BoxRec

Klompton, good points as usual. I am looking forward to the Greb book.

I will have to interlibrary loan some Sydney Morning Herald to learn more about the Australian experts and betting atmosphere you mention surrounding those fights. If you know some better sources or have articles where I could learn more about these fights, please email me.

It's not like I ignore McCoy's claim to the title, I just look at the Australian claimants and McCoy like a WBA champ vs. WBC champ today. Two different champions who didn't fight each other, kind of like the confusion in the middleweight scene of the 1930's. If we strictly went by the rules and weights, Klaus or Chip wouldn't have been champion and the title would have been vacant from Ketchel to Johnny Wilson. I also think that the Packey McFarland-Mike Gibbons fight, while non-title, was the equivalent of Barrera-Hamed at featherweight with no belts on the line and they were under 158. Dillon got a claim of the light heavyweight title by beating Levinsky so I don't believe he was slighted too much and of course Greb's time was coming. So I give credence to both middleweight claims because nothing was clearcut then.

Foremer WBO Champion Michael Bentt

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:he basically fought all his fight barenuckle. he used to do more training in wrestling than in boxing.

he is one of the strongest heavyweights champs of all time, and had rock solid muscle. he also ate well, and ran a lot. but also drank alot.


the guy would prob be DQed if he fought today lol. thats the way i see it.

You're very misinformed here. Sulivan did fight MOST of his fights by the London Prizering rules, but in this format he was known more as a "striker" than a wrestler, and often times had more trouble with those who excelled at wrestling, like Jake Kilrain. His greatest assets were very quick hands, a powerfull right hand, and great strength and durability.

About the only thing you got right was the drinking part. Like many athletes (including modern athletes) substance abuse shortened his lengthy reign.

whew at least none of you thought braddock was one of the top 5 worse heavyweight champions of all time

I suggest that those who believe JLSullivan was mediocre, should read Izenberg's "John L Sullivan and his America."

The man was the first non entreprenuer in America to make a million dollars. He was considered unbeatable for over a decade and only lost one fight in his long career. His power was impressive and his speed -when young- was also notable. John L. was a very dangerous man in his time.

Primo Carnera
Primo Carnera
Primo Carnera
Primo Carnera
Primo Carnera

and the rest of the story
Shannon Briggs
Jack Sharkey
Jess Willard
Bruce Seldon

Boy am I going to here it from everybody on these picks.

But I was trying to stay with some legitimate names.

kovit wrote:John Ruiz is one of the worst boring wba heavyweight champions of all-time. JOHN RUIZ IS THE WORST HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION OF ALL-TIME!

NUFF SAID my man ...To me, Ruiz is not even in the top 100 greatest heavyweights of all time.

Actually Id put money that Ruiz could hug and whack his way to a victory with Primo with ease. Ruiz annoys me no end but put Primo in front of him and I"m afraid he puts a W in his column. Hmmm Shannon Briggs not so sure, Bruce Seldon I'm with Ruiz on that one.

Sharkey and Ruiz.....For me it's too close to call I'm leaning Ruiz. Willard too I go with Ruiz. Couldnt put Ruiz in my worst Five. I could put him in my most annoying Five.

BoxBuzz wrote:Actually Id put money that Ruiz could hug and whack his way to a victory with Primo with ease. Ruiz annoys me no end but put Primo in front of him and I"m afraid he puts a W in his column. Hmmm Shannon Briggs not so sure, Bruce Seldon I'm with Ruiz on that one.

Sharkey and Ruiz.....For me it's too close to call I'm leaning Ruiz. Willard too I go with Ruiz. Couldnt put Ruiz in my worst Five. I could put him in my most annoying Five.

I am SORRY, BUT I CANNOT SEE A BUM LIKE JOHN RUIZ BEAT an excellent fighter like Jack Sharkey.

Primo, Shannon and Seldon do not even make the top 100 heavyweights in my view.

I know I have a very controversial opinion on Sharkey, A lot of people think he was a great. I've always had a blind spot with him I guess.

Jess Willard too.

..sharkey had his moments. dempsey said in their fight that..before sharkey went down from the alleged low blow..that he was the best fighter he'd ever fought. odd statement from a guy who fought tunney.

sharkey was too erratic....to high strung to be a consistently good fighter.....plus more than just his "fight" against carnera were suspect. don't know if i'd rank him at the very bottom....maybe in the low middle. he's just too hard to assess based on what he did..as opposed to what many think he could have done.

willard....showed tremendous courage and ability to take incredible punishment against dempsey, but to me that is about the best you can say about him. way down there with carnera.

Yeah with Sharkey it's tough, you seem to have him pegged. He may have been pretty good but who would know? Carnera puts him away and whether it was by "real" or "deal" that just makes him a joke in my book.

If he was faking some of his fights he was corrupt and maybe a good fighter. If he really was fighting in earnest well he was too erratic and maybe just lucky. How high can you put a guy that is this unknowable?

I cringe when I see his name near the top. Somebody posted a web site that had him "bubbling under" the top 20 heavyweights of all time with Riddick Bowe. I sure do want to know what those guys have been smoking. Call themselves the boxing research center. Actually outside of that call and having Louis and Ali reversed and Joe Jeanette needing to come up it was not all that different than my own I guess.

Everybody makes a bad call now and then. I think I may have one time but it was a long time ago and am barely able to recall it. Except for Norton Ali 1 and Tszyu Hatton and Hopkins Taylor and......oh well the list is long.

BoxBuzz, that's the International Boxing Research Organization (IBRO) and they have done a ton of research on old records and uncovering more on the sport. They know more about the sport than any of us. I put a lot of credence in what they have to say.

I think Sharkey can be overrated at times, but to think of him as one of the worst champions is wrong. Ruiz would have no chance of beating Sharkey. He was leading Dempsey on points before complaining to the referee, he beat other great heavyweights in Harry Wills and George Godfrey (black fighters that neither Tunney or Dempsey ever fought), and he fought and beat a variety of Top 10 heavyweight contenders. Another interesting note about Sharkey is that he drew with Tom Heeney in a bout that effectively determined Tunney's next challenger. If Sharkey had gotten the decision, he would have had the fight with Tunney for the title.

I think Sharkey was a solid boxer that gets too much criticism for the Carnera fight. Yes, he was beaten by Carnera and later blitzkrieged by Louis but he had accomplished enough by then to be considered a great heavyweight (ie one of the Top 25-35 HWs ever).

I think I showed respect for their work. I only happen to disagree on a very few things. No need for the defensive posture. They seem like a fine organization.

We all have to look through all we read and attempt to assess it. I'm sure they have done a better job than me if you say so. However that said, My opinion remains. Sharkey is at BEST a question mark to me.

And the fact that they have him bubbling under with Riddick does make sense to me in some ways. I would just have them both bubbling together quite a bit further down is all.

I was actually impressed with the bulk of their work. I mentioned we all make mistakes. The question on Sharkey and Riddick is is it my mistake or theirs? You decide.

If Riddick is honestly their with Sharkey you may have to rate Golata in with them as well I would think. This works for me and I think helps with my point.

From your post, it didn't seem like you knew what the IBRO was, so I pointed it out. I'm not a member, and no offense intended. The ratings were compiled using Top 20 rankings from most of the membership and listing the consensus.

Bowe is one of the toughest heavyweights to rate, because his peak rating is so much higher than his overall rating. Eddie Futch said that Riddick Bowe had more natural talent than any heavyweight he had ever seen, and that's high praise from Frazier's trainer. And in Bowe-Holyfield I, Bowe was an absolute monster at 235 solid pounds with wicked power and tremendous stamina. The Riddick Bowe from that night would be way up on heavyweight lists. But when you consider the overall body of work, his second most impressive performance is...Holyfield III where he got knocked down? Larry Donald at the press conference? It's up in the air. So basically, if you go by peak #21 is more than legit, but if you look at overall career than Riddick probably doesn't belong.

I still think that Sharkey showed more than enough in his career to be far above Golata, but we can agree to disagree there.

dnahar makes some good points about sharkey. obviously tunney thought he was at least better than heeney because he chose the latter as his final opponent. sharkey would have been a better box office draw....but tunney was getting a guarantee anyway.

Definitely Leon Spinks.

Bruce Seldon
John Ruiz. At least when Bruce lost his belt, it stayed lost. Ruiz could be considered the miracle boxer the way he seems to always get that fricken belt back.

Forced to talk real boxing again? So rare, oh well, I can't even get into the conversation after the great fracture. Ruiz has no place in the conversation because he is not a real champion. Sharkey and Bowe would murdelize him.

Hey its the star of "Rubio in Joliet" Trust me RubiDooski.....you will find the meaning of true love in Joliet.

There were alot worse champions than Ruiz, as bad as he is. He did beat some of the top heavyweights of his era whatever thats worth. Guys like Rahman, a Revitalized Golata, Fres Oquendo, Kirk Johnson and a not so faded yet Holyfield.

Leon Spinks, Frank Bruno,Bruce Seldon, Axel Shultz and Primo Canera, were definitly worse heavyweight champions.

theone wrote:There were alot worse champions than Ruiz, as bad as he is. He did beat some of the top heavyweights of his era whatever thats worth. Guys like Rahman, a Revitalized Golata, Fres Oquendo, Kirk Johnson and a not so faded yet Holyfield.

Leon Spinks, Frank Bruno,Bruce Seldon, Axel Shultz and Primo Canera, were definitly worse heavyweight champions.

I actually was a Leon fan early in his career, but I would say that he was probably the weakest of all champions. he did fight a great performance against Ali in their 1st go, but Ali probably didn't train at all for that fight. Besides that one win, he had no other accomplishments.

Ernie Terrell held the WBA title back in the sixties. That was in the pre alphbet soup era, so I don't know if that even counts. Jimmy Ellis also a non great champ and also held the WBA title in the sixties for what it was worth.

In the eighties the post alphebet soup era you had people like James Bonecrusher Smith, Greg Page, Tony Tubbs, what the hell might as well include Treavor Berbick. Let's see who else. Oh yea Gerri Coetzee. Then you would have to look at the guys who were champions who were kayoed by less than great champions like Mike Weaver Tim Witherspoon and Michael Dokes.

It might have been easier to just name the worthy champs and then cosider everyone else who held a title of some sort to be unchampionship caliber.

Kick you got the right perspective