Top 10 HW's that did not gain championship status.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 12 Jan 2007, 17:26

pundit wrote:
Decagon wrote:1. Sam Langford
2. Jimmy Young
3. Earnie Shavers
4. Archie Moore
5. Harry Wills
6. Joe Jeannette
7. Jerry Quarry
8. Cleveland Williams
9. Ike Ibeabuchi
10. David Tua
11. Elmer Ray
12. Oscar Bonavena
13. George Godfrey
14. Ron Lyle
15. Roland LaStarza
16. Sam McVey
17. Larry Gaines
18. Gerry Cooney
19. Seal Harris
20. Joe Bugner
21. John Henry Lewis
22. Tiger Jack Fox
23. Alfredo Evangelista
24. Sandy Fergueson
25. Frank Moran
The list has comical qualities.

I’m sure Evangelista was included just to see if we are paying attention?

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 12 Jan 2007, 19:14

Decagon wrote:19. Seal Harris

Care to explain this one?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 12 Jan 2007, 20:35

It's an "are you really reading this" move.

On the other hand the guy beat my name sake....Kenneth Lee, A California fighter from the thirties...I'm sure that fella must have been nearly invincible....so he may be on to something.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 12 Jan 2007, 22:28

Bloody hell...I can write a better list than that...here's a list:

Note- These men are in no particular order

1. Harry Wills
2. George Godfrey
3. Luther McCarty
4. Peter Jackson
5. Old George Godfrey
6. Sam Langford
7. Jack Blackburn
8. Sam McVea
9. Joe Jenette
10. Denver Ed Martin
11. Bill Richmond
12. Tom Mulineaux

That's certainly a better top 12 list than the ones I've seen, for these are men who could have won the title had they not been shut out for so long or were given the chance.

Jackson, Richmond, Mulineaux and Old George Godfrey were of the bare-knuckle era and were either ducked for too long, cheated out of victories or were never given a shot.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 12 Jan 2007, 23:01

1.Langford
2. Wills
3. Jeanette
4. McVey
5. Jackson
6. Folley
7. Machen
8. Quarry
9. Young
10. Sharkey

McVey always seemed to me to be underrated. He was very competitive with Langford, Wills and Jeanette, yet most people rate him way behind them.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 12 Jan 2007, 23:20

Yeah but Dec you can't really make solid comparisons about two different eras, especially in the case of Godfrey. He was bare-knuckle, while Williams was in the gloved era of 15 round championship fights. Godfrey would fight for hours on end, it was always a 'fight to the finish'. It was two completely different sports.

I always used to say that the guys of the modern times could never fight that well in the old London Prize Ring days and vice versa---I think this holds true for the most part.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 12 Jan 2007, 23:29

I'd EASILY say that Williams was the Elmer Ray of the '60s.

You're joking right? Ray had a helluva punch, Terell didnt. Weak comparison.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 13 Jan 2007, 01:47

sorry lol...I thought u meant Ernie Terell...yeah I can see the comparison between Ray and Williams, while I do like Ray he, like Williams failed to really beat the best of the best---but I'd go with that he was a bit lower than Williams.

Benny The Kid · Post by **Benny The Kid** » 14 Jan 2007, 01:36

I can't beleive all the names tossed out and no one can list one of the all-time great lightheavys. Kid Norfolk. He's ahead of many i see on that list.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 14 Jan 2007, 04:40

..i can see where this one is going..eventually every heavyweight who never won a title will appear on a list.....and some light heavies too...say, yvonne durrell because he knocked archie moore down 4 times....

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 14 Jan 2007, 19:10

Decagon wrote:Cleveland Williams was competitive with Sonny Liston, and knocked out Howie Turner, Ernie Cab, John Hayden, Ernie Terrell, Roger Rischer, Kirk Barrow, Alonzo Johnson and Sonny Banks, plus he decisioned Wayne Bethea, Billy Daniels and Mel Turnbough. In the twelve-year stretch from 1956 to 1968, he only lost to Sonny Liston, Muhammad Ali and Ernie Terrell, in a close fight against a man who he'd previously knocked out. I'd EASILY say that Williams was the Elmer Ray of the '60s.

Sam McVey? Johnson, Jeanette, Langford and Wills all clearly showed that they were better than he was. Williams beat much stiffer competition and was simply a better fighter.

In their head to head battles, McVey was very competiitive with Jenaeete, Lanfgord and Wills.
McVey was 0-3 against Johnson, but all 3 fights were in McVey's first two years of fighting.He went the 20 round distance twice with Johnson was knocked out in the 20th round the other time. By allaccounts, Johnson was easily the better man, but still how many fighters that green would have done better against Jack Johnson?

In the recorded fights with Langford, McVey was very compeititve. They fought 16 recordered fights. McVey won twice, Lanford won 4 times, 3 fights were draws, and the rest were Newspaper draws, No contests and one newspaper decison win for Langford. The edge goes to Langford but McVey certainly held his own.

McVey fought Wills 5 times and their series was close. Officially McVey was 1-2. McVey won a newspaper decison and the other fight was a No-Contest.

McVey fought Jeanette 5 times on record (though they probably fought some fights they are unrecorded.) Offically, they each went 1-1-2. Jeanette's win was the famous 49 round knockout in which McVey knocked Jeneatte down 27 times. McVey won a 20 round decision and they had two draws. Jeanette did win a newspaper decison in their other fight so I guess you give Jeanette a very slight edge in their series.

McVey did have a few fights against 2nd tier white heavyweights such as Lang,Rodel,and Pelkey. McVey scored early knockouts against them.

I do agree that Langford, Wills, and Jeanette were all a little better, but it is very close.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 15 Jan 2007, 11:02

Jaclem wrote:..i can see where this one is going..eventually every heavyweight who never won a title will appear on a list.....and some light heavies too...say, yvonne durrell because he knocked archie moore down 4 times....

The hell you say.....your thinking in reverse...the only important aspect of that encounter is not how many times Durelle knocked him down but how many times Archie got back up. Therein lies the significant element of that encounter. And the only important number is 1. Number 1....he got up 1 more time than he was knocked down. And that is all that is required to perservere and in this case win.

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 15 Jan 2007, 13:17

Top 10, based on their "in their prime" performence against opponents in their era

1 Jimmy Young
2 Roland LaStarza
3 Jimmy Bivins
4 Ike Ibeabuchi
5 Earnie Shavers
6 Harry Mattthews
7 Cleveland Williams
8 Eddie Machen
9 Oscar Bonavena
10 Billy Conn
11 Zora Folley
12 Buster Mathis (Sr) (Often overlooked)
13 Ron Lyle
14 Tom Sharkey
15 George Chuvallo

16-30 in no particuler order

16 Mac Foster ( forget his last few years, he had some hard miles by then)
17 Archie moore
18 Gerry Cooney
19 Joe Jeannette
20 Tommy Farr
21 Alfredo Evangelista (handled properly, could have been top 10)
22 Elmer Ray
23 John Henry Louis
24 Eddie Machen
25 Zora Folley
26 Gregorio Peralta (under rated and gutsy as hell)
27 Joe Bugner (had he had a killer instict, could have beenn champ)
28 Toney Tucker ( One of the top 5 under rated HWs in history)
29. Art Lasky
30 Mike DeJohn (cause I said so, thats why !..LOL)

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 15 Jan 2007, 13:20

cosand wrote:Top 10, based on their "in their prime" performence against opponents in their era

1 Jimmy Young
2 Roland LaStarza
3 Jimmy Bivins
4 Ike Ibeabuchi
5 Earnie Shavers
6 Harry Mattthews
7 Cleveland Williams
8 Eddie Machen
9 Oscar Bonavena
10 Billy Conn
11 Zora Folley
12 Buster Mathis (Sr) (Often overlooked)
13 Ron Lyle
14 Tom Sharkey
15 George Chuvallo

I badly miss Sam Langford and Harry Wills. They should be ## 1 and 2 in your list.

I also wonder why you have Young so high and Quarry not at all -- most would rate prime Quarry above prime Young.

Finally, why is Buchifluch near top of your rating and Davi Tua, who fought tooth and nail with him and won in the eyes of most observers, is not in there at all?

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 15 Jan 2007, 13:26

My bad..was switching names arounmd....Replace Folley with Harry Wills at #26

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 15 Jan 2007, 13:38

I badly miss Sam Langford and Harry Wills. They should be ## 1 and 2 in your list.

I also wonder why you have Young so high and Quarry not at all -- most would rate prime Quarry above prime Young.

Finally, why is Buchifluch near top of your rating and Davi Tua, who fought tooth and nail with him and won in the eyes of most observers, is not in there at all?

Both Wills and Langford just missed the cut on my top 10. They lose points for quantity of fights over quality wins.

Quarry is a fighter I justy have a hard time with, His record far exceeds his quality as a fighter. he might well have been on the list, had I not added Mike DeJohn (half joking) Those few here who know who I am, know we he would half to be on my list.

Jimmy Young is #1 on my list, because he came sliver away from beating the gretest of all time, and he is IMHO, the most skilled fighter on the list.

I am assuming by Buchifluch you mean Ibeabuchi ?
We had seen all we are going to see from Tua, the Tua fight would have been just the beginnming for Ibeabuchi. Tua had reached his peak at thatt point , and he coulnt get past Ike, neither could a future belt holder.
Don't be swayed by the nay sayers and the skeptics. Ike was the real deal.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 15 Jan 2007, 13:51

cosand wrote:
I badly miss Sam Langford and Harry Wills. They should be ## 1 and 2 in your list.

I also wonder why you have Young so high and Quarry not at all -- most would rate prime Quarry above prime Young.

Finally, why is Buchifluch near top of your rating and Davi Tua, who fought tooth and nail with him and won in the eyes of most observers, is not in there at all?
Both Wills and Langford just missed the cut on my top 10. They lose points for quantity of fights over quality wins.

So why do you have Joe Jeanette in there? Both Langford and Wills are long against Jeanette. Jeanette is not a quality win?

Quarry is a fighter I justy have a hard time with, His record far exceeds his quality as a fighter.

Well, he beat Shavers (another fellow high on your list), Young did not. He also toyed with Buster Mathis.

I am assuming by Buchifluch you mean Ibeabuchi ?
We had seen all we are going to see from Tua, the Tua fight would have been just the beginnming for Ibeabuchi.

So your rating is based NOT on who Buchi was but on a "would cloulda have been" assumption?

Tua had reached his peak at thatt point , and he coulnt get past Ike, neither could a future belt holder.
Don't be swayed by the nay sayers and the skeptics. Ike was the real deal.

Buchifluch was nothing special whatsoever, with a loss to limited Tua the best achievement of his career

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 15 Jan 2007, 14:15

pundit wrote:
cosand wrote:Quarry is a fighter I justy have a hard time with, His record far exceeds his quality as a fighter.
Well, he beat Shavers (another fellow high on your list), Young did not. He also toyed with Buster Mathis.

He also beat Lyle pretty easily, and quite a few other contenders as well.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 15 Jan 2007, 15:15

..buzzhead...you know damn well what my point was....that just about every heavyweight who never won a title would end up on this thread...even with durell's minimal acheivement. you're just trying to start an argument because you know i have a problem with depression during dark winter days and that screws up my medication for chemical imbalance. this is a silly thread and you just started it because you see i am getting near 3000 posts so you just want to pad your own number just to stay far in the lead, which is foolish anyway because your quantity doesn't match my quality.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 16 Jan 2007, 09:01

well at least we agree he is deserving....

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 16 Jan 2007, 09:17

Decagon

Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 4523

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 5:07 am Post subject:

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

cosand wrote:
Top 10, based on their "in their prime" performence against opponents in their era

1 Jimmy Young
2 Roland LaStarza
3 Jimmy Bivins
4 Ike Ibeabuchi
5 Earnie Shavers
6 Harry Mattthews
7 Cleveland Williams
8 Eddie Machen
9 Oscar Bonavena
10 Billy Conn
11 Zora Folley
12 Buster Mathis (Sr) (Often overlooked)
13 Ron Lyle
14 Tom Sharkey
15 George Chuvallo

16-30 in no particuler order

16 Mac Foster ( forget his last few years, he had some hard miles by then)
17 Archie moore
18 Gerry Cooney
19 Joe Jeannette
20 Tommy Farr
21 Alfredo Evangelista (handled properly, could have been top 10)
22 Elmer Ray
23 John Henry Louis
24 Eddie Machen
25 Zora Folley
26 Gregorio Peralta (under rated and gutsy as hell)
27 Joe Bugner (had he had a killer instict, could have beenn champ)
28 Toney Tucker ( One of the top 5 under rated HWs in history)
29. Art Lasky
30 Mike DeJohn (cause I said so, thats why !..LOL)
You deserve to be slapped.

Well I have to tell you, that response was breif, well thought out, and at the intellectual level of a learning disabled 5 year old.
Amazing how some of your posts are pretty good , while others make all who read them, more stupid for the experience.

No matter what fault you find with my list, Your excluding Peralta, Tucker, Lasky and Foster, makes mine far more legit.

pundit Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:51 pm Post subject:

So your rating is based NOT on who Buchi was but on a "would cloulda have been" assumption?

[/quote]

Those of us who know boxing beyond records and who dont judge fighters by one or even two fights, do not need to assume.
I include Ibeabuchi beacuse of his skill and ability.
By the way, just a tip. when you downgrade a fighter based on a WIN, you prove to all in eye/ear shot that you really know litttle about the sport. It is a dead giveaway.

Since you missed it the first time, I'll say it again, Quarry is not on my list for one reason. because there are 29 fighters that deserve to be on it ahead of him. had it not been for my quip about DeJohn, he might have been.

As for Langford vs Jeanette, once aggain, it is the big picture vs a single fight. Leon Spinks beat Ali, so should we rank his Spink's career above, or even close to Ali's ????
I think not.

You do agree with that...ummmm....don't you ?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 16 Jan 2007, 09:54

cosand wrote: Since you missed it the first time, I'll say it again, Quarry is not on my list for one reason. because there are 29 fighters that deserve to be on it ahead of him.

Okay, I think we all understand that. What we are probably all trying to understand is what did guys like Mac Foster, Peralta, Evangelista (among others) ACCOMPLISH to be rated ahead of Quarry? It almost seems like you don’t understand the meaning of the word accomplishments. Perhaps you could list all of the world class HWs that those guys beat, compared to those on Quarry’s resume?

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 16 Jan 2007, 10:38

The Great John L

Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 2702

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 1:54 pm Post subject:

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

cosand wrote:
Since you missed it the first time, I'll say it again, Quarry is not on my list for one reason. because there are 29 fighters that deserve to be on it ahead of him.

Okay, I think we all understand that. What we are probably all trying to understand is what did guys like Mac Foster, Peralta, Evangelista (among others) ACCOMPLISH to be rated ahead of Quarry? It almost seems like you don’t understand the meaning of the word accomplishments. Perhaps you could list all of the world class HWs that those guys beat, compared to those on Quarry’s resume?

I just laugh out loud it when the presence or absence of a single fighter on a subjective list causes some to get all in a tizzy.
Let me ease your stress.
I clearly said that on my list, 16-30 were in no particular order. Why ? Because to try to thread the needle of placing fighters so close in abilty and history, or worse yet, fighters from different eras in an exact order, is totally subjective, and a bit...no....VERY silly.
Now....having establihed that, let's take your examples of Mac Foster, Peralta, and Evangelista vs Quarry
All had pretty much equal skill as Quarry, better speed, better footwork and were less prone to blocking punches with their face.

Yes, he beat Lyle, Foster and an ageing Shavers, but he also lost to a journeyman and and drew a way past his prime Patterson.
Foster on the other hand, beat Cleveland Williiams and took Ali the distance (IE, the big picture)

I put Peralta on the list, one, because he was a gutsy fighter who would fight anyone anytime, second, because he was a solid HW for his era, and third, because to have Lyle on a list like this, and exclude Peralta, based on their history, would be total anti logic (again, not just wins vs losses, but the BIG picture)

As for Evangelista, he too took Ali to 15 rounds, (as oppoed to 3 for Quarry)and although his go to the ropes, counter punching statagy didnt work against Holmes, he lasted 7 rounds and held his own, at a time when Holmes was destroying opponents. Holmes caught him with a MONSTER left hook, that would have taken anyone out. No shame in losing to Holmes at that point in time, nor to Greg Page for that matter

Now add the fact that my list included Foster, Lasky and Tucker, (who clearly belong on it) where as most, if not all, did not, and that is why Quarry missed my cut.

But if it will make you happy, remove DeJohn and add Quarry

There...happy ?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 16 Jan 2007, 11:15

cosand wrote:
By the way, just a tip. when you downgrade a fighter based on a WIN, you prove to all in eye/ear shot that you really know litttle about the sport. It is a dead giveaway.

That's a good one!!

Please do a "top 30 middleweights who never won a title" ranking next.
We need more things to laugh about.

Cheers,
P

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 16 Jan 2007, 11:23

pundit

Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 6333
Location: Only two blocks from K street
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject:

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

cosand wrote:

By the way, just a tip. when you downgrade a fighter based on a WIN, you prove to all in eye/ear shot that you really know litttle about the sport. It is a dead giveaway.

That's a good one!!

Please do a "top 30 middleweights who never won a title" ranking next.
We need more things to laugh about.

Cheers,
P

Methinks you would laugh watching an alarm clock second had tick...but lucky for you, they have medication for that.

A good one ? Yes it is !
You downgrade and exclude a fighter from your own top 30 list, based soley on a WIN over fighter you have on your own top 30 list ?????
Hummmmm.....

That is enough to provide more then enough laughs to last for week !