much maligned." - Being stopped by Anthony Joshua as your only loss is not something that should put you at the top of this list, yet you all not only place him there without hesitation, but say things like 'the gap between him and second place is a wide one.'

With 25 wins (23 KO), half of which are against fighters with winning records, and only one loss to AJ, after which he came back to stop two journeymen (quickly), someone needs to explain to me why everyone is lining up to take turns spitting on this guy.

I am not saying this guy is great, or even good, but I am saying that his record does not scream out 'worst ever.' What do you all know that I am missing?

I think its because he won the title after his opponent got injured (dislocated knee) and was forced to quit. Martin then lost the title just 85 days later. He hadn't really beaten anyone of note to get a title shot either and was flattened by AJ without really putting up a fight.

[Sequitorian]

Ruiz wasn't great

Understatement of the year ...

[Crease]

I am ignorant on Charles Martin, I have not seen him fight nor read any articles on him, but from an outsider looking in Charles Martin looks to me to be 'much maligned." - Being stopped by Anthony Joshua as your only loss is not something that should put you at the top of this list, yet you all not only place him there without hesitation, but say things like 'the gap between him and second place is a wide one.'

With 25 wins (23 KO), half of which are against fighters with winning records, and only one loss to AJ, after which he came back to stop two journeymen (quickly), someone needs to explain to me why everyone is lining up to take turns spitting on this guy.

I am not saying this guy is great, or even good, but I am saying that his record does not scream out 'worst ever.' What do you all know that I am missing?

I think its because he won the title after his opponent got injured (dislocated knee) and was forced to quit. Martin then lost the title just 85 days later. He hadn't really beaten anyone of note to get a title shot either and was flattened by AJ without really putting up a fight.

Martin won the Heavyweight title be default. Truthfully, everyone expected Glaskov to defeat him and claim the vacant IBF Championship. But alas, the injury struck and Martin was the IBF Champ.

In fairness, he did receive £6 million to defend against Joshua, which has lead to claims that he "cashed in his title".

Since that loss, his two wins have been over nobodies, despite the fact that they have winning records...

Byron Polley is currently ranked 344th on BoxRec.
Michael Marrone is currently ranked 401st on BoxRec.

[Matt W]

I hadn't seen Martin fight before he signed to fight Joshua. I watched a bit of him on YouTube and he looked woeful and backed Joshua to KO him early. His opposition must have been very poor to compile a record like he has.

[jamamb]

not even close to everyone expected glazkov to beat martin. the odds very close and plenty of 'experts' like graham houston picked martin

martin isnt as awfully bad as a lot think. he won the us national pal title and was runner up at the us golden gloves as an amateur. hed won his pro fights easily enough , including beating other prospects, and was starting to land well on glazkov even before the leg blew

but because of the strange nature of how he won the title + capitulating so feably vs aj + not getting back in contention since ..., he has the type of record that you cant have really any respect for really. so i think its fair to have him among the very weakest

[jamamb]

as for the lineal title, its still just one of many 'titles' . overall it might have more credibility, but when your looking at specific fighters and fights, the first thing is to not look at the title itself, but who the fighter was etc, then to base your rating judgements on that. you can still have an excellent title holder who holds an abc title and not the lineal for example. and some lineal champs really arent that strong. i think a lot of mws around now for example wouldve beat up 'lineal' mw champ miguel cotto

[Ambling Alp II]

As far rating fighters, I agree that you can't assume that a "lineal" champion was better than a WBS beltholder. As we have mentioned, there were some lineal champions who were not that good.

However, on average, a lineal title holder was much better.
And that stands to reason. There can only be one lineal champion at a time. There can be 2, 3, 4 WBS title holders at a time. Obviously the chances of all four being better than a lineal champion is going to be rare.

There were many fighters who never had a title belt that were better than the vast majority of beltholders of the last 20-30 years.