MOST DUCKED FIGHTERS OF ALL-TIME

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 27 Dec 2007, 16:30

Yeah but even the "heavyweight" Langford wasnt that big of a guy. In pictures of him going up against guys like Bill Tate he was 11 inches shorter and 85 pounds lighter. Langford was great because he had the skill and the power, despite whatever weight he was. Even when he was no more than a chubby welterweight he was making heavyweights look silly, and they were top contenders.

Weight/size isn't everything, if anything at all, his smaller size should have been more the benefit to him as he would have been faster, let alone younger. The Johnson that Langford fought was still two years away from beating Tommy Burns for the heavyweight title; Langford still went the fifteen rounds and was knocked down twice.

As far as the comment of name five fights that stand out in Johnson's career, I can make the same remark for Joe Louis...outside of Schmeling, Conn and the second Walcott fight, what fight out there did he have really grab you? Louis' bum of the month club was just as good as Johnson's white opponents. If you find that blasphemous, how about Marciano? Outside of the Walcott fight and Moore and Joe Louis, what else is there to really brag about? How about Foreman? Frazier, Norton, Lyle and later on Michael Moorer.

Johnson defeated many a hall of famer: Fitzsimmons, Burns, Jeffries, McVey, Langford, Jeanette; then throw in the likes of other top guys like Denver Ed Martin, Frank Childs, and perennial white contenders like Jim Flynn or Jack O'Brien, and many many others in between. That is a ridiculously high success rate against some of the greatest fighters at the turn of the 20th century.

That's the problem with the video generation, if they aint seen a film in color or in the speed of today's cameras, they dismiss it. Shall we forget John L Sullivan entirely, or Jim Corbett or Fitzsimmons or Tom Cribb or James Figg or Tom Mulineaux cus there is really no pictures or film that exists, or the favorite "looks like shit on film" excuse?

All you can do is judge by the era, not by the modern stand by of "how would johnson have faired against Ali?" or "how would dempsey have faired against Ali?"...it really is unfair to push down the older contenders and champions because they unfortunately never fought in the 70's when Ali was around.

Jim Flynn and other contenders like Willard may generally have been shit, and we all know it, but I bet a dollar to a donut, had those bastards been around today with the china chinned, out of shape, no heart, lazy ass heavyweights we got now, that old Tommy Burns and the rest could win the title without breaking a sweat.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 27 Dec 2007, 16:46

HomicideHenry wrote: Shall we forget John L Sullivan entirely..?

Unfortunately, most have…

HomicideHenry wrote:Jim Flynn and other contenders like Willard may generally have been shit, and we all know it, but I bet a dollar to a donut, had those bastards been around today with the china chinned, out of shape, no heart, lazy ass heavyweights we got now, that old Tommy Burns and the rest could win the title without breaking a sweat.

I couldn’t agree more. There were MANY HWs during the 1900-1915 era who would have stomped anyone currently fighting. The public outcry from Johnson’s destruction of Jeff caused a great surge in the number of HW fighters, and many of them were quite good.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 27 Dec 2007, 17:46

It seems that there is a wide difference of opinion here. I agree with much of what Seamus is saying against Johnson, and at the same time I agree with much of what Homocidehenry and the Great John L are saying in support of him. I think that you need to to take a balanced approach when rating fighters and count both the good and the bad and then weigh them against each other.

Johnson should have defended the title against Langford,Jeannette, and McVey. He probably would have had had better than even chance against any of them, but if he had to fight all 3 he may have been tripped by one of them. This has to be counted against him.

Fitzsimmons was way past it when Johnson beat him and Jeffries was coming off a long layoff. so Johnson shouldn't be given much credit for that. It's true that there is no one Johnson victory that is overwhelming. However, he has a lot of "nice" wins. As mentioned he beat Burns,Martin, Flynn etc. Most of them he did this without much trouble.

He wasn't the greatest heavyweight all time, but he was one of them. He does however, deserve criticism for being the heavyweight chamopion and not defending the title against the top 3 contenders.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 27 Dec 2007, 18:11

dagosd2000 wrote:Wills didn't beat Langford until Sam turned 36 years of age in 1916. Johnson won the title in 1908. That would have made Langford 28. Lang ford's best years were between 1908 and 1910. Johnson should have given Langford,Jeanette,and McVey a shot. Look at it from these 3 guys point of view. Finally a black fighter is given an opportunity to fight for the heavyweight title,and wins! At first black fighters must have thought they had a guiding light. Johnson not only "dished" these 3 guys,but could have opened the door for black contenders to fight for titles. Black fighters during Johnson's reign must have been disappointed with him.

Jack Johnson wanted to cash in on the title after so many years in the wilderness. Can one really blame him?

dagosd2000 · Post by **dagosd2000** » 28 Dec 2007, 00:46

pundit wrote:
dagosd2000 wrote:Wills didn't beat Langford until Sam turned 36 years of age in 1916. Johnson won the title in 1908. That would have made Langford 28. Lang ford's best years were between 1908 and 1910. Johnson should have given Langford,Jeanette,and McVey a shot. Look at it from these 3 guys point of view. Finally a black fighter is given an opportunity to fight for the heavyweight title,and wins! At first black fighters must have thought they had a guiding light. Johnson not only "dished" these 3 guys,but could have opened the door for black contenders to fight for titles. Black fighters during Johnson's reign must have been disappointed with him.
Jack Johnson wanted to cash in on the title after so many years in the wilderness. Can one really blame him?

Nobody can blame a fighter for making as much money as he can. Especially Johnson. He never knew one way or the other when it could suddenly end. He got 5,000 for fighting Burns,120,000 for fighting Jeffries,30,000 for fighting Flynn,25,000 for fighting Ketchel---good numbers in those days. And for a black fighter-----incredible.

But Johnson could have made a lot more. The Frawley Act legalized boxing in 1911 in New York,but he never fought there. He was so unpopular that he made it difficult to get fights. When he exiled himself to Europe,he could have made good money,but he let his boxing career languish. Sam Langford was popular in Europe. McVea had fought there. And Jeanette and Harry Wills were in Europe when Johnson was there.

Johnson could have had some big fights with these guys(made a lot of money),but decided to fight Jim Johnson instead ,and a wrestler by the name of Andre Sproule. Johnson enjoyed the good life in Paris,blew a lot of his money. Yet if he'd stayed in shape(and was as good as he said he was) he could have made a killing fighting the black fighters I just mentioned. But those guys were hungry. Johnson had to make a decision whether to condition himself and defend his title,or play the continental guest of Europe. By the time he had to return to the US(WW I slammed his career over there)he was finished as a fighter.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 28 Dec 2007, 08:22

You really have to trust some of the written accounts of these guys. I mean in any other historical context we read and read and research and make a judgement. I mean, there's no video footage of the Roman Empire but most historians will tell you it was the greatest empire the world has ever seen.

Guys from way back then were not carefully managed on the way up but were carefully matched once they won the title because it was such a lucrative prize to hold.

Johnson did fight Langford, Jeanette and McVey... He should have fought them when he won the title but he didn't. Jeffries didn't fight black contenders. Jackson was ducked. Dempsey didn't fight Wills.... Ali was world champion but never fought anyone from the Communist block. Okay, a bit of a stetch but my point is that there's always a criticism to be made of everyone. They need to be voiced but they also need to be qualified.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 28 Dec 2007, 14:05

The thing with Johnson is, there is not that many boxers from both sides of the spectrum (black or white; anything in between) both sides of the ocean, that could have beaten him in his era.

In Europe, the best challengers at the time were guys like Jim Coffey of Ireland and Billy Wells of England. In Australia you had Bill Lang. In America you had Jim Flynn, Al Kaufmann, Jess Willard, Sam McVey, Joe Jeanette. In Canada, you had Tommy Burns and Sam Langford.

The greatest of the 'white hopes' Luther McCarty, I believe, would have been good enough to have beaten the Johnson that fought Willard, but not a prime Jack Johnson.

All of these men, I can't name in a prime vs prime sense, that could have beaten Jack Johnson. Maybe Langford, but that is a very, very likely high success rate against a very decent group of challengers.

There has only been a few Heavyweights in history, that could have beaten every single challenger available in his era in a prime versus prime sense: Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis and Jack Johnson.

You can argue this, if you wish to, but really think about it. Can you see Dempsey beating Harry Wills? Or Tunney beating George Godfrey? (that may be a stretch but you get what I mean); in short, there has been, with the exception of Louis, Ali, and Johnson, someone out there who could have beaten any other Heavyweight champion when they were in their prime or near it.

That is true greatness.

dagosd2000 · Post by **dagosd2000** » 28 Dec 2007, 14:19

Don't get me wrong. You're right Johnson fought the black heavyweights before he won the title. (It makes you wonder why he only fought Langford once though) You get two sides of the story on that bout.

In Europe Johnson had money,but was spending it fast. I really think if he'd stayed in shape he could have beaten McVey and Jeanette. Wills was still young and inexperienced. I'll always wonder about Langford though. Black fighters fought each other many times. Johnson decided to live the good life over there. He didn't fight anyone(black or white ) of quality.

Understand one thing about my posts:just because I may be focusing on a negative aspect of a fighter,it doesn't mean he's a bum. Jack Johnson,from what I've seen on film,is the greatest defensive fighter of all the Heavyweight Champs.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 29 Dec 2007, 17:30

HomicideHenry wrote:The thing with Johnson is, there is not that many boxers from both sides of the spectrum (black or white; anything in between) both sides of the ocean, that could have beaten him in his era.

In Europe, the best challengers at the time were guys like Jim Coffey of Ireland and Billy Wells of England. In Australia you had Bill Lang. In America you had Jim Flynn, Al Kaufmann, Jess Willard, Sam McVey, Joe Jeanette. In Canada, you had Tommy Burns and Sam Langford.

The greatest of the 'white hopes' Luther McCarty, I believe, would have been good enough to have beaten the Johnson that fought Willard, but not a prime Jack Johnson.

All of these men, I can't name in a prime vs prime sense, that could have beaten Jack Johnson. Maybe Langford, but that is a very, very likely high success rate against a very decent group of challengers.

There has only been a few Heavyweights in history, that could have beaten every single challenger available in his era in a prime versus prime sense: Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis and Jack Johnson.

You can argue this, if you wish to, but really think about it. Can you see Dempsey beating Harry Wills? Or Tunney beating George Godfrey? (that may be a stretch but you get what I mean); in short, there has been, with the exception of Louis, Ali, and Johnson, someone out there who could have beaten any other Heavyweight champion when they were in their prime or near it.

That is true greatness.

Jeffries (turn of the century), Marciano(early-mid 50s), Liston (late 50s-early 60s), and Holmes (late 70s - early 80s) would have definitely beaten anyone in their era when in their primes

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 29 Dec 2007, 18:19

Jeffries (turn of the century), Marciano(early-mid 50s), Liston (late 50s-early 60s), and Holmes (late 70s - early 80s) would have definitely beaten anyone in their era when in their primes

I guess you can make the argument for those men as well, if you really think about it. But whose to say Marciano could have held on longer to the title had he faced Machen or Satterfield? Or if Jeffries had faced Jeanette or Langford?....Holmes on the other hand didnt have that many real tough solid legit opponents to take on; Cooney and Shavers were just about the most dangerous men he faced in his prime, the rest were a motley crew consisting of 'contenders' like Marvis Frazier, Scott LeDoux and the like. Its more a given that he would have been undefeated, than it would have for Marciano and Jeffries.

Liston on the other hand showed he could beat every man he faced in his prime, save ONE: Muhammad Ali.

When Ali was at his peak, who was out there to have beaten him? He already ran through Patterson, Chuvalo, Cooper (twice), Liston (twice), Folley, Terrell, London, Mildenberger...who out there in the mid-late 1960's could have beaten him? I would like to say that maybe Frazier could have, but then again at the time he was struggling with Oscar Bonavena.

When Johnson was at his peak, he already done beaten McVey, Jeanette, and Langford on quite a few occassions; then throw in beating the faded Fitzsimmons, Kid Cutler (a protege of John L. Sullivan), then he beat Tommy Burns, and up until the Willard loss...it's really quite apparant that nobody on the planet at that time could have beaten him.

Joe Louis was near his prime when he lost to Max Schmeling, but later avenged that loss in stunning fashion. And he wouldn't again 'lose' until he came back out of retirement to face Ezzard Charles. In between that time (especially during his time in WW2) there was nobody who could have beaten him. Sure he never fought Turkey Thompson or Elmer Ray, but had he done so...neither of those men and other perennial contenders like Buddy Knox could have stood a snow balls chance.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 07 Jan 2008, 17:58

Mauro Mina is also a very ducked fighter back in the 60s 8) 8) 8)

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 07 Jan 2008, 23:25

Archie Moore comes to mind.

ben geoghegan · Post by **ben geoghegan** » 07 Jan 2008, 23:41

You can only consider a fighter based on what he did in his career ! If they ducked or did not fight someone that goes against them. & people pick who you like !

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 08 Jan 2008, 00:35

buzzhead!!!!! why hast thou forsaken me? if you read the original post you know damn well what i mean!!!!Do not let them pull me back in. do NOT make me rehash conversations i was privy to!!! do not make me explain the difference between "ducker" and duckee." this is one rotten way to start the new year!!!

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 08 Jan 2008, 10:14

elmersalsa wrote:Who was the most ducked fighter of all-time?

Here is a list of the most ducked fighters ever in boxing history. Guys that not many fighters would wanted to do anything with them on their way up to the title or being champion:

1. Charley Burley: Is he the most avoided fighter ever? Let's see some evidence. After the beating he gave to Fritzie Zivic, not many white fighters wanted to give him a match, neither a title shot.

2. Aaron Pryor: Rumour has it when he was a lightweight, no top contender of the late 70s and early 80s wanted to fight him. Some people in Cincinnati, OH claim that Sugar Ray Leonard avoided him. Did Howard Davis, Hilmer Kenty, Ray Mancini and others avoided him?

3. Marvin Hagler: Was ducked for years because according to Joe Frazier, he told Marvelous: " The reason that everyone is ducking you is because you got three things against you: You are good, southpaw and black"

4. Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles: Was ducked in the early part of the 1960s. lightweight and jr welterweight champs did not want to face him.

5. Dave Sands: From Australia, was a feared middleweight contender.

6. Harry Wills: Did Jack Dempsey avoided him for a shot for the title?

7. Sugar Ray Robinson: It took him more than 70 fights for the Sugar Man to receive a title shot.

8. Archie Moore: At middleweight was ignored. It took him 16 years to fight for the first time a title fight.

9. Jake LaMotta: fought great and solid Black contenders that no white fighter wanted to do with them. Was ducked also for years before receiving a title shot.

10. Sonny Liston: Cleaned up the heavyweight division before becoming champ. Floyd Patterson's management did not want it to do anything with him.

Any other fighters you guys have in mind?

Good call. The better the fighter, the more that other fighters will avoid you. I dont see why Mancini avoided Pryor. He could have put on a couple
pounds but kept up with the contenders of his division. Not that there was anything wrong with those fighters but he could have made better money with Pryor who was highly esteemed in those days.

Leonard of course ducked Hagler and waited 5 years before he grew a pair of balls to face him. Hearns was more flagrant about it ducking out twice the same year.

For some reason though, Tommy did not seem to be avoided by anyone nor did Roy Jones. That strikes me as strange since Tommy is one of the most offensive minded fighters I've seen.

Don Lalonde was the least avoided fighter. Ask Ray Leonard.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 08 Jan 2008, 11:32

Good call. The better the fighter, the more that other fighters will avoid you. I dont see why Mancini avoided Pryor. He could have put on a couple
pounds but kept up with the contenders of his division. Not that there was anything wrong with those fighters but he could have made better money with Pryor who was highly esteemed in those days.

That is not avoidance or ducking.....that is smart. Pryor would have killed Mancini.......and ruined the media darling.

All the money in the world gets old when you are taking beatings from bigger better men.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 08 Jan 2008, 12:19

I don't believe anyone avoided the fella that beat Arguello twice. However his cronies would certainly advertize and give exposure to extrapilations of that nature.

He rode a bit of skill and a lot of luck straight toward a reputation that surpassed the reality.

Something granberry would say happens all too often. And that I would agree actually does take place in reality, (and sometimes in the minds of the higly imaginitve). Depending of course on who we are talking about and the actual facts of the matter.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 08 Jan 2008, 18:48

I thought it was the other way around, myself --- Pryor was unfortunate to share an era so log-jammed with all-time great competition. He was a great fighter, strong, resilient & versatile. I wouldn't say he was the greatest, he wasn't, but I really feel watching him Aaron Pryor was a wonderful fighter, just not as wonderful as some he shared the time with. No shame in that.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 09 Jan 2008, 05:37

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I thought it was the other way around, myself --- Pryor was unfortunate to share an era so log-jammed with all-time great competition. He was a great fighter, strong, resilient & versatile. I wouldn't say he was the greatest, he wasn't, but I really feel watching him Aaron Pryor was a wonderful fighter, just not as wonderful as some he shared the time with. No shame in that.

Buzz and Jaclem are privvy to some 'knowledge' or 'circumstances' pertaining to Pryor.

Every now and then they allude to it but we've never managed to completely draw them out on the subject, other than that they both believe he was over-hyped, protected and that maybe some of his earlier opponents weren't as motivated as they could be.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 09 Jan 2008, 10:31

HomicideHenry wrote: I guess you can make the argument for those men as well, if you really think about it. But whose to say Marciano could have held on longer to the title had he faced Machen or Satterfield? Or if Jeffries had faced Jeanette or Langford?....Holmes on the other hand didnt have that many real tough solid legit opponents to take on; Cooney and Shavers were just about the most dangerous men he faced in his prime, the rest were a motley crew consisting of 'contenders' like Marvis Frazier, Scott LeDoux and the like. Its more a given that he would have been undefeated, than it would have for Marciano and Jeffries.

Liston on the other hand showed he could beat every man he faced in his prime, save ONE: Muhammad Ali.

When Ali was at his peak, who was out there to have beaten him? He already ran through Patterson, Chuvalo, Cooper (twice), Liston (twice), Folley, Terrell, London, Mildenberger...who out there in the mid-late 1960's could have beaten him? I would like to say that maybe Frazier could have, but then again at the time he was struggling with Oscar Bonavena.

When Johnson was at his peak, he already done beaten McVey, Jeanette, and Langford on quite a few occassions; then throw in beating the faded Fitzsimmons, Kid Cutler (a protege of John L. Sullivan), then he beat Tommy Burns, and up until the Willard loss...it's really quite apparant that nobody on the planet at that time could have beaten him.

Joe Louis was near his prime when he lost to Max Schmeling, but later avenged that loss in stunning fashion. And he wouldn't again 'lose' until he came back out of retirement to face Ezzard Charles. In between that time (especially during his time in WW2) there was nobody who could have beaten him. Sure he never fought Turkey Thompson or Elmer Ray, but had he done so...neither of those men and other perennial contenders like Buddy Knox could have stood a snow balls chance.

Langford was too young and small to beat Jeffries when he was champ, and Im pretty sure the Rock would have had too much for Machen and Satterfield.
An Ali-Frazier bout in the late 60s, if Ali hadnt been banned and was still at his very best, would have been more likely to result in an upset than your Jeffries or Marciano theoretical upsets.

MOST DUCKED FIGHTERS OF ALL-TIME

Re: MOST DUCKED FIGHTERS OF ALL-TIME