BoxRec

I went to the website. (Incidently it was pretty interesting website.) You are right, according the website Jones had many more fights than Boxrec has him for. Boxrec had his official record at 16-27-1, while the website had him at 43-30-2. I am willing to upgrade Jones from a "tomato can" to a journeyman heavyweight, which the website labeled him.
I still can't see why you think that it was that good of a victory for Gains to beat Jones when so many others did as well.

dempseyfire wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I agree. I never buy the "threw the fight" as an excuse for many reasons. It's a loss.

Well sorry but that's just stupid. There are a multitude of reasons for a fighter to throw a fight. To dismiss them all under some holier than thou pretext of fistic integrity is naive and foolish.

Spot on.

dempseyfire wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I agree. I never buy the "threw the fight" as an excuse for many reasons. It's a loss.

Well sorry but that's just stupid. There are a multitude of reasons for a fighter to throw a fight. To dismiss them all under some holier than thou pretext of fistic integrity is naive and foolish.

If we were to eliminate from the HOF any fighter that had some bouts under shady circumstances it would be mighty empty . . . .

I don't think we should eliminate a fighter from the Hall of Fame soley because he threw a fight. I just think that it should be considered a loss on his record, and should be held against that fighter when ranking him. I also don't believe that the majority of the fighters in the Hall of Fame have thrown a fight.

Another problem there is that it's very difficult to prove that a fight was indeed fixed. Certainly there have been suspicious fights and no doubt some were fixed. However, short of the winning fighter saying that he thinks it was fixed (which happens very seldom) it's very hard to prove that a specific fight was fixed.

Ambling Alp wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I agree. I never buy the "threw the fight" as an excuse for many reasons. It's a loss.

Well sorry but that's just stupid. There are a multitude of reasons for a fighter to throw a fight. To dismiss them all under some holier than thou pretext of fistic integrity is naive and foolish.

If we were to eliminate from the HOF any fighter that had some bouts under shady circumstances it would be mighty empty . . . .

I don't think we should eliminate a fighter from the Hall of Fame soley because he threw a fight. I just think that it should be considered a loss on his record, and should be held against that fighter when ranking him.

So what if you're black in the 1920s, you'll earn good money only if you fight a white fella, but you get the fight only if you throw it?

Suppose a guy like Godfrey gave in to these pressures occasionally because he had to make a living and feed a familiy -- would you say this would make him a lesser fighter, and that he should be ranked below the fighters who got organized wins against him?

The big problem is that we don't know which fights were thrown. there have been newspaper article claiming certain fights were suspicious but is that enough to prove that specific fight was fixed?

Another problem is we don't know know if it would have made a difference. You or me could throw a fight. does that mean that we would have won the fight anyway? Of course not. Lets say for the sake of arguement that a specific fight of Godfrey's was really fixed. Why should we assume that Godfrey would have won anyway? At most we should disregard the result.

I just find it a convenient excuse for Godfrey. He never really proved that he was a great fighter. One of the most important factors when rating a fighter should be who did he beat? The fighters that Godfrey actually beat simply isn't that impressive.

Ambling Alp wrote:The big problem is that we don't know which fights were thrown. there have been newspaper article claiming certain fights were suspicious but is that enough to prove that specific fight was fixed?

Another problem is we don't know know if it would have made a difference. You or me could throw a fight. does that mean that we would have won the fight anyway? Of course not. Lets say for the sake of arguement that a specific fight of Godfrey's was really fixed. Why should we assume that Godfrey would have won anyway? At most we should disregard the result.

I just find it a convenient excuse for Godfrey. He never really proved that he was a great fighter. One of the most important factors when rating a fighter should be who did he beat? The fighters that Godfrey actually beat simply isn't that impressive.

Because in sparring this guy tore everybody up, and in his legit fights spectators saw he had about every tool in the book. There is a reason his name goes beyond his record.

It's a fact in in between the Johnson and Louis eras, it was very common for black fighters to throw fights for financial reasons. And yes, if you have one guy who is clearly a league (or several) ahead of his opponent and he fights like he doesn't even want to be there, one could assume that in a legit fight, the much better fighter wins.

Of course you can't put him in a top 30 HW fighter of all time list b/c he just doesn't have the record. But I think with wins over Uzcudun, Gaines, and a few other solid wins, plus what he know about his fighting capabilities, you can have him in your top 50. Definetely lower than 80, in my opinion.

Gym stories are a dime a dozen. They are as meaningless as Pre-season NFL games. You have to prove it in a real fight.
As mentioned before, the Gains win wasn't that big of win. Gains was years away from being a contender. In the 3 years after Godfrey beat Gains, Gains lost to Chuck Wiggins, Bill Hartwell, and Martin Burke. No one thinks they are all time greats.

What are Godfreys' other solid wins? Uzcudun is the only fighter close to his prime that Godfrey beat in his entire career that could be considered in the Top 100 heavyweights of of all time.
Is beating Uzcudun all you have to do to be ranked in the top 50 heavyweights of all time? If so, then King Levinsky, Carnera, Mickey Walker,Tuffy Griffiths should be in the top 50; after all they beat Uzcudun as well.
How do we really know that Godfrey was a league above the guys that he lost to? He didn't beat guys that were a league above many of those that he lost to.
I understand the point that black heavyweights between Johnson and Louis didn't get a fair shake. However, somewhere along the line you would think that Godfrey would have proved how great he supposedly was.
Even if you think Godfrey threw every single fight that he lost, how do you really know he would have won all of those fights anyway? You don't.

There’s a lot more to Godfrey’s record than the few names mentioned on this thread. While not household names anymore, many of the guys Godfrey beat were very good HWs who were considered “world class” at the time. Maybe he didn’t have many wins over fighters in most peoples top 50 HWs list, but in general he BEAT more quality HWs during his career than most of the top HWs of the past 30-40 years.

Ambling Alp wrote:Gym stories are a dime a dozen. They are as meaningless as Pre-season NFL games. You have to prove it in a real fight.
As mentioned before, the Gains win wasn't that big of win. Gains was years away from being a contender. In the 3 years after Godfrey beat Gains, Gains lost to Chuck Wiggins, Bill Hartwell, and Martin Burke. No one thinks they are all time greats.

What are Godfreys' other solid wins? Uzcudun is the only fighter close to his prime that Godfrey beat in his entire career that could be considered in the Top 100 heavyweights of of all time.
Is beating Uzcudun all you have to do to be ranked in the top 50 heavyweights of all time? If so, then King Levinsky, Carnera, Mickey Walker,Tuffy Griffiths should be in the top 50; after all they beat Uzcudun as well.
How do we really know that Godfrey was a league above the guys that he lost to? He didn't beat guys that were a league above many of those that he lost to.
I understand the point that black heavyweights between Johnson and Louis didn't get a fair shake. However, somewhere along the line you would think that Godfrey would have proved how great he supposedly was.
Even if you think Godfrey threw every single fight that he lost, how do you really know he would have won all of those fights anyway? You don't.

Alp, you continue to ignore the fact that one cannot assess Godfrey and other black colorline era fighters only from the face value of their results. I agree that this makes their assessment more difficult, but it does not mean that one can simply ignore it. Now it's not so bad with Langford, Jeanette and McVey; they fought at least each other in probably non-manipulated bouts. But Godfrey had no such yardstick -- old Wills didn't want to fight him, and Larry Gains was too green according to your account.

Now perhaps I do have him a tad too high at #36, but given contemporary reports about this fella that all consider him a top contender I would not move him out of the top 50. To take one example, the Ring had him #2 in 1928 only behind Stribling, and #3 in 1929 only behind Schmeling and Sharkey (needless to say that he never got a shot when these guys held the title). Uzcudun, for example, never had such ratings, and neither Carnera or Schaaf.

You object primarily that I have him above McVea; howeverthe best opponent McVea beat consistently was Denver Ed Martin, while the best opponents Godfrey beat were Uzcudun, young Gains, Maloney, Renault, and arguably Carnera. Even if we ignore the fudged/non fudge fights issue, to me this looks more impressive.

Cheers,
P

Godfrey was fairly highly regarded during his own time, but he not that highly regarded. You mentioned the Ring Magazine Rankings. True Godfrey was once ranked #2 and was in the top 10 six times and was in the top 5 three times. That's certainly respectable.

However, it's not like Godfrey was the # 1 contender for several years or anything like that.
However, there are many other fighters who some people may be surprised to find was equally respected by Ring Magazine.
For instance George Chuvalo, was also ranked in the top 10 for six years and was also in the top 5 three times in an era of more depth.

Their was no Ring Magazine Ratings back when McVey was fighting. However, do you remember the interesting post that donnellon did back in January? We all thought it was pretty well researched. He had McVey in the top 10 for eight years and the top 5 six times. Again this was in an era of more depth that Godfrey's.

McVey didn't win his series with Jeannette with, Langford, and Wills? Well if you take a hard look you will see he did pretty well.

He defintely lost the series to Langford. He lost 5 times, won twice, had 5 draws and one no contest. Considering that he was fighting Langford thats pretty good.

Against Jeannette, McVey barely lost the series. He won 1, lost 2, (one was a 49 round ko) and had two draws.

Against Wills, the series was even. He won 2 and lost 2.

That right there is a pretty strong indication that McVey had to be pretty close to the level of Langford, Jeannette, and Wills. He didn't just give 1 of them trouble, he was very competitive with all 3.

For what it's worth, besides besting Denver Ed Martin, McVey was 5-0-1 against Jeff Clarke who was pretty decent. McVey also knocked out Bill Lang in two rounds. Maybe not top 10 but close.

Renault and Maloney are respectable wins but nothing more. Uzcudun, Renault and Maloney don't remotley compare with Langford,Wills, and Jeannette. Godfrey also "lost the series" to Renault, but I suppose Godfrey lost those fights on purpose.

Maybe we aren't that far apart since you are reevaulating where to place Godfrey and McVey. In my opinion, McVey has to be close to the top 20 all time. Putting Godfrey in the top 50 is pushing it.

Ambling Alp wrote:Godfrey was fairly highly regarded during his own time, but he not that highly regarded. You mentioned the Ring Magazine Rankings. True Godfrey was once ranked #2 and was in the top 10 six times and was in the top 5 three times. That's certainly respectable.

However, it's not like Godfrey was the # 1 contender for several years or anything like that.
However, there are many other fighters who some people may be surprised to find was equally respected by Ring Magazine.
For instance George Chuvalo, was also ranked in the top 10 for six years and was also in the top 5 three times in an era of more depth.

Their was no Ring Magazine Ratings back when McVey was fighting. However, do you remember the interesting post that donnellon did back in January? We all thought it was pretty well researched. He had McVey in the top 10 for eight years and the top 5 six times. Again this was in an era of more depth that Godfrey's.

McVey didn't win his series with Jeannette with, Langford, and Wills? Well if you take a hard look you will see he did pretty well.

He defintely lost the series to Langford. He lost 5 times, won twice, had 5 draws and one no contest. Considering that he was fighting Langford thats pretty good.

Against Jeannette, McVey barely lost the series. He won 1, lost 2, (one was a 49 round ko) and had two draws.

Against Wills, the series was even. He won 2 and lost 2.

That right there is a pretty strong indication that McVey had to be pretty close to the level of Langford, Jeannette, and Wills. He didn't just give 1 of them trouble, he was very competitive with all 3.

For what it's worth, besides besting Denver Ed Martin, McVey was 5-0-1 against Jeff Clarke who was pretty decent. McVey also knocked out Bill Lang in two rounds. Maybe not top 10 but close.

Renault and Maloney are respectable wins but nothing more. Uzcudun, Renault and Maloney don't remotley compare with Langford,Wills, and Jeannette. Godfrey also "lost the series" to Renault, but I suppose Godfrey lost those fights on purpose.

Maybe we aren't that far apart since you are reevaulating where to place Godfrey and McVey. In my opinion, McVey has to be close to the top 20 all time. Putting Godfrey in the top 50 is pushing it.

We are not close. In my ranking, top 20 for McVea means dropping one of one of Ali, Louis, Holmes, Johnson, Liston, Lewis, Langford, Frazier, Tunney, Marciano, Dempsey, Tyson, Charles, Wills, Jeffries, Holyfield, Corbett, Schmeling, or Walcott. Now way -- these were all great champions rather than #4 fighters of their eras.

Putting him close to the top 20 means ranking him hgiher than most of Patterson, Jackson, Sharkey, Spinks, Norton, Baer, Bowe, Jeanette, Quarry, Fitzsimmons. Sorry, no way either.

McVea is well placed in the top 40-50, and so is Godfrey.

Btw, Wills was very green when he lost to McVea, and once he had matured he owned the Texan. You also overlooked another fight series of McVea: 0-3 against Jack Johnson.

Boxrec Annual Ratings found:

Heavyweight 2598.0 1955-09-21 2598.0 3075.6 W KO Rocky Marciano vs. Archie Moore
Heavyweight 2086.6 1974-10-30 2445.5 2086.6 L KO George Foreman vs. Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight 1906.8 1978-09-15 1906.8 1907.7 W UD Muhammad Ali vs. Leon Spinks
Heavyweight 1694.8 1908-12-26 1694.8 2222.5 W PTS Jack Johnson vs. Tommy Burns
Heavyweight 1687.8 1941-06-18 1687.8 2297.6 L KO Billy Conn vs. Joe Louis
Heavyweight 1644.1 1952-06-05 1732.6 1644.1 L UD Ezzard Charles vs. Jersey Joe Walcott
Heavyweight 1625.6 1964-02-25 2673.3 1625.6 L RTD Sonny Liston vs. Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight 1514.3 1973-09-10 1514.3 1515.2 W SD Muhammad Ali vs. Ken Norton
Heavyweight 1466.2 1936-06-19 2122.4 1466.2 L KO Joe Louis vs. Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1454.2 1975-10-01 3286.5 1454.2 W RTD Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier

computerrank wrote:Boxrec Annual Ratings found:

Heavyweight 2598.0 1955-09-21 2598.0 3075.6 W KO Rocky Marciano vs. Archie Moore
Heavyweight 2086.6 1974-10-30 2445.5 2086.6 L KO George Foreman vs. Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight 1906.8 1978-09-15 1906.8 1907.7 W UD Muhammad Ali vs. Leon Spinks
Heavyweight 1694.8 1908-12-26 1694.8 2222.5 W PTS Jack Johnson vs. Tommy Burns
Heavyweight 1687.8 1941-06-18 1687.8 2297.6 L KO Billy Conn vs. Joe Louis
Heavyweight 1644.1 1952-06-05 1732.6 1644.1 L UD Ezzard Charles vs. Jersey Joe Walcott
Heavyweight 1625.6 1964-02-25 2673.3 1625.6 L RTD Sonny Liston vs. Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight 1514.3 1973-09-10 1514.3 1515.2 W SD Muhammad Ali vs. Ken Norton
Heavyweight 1466.2 1936-06-19 2122.4 1466.2 L KO Joe Louis vs. Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1454.2 1975-10-01 3286.5 1454.2 W RTD Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier

The computer loves refights.

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Godfrey was fairly highly regarded during his own time, but he not that highly regarded. You mentioned the Ring Magazine Rankings. True Godfrey was once ranked #2 and was in the top 10 six times and was in the top 5 three times. That's certainly respectable.

However, it's not like Godfrey was the # 1 contender for several years or anything like that.
However, there are many other fighters who some people may be surprised to find was equally respected by Ring Magazine.
For instance George Chuvalo, was also ranked in the top 10 for six years and was also in the top 5 three times in an era of more depth.

Their was no Ring Magazine Ratings back when McVey was fighting. However, do you remember the interesting post that donnellon did back in January? We all thought it was pretty well researched. He had McVey in the top 10 for eight years and the top 5 six times. Again this was in an era of more depth that Godfrey's.

McVey didn't win his series with Jeannette with, Langford, and Wills? Well if you take a hard look you will see he did pretty well.

He defintely lost the series to Langford. He lost 5 times, won twice, had 5 draws and one no contest. Considering that he was fighting Langford thats pretty good.

Against Jeannette, McVey barely lost the series. He won 1, lost 2, (one was a 49 round ko) and had two draws.

Against Wills, the series was even. He won 2 and lost 2.

That right there is a pretty strong indication that McVey had to be pretty close to the level of Langford, Jeannette, and Wills. He didn't just give 1 of them trouble, he was very competitive with all 3.

For what it's worth, besides besting Denver Ed Martin, McVey was 5-0-1 against Jeff Clarke who was pretty decent. McVey also knocked out Bill Lang in two rounds. Maybe not top 10 but close.

Renault and Maloney are respectable wins but nothing more. Uzcudun, Renault and Maloney don't remotley compare with Langford,Wills, and Jeannette. Godfrey also "lost the series" to Renault, but I suppose Godfrey lost those fights on purpose.

Maybe we aren't that far apart since you are reevaulating where to place Godfrey and McVey. In my opinion, McVey has to be close to the top 20 all time. Putting Godfrey in the top 50 is pushing it.

We are not close. In my ranking, top 20 for McVea means dropping one of one of Ali, Louis, Holmes, Johnson, Liston, Lewis, Langford, Frazier, Tunney, Marciano, Dempsey, Tyson, Charles, Wills, Jeffries, Holyfield, Corbett, Schmeling, or Walcott. Now way -- these were all great champions rather than #4 fighters of their eras.

Putting him close to the top 20 means ranking him hgiher than most of Patterson, Jackson, Sharkey, Spinks, Norton, Baer, Bowe, Jeanette, Quarry, Fitzsimmons. Sorry, no way either.

McVea is well placed in the top 40-50, and so is Godfrey.

Btw, Wills was very green when he lost to McVea, and once he had matured he owned the Texan. You also overlooked another fight series of McVea: 0-3 against Jack Johnson.

I draw differnet conclusions.
Wills wasn't green when he lost to McVey. Will already had 26 fights, and had already beat Langford and Jeanette. These are legitimate wins for McVey.
I don't see how you can say Wills ever owned McVey. He only beat him twice, and the second one was when McVey was well past his prime.

McVey on the other hand was green when he lost to Johnson. He was less than 20 years old when these fights took place. Still he went the 20 rounbs distance twice and got ko's in the 20th round the other time. It's doubtful anyone else in the history of boxing would have done much better with that little expierence against Johnson.

Just because McVey is only the #4 heavyweight of his era, doesn't mean that he isn't better than another guy who was #1 or #2 in another era. It was an extremely strong era and McVey was only behind the guys ahead of him by a very small margin.

I have no problem at all putting him ahead of several of the guys that you mentioned. Spinks, Walcott, Charles, Quarry, why in the world not?

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Godfrey was fairly highly regarded during his own time, but he not that highly regarded. You mentioned the Ring Magazine Rankings. True Godfrey was once ranked #2 and was in the top 10 six times and was in the top 5 three times. That's certainly respectable.

However, it's not like Godfrey was the # 1 contender for several years or anything like that.
However, there are many other fighters who some people may be surprised to find was equally respected by Ring Magazine.
For instance George Chuvalo, was also ranked in the top 10 for six years and was also in the top 5 three times in an era of more depth.

Their was no Ring Magazine Ratings back when McVey was fighting. However, do you remember the interesting post that donnellon did back in January? We all thought it was pretty well researched. He had McVey in the top 10 for eight years and the top 5 six times. Again this was in an era of more depth that Godfrey's.

McVey didn't win his series with Jeannette with, Langford, and Wills? Well if you take a hard look you will see he did pretty well.

He defintely lost the series to Langford. He lost 5 times, won twice, had 5 draws and one no contest. Considering that he was fighting Langford thats pretty good.

Against Jeannette, McVey barely lost the series. He won 1, lost 2, (one was a 49 round ko) and had two draws.

Against Wills, the series was even. He won 2 and lost 2.

That right there is a pretty strong indication that McVey had to be pretty close to the level of Langford, Jeannette, and Wills. He didn't just give 1 of them trouble, he was very competitive with all 3.

For what it's worth, besides besting Denver Ed Martin, McVey was 5-0-1 against Jeff Clarke who was pretty decent. McVey also knocked out Bill Lang in two rounds. Maybe not top 10 but close.

Renault and Maloney are respectable wins but nothing more. Uzcudun, Renault and Maloney don't remotley compare with Langford,Wills, and Jeannette. Godfrey also "lost the series" to Renault, but I suppose Godfrey lost those fights on purpose.

Maybe we aren't that far apart since you are reevaulating where to place Godfrey and McVey. In my opinion, McVey has to be close to the top 20 all time. Putting Godfrey in the top 50 is pushing it.

We are not close. In my ranking, top 20 for McVea means dropping one of one of Ali, Louis, Holmes, Johnson, Liston, Lewis, Langford, Frazier, Tunney, Marciano, Dempsey, Tyson, Charles, Wills, Jeffries, Holyfield, Corbett, Schmeling, or Walcott. Now way -- these were all great champions rather than #4 fighters of their eras.

Putting him close to the top 20 means ranking him hgiher than most of Patterson, Jackson, Sharkey, Spinks, Norton, Baer, Bowe, Jeanette, Quarry, Fitzsimmons. Sorry, no way either.

McVea is well placed in the top 40-50, and so is Godfrey.

Btw, Wills was very green when he lost to McVea, and once he had matured he owned the Texan. You also overlooked another fight series of McVea: 0-3 against Jack Johnson.

I draw differnet conclusions.
Wills wasn't green when he lost to McVey. Will already had 26 fights, and had already beat Langford and Jeanette. These are legitimate wins for McVey.
I don't see how you can say Wills ever owned McVey. He only beat him twice, and the second one was when McVey was well past his prime.

McVey on the other hand was green when he lost to Johnson. He was less than 20 years old when these fights took place. Still he went the 20 rounbs distance twice and got ko's in the 20th round the other time. It's doubtful anyone else in the history of boxing would have done much better with that little expierence against Johnson.

Just because McVey is only the #4 heavyweight of his era, doesn't mean that he isn't better than another guy who was #1 or #2 in another era. It was an extremely strong era and McVey was only behind the guys ahead of him by a very small margin.

I have no problem at all putting him ahead of several of the guys that you mentioned. Spinks, Walcott, Charles, Quarry, why in the world not?

You don't know why Charles, Walcott? Boy.

I rate McVey slightly ahead of Charles and Walcott. I'm sure some people don't agree with this, but it's certainly arguable.

By far Charles and Walcott's most impressive wins in their heavyweight career's were against each other. Yes Walcott was unlucky in the first Louis fight but this wasn't the prime Louis. Charles win over Louis was when Louis was way, way past it. Both Charles and Walcott had some losses against some fighters that were not great, to put it mildly.

McVey's only losses that were close to his prime were against Langford,Jeanette, and Wills, who were all great fighters. As mentioned before, he did well in multiple fights series against all 3.

Charles,Walcott,as well as many of the guys that you mentioned earlier (Patterson,Jackson,Sharkey,Baer,Norton,Fitzsimmons,Schmeling, and Corbett) are close. All of these guys have some great positives and some negatives.
McVey is right in there with them.
He certainly was better than Jerry Quarry.

You would take the Joe Louis that Charles fought over anyone that McVey beat ? That includes Langford,Jeanette, and Wills. Louis was way, way past it when he fought Charles. He was slow,his reflexes were all but gone. He couldn't followup up on his punches. Many people could have beaten the Joe Louis that Charles beat. Sam McVey certainly would have.

Archie Moore is nowhere near one of the top 25 or 30 heavyweights of all time. Besides Moore was still a lightheavyweight when he fought Charles anyway.

The Louis that Walcott fought while better than when Charles fought him, wasn't nearly the fighter he had become. When Louis came back after WWII, he wasn't near the fighter that he had been.

Tommy Gomez,Lee Oma, Curtis Shepherd? Do you seriously think McVey would have lost to these guys?
Charles and Walcott also have losses against guys who weren't that good. Charles and Walcott were obviously great fighters. However, they do have some holes in their records. McVey certainly had a career that is in their league.

Ambling Alp wrote:I rate McVey slightly ahead of Charles and Walcott. I'm sure some people don't agree with this, but it's certainly arguable.

I don't think it is arguable at all. Mc Vey is on balance 0-4 against the four leading black heavyweights of his era (as said, Wills beat him fairly easily once he was on top of his game) -- this is his main "achievement".

Walcott and Charles were champions. Walcott beat the great Joe Louis in 1947 by any reasonable yardstick except on the scorecards. Charles blasted this very JJWalcott before he started to detriorate. In addition, both have plentiful wins against top notch 1940s contenders on their records, including Elmer Ray, Lee Q Murray, Lee Oma (all of which every bit as much avoided in the 1940s as McVey was in the 1910s), Joey Maxim, Jimmy Bivins, Rex Layne, Joe Baski. Nothing on McVey's record rivals this even remotely. There can be no talk that Walcott's and Charles' achievement is primarily beating each other. Without their mututal victories they would still be well, well above McVey.

But fine, if you think McVey should be placed above Charles and Walcott so be it. To be honest, to me this sounds nonsensical.

Cheers,
P

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I rate McVey slightly ahead of Charles and Walcott. I'm sure some people don't agree with this, but it's certainly arguable.

I don't think it is arguable at all. Mc Vey is on balance 0-4 against the four leading black heavyweights of his era (as said, Wills beat him fairly easily once he was on top of his game) -- this is his main "achievement".

Walcott and Charles were champions. Walcott beat the great Joe Louis in 1947 by any reasonable yardstick except on the scorecards. Charles blasted this very JJWalcott before he started to detriorate. In addition, both have plentiful wins against top notch 1940s contenders on their records, including Elmer Ray, Lee Q Murray, Lee Oma (all of which every bit as much avoided in the 1940s as McVey was in the 1910s), Joey Maxim, Jimmy Bivins, Rex Layne, Joe Baski. Nothing on McVey's record rivals this even remotely. There can be no talk that Walcott's and Charles' achievement is primarily beating each other. Without their mututal victories they would still be well, well above McVey.

But fine, if you think McVey should be placed above Charles and Walcott so be it. To be honest, to me this sounds nonsensical.

Cheers,
P

I’ve got to admit that it’s pretty tough to argue the case for rating McVey ahead of Charles and Walcott. But to say that he wasn’t at least in the same league as Walcott and Charles is also pretty hard to defend. While some very good names from the 40’s have been listed from Charles and Walcott’s resume, McVey also has a very good resume even without his battles against the other big 3. The fact that most internet posters aren’t familiar with the fighters that McVey fought is simply an indication that he fought a lot longer ago than Charles and Walcott, but there are certainly quite a few good names on his resume as well.

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I rate McVey slightly ahead of Charles and Walcott. I'm sure some people don't agree with this, but it's certainly arguable.

I don't think it is arguable at all. Mc Vey is on balance 0-4 against the four leading black heavyweights of his era (as said, Wills beat him fairly easily once he was on top of his game) -- this is his main "achievement".

Walcott and Charles were champions. Walcott beat the great Joe Louis in 1947 by any reasonable yardstick except on the scorecards. Charles blasted this very JJWalcott before he started to detriorate. In addition, both have plentiful wins against top notch 1940s contenders on their records, including Elmer Ray, Lee Q Murray, Lee Oma (all of which every bit as much avoided in the 1940s as McVey was in the 1910s), Joey Maxim, Jimmy Bivins, Rex Layne, Joe Baski. Nothing on McVey's record rivals this even remotely. There can be no talk that Walcott's and Charles' achievement is primarily beating each other. Without their mututal victories they would still be well, well above McVey.

But fine, if you think McVey should be placed above Charles and Walcott so be it. To be honest, to me this sounds nonsensical.

Cheers,
P

First of all, how can you count McVey fights with Johnson? As mentioned before, he was less than 20 years old when those fights took place. 2 of the three went the 20 round distance. the third McVey made it to the 20th round before he was stopped. Do you really think Charles and Walcott would have done as well against Johnson with such little experience?

Wills beating him once he was a the top of game really isn't accurrate. As mentioned before Wills had already beaten Langford and Jeanette before he ever fought McVey. He had to be pretty close to his best by then. McVey won the first two fights. Wills won the 3rd. The fourth was when McVey was past his prime. He certainly wasn't at the "top of his game" anymore. Again, it's very doubtful Walcott and Charles would have done as well against Wills.

McVey was 2-5-5 against Langford. Walcott and Charles may have done a little better, but not much.

McVey was 1-2-2 against Jenaette, Again, Walcott and Charles wouldn't have done much better.

A fighter can lose a series and and still be impressive. Joe Frazier was 1-2 against Ali. Yes he lost the series. How many other fighters would have done as well?

McVey was very consistent and never lost to anyone besides Langford,Wills, and Jeanette in his prime. Charles and Walcott weren't exactly the most consistent fighters. Charles lost to Valdes,Johnson, and Layne. Walcott lost to people all through the early, middle, and end of his career.

Walcott's and Charles' wins over Oma,Ray and Murray are nice wins. But how avoided were these guys? Many other fighters fought and beat these guys.

Joe Baski? Joey Maxim as a heavyweight? That simply isn't a big deal to beat those guys.
They did each beat Rex Layne, but each also managed to lose to him.

Losing the series to Johnson (which was way before his prime) to Langford, Jenaeette, (barely) and even with Wills is much more impressive than many of the fights that Charles and Walcott managed to lose.

Sorry if you think McVey's win over Jeanette was a "snoozefest" but he won.
The Joe Louis of 1950 would kill McVey? (Later you said McVey might win 1 out of 5 so I guess his win would be before the fight in which he was killed)
huh? Joe Louis in 1950 was slower than molasses. Charles slapped him around like a punching bag. McVey wouldn't just win 1 of 5 against the 1950 Joe Louis, he would win 5 of 5.

It's doubtful that Langford was just a middleweight when McVey beat him. Regardless, Langford had already beat Jeanette. This is a huge win for McVey.

Your point about McVey only winning 1 of 5 fights against Langford,Wills, and Jeanette is very deceiving. He certainly didn't lose 4 out of 5 fights against them. Several of the fights were draws.
As pointed out before, McVey barely lost the series to Jeanette, and was even with Wills. He certainly wasn't embarrassed in the series against Langford.

Have you ever seen the Louis-Charles fight? Louis had almost nothing. He was 36 and hadn't fought in 2 years. It's not surprising that Charles beat him easily and McVey would have as well. So would a lot of fighters throughout history.

McVey was slow and inactive during his career? Well, he must have doing something well because he had a great career.

Beating Langford was a big win. No it's not as good as beating a prime Joe Louis, but it's still impressive.

The Wills that McVey beat was no Joe Louis? Well, I never said he was. Wills certainly wasn't as good as a prime Joe Louis. (Though he was much better than the 1950 version of Joe Louis that you keep bringing up)However Wills, was a very good fighter. Beating him were pretty good wins for McVey.

No, McVey didn't win a high % of his fights with Langford,Jeannette and Wills. However, they didn't win a high % against him. Several of their fights were draws. The fact that Langford,Jeanette, and Wills were all unable to beat McVey in more than half of their fights indicates that McVey was very close to them.

No, I haven't seen the McVey-Jeanette fight. However, one thing you have to consider is that film from back then is of very low quality which makes it more difficult to gauge the quality of the fighters.
Certainly, McVey showed throughout his career that he was a very good fighter. Just by going what he accomplished in career, he deserves to be right behind Langford, wills, and Jeanette in the All-Time Heavyweight rankings.

Ambling Alp wrote:No, I haven't seen the McVey-Jeanette fight. However, one thing you have to consider is that film from back then is of very low quality which makes it more difficult to gauge the quality of the fighters.
Certainly, McVey showed throughout his career that he was a very good fighter. Just by going what he accomplished in career, he deserves to be right behind Langford, wills, and Jeanette in the All-Time Heavyweight rankings.

And so he is in mine (8, 15, 28, 37). To be honest, I don't understand your complaint. Not at all.

Btw, as for "films back then", the films from back then show very clearly that Sam Langford was a hell of an offensive fighter; fast, agressive, high punch volume, very mobile. A very modern style that made Langford a ferocious force, even though he was dwarfed by many of his opponents. The films from back then also show that Jack Johnson was a defensive master, extremely hard to hit, with great ring generalship, quick reflexes, and superbly timed counterpunches. It leaves no doubt that Johnson would have been a formidable heavyweight in any period.

Film remains the best available evidence for assessing a fighter also then. With McVea we have little film -- the only one I'm aware of is a match with Battling Jim Johnson in Paris. Thus we have to go to the second best source: contemporary press reports. These tell us that he was competitive with the best of his period -- i.e., Johnson, Langford, Jeanette (McVea's and Will's primes did not overlap, hence the head-to-head comparison makes little sense. Wills did not reach his prime before 1916), but that on balance he came out behind these guys, although one might indeed call the Jeanette-McVey contest indeed a draw. After all McVey won the first 30 rounds against Jeanette in their ultimate fight before running out of gas.

P

My complaint is that you have the four guys too far apart. I believe earlier you had Langford #8, Wills at #15, Jeannette at #28 and McVey at #37.
Langford the #8 heavyweight of all time? There are certainly more than 7 fighters who were better than Langford at heavyweight.
Wills is probably a little high at #15, Jeannette is a little low at #28, and McVey is way too low at #37.

The gap between Wills and McVey is very small. There certainly isn't 21 guys not as good as Wills but better than McVey.

The gap between Jeannette and McVey is miniscule. There is no way that there are 8 guys not as good as Jeannette but better than McVey. There might not be one.

(The gap between Jeannette and Wills is pretty small as well. There aren't 12 guys that are aren't as good as Wills but better than Jeannette.)

It seems that part of the reason that you don't have McVey rated higher (and Wills and McVey closer) is your analysis of the Wills-McVey series.
I don't see how you can say that Wills hadn't reached his prime yet. A fighter who was 25 years old, had 26 fights on record and had already beat Langford and Jeanette as was the case with Wills at the time he fought McVey, is in his prime. He wasn't some green prospect when McVey beat him.
McVey was 2-2 against a prime Harry Wills. That's pretty good.

Langford and Wills should be just inside the top 20, and Jeannette and McVey should be just outside of the top 20.