Top 20 Heavyweights

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 12 Jan 2007, 18:18

the 1910-1919 decade did miss out on some great fights. If would have been nice if Johnson would have defended the title against McVey,Langford and Jeanette during this period. Or if Dempsey would have fought Langford, or Wills during thend of the decade.
Still there were plenty of great fights.
Will-Langford
Wills-McVey
Wills-Jeannete
Jeanette-McVey
Langford-McVey
Langford Jeanette
It would have been great if these guys would have only fought once, but they fought each other multiple times! It could have been better, but the 1910-1919 decade was still great.

Schmeling was in his prime when lost to Hamas and Baer. Off nights count if they are in your prime.
Youngs' losses after 1977 were after his prime. I am not cherry picking bad performaces during Young's prime, which is what you are during with Schmeling. Young didn't have any bad performaces during his prime, and Schmeling did.

Wjen I rate a fighters career, I count every fight, with the fights during his prime counting for more than fights early in his career and more than fights when a fighter is clearly well past it.

Longevity does count.Of course a fighter with a long prime is rated higher than a fighter with a short prime if all else is about even.

Young's prime was very good, but it wasn't very long. Therefore he doesn't rate nearly as high as Schmeling.

But if you are rating them strictly on their best (and I don't just mean one fight like Buster Douglas) than I would rate Young higher.
That is all I am trying to say. Young had a very odd career in which he really striggled on his way up, and once he reached his potential he wasn't able to sustain it for a long time.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 12 Jan 2007, 18:39

Ambling Alp wrote:the 1910-1919 decade did miss out on some great fights. If would have been nice if Johnson would have defended the title against McVey,Langford and Jeanette during this period. Or if Dempsey would have fought Langford, or Wills during thend of the decade.
Still there were plenty of great fights.
Will-Langford
Wills-McVey
Wills-Jeannete
Jeanette-McVey
Langford-McVey
Langford Jeanette
It would have been great if these guys would have only fought once, but they fought each other multiple times! It could have been better, but the 1910-1919 decade was still great.

Sure. The top 3 fights of the decade were never made though, as all the above match-ups don't involve the decade's top 2, at least in many peoples' rankng -- Johnson and Dempsey. Johnson's best fight in the 1910s was against and old and stiff Jeffries, Dempsey's best fight was arguably against Fred Fulton, who will have a hard time making the top 100 ATG HW.

This did not happen to the 1930s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 90s. In many ways the 1910s were a wasted decade. I think I agree thogh that in terms of potential the 1910s may be #2.

Schmeling was in his prime when lost to Hamas and Baer. Off nights count if they are in your prime.

This does not become any more true by permanent repetition.

Youngs' losses after 1977 were after his prime. I am not cherry picking bad performaces during Young's prime,

You are cherry-picking. Big time.

which is what you are during with Schmeling. Young didn't have any bad performaces during his prime, and Schmeling did.

Because you count years as his prime that were not.

Come on, Alp, this is a trick and it does not work. You can get Ali out of the top 10 if you consider him "prime" against Spinks, Holmes and Berbick.

Wjen I rate a fighters career, I count every fight, with the fights during his prime counting for more than fights early in his career and more than fights when a fighter is clearly well past it.

This means Holyfield must continue to sink in your ATG ratings. He does not in mine.

This means Holmes fighting on until he was 50, edging out close fights against the likes of Butterbean, must have really damaged him in your ATG ratings. Not in mine.

Longevity does count.Of course a fighter with a long prime is rated higher than a fighter with a short prime if all else is about even.

It counts a little. However, if a figther has done great thing 3, 4 times in his career there is little that could elevate him much higher in my view.

But if you are rating them strictly on their best (and I don't just mean one fight like Buster Douglas) than I would rate Young higher.

Schmeling KO 12 Louis in a dominating performance. The Louis who had just destroyed Baer, Carnera, Levinsky, Sharkey and who was considered unbeatable.

Schmeling the clear-cut world #1 heavyweight 1931-33.

Schmeling with victories over 4 HOFers.

Young does not beat this with three close fights against past-prime ATG heavyweights. It's not even close.

That is all I am trying to say. Young had a very odd career in which he really striggled on his way up, and once he reached his potential he wasn't able to sustain it for a long time.

Look, I don't say Young is bad -- it seems I have him higher AT than you. A fine contender who had the bad luck of peaking in the best decade of HW boxing (although in the weaker second half -- Quarry was definitely even more unlucky) and just fell short. But I strongly disagree with lifting Young above Schmeling by cherry-picking Young's best and Schmeling's worst fights and calling both "prime". Young on his best night was not at all better than Schmeling on his best night. There is zero evidence for this.

I think we have to leave it here -- after all we are not saying anything new.

Cheers,
P

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 12 Jan 2007, 22:38

Pundit, I don't want to beat this to death either but I think you may have misunderstood some of what I meant. I think that what a fighter does in his prime is much more important than what he does when he is way past his prime or when he is "green" for that matter.
Therefore I don't think Holmes or Ali's fights when they were well past it mean very much.

Holyfield was a great heavyweight for about 8 years (1989-1997). That is a fairly long time. He had occasional subpar performances in this period (most notably the 1st Moorer fight) which I hold against him. I don't really hold the fights late in his career against him since he was older than 36 when he lost to Lewis, Ruiz, Byrd etc. Therefore I think holyfield was truly one of the All-Time great heavyweights, arguably top 10.

Like Holyfield loss to Moorer, with Schmeling, the fights against Hamas and Baer have to count against Schmeling. You can't just count his wins before these fights, not count these losses when he was still young (he was only 27 when lost to Baer and 28 when lost to Hamas) and then count his wins after these fights.
There really isn't any legitimate reason to excuse Schmeling for these losses. He wasn't old or got cheated out of a decison or anything like that. If you aren't going to count these losses, then you can't count anyone's losses.
When rating his overall career, you have to take the good with the bad.

What I meant by saying that I'm not cherrypicking with Young is that I am not doing what you do with Schmeling. ie-Counting fights when he wins, then not counting losses, then going back to counting wins.
What I did with Young was logically follow his career chronologically. If you do that, you will see that he was a great fighter from 1974-1977. In that time period there are no subpar performances.

However, when I rate fighters, I usually rate them on their overall career. Young just wasn't impressive enough for long enough. He struggled more than great fighters should on his way up, and he wasn't great for a real long time.

Let me make a football analogy. Kurt Warner was the best quarterback in the NFL for 3 years for the St Louis Rams. Then he wasn't very good after that. If you asked the question, who for a 3 year period were the top 20 quarterbacks of all-time, Warner would be on the list. However, if you just ask, who were the 20 greatest quarterbacks of all time, then no Kurt Warner wouldn't be on the list.
Jimmy Young was sort of like that. I was really just agreeing with someone else (I believe it was the Great John L) who said they thought during his prime Young was great.
By the way, the last time I did my All-Time heavyweight rankings, I didn't even have Young in my Top 50.

Friedie · Post by **Friedie** » 13 Jan 2007, 10:17

Ambling Alp wrote:Pundit, I don't want to beat this to death either but I think you may have misunderstood some of what I meant. I think that what a fighter does in his prime is much more important than what he does when he is way past his prime or when he is "green" for that matter.
Therefore I don't think Holmes or Ali's fights when they were well past it mean very much.

Holyfield was a great heavyweight for about 8 years (1989-1997). That is a fairly long time. He had occasional subpar performances in this period (most notably the 1st Moorer fight) which I hold against him. I don't really hold the fights late in his career against him since he was older than 36 when he lost to Lewis, Ruiz, Byrd etc. Therefore I think holyfield was truly one of the All-Time great heavyweights, arguably top 10.

Like Holyfield loss to Moorer, with Schmeling, the fights against Hamas and Baer have to count against Schmeling. You can't just count his wins before these fights, not count these losses when he was still young (he was only 27 when lost to Baer and 28 when lost to Hamas) and then count his wins after these fights.
There really isn't any legitimate reason to excuse Schmeling for these losses. He wasn't old or got cheated out of a decison or anything like that. If you aren't going to count these losses, then you can't count anyone's losses.
When rating his overall career, you have to take the good with the bad.

What I meant by saying that I'm not cherrypicking with Young is that I am not doing what you do with Schmeling. ie-Counting fights when he wins, then not counting losses, then going back to counting wins.
What I did with Young was logically follow his career chronologically. If you do that, you will see that he was a great fighter from 1974-1977. In that time period there are no subpar performances.

However, when I rate fighters, I usually rate them on their overall career. Young just wasn't impressive enough for long enough. He struggled more than great fighters should on his way up, and he wasn't great for a real long time.

Let me make a football analogy. Kurt Warner was the best quarterback in the NFL for 3 years for the St Louis Rams. Then he wasn't very good after that. If you asked the question, who for a 3 year period were the top 20 quarterbacks of all-time, Warner would be on the list. However, if you just ask, who were the 20 greatest quarterbacks of all time, then no Kurt Warner wouldn't be on the list.
Jimmy Young was sort of like that. I was really just agreeing with someone else (I believe it was the Great John L) who said they thought during his prime Young was great.
By the way, the last time I did my All-Time heavyweight rankings, I didn't even have Young in my Top 50.

I think there are only two possibilities comparing two fighters. You can see the whole careers (then it's an evaluation ove overall achievements) or you compare them in their best performances (means who wins when both were at their peaks).

In both matters Max is superior to Jimmy IMO

If a boxer have had a prime of only 3 years it is easier not to loose than if he "primed" for 9 years. btw I think Max have had two primes (1929-1932, 1934-1938) both as long as Youngs only prime. The Max that lost to Hamas in '34 (where he failed to knock his on points-leading-opponent out in his strong late rounds) was not the same as in '35 when Hamas didn't have a chance at all.

and:

I can define a "second" prime for Young too if I want. Between 1981 and 1982 Jimmy defeated 5 Opponents before loosing an USBA Title Fight to Greg Page. So like you I could say Youngs prime was more from '74-'82 and I can count his defeats against Ocasio, Dokes and Cooney as well.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 13 Jan 2007, 15:29

pundit wrote:Young does not beat this with three close fights against past-prime ATG heavyweights. It's not even close.

Which thre are you talking about? Ali was clearly past his prime, Norton might have been a little past his. Who was the third?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 13 Jan 2007, 17:24

Alp, in my book Holyfield's loss to Moorer doesn't count very much. Like Schmeling, Holyfield had an interim off-period where he lost it a bit, his health was fragile and he was a shadow of the man he could be and had been at other occasions. Like Schmeling with Hamas, Holyfield blasted Moorer away when he was on top of his game.

More generally, I can't see why a fighter's "prime" does necessarily have to be one uninterrputed period, as you seem to suggest. A fighter's prime is/are the period(s) when he was able to do great things. For Holyfield these were the early 1990-94 and 1996-98, for Schmeling 1929-33 and 1935-37.

Cheers,
P

Crease · Post by **Crease** » 15 Feb 2007, 13:02

I would still fancy Max Schmeling to beat Jimmy Young anyday of the week!!!!!

:)

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 17 Feb 2007, 15:01

Crease

Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 442
Location: Belfast
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:02 pm Post subject:

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

I would still fancy Max Schmeling to beat Jimmy Young anyday of the week!!!!!

:)

With a baseball bat maybe,,,but only if Young didnt see him coming.

Friedie · Post by **Friedie** » 17 Feb 2007, 18:10

cosand wrote:
With a baseball bat maybe,,,but only if Young didnt see him coming.

Schmeling wouldn't need a baseball bat. He has his famous right hand.

actjac · Post by **actjac** » 22 Feb 2007, 16:33

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Foreman
5. Marciano
6. Lewis
7. Johnson
8. Holyfield
9. Tyson
10. Liston
11. Frazier
12. Tunney
13. Dempsey
14. Jefferies
15. Bowe

Sullivan, Corbett, Langford, Walcott, Charles, Schmeling thrown in the mix for the final four. Add Golata into it as an unusual "what might have been".