BoxRec

The Great John L wrote:I REALLY hate to agree with Decagon on anything, but there are rare posts where he kind of makes sense. And I have to agree that Pinklon Thomas was on the downside of his career when he fought Tyson. After Tyson, he lost 4 of his next 5 fights, and hadn't beaten a contender in nearly two years. And he hadn't really looked sharp since the Weaver fight nearly two years earlier.

And if most HW's are still in their prime at 29, what's your excuse again for Tyson getting his whuppin from Douglas at 24? Because ALL Tyson fans ignore reality and have him as a completely shot, over the hill shell of himself, even though he had two very good performances in the 12 months prior to being exposed by Buster. Excuse me, I meant prior to aging 12 years in the 7 months after the Williams fight.

Totally correct John L.

I have to disagree about Thomas...I know he did not do anything after Tyson beat him, but several fighters did not do anything after Tyson got through with them! Going in, if Thomas was not in his prime then he was very close to it.

barry wrote:I have to disagree about Thomas...I know he did not do anything after Tyson beat him, but several fighters did not do anything after Tyson got through with them! Going in, if Thomas was not in his prime then he was very close to it.

The issue is more that Thomas hadn't done anything of note in the 2 years prior to Tyson. He looked pathetic against the durable, but rather slow Berbick 15 months prior to Tyson, and looked sluggish in every other fight after that. In fact after beating Weaver 2 years prior to Tyson, Thomas did not have a single win over a world class HW.

>>>He looked pathetic against the durable, but rather slow Berbick 15 months prior to Tyson<<<

Several fighters looked pretty bad against Berbick and his wins follwing that loss were really no different from other fighters before he faced Berbick. He wasn't the best heavyweight, but he was as solid as anyone Tyson had to face at the time. I have most of Tyson fights on DVD, including the one with Thomas, but I don't recall their fight, but didn't Thomas give Tyson a little trouble, or am I thinking of someone else...besides, with the exception of his loss to Holyfield, the other losses that Thomas suffered came three and four years after the Tyson bout, so he had no been very active, plus those losses were all to very good fighters...it wasn't like Thomas was dealt a defeat by a no name opponent and from 1991 to 1993 Thomas looked great against the fighters he faced.

Yes, Thomas gave Tyson a little trouble early in the fight. I was simply stating fact when I said that Thomas did not beat a single world class HW after he beat Weaver, which was 2 years prior to the Tyson fight. How he looked against Sutton, Maldonado, Hosea, etc, really has no bearing on the discussion, because they weren't very good fighters. And yes he was inactive after the Tyson fight and his other loses were against good fighters, but as I said he did not beat any world class fighters. After the Weaver fight, which was 2 years prior to Tyson, he lost every fight he had against quality opposition.

The Great John L wrote:Yes, Thomas gave Tyson a little trouble early in the fight. I was simply stating fact when I said that Thomas did not beat a single world class HW after he beat Weaver, which was 2 years prior to the Tyson fight. How he looked against Sutton, Maldonado, Hosea, etc, really has no bearing on the discussion, because they weren't very good fighters. And yes he was inactive after the Tyson fight and his other loses were against good fighters, but as I said he did not beat any world class fighters. After the Weaver fight, which was 2 years prior to Tyson, he lost every fight he had against quality opposition.

I always considered Tyson's win over Thomas his most impressive but what you say is true. Thomas looked excellent against the fading Weaver but he never looked the same again. Tyson obviously respected Thomas and worked his opening. It was still a very good performance but Thomas was probably already physically/mentally in retreat.

Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson both fought very repectable title challengers compared to other champions. The compitition Dempsey faced was not just worse but alot worse. I agree with Brockton that Tommy Burns, Jack Johnson and Floyd Patterson probably fought the worst out of the long reigning champions.

>>>The compitition Dempsey faced was not just worse but alot worse.<<<

That's just simply not true! Guys like Luis Firpo, Tommy Gibbons, Gene Tunney, Billy Miske, Bill Brennan and Georges Carpentier was better than most competition that both Holmes and Tyson fought combined...to say that they were a lot worse is just wrong!

That's just simply not true! Guys like Luis Firpo, Tommy Gibbons, Gene Tunney, Billy Miske, Bill Brennan and Georges Carpentier was better than most competition that both Holmes and Tyson fought combined...to say that they were a lot worse is just wrong!

Besides Tunney, none of those challenges were anything special for a heavyweight champion. Firpo was a big guy,for that time at least,who would swing wildly,using his size and strenght to batter his opponents into submission. Gibbons was a great veteran light heavyweight who was too small to compete with the champ. So was Carpantier. Brennan was an okay fighter, nothing special, and Miske was a dying man,fought as a favor so he could earn a good payday.

So you think guys like David Bey, Lorenzo Zanon, Osvaldo Ocasio, Alfredo Evangelista, Leroy Jones, Scott LeDoux, Renaldo Snipes, Tex Cobb, Lucien Rodriguez, Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier were a lot better than those I mentioned? Sorry, but that is very incorrect!

Ken Norton, Witherspoon, Cooney,Shavers,the truth Williams, Smith and Spinks werw better HEAVYWEIGHT compition than Dempsey faced. Throw in those other guys and the fact that Holmes averaged three title fights a year for nearly seven years, then yes Holmes reign was a lot tougher.
In can make the same argument for Tyson.

>>>Ken Norton, Witherspoon, Cooney,Shavers,the truth Williams, Smith and Spinks werw better HEAVYWEIGHT compition than Dempsey faced.<<<

They're careers do not present that they were better...they're fights don't either. Other than the blow-outs that they scored against weaker opposition. Norton, Witherspoon and Spinks were probably better than all of Dempsey's title competiton,except Gene Tunney who was better than anyone Holmes ever fought, except Tyson. Cooney, Shavers, Williams and Smith were no better than those that Dempsey faced though!

Cooney, Shavers, Williams and Smith

To be honest with you, Witth the exception of Tunney,I think these three would beat everyone of Dempsey's championship opponents. These guys werent just big Heavyweights like Firpo was, they were big powerful heavyweights who could actually fight. In Dempseys days they would have been as avoided as a prime Harry Wills.

>>>These guys werent just big Heavyweights like Firpo was, they were big powerful heavyweights who could actually fight.<<<

Dempsey's opponents could fight too...very, very well and with fighters like Williams, Shavers, Cooney and Smith, size means very little! Williams was quiet possibly the most talented of the four and he was nothing special...Shavers could punch as hard as anyone ever, but that's about all he had...Cooney had one hell of a left hook and he showed heart against Holmes...the only special about him was that he was a white man who had a huge left hook...Smith, well he has been as hot and cold as any top fighter that I can recall. Not only could fighters like Brennan, Firpo, Miske and Gibbons be able to compete with any of the four fighters mentioned, they had just as good a chance to win as Williams, Shavers, Cooney or Smith did.

Dempsey's opponents were not only better boxers who were a lot more clever than the four mentioned, but they could match punches with all except Shavers, but most important, they were in better condition than any of the four opponents of Holmes! Shavers could knock anyone out that he hit, but if that didn't happen pretty quick then he was in for trouble as he ran out of gas very easily...Cooney was a solid heavyweight who benefitted more from his race than he did his ability. Smith, well he can go down with a few others who would be listed under the luckiest fighters to win a championship. Smith had a great punch and that was his lucky star because he was not much in the ability department. Williams, well he could certainly box, but he was not too durable and probably a lot more overrated than anything when he was fighting...I mean hell, he was only able to score one victory against a top heavyweight and rarely could he meet the challenge when he stepped up in competition.

Overall, Dempsey had fewer championship fights, but his competition was just as good if not better than Holmes...it certainly was not anything to be ashamed of!

you know, this argument is kind of silly b/c Berbick and Thomas wern't great title challengers to begin with. Berbick was slow and had little skill (but great stamina and was very tough) and Thomas was all athleticism and a jab, nothing else.

Regarding Holmes, come on. People talk about him ducking Page and Dokes but they all cancelled each other out when he defended against the guys who BEAT THEM (Weaver, Bey) What was he supposed to do. And the Witherspoon who fought Larry was as good as he ever was. Later on he just got fat and complacent.

well I guess this is one of those subjects we are not going to agree on. Dempsey reign was exceptional to me due to the exciting way he fought through it, not how tough the oppisition actually was.

Can't we all just agree that John L. Sullivan had the worst competition of any long reigning heavyweight champion?

As for Floyd Patterson, I would personally have to say that did NOT have the worst competition of any long reigning heavyweight champion, even excluding John L. His competition wasn't great, and a few were completely undeserving, but 3 of his defenses were against fighters that were very deserving and 1 other (Hurricane Jackson) had a legitimate title opportunity. I'll grade the opponents from A to F based on how deserving they were of a title shot.

Hurricane Jackson:

Got his title shot based off of 6 fights - 2 victories against an over the hill Rex Layne, 2 victories against a guy named Ezzard Charles who was a shell of a shell of his old self, and 2 very close victories against Bob Baker, a solid contender. Grade: C+

Pete Rademacher:

Won a Gold Medal...woohoo ...first professional fight against one of the great fighters of all-time...in his prime...what the hell were his managers thinking? Grade: F

Roy Harris:

At the top he was a hot young prospect, undefeated and only 25 years of age when he fought Patterson. However, Harris fought virtually no one of note before his fight with Patterson. A close decision over Bob Baker and a points victory over future Light Heavyweight champion Willie Pastrano were his only good victories. Grade: C-

Brian London:

Former British Heavyweight Champion got his title shot immediately after LOSING his title to Henry Cooper. Notable victories over Joe Erskine (to win the British title) and Willie Pastrano (fight was stopped due to a cut over Pastrano's eye). Was beaten by Cooper twice before the Patterson fight, including once by TKO in round 1. Lost on points to Pastrano in the fight where Pastrano did not get cut. Getting a title shot after losing to a better fighter is just not a good way to get a high grade. Grade: D-

Ingemar Johansson (first fight):

Knocked out Henry Cooper, Joe Erskine and Eddie Machen. Had clearly established himself as the best fighter in Europe and was undefeated. Most bash Ingo quite a bit (myself included), but he deserved a shot at the title. He wasn't the most deserving, but he was deserving. Grade: B+

Ingemar Johansson (third fight):

Only fair. Nuff said. Grade: A

Tom McNeeley:

Absolutely no reason for McNeeley to get a title shot. He was undefeated and 24 years old. That's the only reason why he got a shot. Didn't beat a single top contender (unless a post-prime Willi Besmanoff counts as a top contender). There was a reason why he was knocked down 11 times in 4 rounds Grade: D-

Sonny Liston:

Clearly the #1 contender to the title. Had been for years. Patterson finally gave him a shot and Liston finally proved he was the best heavyweight in the world. Grade: A

Overall Grade: C

8 total defenses, 3 were against very deserving fighters (Ingo and Sonny), 1 was against a fairly deserving fighter (Hurricane Jackson), 1 was against a sorta kinda deserving fighter (Roy Harris), and 3 were against completely undeserving fighters.

Even though Patterson clearly did not have anywhere near the best competition while he was champion, his opposition wasn't totally weak either.

The question for me has always been who would end up on top in the UGFEST of Patterson and Carnera......Loser gets the honors of worst HW.

Spinks and Patterson could be another imagnined great event in losing moments in boxing.

BoxBuzz wrote:The question for me has always been who would end up on top in the UGFEST of Patterson and Carnera......Loser gets the honors of worst HW.

Spinks and Patterson could be another imagnined great event in losing moments in boxing.

i rate patterson top 20 heavyweight of all time, no way hes even close to the worst.


carnera is also underated, no way is he the worst. he beat far better fighters than some other heavyweight champs.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:The question for me has always been who would end up on top in the UGFEST of Patterson and Carnera......Loser gets the honors of worst HW.

Spinks and Patterson could be another imagnined great event in losing moments in boxing.

i rate patterson top 20 heavyweight of all time, no way hes even close to the worst.


carnera is also underated, no way is he the worst. he beat far better fighters than some other heavyweight champs.

To me the worst of the lineal champs is Shannon Briggs hands down. Most don't think of him as a champion, but when Briggs beat Foreman (albeit in a controversial decision) he became the lineal heavyweight champion, and was the true champion until Lennox Lewis beat him.

iceman21287 wrote:Can't we all just agree that John L. Sullivan had the worst competition of any long reigning heavyweight champion?

N0

In fact, that's pretty indefensible since no one around today really knows anything about his opponents. You could also flip this argument and say he had the toughest opponents, since again nobody today really knows anything about who he fought. In fact I don't think anyone today even knows all of the opponents he had during his career.

Blocky I'll give you arguing rights on Patterson though I'll never sign on, But Carnera is just a matter of hitting the books and watching the films.
I admit my bias regarding patterson, but with Carnera it's purely a clinical skills call, no more no less.

The Great John L wrote:

iceman21287 wrote:Can't we all just agree that John L. Sullivan had the worst competition of any long reigning heavyweight champion?

N0

In fact, that's pretty indefensible since no one around today really knows anything about his opponents. You could also flip this argument and say he had the toughest opponents, since again nobody today really knows anything about who he fought. In fact I don't think anyone today even knows all of the opponents he had during his career.

If you've read John L. Sullivan and His America by Michael T. Isenberg, then you would know that the vast majority of his fights under Marquis of Queensbury rules were against amateurs or fighters with no ring experience, and the ones that had usually weighed 50 pounds less than him.

tyson literally destroyed spinx in his heavyweight prime

I so loved that KO by my favourite Tyson Ko is the Berbick one were he staggers like a drunk.

iceman21287 wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

iceman21287 wrote:Can't we all just agree that John L. Sullivan had the worst competition of any long reigning heavyweight champion?

N0

In fact, that's pretty indefensible since no one around today really knows anything about his opponents. You could also flip this argument and say he had the toughest opponents, since again nobody today really knows anything about who he fought. In fact I don't think anyone today even knows all of the opponents he had during his career.

If you've read John L. Sullivan and His America by Michael T. Isenberg, then you would know that the vast majority of his fights under Marquis of Queensbury rules were against amateurs or fighters with no ring experience, and the ones that had usually weighed 50 pounds less than him.

I stand by what I've said. Obviously given the nature of most of his fights it is clear that the majority of his opponents would be very limited. However, as I have stated, there is no clear evidence remaining to really say that his opponents were better or worse than other HW champs. You can make your own assumptions, but there is no way to really defend them. Since he was a pioneer of gloved HW fighting, and pretty much established boxing as a popular and profitable sport, his was a rather unique career.