BoxRec

I've provided the basis of my opinion. You act like hart fought 175 times and was never off of his feet, his career was brief and forgettable.

Would I need to provide proof that George Foreman would destroy Marvin Hart? Tyson? Liston?

McVea destroyed plenty of fighters and hart was stopped several times by lesser fighters than Sam.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree but to call that an even fight isn't the normal side of that match up. McVea would be a huge favorite and rightfully so.

donnellon wrote:On another forum I recently proposed rating the Heavyweights in 25 year periods, 1885-09, 1910-34, 1935-59, 1960-84 and 1985-2009. top 25 in each era, a boxer to be included only in the era that they did their best work but ALL of their career to be considered when rating them.
The picks are mine or a composite of picks from the few other posters that took part.
1
johnson
jeffries
fitz
jackson
sullivan
5
corbett
burns
hart
sharkey
choynsky
11
maher
slavin
goddard
ruhlin
o'brien
16
kilrain
mccoy
martin
griffin
childs
21
armstrong
flynn
klondike
root
kaufman

Consensus 1910-34

1
dempsey
tunney
schmeling
langford
sharkey
6
Wills
Baer
Jeanette
McVey
Godfrey
Willard
11
carnera
gunboat
loughran
greb
braddock
16
mccarty
miske
uzcuden
gains
clark
21
wright
walker
schaaf
firpo
stribling

Bodhi/Matt compilation, 1935-59

1
louis
marciano
liston
walcott
charles
6
johansson
moore
bivins
conn
johnson
11
machen
ray
valdez
farr
folley
16
pastor
la starza
savold
williams
layne
21
satterfield
maxim
henry
godoy
murray

1960-84, my picks.

1
Ali
holmes
Foreman
frazier
patterson
6
norton
young
quarry
ellis
terrell
11
tate
dokes
weaver
berbick
lyle
16
shavers
cooney
thomas
page
coetzee
21
bonavena
martin
bugner
ocasio
cooper

1985-2009

1 Lewis
2 Holyfield
3 Tyson
4 Bowe
5 v.Klit
6 W.Klit
7 witherspoon
8 Doughlas
9 moorer
10 tubbs

11 tucker
12 tua
13 ike
14 byrd
15 smith
16 mccall
17 bruno
18 ruddock
19 ruiz
20 rachman
21 golota
22 toney
23 mercer
24 chagaev
25 morrison

This is good stuff and I have no major problems with it at all. Couple thoughts:

1895-1909: I'd move Corbett up to 3 or 4 and I'd move McCoy ahead of Choynski, whom he owned. I'd also make room for Stanley Ketchel in there somewhere. Ketchel v. Burns straight up-- how much money would you put on Burns?

1909-1934: If you're going by who would have beaten whom on everyone's best night, then I think you may even have Sharkey UNDER-rated, instead of over-rated. Man-to-man, he was better than Schmeling-- way out in front at the time of the DQ and probably did deserve the nod in the rematch, popular lore notwithstanding. This is sacrilage, I know, but watch the the film we've got on Langford and the film we've got on Sharkey back-to-back and then tell me, really, would anyone bet his mortgage on Langford? Kudos for giving Willard his due. I'd make room for Tommy Gibbons, Fred Fulton, and Kid Norfolk, and I'd ditch Bearcat Wright, Ernie Schaaf and Young Stribling. Carnera a little high maybe.

1935-1959: Not much to say here. I like Charles over Walcott and Moore over Johansson, but that's nit-picking. Maybe Valdes too high.

1960-1984: Not much to say here either. Berbick too high, I think-- the win over Thomas was due to Thomas's lack of condition and preparation.

1985-2009: I know I'm in a minority of 1, but I think Bowe should be rated ahead of Holyfield. I think Ike has to be ahead of Tua.

Great work though!

How do you figure McCoy "owned" Choynski?

raylawpc wrote:How do you figure McCoy "owned" Choynski?

Well, I thought McCoy beat him like 3 times (but maybe one was a "draw" in which McCoy was thought to have had the upper hand...)?

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but I would not say that McCoy "owned" him.

The 20 rounder in San Francisco in March 1899 was a fair decision for McCoy, according to all the press accounts I've read. The Chicago fight was a prearranged draw (a typical arrangment in turn-of-the century Chicago), but the newspapers said that McCoy had the upperhand. Choynski, though defeated, was competitive in both.

However, Choynski was clearly cheated in the 1900 New York fight and should have been awarded a KO, or a least a DQ win. Choynski knocked McCoy down three or four times in the second round, the final time apparently for the count. But the referee claimed McCoy had been saved by the bell. However, the timekeeper said that McCoy was down 12 seconds AND that the round was not over - 40 seconds remained. As a result, not only did McCoy avoid a 2nd round KO loss, but McCoy got an additional 40 seconds to recover between rounds. In the third, McCoy hit Choynski after the bell, and Choynski did not recover - collapsing as he came out for the fourth round round. I have a clipping from the New York World that details all the facts of this fight.

So the record could/should have been 2-1, not 3-0 for McCoy. Although McCoy clearly won two of the fights, the third win for McCoy was a gift; Choynski should have won by KO.

As a result, I would not say that McCoy "owned" Choynski.

raylawpc wrote:Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but I would not say that McCoy "owned" him.

The 20 rounder in San Francisco in March 1899 was a fair decision for McCoy, according to all the press accounts I've read. The Chicago fight was a prearranged draw (a typical arrangment in turn-of-the century Chicago), but the newspapers said that McCoy had the upperhand. Choynski, though defeated, was competitive in both.

However, Choynski was clearly cheated in the 1900 New York fight and should have been awarded a KO, or a least a DQ win. Choynski knocked McCoy down three or four times in the second round, the final time apparently for the count. But the referee claimed McCoy had been saved by the bell. However, the timekeeper said that McCoy was down 12 seconds AND that the round was not over - 40 seconds remained. As a result, not only did McCoy avoid a 2nd round KO loss, but McCoy got an additional 40 seconds to recover between rounds. In the third, McCoy hit Choynski after the bell, and Choynski did not recover - collapsing as he came out for the fourth round round. I have a clipping from the New York World that details all the facts of this fight.

So the record could/should have been 2-1, not 3-0 for McCoy. Although McCoy clearly won two of the fights, the third win for McCoy was a gift; Choynski should have won by KO.

As a result, I would not say that McCoy "owned" Choynski.

Very interesting, ray, thanks. I take back the word "owned"!

Mr E wrote:

donnellon wrote:On another forum I recently proposed rating the Heavyweights in 25 year periods, 1885-09, 1910-34, 1935-59, 1960-84 and 1985-2009. top 25 in each era, a boxer to be included only in the era that they did their best work but ALL of their career to be considered when rating them.
The picks are mine or a composite of picks from the few other posters that took part.
1
johnson
jeffries
fitz
jackson
sullivan
5
corbett
burns
hart
sharkey
choynsky
11
maher
slavin
goddard
ruhlin
o'brien
16
kilrain
mccoy
martin
griffin
childs
21
armstrong
flynn
klondike
root
kaufman

Consensus 1910-34

1
dempsey
tunney
schmeling
langford
sharkey
6
Wills
Baer
Jeanette
McVey
Godfrey
Willard
11
carnera
gunboat
loughran
greb
braddock
16
mccarty
miske
uzcuden
gains
clark
21
wright
walker
schaaf
firpo
stribling

Bodhi/Matt compilation, 1935-59

1
louis
marciano
liston
walcott
charles
6
johansson
moore
bivins
conn
johnson
11
machen
ray
valdez
farr
folley
16
pastor
la starza
savold
williams
layne
21
satterfield
maxim
henry
godoy
murray

1960-84, my picks.

1
Ali
holmes
Foreman
frazier
patterson
6
norton
young
quarry
ellis
terrell
11
tate
dokes
weaver
berbick
lyle
16
shavers
cooney
thomas
page
coetzee
21
bonavena
martin
bugner
ocasio
cooper

1985-2009

1 Lewis
2 Holyfield
3 Tyson
4 Bowe
5 v.Klit
6 W.Klit
7 witherspoon
8 Doughlas
9 moorer
10 tubbs

11 tucker
12 tua
13 ike
14 byrd
15 smith
16 mccall
17 bruno
18 ruddock
19 ruiz
20 rachman
21 golota
22 toney
23 mercer
24 chagaev
25 morrison

This is good stuff and I have no major problems with it at all. Couple thoughts:

1895-1909: I'd move Corbett up to 3 or 4 and I'd move McCoy ahead of Choynski, whom he owned. I'd also make room for Stanley Ketchel in there somewhere. Ketchel v. Burns straight up-- how much money would you put on Burns?

1909-1934: If you're going by who would have beaten whom on everyone's best night, then I think you may even have Sharkey UNDER-rated, instead of over-rated. Man-to-man, he was better than Schmeling-- way out in front at the time of the DQ and probably did deserve the nod in the rematch, popular lore notwithstanding. This is sacrilage, I know, but watch the the film we've got on Langford and the film we've got on Sharkey back-to-back and then tell me, really, would anyone bet his mortgage on Langford? Kudos for giving Willard his due. I'd make room for Tommy Gibbons, Fred Fulton, and Kid Norfolk, and I'd ditch Bearcat Wright, Ernie Schaaf and Young Stribling. Carnera a little high maybe.

1935-1959: Not much to say here. I like Charles over Walcott and Moore over Johansson, but that's nit-picking. Maybe Valdes too high.

1960-1984: Not much to say here either. Berbick too high, I think-- the win over Thomas was due to Thomas's lack of condition and preparation.

1985-2009: I know I'm in a minority of 1, but I think Bowe should be rated ahead of Holyfield. I think Ike has to be ahead of Tua.

Great work though!

Hi, was aware of the details of McCoy-Choynski fights and give kudos to Joe's longevity but H-2-head peak, McCoy. Corbett up higher, next week I might move him up to 3, it's easily argued, I agree. I never think of Ketchell as a Hw(or Roy Jones either-just a personal thing.)
Damn, damn I missed Gibbons! Norfolk too is a good call, should be in there, Fulton too probably.
Happy with the Ingo/Moore, Charles/walcott ratings but I've had them the other way around too. Valdez, too high, probably, I'm not a fan myself. Berbick too high, yeah makes sense. Bowe over Holy, not preposporous at all, but his resumee is too thin for me, likeways Ike over Tua, it was a close fight and Ike only has the Byrd fight to back it up, but it depends on your criteria.
Thanks for the kind words.

Tua was also shutout by Byrd and schooled twice by rahman. Other than Ruiz & maskaev, David doesn't have much to speak of.

Ruiz was a good win but he really underachieved. The Lewis effort says it all.

donnellon wrote:Ruiz was a good win but he really underachieved. The Lewis effort says it all.

Without a doubt, he is too high. Can't see him ahead of Byrd or Rahman for that matter. David needs to drop back to the 20's.

Mr E wrote:I think you may even have Sharkey UNDER-rated, instead of over-rated. Man-to-man, he was better than Schmeling-- way out in front at the time of the DQ and probably did deserve the nod in the rematch

I disagree.

That's interesting: Someone watches the 1930- fight on tape and talks to a friend about his impression, that the fight was quite close, probably with Sharkey slightly ahead. This friend talks to another one and remarks that sharkey was slightly ahead. Next version: Sharkey was ahead. Next version: Sharkey was clearly ahead. Next version: Sharkey was dominating the fight at will. Next version: Schmeling was close to go down via knockout....

I just watched the fight myself and I think Sharkey was ahead indeed, but only slightly. And Schmeling was known to be a slow starter. In the first fight against Joe Louis in 1936 the first 3 rounds were much more one sided in favour of Louis than Sharkeys lead in 1930 against Max and we know the outcome of that other fight. The second fight was dictated by Max and no way Sharkey deserved the nod.

that's only my subjective opinion of cause...

The 2nd fight was completely controlled by Sharkey.

Schmeling was totally frustrated.

Sharkey's losses were more often self imposed. He was slick, and honorable enough to invite/allow Carnera to actually hit him with the shot that took him down. So technically not a dive. But ONLY on that technicality. I think he actually had to work at presenting a target to the Ambler.

Friedie wrote:That's interesting: Someone watches the 1930- fight on tape and talks to a friend about his impression, that the fight was quite close, probably with Sharkey slightly ahead. This friend talks to another one and remarks that sharkey was slightly ahead. Next version: Sharkey was ahead. Next version: Sharkey was clearly ahead. Next version: Sharkey was dominating the fight at will. Next version: Schmeling was close to go down via knockout....

I doubt this ever happens.

I just watched the fight myself and I think Sharkey was ahead indeed, but only slightly.

Strongly disagree that Sharkey was only "slightly" ahead in the first fight at the time it was stopped.

And Schmeling was known to be a slow starter. In the first fight against Joe Louis in 1936 the first 3 rounds were much more one sided in favour of Louis than Sharkeys lead in 1930 against Max and we know the outcome of that other fight.

In my view, this is an entirely false analogy. Schmeling didn't start slowly against Louis, he started cautiously against him, for obvious reasons. One wrong step against the Brown Bomber and you could find your head flying off into orbit. Against Sharkey, Schmeling was trying to be aggressive but found he was unable to take control. Look at that fight and Sharkey just seems quicker, more athletic, better.

The second fight was dictated by Max and no way Sharkey deserved the nod.

You know, Joe Jacobs famously, not to mention predictably, ran around yelling "we wuz robbed," and a lot of people who didn't see the fight seemed to buy into that-- especially in revision after Schmeling beat Louis and people who wanted to rate Schmeling highly on their all-time lists found it convenient to brush the Sharkey loss off as a bad decision. But referee Gunboat Smith was always adamant that he got it right and I've read at least 2 next-day newspaper articles that agreed (one of them -- I think from the NY Times that was published in the IBRO journal a couple years ago -- was very well-written and detailed and, to me, convincing). I've never seen the whole fight but I have seen some extended clips of it and I thought Sharkey was in control, just like granberry writes. From what I can tell, I think the decision was probably a good one.

BoxBuzz wrote:Sharkey's losses were more often self imposed. He was slick, and honorable enough to invite/allow Carnera to actually hit him with the shot that took him down. So technically not a dive. But ONLY on that technicality. I think he actually had to work at presenting a target to the Ambler.

Yeah, and I don't think that was much of a punch either. I like how Sharkey cruised out to a 5-0 lead just to show Carnera how the fight would really go had Sharkey wanted to win it.

granberry wrote:The 2nd fight was completely controlled by Sharkey.

Schmeling was totally frustrated.

I think that's right on the money.

New York sportswriters W. O. McGeehan, Damon Runyon, Paul Gallico, James P. Dawson, and Francis Wallace all scored the fight for Schmeling.

I thought Schmeling won the fight, it was a bit of a stinker. Nothing to brag about on either side.

raylawpc wrote:New York sportswriters W. O. McGeehan, Damon Runyon, Paul Gallico, James P. Dawson, and Francis Wallace all scored the fight for Schmeling.

Jack Sharkey scored the fight for Sharkey

with his perfectly timed left jab (timed to wreck Schmeling's intent to throw a heavy punch), occasional well placed rights to keep Schmeling from thinking he could get too aggressive, and controlling the distance at every moment so that Schmeling was just inches to far out of range to throw what he was so eager to.

Sharkey pitched a masterpiece that night.

Schmeling was in top condition, eager to defend his title and was totally stymied.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I thought Schmeling won the fight, it was a bit of a stinker. Nothing to brag about on either side.

It was breathtaking exhibition of boxing by Sharkey.

That is a "stinker" to those who like to watch two 6-year-olds flail away at each other.

I knew I had the AP clipping that quoted these guys! Here's what they said.

W. O. McGeehan (Herald-Tribune): "It's been the legend that a foreign fighter could not get a square deal in the United States, especially in New York. Up to this time I felt that this merely was a legend, but that decision given last night was the worst I have ever seen in peering intently at these things for a quarter of a century or more."

Damon Runyon (The American): "Personally I gave Schmeling quite a lead in my score of the rounds and was surprised at the decision."

Paul Gallico (The News): "Schmelings's steady pursuit, the sting in his left and right and hls strong fighting finish were enough to give him the light."

James P. Dawson (Times): "1 gave Schmeling nine rounds, Sharkey five and one even. . . . Schmeling won, in this writer's opinion, . . . because of a tireless, persistent, unswerving offensive he launched at the opening bell and never once interrupted, even in the face of Sharkey's best blows."

Francis Wallace (News): "The worst Schmeling should have had was a draw—and that was not enough to take his championship away."

Richard Vidmer (Herald-Tribune): "No longer can the former sailor complain about the breaks, for last night he got perhaps the biggest break a challenger for the heavyweight championship ever received."

Edward J. Neil of the Associated Press wrote: "But to a wide majority of the critics it seemed Schmeling had earned the right to retain his crown.

"The German steadily marched into Sharkey, never breaking ground, continually punching, and inflicting the only real damage. His short, right-hand jolts to the head started Sharkey's left eye drooping early and closed it in the last three.

"There never was a really thrilling moment, but in the stretch it was Schmellng, and not the new champion, who seemed to be winning as he plugged along, as fresh as though he had just been warming up for a dozen rounds."

I also found:

James Kilgallen (International New Service): "It was a boxing match, rather than a prize light. The really earnest fighting was withheld until the final round which Sharkey won. The Bostonian employed a left jab to good effect throughout the bout but Schmeling did all the leading. Not once in the fifteen rounds did the German take a backward step. He peppered Sharkey's face with lefts and rights and had the ex-sailor's left eye almost closed by the eleventh round.

"Personally, I thought Schmeling won. My score sheet gave him seven rounds, Sharkey five, and three were even. I gave Schmeling the seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth rounds and Sharkey the second, third, fourth, fifth and fifteenth rounds. The first, sixth and eighth rounds were even."

Grantland Rice (quoted in the Syracuse Herald) wrote: "Jack Sharkey can no longer complain about his luck.

"Outfought and outboxed over two-thirds of the route by Max Schmeling, he is the new heavyweight champion of the world. The Boston gob was given the
decision in a fight where he was trying desperately to keep his balance at the finish with Schmeling tearing in, rushng the sailor all over the ring.

"There was no question as to who had the fight until the startling and amazing decision was rendered. And it must be recorded here that it was one of the worst decisions In the history of the heavyweight game."

And, finally, . . .

GENE TUNNEY scored the fight for International News Services and wrote: "Nobody begrudges Jack Sharkey the championship but many would rather have seen him win it in a different manner.

"Frankly my scoring gave Schmeling a comfortable decision."

raylawpc wrote:


GENE TUNNEY scored the fight for International News Services and wrote: "Nobody begrudges Jack Sharkey the championship but many would rather have seen him win it in a different manner."

That is hilarious.

Would Tunney have "rather have seen Schmeling win the title in a different manner"?

granberry wrote:

raylawpc wrote:New York sportswriters W. O. McGeehan, Damon Runyon, Paul Gallico, James P. Dawson, and Francis Wallace all scored the fight for Schmeling.

Jack Sharkey scored the fight for Sharkey

with his perfectly timed left jab (timed to wreck Schmeling's intent to throw a heavy punch), occasional well placed rights to keep Schmeling from thinking he could get too aggressive, and controlling the distance at every moment so that Schmeling was just inches to far out of range to throw what he was so eager to.

Sharkey pitched a masterpiece that night.

Schmeling was in top condition, eager to defend his title and was totally stymied.

granberry, did you mean to write "Jack DEMPSEY scored the fight for Sharkey" ? I think I read that somewhere.

ray, I've seen a list like you put together somewhere before and Tracy Callis of IBRO once sent me a list of guys who scored it for Sharkey. I haven't seen the whole fight so I can't tell you how I scored it but I did think Sharkey had the upper hand in the portions I HAVE seen.

Mr E wrote:

granberry wrote:

raylawpc wrote:New York sportswriters W. O. McGeehan, Damon Runyon, Paul Gallico, James P. Dawson, and Francis Wallace all scored the fight for Schmeling.

Jack Sharkey scored the fight for Sharkey

with his perfectly timed left jab (timed to wreck Schmeling's intent to throw a heavy punch), occasional well placed rights to keep Schmeling from thinking he could get too aggressive, and controlling the distance at every moment so that Schmeling was just inches to far out of range to throw what he was so eager to.

Sharkey pitched a masterpiece that night.

Schmeling was in top condition, eager to defend his title and was totally stymied.

granberry, did you mean to write "Jack DEMPSEY scored the fight for Sharkey" ? I think I read that somewhere.

ray, I've seen a list like you put together somewhere before and Tracy Callis of IBRO once sent me a list of guys who scored it for Sharkey. I haven't seen the whole fight so I can't tell you how I scored it but I did think Sharkey had the upper hand in the portions I HAVE seen.

The six guys were quoted in an AP report I have in my Sharkey-Schmeling file, and the seventh was the AP reporter. The remainder I found on my own through newspaperarchive.com. I have yet to see a single news report from ringside that gave the verdict to Sharkey - although I do not question that Tracy found some. Do you have his list handy, and can you name some of those sportswriters who gave it to Sharkey?