Who ranks higher historically - Wladimir Klitschko or Floyd Patterson?

[oogiebe]

Marciano' era wasn't weak either.

It wasn’t a strong division. Post WW2 and lots of older HWs still knocking around. Marciano fought lots of average guys up to his title eliminator and the big names were at the tail end of their careers.

Among the weakest eras in HW history.

[Ambling Alp II]

Of course, many of the guys that Marciano fought on his way up. It like that for everyone. However, he certainly beat some guys who were well above average.

There were younger fighters like himself, La Starza and Layne. Veterans like Louis, (past his best but still good) Charles and Walcott. Not saying it was the 1970s or anything like that, but it certainly wasn't bad
Have never heard anyone say that it was weak before.

[oogiebe]

Of course, many of the guys that Marciano fought on his way up. It like that for everyone. However, he certainly beat some guys who were well above average.

There were younger fighters like himself, La Starza and Layne. Veterans like Louis, (past his best but still good) Charles and Walcott. Not saying it was the 1970s or anything like that, but it certainly wasn't bad
Have never heard anyone say that it was weak before.

Geez Alp. I've heard it was a weak era all my life. Where you been?

Ring Mag 1954 Rankings: (a cavalcade of great!)

Rocky Marciano, Champion

Nino Valdes
Don Cockell
Ezzard Charles
Bob Baker
Earl Walls
Heinz Neuhaus
Rex Layne
Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson
Charley Norkus
Jimmy Slade

[Ambling Alp II]

Guess that's why boxing was such a dead sport in the 1950s.

Yes, they all suck and I'm sure you followed their careers quite closely. how about 1952? The champion (Marciano) plus three of the top 10 are in the HOF.

[oogiebe]

Guess that's why boxing was such a dead sport in the 1950s.

Yes, they all suck and I'm sure you followed their careers quite closely. how about 1952? The champion (Marciano) plus three of the top 10 are in the HOF.

LOL! There you go again! No one said they all sucked. No one said boxing was a dead sport in the 50;s although it wasn't the HW"s that made that decade so great. You are truly hysterical!!!

[Cojimar 1946]

The only guy Holmes beat I would put in the hof is a far past it Ali but given how shot he was I don't think that win counts for much. So not having hofers on his resume wouldn't disqualify Wladimir Klitschko from being great.

[oogiebe]

The only guy Holmes beat I would put in the hof is a far past it Ali but given how shot he was I don't think that win counts for much. So not having hofers on his resume wouldn't disqualify Wladimir Klitschko from being great.

You wouldn't put Norton in the hall?

[HomicideHenry]

Of course, many of the guys that Marciano fought on his way up. It like that for everyone. However, he certainly beat some guys who were well above average.

There were younger fighters like himself, La Starza and Layne. Veterans like Louis, (past his best but still good) Charles and Walcott. Not saying it was the 1970s or anything like that, but it certainly wasn't bad
Have never heard anyone say that it was weak before.

Geez Alp. I've heard it was a weak era all my life. Where you been?

Ring Mag 1954 Rankings: (a cavalcade of great!)

Rocky Marciano, Champion

Nino Valdes
Don Cockell
Ezzard Charles
Bob Baker
Earl Walls
Heinz Neuhaus
Rex Layne
Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson
Charley Norkus
Jimmy Slade

I would say overall it was an average era, or near great era in heavyweight history. It was certainly better than the era of Joe Louis (title reign). Sure, Walcott and Charles and Moore were older but if you compare ages between Rocky Marciano's opponents and say Muhammad Ali's opponents there was quite the considerable gap between Ali and his opponents on average more so than Marciano.

What is generally accepted though that following Rocky Marciano the quality of heavyweights slowly but surely got better in the late 50s early 60s. The real question is by how much did it improve and I would say only marginally so. It wouldn't be until the late 60s and early 70s did you see there be and excellent class of heavyweights all competing in their prime or near their prime.

Mediocre> Poor> Below Average> Average> Above Average> Good> Excellent is generally how I would break up rating era's and the 1950's as a whole I'd have as average or good.

[gilgamesh]

Marciano's era is definitely below average.

Of the entire 20th century I'd say the 1950's, 1940's and 1980's are the weakest decades of the century, and I don't think there's much of an argument against that statement. While I'd agree with you that Louis' challengers were pretty weak Post World War 2, he had a much stiffer schedule in the 1930's.

The 70's and 90's absolutely crushed those decades, even though Dempsey avoided Colored Challengers as a whole the 1920's had a lot of noteworthy names.

The challengers of Jack Johnson's era were fairly weak, even though again he avoided the best ones after becoming Champ.

[DrDuke]

The hof argument seems silly because realistically a lot of hof guys would lose H2H to more modern guys regardless of hof status.

Povetkin should be favored over Johansson and Braddock h2h pretty easily. There are cruiserweights and light heavyweights from Wladimirs era who likely beat them as well

How about this: How many fighters did Klitschko beat that should be in the HOF?

Haye is the only one I'd think with any kinda chance of making the Hall. Not sure he will either, but he's the closest candidate I'd say.

Rahman probaby have some chances too, the same type of ticket with Buster Douglas. However, I won't be surprised, if they will start to put the abc-champs of different times there.

[Cojimar 1946]

Norton didn't do much aside from beating Ali. I don't think I would put him in the hall of fame. It would be like putting Oliver McCall in the hall of fame

[Jaywheel]

But yeah Samuel Peter (the 1st time particularly) was a meaningful win.

Why was that? Is it because Peter was coming off a big win against legendary Taurus Sykes or because the prestigious WBO NABO vacant title was on the line? It was an exciting fight to watch, it's about as meaningful as Michael Grant beating Golota.

[gilgamesh]

But yeah Samuel Peter (the 1st time particularly) was a meaningful win.

Why was that? Is it because Peter was coming off a big win against legendary Taurus Sykes or because the prestigious WBO NABO vacant title was on the line? It was an exciting fight to watch, it's about as meaningful as Michael Grant beating Golota.

Peter was as prominent a contender at that time as he ever would be, and I'd imagine Wladimir having been knocked out in 2003 and 2004 respectively was a pretty big underdog coming into this fight.

So yes, time has shown that Peter ultimately didn't amount to much in Boxing, but this was a big win for Wlad at the time.

[Jaywheel]

I'm happy for him but it does nothing for his historical status.

[gilgamesh]

I'm happy for him but it does nothing for his historical status.

Sure it does. It's a win over a Top 10 guy. Those are always worth something.

Peter at the time I'm pretty sure was Top 3 or 4 in fact, and he was still yet to become WBC Heavyweight Champion, and gain his biggest wins.

So it's worth as much as anyone else's win over a solid contender.

Plus in this case, This is the win that got Wlad his title shot against Byrd. Without this win he doesn't get his title shot, and possibly never becomes Champion at all.

So you can't dismiss that win as unimportant.

[Ambling Alp II]

Samuel Peter. One of the greatest. So much ability. So many big wins.

[Ambling Alp II]

Norton didn't do much aside from beating Ali. I don't think I would put him in the hall of fame. It would be like putting Oliver McCall in the hall of fame

First I suggest that you watch Ken Norton fight. If you did, you would not say that.

Norton was competitive against Ali (albiet not a prime Ali) 3x. Not just once.
Gave a prime Larry Holmes all that he could handle in one of the greatest fights of all time.
Beat Jimmy Young in a great fight.
Stopped Jerry Quarry.

[gilgamesh]

Samuel Peter. One of the greatest. So much ability. So many big wins.

Nobody ever said he was one of the greatest, but beating a Top rated contender is not insignificant. Wlad beating Peter is undoubtedly as important as Johansson beating Eddie Machen for instance, and had pretty much the same effect on his career.

It got him his title shot.

[gilgamesh]

Norton didn't do much aside from beating Ali. I don't think I would put him in the hall of fame. It would be like putting Oliver McCall in the hall of fame

First I suggest that you watch Ken Norton fight. If you did, you would not say that.

Norton was competitive against Ali (albiet not a prime Ali) 3x. Not just once.
Gave a prime Larry Holmes all that he could handle in one of the greatest fights of all time.
Beat Jimmy Young in a great fight.
Stopped Jerry Quarry.

I don't think I've ever really watched the 2nd Norton-Ali fight, but for what it's worth I've watched the 3rd one and Norton was more than competitive with Ali. He beat him clear as day.

[Ambling Alp II]

Samuel Peter. One of the greatest. So much ability. So many big wins.

Nobody ever said he was one of the greatest, but beating a Top rated contender is not insignificant. Wlad beating Peter is undoubtedly as important as Johansson beating Eddie Machen for instance, and had pretty much the same effect on his career.

It got him his title shot.

Umm, no.

Apparently you didn't realize that Peter wasn't really a top contender. Being propped by an WBS organization doesn't mean you are good. Most people had never even heard of Peter. Ring Magazine didn't even have him in their Top 10 for 2004.

Eddie Machen was the #1 contender when Johansson stopped him in the first round.

[margaret thatcher]

that's nonsense, peter was a hyped prospect with a ko of the year shortly before. he'd been on hbo and showtime already and was well known in boxing. were you even still following the sport by that time

[gilgamesh]

Samuel Peter. One of the greatest. So much ability. So many big wins.

Nobody ever said he was one of the greatest, but beating a Top rated contender is not insignificant. Wlad beating Peter is undoubtedly as important as Johansson beating Eddie Machen for instance, and had pretty much the same effect on his career.

It got him his title shot.

Umm, no.

Apparently you didn't realize that Peter wasn't really a top contender. Being propped by an WBS organization doesn't mean you are good. Most people had never even heard of Peter. Ring Magazine didn't even have him in their Top 10 for 2004.

Eddie Machen was the #1 contender when Johansson stopped him in the first round.

Well I can't speak to Ring Magazine's Heavyweight rankings of 2004. I had several issues of The Ring, but have gotten rid of most.

I do have a 2006 issue of the Ring where Wlad and Peter are ranked 8 and 9 respectively fresh off of the heels of Wlad's victory over Peter, if he's still Top 10 following the loss it stands to reason he was surely ranked a little higher prior to the loss.

Chris Byrd who was going to be dethroned by Wladimir in his next fight was ranked #1.

[gilgamesh]

that's nonsense, peter was a hyped prospect with a ko of the year shortly before. he'd been on hbo and showtime already and was well known in boxing. were you even still following the sport by that time

I recall most people thought he was gonna smash Wladimir and his chinless ass

Including me at the time.

I've always been really fond of that whole night of Boxing because the undercard of that bout was Miguel Cotto vs Ricardo Torres which was a f*cking barnburner.

[Jaywheel]

Nobody ever said he was one of the greatest, but beating a Top rated contender is not insignificant. Wlad beating Peter is undoubtedly as important as Johansson beating Eddie Machen for instance, and had pretty much the same effect on his career.

It got him his title shot.

Umm, no.

Apparently you didn't realize that Peter wasn't really a top contender. Being propped by an WBS organization doesn't mean you are good. Most people had never even heard of Peter. Ring Magazine didn't even have him in their Top 10 for 2004.

Eddie Machen was the #1 contender when Johansson stopped him in the first round.

Well I can't speak to Ring Magazine's Heavyweight rankings of 2004. I had several issues of The Ring, but have gotten rid of most.

I do have a 2006 issue of the Ring where Wlad and Peter are ranked 8 and 9 respectively fresh off of the heels of Wlad's victory over Peter, if he's still Top 10 following the loss it stands to reason he was surely ranked a little higher prior to the loss.

Chris Byrd who was going to be dethroned by Wladimir in his next fight was ranked #1.

Yeah and Calvin Brock and Monte Barrett were ranked 6th and 7th at the same time. You always go by number of wins, defenses, ko percentage, wins against top-10 ranked opponents and such but it seems you don't take the landscape of the division and the actual level of fighting of some eras into account. For you, beating Calvin Brock in 2005 is the same as beating Ron Lyle in 1975 which is simply non sense.

[gilgamesh]

I certainly do take the level into account, do you see comparing Calvin Brock to Ron Lyle?

If I didn't take the level into account then Ali wouldn't be my clear #1 Heavyweight, but he is.