BoxRec

jrc26 wrote:I'm not going to pick apart the list, but Tony Galento? He was a novelty at best. I don't think Ibeabuchi should even be on the list but Ike would impregnate Two Ton Tony in about 2 minutes.

Ibeabuchi is the most over-rated joke in Boxing history.

His reputation is fvcking sickening. Galento's losses to Baer & Louis amount to more than anything this fvcking would-be (never-was-a, more like it) ever achieved.

Aint a bad list.
If Satterfield is on there,Harold Johnson and Clarence Henry should be on the list also. Guys that beat him at heavy.
Henry also beat Jimmy Bivins who certainly belongs on the list.

Top 10 was posted. I edited the original post to reflect the complete list.

Obviously the most unexpected ranking is Jeffries at #4. That is higher than most would have him. Here is the author's explanation for having Jeffries so high:

"4. James J. Jeffries

Jeffries is the most underrated of the all time great Heavyweight Champions. Most do not even have Jeffries ranked in the top 10 all time. His most famous fight, a knockout loss to Jack Johnson, unjustly tarnished his reputation. As I described earlier, Jeffries was light years away from his prime form having been out of boxing for 6 years and in terrible shape. His lone loss to Johnson should not be given any more credence than Muhammad Ali’s loss to Larry Holmes, Joe Louis’s loss to Rocky Marciano, or Larry Holmes’s loss to Evander Holyfield. To fairly judge Jeffries’s legacy you have to look at his career prior to the Johnson fight, which was impeccable. Jeffries fought in an era I rate as the third best ever, behind only the late 1960’s/early1970’s (Ali, Foreman, Frazier, etc.) and the 1990’s (Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield, etc.). Jim Corbett is correctly compared to Gene Tunney, Tom Sharkey was a Rocky Marciano clone, and Robert Fitzsimmons was a unique fighter who can’t be compared to any modern boxer but he was undeniably great. Jeffries beat them all, including other notables, completely cleaning out the division of quality heavyweight contenders during his dominating reign as Heavyweight Champion. Jeffries had no blemishes on his record either since he never lost, gave rematches to everyone who deserved it, and ducked no one. Some incorrectly claim that Jeffries drew the color line.

True he did not defend his title against any black contenders, but there were no good ones during his time as champion. Jeffries fought prior to the emergence of the trio of Langford, McVea, and Jeannette, and after the glory days of Peter Jackson (although Jeffries did trounced a washed up Jackson on his way up the ranks). Jack Johnson was active towards the end of Jeffries’s championship career but was still losing to the likes of Marvin Hart and was not considered a serious contender. The best black contender of the day was probably Hank Griffin and Jeffries bested him twice in non-title fights. Jeffries retired after five dominating years as the undefeated and undisputed Heavyweight Champion. James was so good because he was an athletic marvel. He was built like a bear, with a barrel chest and huge legs. Only George Foreman could rival Jeffries’s incredible physical strength, but Jeffries was not a slow lumbering caveman at all. He possessed Olympic caliber speed and jumping ability. Jeffries was an astonishing athletic marvel of strength, speed, and agility. His chin and stamina was among the best of any boxer of all time. His amazing God-given talents allowed Jeffries to achieve the amazing feat of winning the Heavyweight Championship in just his 13th professional fight. His subsequent championship opponents were usually much more experienced but they were still unable to find any advantage. The only knock on Jeffries’s legacy is that he only had 23 official pro fights, but why would we punish him for not needing dozens of development fights before jumping in against quality opposition? We shouldn’t, thus James J. Jeffries deserves a spot in the top 5 all time.

Most Famous Fight(s): TKO 15 loss to Jack Johnson in 1910.

Notable Wins: TKO10 over Jim Corbett in 1903, KO8 over Bob Fitzsimmons in 1902, TKO5 over Gus Ruhlin in 1901, KO23 over Jim Corbett in 1900, 25 round points win over Tom Sharkey in 1899, KO11 over Bob Fitzsimmons in 1899, 20 round points win over Tom Sharkey in 1898, TKO4 over Joe Goddard in 1898, KO14 over Hank Griffin in 1896."

He makes a logical argument so at least his ranking is defended even though I know most won't agree.

Jeffries is reasonable there. There isn't much difference between 4 & 12.

Jeffries is clearly too high, but given how routinely he is ranked too low, I don't mind seeing him over-rated for a change (I hold him in much higher regard, head-to-head, than most I've seen).

Expug wrote:Aint a bad list.
If Satterfield is on there,Harold Johnson and Clarence Henry should be on the list also. Guys that beat him at heavy.
Henry also beat Jimmy Bivins who certainly belongs on the list.

Henry probably deserves a spot. Satterfield beat Johnson once out of 3, but overall his career was not impressive at all.
Johnson also beat Machen and a fading Charles. People think of him as lightheavyweight, but he did have some success at heavyweight. Interesting that several others who were mainly lightheavyweights did make this list while Johnson was overlooked.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

jrc26 wrote:I'm not going to pick apart the list, but Tony Galento? He was a novelty at best. I don't think Ibeabuchi should even be on the list but Ike would impregnate Two Ton Tony in about 2 minutes.

Ibeabuchi is the most over-rated joke in Boxing history.

His reputation is fvcking sickening. Galento's losses to Baer & Louis amount to more than anything this fvcking would-be (never-was-a, more like it) ever achieved.

For the 955th time we all have heard your hate for Ike. I just said he should not be on the list. He was simply the first name I saw below Galento.

Was your mom the woman Ike locked in the hotel bathroom or something? I've never seen someone to go such lengths on a message board to repeat the same point about a fighter before.

We get it. Ike sucks.

Ambling Alp wrote: Interesting that several others who were mainly lightheavyweights did make this list while Johnson was overlooked.

Harold Johnson is the biggest omission by far in my opinion.

perrycarter wrote:Obviously the most unexpected ranking is Jeffries at #4. That is higher than most would have him. Here is the author's explanation for having Jeffries so high:

"4. James J. Jeffries

Jeffries is the most underrated of the all time great Heavyweight Champions. Most do not even have Jeffries ranked in the top 10 all time. His most famous fight, a knockout loss to Jack Johnson, unjustly tarnished his reputation. As I described earlier, Jeffries was light years away from his prime form having been out of boxing for 6 years and in terrible shape. His lone loss to Johnson should not be given any more credence than Muhammad Ali’s loss to Larry Holmes, Joe Louis’s loss to Rocky Marciano, or Larry Holmes’s loss to Evander Holyfield. To fairly judge Jeffries’s legacy you have to look at his career prior to the Johnson fight, which was impeccable. Jeffries fought in an era I rate as the third best ever, behind only the late 1960’s/early1970’s (Ali, Foreman, Frazier, etc.) and the 1990’s (Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield, etc.). Jim Corbett is correctly compared to Gene Tunney, Tom Sharkey was a Rocky Marciano clone, and Robert Fitzsimmons was a unique fighter who can’t be compared to any modern boxer but he was undeniably great. Jeffries beat them all, including other notables, completely cleaning out the division of quality heavyweight contenders during his dominating reign as Heavyweight Champion. Jeffries had no blemishes on his record either since he never lost, gave rematches to everyone who deserved it, and ducked no one. Some incorrectly claim that Jeffries drew the color line.

True he did not defend his title against any black contenders, but there were no good ones during his time as champion. Jeffries fought prior to the emergence of the trio of Langford, McVea, and Jeannette, and after the glory days of Peter Jackson (although Jeffries did trounced a washed up Jackson on his way up the ranks). Jack Johnson was active towards the end of Jeffries’s championship career but was still losing to the likes of Marvin Hart and was not considered a serious contender. The best black contender of the day was probably Hank Griffin and Jeffries bested him twice in non-title fights. Jeffries retired after five dominating years as the undefeated and undisputed Heavyweight Champion. James was so good because he was an athletic marvel. He was built like a bear, with a barrel chest and huge legs. Only George Foreman could rival Jeffries’s incredible physical strength, but Jeffries was not a slow lumbering caveman at all. He possessed Olympic caliber speed and jumping ability. Jeffries was an astonishing athletic marvel of strength, speed, and agility. His chin and stamina was among the best of any boxer of all time. His amazing God-given talents allowed Jeffries to achieve the amazing feat of winning the Heavyweight Championship in just his 13th professional fight. His subsequent championship opponents were usually much more experienced but they were still unable to find any advantage. The only knock on Jeffries’s legacy is that he only had 23 official pro fights, but why would we punish him for not needing dozens of development fights before jumping in against quality opposition? We shouldn’t, thus James J. Jeffries deserves a spot in the top 5 all time.

Most Famous Fight(s): TKO 15 loss to Jack Johnson in 1910.

Notable Wins: TKO10 over Jim Corbett in 1903, KO8 over Bob Fitzsimmons in 1902, TKO5 over Gus Ruhlin in 1901, KO23 over Jim Corbett in 1900, 25 round points win over Tom Sharkey in 1899, KO11 over Bob Fitzsimmons in 1899, 20 round points win over Tom Sharkey in 1898, TKO4 over Joe Goddard in 1898, KO14 over Hank Griffin in 1896."

He makes a logical argument so at least his ranking is defended even though I know most won't agree.

This guy needs to check his sources. Jeffries drew the color line - loudly. I have the newspaper clippings. Starting around 1901, he repeatedly insisted to the press that he would not fight a black man. Sam McVey and Jack Johnson were both legitimate contenders when Jeffries was active. Denver Ed Martin was around too. (He is correct that Langford and Jeannette came later.)

That said, I'm glad to see he has Jeffries as high as he is. He is the most underrated heavyweight of all-time in my opinion. He's probably the best all-around athlete to ever hold the title.

Having Jeffries at 4 is a shocker!!! He wouldn't be in my top 10... And Marciano at 10 is a nightmare, he's done more than Jeffries every did.

Are you sure this is based on accomplishment?

Hell even Lewis, Holmes and Frazier done more than Jeffries.

With Jeffries at 4, this list has now lost all credibility.

raylawpc wrote:
This guy needs to check his sources. Jeffries drew the color line - loudly. I have the newspaper clippings. Starting around 1901, he repeatedly insisted to the press that he would not fight a black man. Sam McVey and Jack Johnson were both legitimate contenders when Jeffries was active. Denver Ed Martin was around too. (He is correct that Langford and Jeannette came later.)

That said, I'm glad to see he has Jeffries as high as he is. He is the most underrated heavyweight of all-time in my opinion. He's probably the best all-around athlete to ever hold the title.

Good call on Jeffries drawing the color line. I'd love to see that newspaper clipping if you have it scanned.

I also don't have a problem with Jeffries at #4. Guys like Crease who can't see that there is a logical argument for Jeffries begin that high must be ignorant of his accomplishments and need to do some homework! D Like SaadofftheDeck said earlier, there isn't much difference between 4 through 12.

Crease wrote:Having Jeffries at 4 is a shocker!!! He wouldn't be in my top 10...

He probably wouldn't want to be in your top ten anyway . . .

perrycarter wrote:

raylawpc wrote:
This guy needs to check his sources. Jeffries drew the color line - loudly. I have the newspaper clippings. Starting around 1901, he repeatedly insisted to the press that he would not fight a black man. Sam McVey and Jack Johnson were both legitimate contenders when Jeffries was active. Denver Ed Martin was around too. (He is correct that Langford and Jeannette came later.)

That said, I'm glad to see he has Jeffries as high as he is. He is the most underrated heavyweight of all-time in my opinion. He's probably the best all-around athlete to ever hold the title.

Good call on Jeffries drawing the color line. I'd love to see that newspaper clipping if you have it scanned.

I also don't have a problem with Jeffries at #4. Guys like Crease who can't see that there is a logical argument for Jeffries begin that high must be ignorant of his accomplishments and need to do some homework! D Like SaadofftheDeck said earlier, there isn't much difference between 4 through 12.

Some people believe boxing history began the year they were born . . .

raylawpc wrote:Some people believe boxing history began the year they were born...

Impeccable logic there... Considering that the majority my top 10 boxers retired before I was born:
Ali, Louis, Marciano, Frazier, Dempsey, Johnson, Walcott and Liston all retired before I was born.

Tyson and Foreman fought in my lifetime.

So, I guess we can chalk it all up to another fantastic theory disproved.

Crease wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Some people believe boxing history began the year they were born...

Impeccable logic there... Considering that the majority my top 10 boxers retired before I was born:
Ali, Louis, Marciano, Frazier, Dempsey, Johnson, Walcott and Liston all retired before I was born.

Tyson and Foreman fought in my lifetime.

So, I guess we can chalk it all up to another fantastic theory disproved.

Who said I was writing specifically about you?

raylawpc wrote:

Crease wrote:Having Jeffries at 4 is a shocker!!! He wouldn't be in my top 10...

He probably wouldn't want to be in your top ten anyway . . .

Not taking sides, but this did make me

I'm starting to hate any list that has fighters specifically numbered. Groups of ten I can dig or even tiers but 1,2,3,etc... that's lame! I don't care about numbers so much, its all about who could beat who. With that said, how could the Klitchkos not be mentioned? Ibeaubuchi was mentioned with a much smaller resume.

I'm all about the H2H match-ups. The fighters historical importance (political, social, whatever) doesn't really matter to me. The bottom line is that H2H David Tua knocks the crap out of plenty of the old timers on the list. He has the right combination of size, strength, one shot power in either hand, output, chin, and even stamina to beat a lot of fighters.

I could see him beating or at least having a good chance vs. Corbett, Fitz, Hart, Burns, Willard, Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock, maybe even Patterson?

Hookie74 wrote:I'm all about the H2H match-ups. The fighters historical importance (political, social, whatever) doesn't really matter to me. The bottom line is that H2H David Tua knocks the crap out of plenty of the old timers on the list. He has the right combination of size, strength, one shot power in either hand, output, chin, and even stamina to beat a lot of fighters.

I could see him beating or at least having a good chance vs. Corbett, Fitz, Hart, Burns, Willard, Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock, maybe even Patterson?

Tua was garbage. Did you really just nominate him to beat Baer, Schmeling, & Sharkey? LOL.

I wouldn't give him but a glimmer against Braddock or Corbett. I'd only give him a strong nod over carnera & Hart.

Tua was a solid contender. Durable and with a KO punch.

Put it like this, you had to be a very good fighter to beat him. But he was beatable.

Guys like Fitz and Burns were small men. Who knows how they’d have fared with modern day “science” behind them. But they may have been too small to compete with the behemoths.

Tua V Willard would be a good fight with two durable men looking to land their Sunday best.

He has an outside chance with Patterson just because Floyd though much more skilled could be caught and dropped.

Sharkey? Schmeling? I don’t think so.

Hookie74 wrote: With that said, how could the Klitchkos not be mentioned? Ibeaubuchi was mentioned with a much smaller resume.

This was covered earlier in the thread. The author said that the Klitschko brothers were not considered for the list because they are still active. Otherwise they would definitely be there.

raylawpc wrote:

perrycarter wrote:Obviously the most unexpected ranking is Jeffries at #4. That is higher than most would have him. Here is the author's explanation for having Jeffries so high:

"4. James J. Jeffries

Jeffries is the most underrated of the all time great Heavyweight Champions. Most do not even have Jeffries ranked in the top 10 all time. His most famous fight, a knockout loss to Jack Johnson, unjustly tarnished his reputation. As I described earlier, Jeffries was light years away from his prime form having been out of boxing for 6 years and in terrible shape. His lone loss to Johnson should not be given any more credence than Muhammad Ali’s loss to Larry Holmes, Joe Louis’s loss to Rocky Marciano, or Larry Holmes’s loss to Evander Holyfield. To fairly judge Jeffries’s legacy you have to look at his career prior to the Johnson fight, which was impeccable. Jeffries fought in an era I rate as the third best ever, behind only the late 1960’s/early1970’s (Ali, Foreman, Frazier, etc.) and the 1990’s (Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield, etc.). Jim Corbett is correctly compared to Gene Tunney, Tom Sharkey was a Rocky Marciano clone, and Robert Fitzsimmons was a unique fighter who can’t be compared to any modern boxer but he was undeniably great. Jeffries beat them all, including other notables, completely cleaning out the division of quality heavyweight contenders during his dominating reign as Heavyweight Champion. Jeffries had no blemishes on his record either since he never lost, gave rematches to everyone who deserved it, and ducked no one. Some incorrectly claim that Jeffries drew the color line.

True he did not defend his title against any black contenders, but there were no good ones during his time as champion. Jeffries fought prior to the emergence of the trio of Langford, McVea, and Jeannette, and after the glory days of Peter Jackson (although Jeffries did trounced a washed up Jackson on his way up the ranks). Jack Johnson was active towards the end of Jeffries’s championship career but was still losing to the likes of Marvin Hart and was not considered a serious contender. The best black contender of the day was probably Hank Griffin and Jeffries bested him twice in non-title fights. Jeffries retired after five dominating years as the undefeated and undisputed Heavyweight Champion. James was so good because he was an athletic marvel. He was built like a bear, with a barrel chest and huge legs. Only George Foreman could rival Jeffries’s incredible physical strength, but Jeffries was not a slow lumbering caveman at all. He possessed Olympic caliber speed and jumping ability. Jeffries was an astonishing athletic marvel of strength, speed, and agility. His chin and stamina was among the best of any boxer of all time. His amazing God-given talents allowed Jeffries to achieve the amazing feat of winning the Heavyweight Championship in just his 13th professional fight. His subsequent championship opponents were usually much more experienced but they were still unable to find any advantage. The only knock on Jeffries’s legacy is that he only had 23 official pro fights, but why would we punish him for not needing dozens of development fights before jumping in against quality opposition? We shouldn’t, thus James J. Jeffries deserves a spot in the top 5 all time.

Most Famous Fight(s): TKO 15 loss to Jack Johnson in 1910.

Notable Wins: TKO10 over Jim Corbett in 1903, KO8 over Bob Fitzsimmons in 1902, TKO5 over Gus Ruhlin in 1901, KO23 over Jim Corbett in 1900, 25 round points win over Tom Sharkey in 1899, KO11 over Bob Fitzsimmons in 1899, 20 round points win over Tom Sharkey in 1898, TKO4 over Joe Goddard in 1898, KO14 over Hank Griffin in 1896."

He makes a logical argument so at least his ranking is defended even though I know most won't agree.

This guy needs to check his sources. Jeffries drew the color line - loudly. I have the newspaper clippings. Starting around 1901, he repeatedly insisted to the press that he would not fight a black man. Sam McVey and Jack Johnson were both legitimate contenders when Jeffries was active. Denver Ed Martin was around too. (He is correct that Langford and Jeannette came later.)

That said, I'm glad to see he has Jeffries as high as he is. He is the most underrated heavyweight of all-time in my opinion. He's probably the best all-around athlete to ever hold the title.

In my research, the color line was pretty much in play until Marciano. Its true. Johnson did not mix it with Langford, Jeanette, or Mcvey, who were the worlds best when he was champion. Dempsey did not fight Wills. Joe Louis only fought two black fighters in his 26 title defenses, and one was an old sick man. . Jim Jeffries, did return to fight Johnson, that is well known. What is not so well known if Jeffries fought black prize fighter Griffin as Champion in 1901, and floored him multiple times in a 4 round match. The fight is listed as a win in the ring record book. So saying Jeffries would not face a black fighter in the ring as champion is not entirely true.