SILKOVS TOP TWENTY HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPS!/WHO WAS THE GREATEST?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 22 Dec 2006, 10:41

Some general comments:

Rating prime Charles above prime Marciano seems perfectly sensible to me. Marciano faced a washed up version of Charles and yet fought tooth and nail with him. Archie Moore -- who should now -- said a prime Charles would have wiped the floor with Marciano. If I have Marciano still slightly above Charles it's basically on achievements.

Rating Walcott above Marciano is more difficult to justify but it's not impossible either, as similar arguments can be made also here -- Walcott was in his prime in the late 40s, Marciano fought the early 1950s version that was close to 40. Btw, Walcott could become champion only because Charles was deteriorating faster than Walcott did himself.

As for Corbett, people were in awe of him at the time, and Tunney once said that Corbett was the technically best fighter ever -- and Tunney should be competent enough to make this statement. I agree the pre-1920s/30s fighters are hard to assess because the film is so poor, but this does not mean that in case of doubt the assessment should always be made to their disadvantage. An ATG list that includes only Jack Johnson pre-1920s is necessarily incomplete.

This said, Sharkey is a fighter who tends to be underrated because he was so erratic. But at his best Sharkey was on par with the other greats of his era - Dempsey, Tunney, Schmeling -- a fighter with great hand- and footspeed, excellent lateral movement, superb reflexes, and good punching power in both hands. Rating him in the top 20 is not absurd at all, even though in my list he just misses the cut.

P

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 22 Dec 2006, 10:43

scottmallon wrote:There are different ways to look at this but Witherspoon, IMO, doesn't belong anywhere near the top 20. He had a couple of decent fights but rating him on what he could have been or how could he could be at times doesn't equate to an entire career or a career full of highs. That goes for Bowe as well although he deserves to be higher than Witherspoon.

I was a bit surprised at the high ranking for Spoon as well, but I checked my HW AT ratings and I’ve currently got him at #34 so I don’t think that #19 is really that far fetched. As far as him having “a couple of decent fights”, I think we may all want to review his career again (which I just did) because it’s actually a very solid resume. Wins over Snipes, Tillis, Page, Smith, Tubbs, Bruno and Carl Williams when they were all younger and very capable, plus the razor thin loss to a still formidable Holmes looks much better than Bowe’s weak resume. Bowe has a few of the same names, but they are a few years later and farther down the path to obscurity when Bowe fought them. And of course Bowe had only the one loss to Holy, but I’m looking more at the quality of opposition which invariably will lead to a few losses when the overall quality is higher.

In addition, when he was nearly 40, Spoon beat Gonzalez, who Bowe supporters always bring up as one of his better wins, as well as wins when he was well past 40 over journeymen Bostice and Castillo and a very close loss to Barrett. While I think #19 is a bit high, I don’t really have a major problem with that ranking. After all, I always say “there’s Ali and Louis and then everybody else”. And I’d rather not discuss those who missed on the top two…

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 22 Dec 2006, 11:19

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:corbett over marciano, i cant wait to hear this one. corbett was demolished in 9 rounds by a 5'8 180lb tom sharkey who was something of a poor mans marciano. yet corbett beats marciano?

I think the general consensus here would be that a slick world class boxer (i.e. Ali, Homes) would give Marciano more trouble than he could handle....you can, of course, disagree...and have a point in a strange sort of way...considering Marciano never fought anyone in their class, so there is no precident to see how he would have done with a "prime" snapping jab ripping him up from a distance...

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 22 Dec 2006, 11:34

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:corbett over marciano, i cant wait to hear this one. corbett was demolished in 9 rounds by a 5'8 180lb tom sharkey who was something of a poor mans marciano. yet corbett beats marciano?

Why such little respect for Sharkey, who was one of the best fighters at the turn of the 20th century? Who’s to say that Sharkey wasn’t actually better than Marciano? You might want to read up a bit on Sharkey before you dismiss him lightly. Many would consider his level of opposition to actually be better than Rocky’s.

BTW, Corbett hadn’t fought anything but a few exhibitions in the 18 months prior to running into the Sailor. Not that anyone who lost to Sharkey needs any excuses.

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 22 Dec 2006, 13:37

I think the list is quite good, however on a one v one basis I rate Foreman at number 2 possibly. Over a career, Louis is ahead of him, but Foreman beats Louis and Holmes in a one off fight situation, peak V peak.
Ali/Clay is the best of the crop at peak!!!!

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 22 Dec 2006, 14:13

The Great John L wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:corbett over marciano, i cant wait to hear this one. corbett was demolished in 9 rounds by a 5'8 180lb tom sharkey who was something of a poor mans marciano. yet corbett beats marciano?
Why such little respect for Sharkey, who was one of the best fighters at the turn of the 20th century? Who’s to say that Sharkey wasn’t actually better than Marciano? You might want to read up a bit on Sharkey before you dismiss him lightly. Many would consider his level of opposition to actually be better than Rocky’s.

BTW, Corbett hadn’t fought anything but a few exhibitions in the 18 months prior to running into the Sailor. Not that anyone who lost to Sharkey needs any excuses.

I give credit to Sharkey for some skills but he was a basket case and could not be depended on to deliver for a number of reasons one of which could be integrity.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 23 Dec 2006, 03:00

Sweet Scientist wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:corbett over marciano, i cant wait to hear this one. corbett was demolished in 9 rounds by a 5'8 180lb tom sharkey who was something of a poor mans marciano. yet corbett beats marciano?
I think the general consensus here would be that a slick world class boxer (i.e. Ali, Homes) would give Marciano more trouble than he could handle....you can, of course, disagree...and have a point in a strange sort of way...considering Marciano never fought anyone in their class, so there is no precident to see how he would have done with a "prime" snapping jab ripping him up from a distance...

marciano may not have fought anyone in there class, but holmes certainly never BEAT anyone close to marcianos class either! and ali never beat a prime frazier(closest thing he fought to a marciano).

oo i tottally agree. slick boxers will give marciano a lot of trouble.

but then again, history shows highly conditioned punching swarmers give ali fits too!

as for holmes, he never fought anyone close to style of marciano, so its hard to tell. i think marcianos ackwardness and right hand would serve him well vs holmes well at the same time holmes physical advantages along with his straight fast punches serve him well vs marciano

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 23 Dec 2006, 03:04

Rating prime Charles above prime Marciano seems perfectly sensible to me. Marciano faced a washed up version of Charles and yet fought tooth and nail with him. Archie Moore -- who should now -- said a prime Charles would have wiped the floor with Marciano. If I have Marciano still slightly above Charles it's basically on achievements.

Rating Walcott above Marciano is more difficult to justify but it's not impossible either, as similar arguments can be made also here -- Walcott was in his prime in the late 40s, Marciano fought the early 1950s version that was close to 40. Btw, Walcott could become champion only because Charles was deteriorating faster than Walcott did himself.

pundit most of what you say here is pure garbage.

walcott became champion because IMO he was the better heavyweight than charles. charles IMO never beats walcott on his best day. walcott adapted his game plan and beat the shit out of charles in the 3rd fight, it wasnt because of charles decline. it was because how good walcott is. walcott deserves just as much credit for beating charles as charles does for beating walcott.

* incidently a peak charles you like to refer to lost to a puncher swarmer 38 year old elmer ray. though most consider it a controversial decision, it was a very close fight and ray had a lot of success on the inside vs charles. if a 38 year old ray could, why couldnt a 28 year old marciano???

half blind pat valentino went life and death with a prime ezzard charles in a dead close fight. if charles has this much trouble with a half blind valentino on the inside, imagine what a nightmare marciano will be.

you see how logic works?

i think you totally dont give marciano enough credit for beating ezzard. IMO had they both met in the primes, it would be a great very close fight but the result would not change. i also think stylistically marciano would do much better in fantasy matchups vs the rest of the ATG heavyweights than charles would. thats another reason why marciano should be rated over ezzard.

marciano did not face a washed up version of charles. sportswriters of that time in fact said that was the best preformance charles ever put up in his career. it wasnt peak, but it was far from washed up. marciano also wasnt at his best either, he was extremley rusty and he was aging himself.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 23 Dec 2006, 03:19

The Great John L wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:corbett over marciano, i cant wait to hear this one. corbett was demolished in 9 rounds by a 5'8 180lb tom sharkey who was something of a poor mans marciano. yet corbett beats marciano?
Why such little respect for Sharkey, who was one of the best fighters at the turn of the 20th century? Who’s to say that Sharkey wasn’t actually better than Marciano? You might want to read up a bit on Sharkey before you dismiss him lightly. Many would consider his level of opposition to actually be better than Rocky’s.

BTW, Corbett hadn’t fought anything but a few exhibitions in the 18 months prior to running into the Sailor. Not that anyone who lost to Sharkey needs any excuses.

im not, sharkeys in my top 50 heavyweights of all time. but most historians even the biased ones consider him a a very similiar but less version of rocky marciano, which is still a high compliment. lets be realistic here, he was not better than marciano.

if i was to say "whos to say jim corbett isnt better than larry holmes??"" how would u answer that one?

sharkey's opposition is not on marcianos level simply cause sharkey refused to fight black fighters and marciano beat 4 of the best black heavyweights of his era. tom sharkey did not meet any black fighters and turned down fights agains top black fighters.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 23 Dec 2006, 03:21

so there is no precident to see how he would have done with a "prime" snapping jab ripping him up from a distance...

in marcianos defense, he did face the best heavyweight jab of his era, and still at that age one of the best heavyweight jabs in history, joe louis. marciano knows what its like to face a 215lb heavyweight with a powerful snapping jab after the louis fight. sure its not on holmes level, but it was still a mighty good one.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 23 Dec 2006, 10:45

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
so there is no precident to see how he would have done with a "prime" snapping jab ripping him up from a distance...
in marcianos defense, he did face the best heavyweight jab of his era, and still at that age one of the best heavyweight jabs in history, joe louis. marciano knows what its like to face a 215lb heavyweight with a powerful snapping jab after the louis fight. sure its not on holmes level, but it was still a mighty good one.

It absolutely was not a "prime" snapping jab....Louis was 9-10 years past his prime by then...Marciano never fought a great fighter still in their prime, and it will forever haunt his legacy...if your 4 biggest opponents are 38-39, 34,37 & 42 years old...it leaves some BIG question marks...especially when you had some trouble with them...

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 23 Dec 2006, 12:37

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Rating prime Charles above prime Marciano seems perfectly sensible to me. Marciano faced a washed up version of Charles and yet fought tooth and nail with him. Archie Moore -- who should now -- said a prime Charles would have wiped the floor with Marciano. If I have Marciano still slightly above Charles it's basically on achievements.

Rating Walcott above Marciano is more difficult to justify but it's not impossible either, as similar arguments can be made also here -- Walcott was in his prime in the late 40s, Marciano fought the early 1950s version that was close to 40. Btw, Walcott could become champion only because Charles was deteriorating faster than Walcott did himself.

pundit most of what you say here is pure garbage.

walcott became champion because IMO he was the better heavyweight than charles. charles IMO never beats walcott on his best day.

In your opinion. IMO Walcott could only beat a deteriorated version of Charles.

* incidently a peak charles you like to refer to lost to a puncher swarmer 38 year old elmer ray. though most consider it a controversial decision, it was a very close fight and ray had a lot of success on the inside vs charles. if a 38 year old ray could, why couldnt a 28 year old marciano???

Well, first of all press report have Charles winning this fight and quite clearly. Second Charles avenged this defeat impressively. Third, losing to Ray is no shame for anyone (Ray is my #4 heavyweight of the 1940s). Fourth, everyone has weaker fights in between, and one should not make too much out of the result of one fight anyway, especially if its a clear outlier in a very strong period of that fighter.

Besides, all this doesn't change the fact that Marciano was in the ring with a deteriorated version of Charles - who still gave him a hell of a fight.

i think you totally dont give marciano enough credit for beating ezzard. IMO had they both met in the primes, it would be a great very close fight but the result would not change.

I disagree and I can't quite understand your logic. Marciano vs. Charles was very close even though Charles was clearly years beyond his prime (as you don't like "washed up", even thogh I think that's a quite correct characterization). How could a prime vs. prime fight have been identical then?

also think stylistically marciano would do much better in fantasy matchups vs the rest of the ATG heavyweights than charles would. thats another reason why marciano should be rated over ezzard.

Incidentally I have him above Ezzard on achievements. But I don't have him quite as high as you or others do, although also not in the bottom top 20 like silkov.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 24 Dec 2006, 08:55

ringsider wrote:What do you expect from a guy who spends his free time hanging from the nuts of Marvin Hagler?.......

Are you and Dec related?... you both seem to be as dumb as each other!... 8)

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 24 Dec 2006, 13:58

Most will consider it sacrilege, but the HW I find myself re-evaluating the most, in a negative sense in recent years, is Jack Johnson. For all the volumes of material about his defensive skills, ring smarts etc, I keep finding myself becoming less and less impressed with his actual fight resume. Right now I'm wondering if his career best performance was actually the first 20 rds vs Willard.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 24 Dec 2006, 15:55

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:if i was to say "whos to say jim corbett isnt better than larry holmes??"" how would u answer that one?

I wouldn’t necessarily agree with it, but I would not be completely negative to the suggestion. Corbett was an all time great as was Holmes. I happen to have Holmes #3 way ahead of Corbett, but there are quite a few negatives that can be brought up about Holmes. Remember, neither Holmes nor Corbett is named Ali or Louis.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:sharkey's opposition is not on marcianos level simply cause sharkey refused to fight black fighters and marciano beat 4 of the best black heavyweights of his era. tom sharkey did not meet any black fighters and turned down fights agains top black fighters.

I’m glad you used the word simple, because the fact that Sharkey wouldn’t fight black fighters is nothing more than a simplistic way of looking at this argument. Let’s see, Sharkey fought Choynski, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Maher, Goddard, Jeffries, Ruhlin and McCoy. I think that’s a better list of opponents than on Rocky’s resume. And no, I’m not saying Sharkey was better than Marciano, but I don’t think Marciano was in a different league than Sharkey. Again, neither one of them is named Ali or Louis...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 24 Dec 2006, 18:55

marciano not in a different league than sharkey? marciano is at least a top 10 heavyweight of all time. sharkey doesnt even come close to that, so he clearly is not in the same league as marciano.

guys like foreman, liston, holmes, dempsey, johnson those guys are in the same league as marciano. sharkey is in a lower league.

Sharkey fought Choynski, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Maher, Goddard, Jeffries, Ruhlin and McCoy. I think that’s a better list of opponents than on Rocky’s resume.

well tell you the truth....i dont think those guys are better heavyweights than joe louis, jersey joe walcott, ezzard charles, archie moore, rex layne, roland lastarza, harry kid mathews.

i might also add sharkey did NOT go undefeated vs those guys you listed, while marciano beat every man(uncontroversially and desiveley 1st or 2nd time) he ever faced.

so even if you think sharkey fought better competition(which i dont agree with)......then perhaps you could reason that marciano BEAT better competition, which is a more important stat.

perhaps i dont give sharkey enough credit at times, but perhaps you give sharkey too much credit in some instances like claiming "sharkeys in the same league as marciano".

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 24 Dec 2006, 19:04

Sweet Scientist wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
so there is no precident to see how he would have done with a "prime" snapping jab ripping him up from a distance...
in marcianos defense, he did face the best heavyweight jab of his era, and still at that age one of the best heavyweight jabs in history, joe louis. marciano knows what its like to face a 215lb heavyweight with a powerful snapping jab after the louis fight. sure its not on holmes level, but it was still a mighty good one.
It absolutely was not a "prime" snapping jab....Louis was 9-10 years past his prime by then...Marciano never fought a great fighter still in their prime, and it will forever haunt his legacy...if your 4 biggest opponents are 38-39, 34,37 & 42 years old...it leaves some BIG question marks...especially when you had some trouble with them...

doesnt matter if he was prime or not, even larry holmes at 42 had a great jab vs ray mercer. same with louis. louis at 37 busted up a prime ezzard charles face with his jab. clearly even at 37, louis was a big powerful man with an A class powerful fast jab. watch the marciano-louis fight, even then the jab is still beutiful. it still was damm good. louis even at 37 almost fully retained the jab from his younger years. thats one thing that didnt leave him.

I disagree with your critisim.....

i consider archie moore and jersey joe walcott great fighters who were at/near there primes when they first fought marciano. especially walcott. i hold to you that marciano in sept 1952 beat a top 20 heavyweight of all time that night(walcott). not many heavyweights in history would have beat walcott that night.

moore was very much at the peak of his career when he fought marciano, his record and filmed fights prove this. no debate here. moore was on the best winning streak of his career going into the marciano fight and he had lost only once in the last 7 years going 45-1!!!!!

i also might add whether or not you think they were prime, moore, charles, walcott were all unquestionably still great fighters when they fought marciano and all 3 would have toppled many champions at that stage of there careers. give marciano credit for beating great fighters, these guys he destroyed permanetley were all wreaking havoc until they faced marciano and only after marciano battered them did they "suddenly" go south.

get some of your facts straight too.........

ezzard charles was 32 when he fought marciano, NOT 34

archie moore was 38 when he fought marciano, NOT 42.

it seems like critics like to up the ages of marcianos opponents each year.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 24 Dec 2006, 22:45

Whenever Archie Moore had a bad night....A star was born.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Dec 2006, 00:45

sweet scientist,

one thought. you said "marcianos problem is he never beat a great fighter in there prime". well then you must apply that same standard with other ATG heavyweight champs.

jack dempsey never beat a great heavyweight in there prime

what great heavyweight in there prime did george foreman beat? joe frazier wasnt in his prime when he fought foreman

jack johnson never beat a great heavyweight in his prime. joe jeanette and mcvea were inexperienced/green and langford was 156lb.

what great heavyweight did james jeffries beat in there prime?

what great heavyweight did larry holmes beat in there prime? none. did larry holmes even ever beat a great fighter?

people say ali wasnt in his prime in 1971, so what great heavyweight in there prime did frazier beat?

so if your going to use this critisism vs marciano, the same must be applied with these other champions.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 25 Dec 2006, 02:42

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: doesnt matter if he was prime or not,

Yes it does matter...the whole point is Marciano fought guys at the ends of their careers, when they were more vulnerable...it's the biggest reason he went undefeated...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: get some of your facts straight too.........

ezzard charles was 32 when he fought marciano, NOT 34

archie moore was 38 when he fought marciano, NOT 42.

it seems like critics like to up the ages of marcianos opponents each year.

Moore was born in 1913, fought Marciano in 1955...you do the math
Charles born in 1921...fought in '54...guess he was 33 (I missed by a year, sorry!)

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 25 Dec 2006, 10:50

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:marciano not in a different league than sharkey? marciano is at least a top 10 heavyweight of all time. sharkey doesnt even come close to that, so he clearly is not in the same league as marciano.

They are both in the league that doesn’t include Ali and Louis.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i might also add sharkey did NOT go undefeated vs those guys you listed, while marciano beat every man(uncontroversially and desiveley 1st or 2nd time) he ever faced.

so even if you think sharkey fought better competition(which i dont agree with)......then perhaps you could reason that marciano BEAT better competition, which is a more important stat.

As I stated, I think that Sharkey fought better competition than Marciano, and I’ll stick by that. In fact, his list of victims is comparable to Marciano’s as well, since Charles was a bit past his prime and Louis was well past his.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:perhaps i dont give sharkey enough credit at times, but perhaps you give sharkey too much credit in some instances like claiming "sharkeys in the same league as marciano".

As I said, I have Marciano rated much higher than Sharkey in my AT ratings, but to say that Rocky was in a different league implies that Marciano would blow right through Sharkey if they had fought. If that’s what you mean then I would call that a pretty indefensible statement. In another league implies that it would be a mismatch, and that’s just silly.

MEISINGER · Post by **MEISINGER** » 25 Dec 2006, 11:45

i am not trying to bash marciano.but to show proof of his title
defenses being on the down hill slope or over the hill.
take a look

walcott who was the champ was 2-2 pryor marciano

roland lastrza went 4-5 after the rock and never beat another top
contender in those 4 wins

don cockel never one another fight

ezzard charles was 2-2 going into the fight and was 4-6 in his next 10 fights

nothing against the rock but he is getting far too much praise
for his record.

El Flaco Maqnifico · Post by **El Flaco Maqnifico** » 25 Dec 2006, 14:30

kovit wrote:My Top 5 Ten Heavyweight Champions of All-Time
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Mike Tyson
4. Evander Holyfield
5. George Foreman

Why is Tyson A ranked higher than Holyfield were you not convinced from the those two fights that Holyfield is simply better than Tyson

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 25 Dec 2006, 16:03

El Flaco Maqnifico wrote:
kovit wrote:My Top 5 Ten Heavyweight Champions of All-Time
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Mike Tyson
4. Evander Holyfield
5. George Foreman
Why is Tyson A ranked higher than Holyfield were you not convinced from the those two fights that Holyfield is simply better than Tyson

Tyson's prime was in the late 1980s, he fought Holyfield in 1996/97

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 25 Dec 2006, 19:25

Decagon wrote:
Sweet Scientist wrote:Moore was born in 1913, fought Marciano in 1955...you do the math
Charles born in 1921...fought in '54...guess he was 33 (I missed by a year, sorry!)
Wrong. The 1920 U.S. Census clearly showed that Moore was born in 1916. Further, Ezzard Charles was 32 when he fought Marciano the first time, not 33 or 34. He turned 33 about a month after he fought Marciano. You really need to get your facts straight if you're going to post here. You were 100% wrong in this post, and even after Brockton offered you some help, you maintained your wrong, bullshit answers.

And...after researching numerous ancestry family lines, I can assure you that U.S. Census information is far from accurate in every case (very similar to you)...you have any idea how censuses were taken back then?

SILKOVS TOP TWENTY HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPS!/WHO WAS THE GREATEST?

whose the greatest??

Re: SILKOVS TOP TWENTY HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPS!/WHO WAS THE GREAT