BoxRec

I know that Saad in particulars and some others are waiting with baited breath for the continuation of this series so i thought i would get it started, even though there are plenty of guys not considered yet, and it is not even close finished. Feel free to add to the many missing names.

Johnson – W Jeffries, Flynn, Moran, Cowler, Roper L Willard D J Johnson
Dempsey – W Smith, Martin, Brennan, Fulton, Miske, Pelkey, Devere, Willard, Meehan, Porky Flynn D Meehan, Flynn
Willard – W McCarthy, Morris, Moran, Johnson L Smith
Smith – W Sullivan, Moran, Willard, Wells, Flynn, Morris, Ross, Pelkey,Cowler,Devere, Tate D Langford, Levinskey L Carpentier, Bell, Dillon, Norfolk
Norfolk – W Clarke, Miske, Jeanette, Cowler Smith, Pelkey, L Langford, Conners, Turner
Turner – W Sudenberg, Norfolk, Madden L Greb, Jeanette, Levinskey, Houck, Gibbons, M Gibbons
Bell – W Ruhlin, Kellar, D Langford L Howard, McVey, Jeanette, Wells, Porky Flynn, Dave Smith
Langford – w tate,Clarke, Norfolk, J Johnson, Devere, McVey, Barry, Porky Flynn, Ross, Obrien, Jeanette D Bell LWills, Meehan, Fulton

you probably already said but why don't you count results of rematches etc?

Ezzard wrote:you probably already said but why don't you count results of rematches etc?

I do count the rematches, but i do it in series. For example if a fighter fights three times and wins the first but loses the second two fights, he loses the series. For eg Norton v Ali was a win to Ali 2-1.

It all comes down to quality, consistency, and of course results.

IMHO, the #1 man is Sam Langford and the #2 man is James Jeffries.

I would rate Jeffries number one, because Langford used to promote himself as 'willing to take on all comers except Mr. Jeffries" but the fact remains Langford was virtually invincible from 147 to heavyweight. Jeffries was untouchable in his prime, beating back to back heavyweight kings in Fitzsimmons (2x's) and Corbett (2x's) and defeated tough top notch contenders as Tom Sharkey (2x's) and Joe Choyinski. I find it hard to believe a Jack Root, Marvin Hart, Tommy Burns, or even some of the black contenders being able to beat him in that day and age when (though MQ rules) was still a fight to the finish. Jeffries was simply too big, stoo strong, too well conditioned and tough for everybody. It took six years inactivity and losing 110 pounds before he fell to someone's hands. As for Mr. Jack Johnson I have him around #5, I rate Mr. Fitzsimmons and Mr. Corbett ahead of him. Why? P4P it can be argued nobody, except Langford, could match Fitz' prowess in the ring. Corbett was essentially the fastest man in the division's history and for a long, long time nobody was able to catch up to him. Why do I say he's the fastest? Today he would be a small Cruiserweight (178 pounds) and theres no doubt in my mind that at his peak he was as fast, if not faster in some respects, than Muhammad Ali because he was smaller than Ali. What films I have seen of Mr. Corbett when he was an old man, he looked still as fast as a middleweight at the age of 59 in his pseudo-exhibition with Gene Tunney. After all, you cant hit what you cant see. Jesus bless.

nice post

misterpunch wrote:nice post

I agree.

Except it is the wrong decade, jeffries only fight in the 1910s was his loss to JOhnson. This one goes from 1910 to 1919 :)

Boilermaker wrote:

misterpunch wrote:nice post

I agree.

Except it is the wrong decade, jeffries only fight in the 1910s was his loss to JOhnson. This one goes from 1910 to 1919 :)

You weren't specific in your opening post. I figured it was 1900-1910. Regardless, even if it was 1910-1919 I wouldnt put Johnson as #1. That distinction falls to Sam Langford. Again, why? Simple, 13x's against Jeanette, 13x's against McVey, 18x's against Wills, etc. Anything Johnson did as champion didn't quite amount much to a hill of beans facing limited, slow, plodding, small, old, white hopes, when Langford was facing the real threats. Sure Johnson had beaten the same men, but not as frequently as Langford had done or as convincingly. Think about it, Langford was so dangerous that even when he was half blind he was still a top contender in the reign of Jack Dempsey, and even Dempsey had to admit he was afraid of one man and that was Langford. Johnson, I also hold down, because what films there are of him don't show me a skilled boxer, or even a fast one as the legends show, but that of a mauling, clinching, bruiser/counter puncher. It's no wonder he dodged Langford in a rematch. Once was enough and that was a heavyweight Johnson facing a 157 pound Langford. Johnson was all about the quick, fast money and the controversy. Langford was a work horse, and should have been champion at 147, 160, 175 and heavyweight.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:

misterpunch wrote:nice post

I agree.

Except it is the wrong decade, jeffries only fight in the 1910s was his loss to JOhnson. This one goes from 1910 to 1919 :)

You weren't specific in your opening post. I figured it was 1900-1910. Regardless, even if it was 1910-1919 I wouldnt put Johnson as #1. That distinction falls to Sam Langford. Again, why? Simple, 13x's against Jeanette, 13x's against McVey, 18x's against Wills, etc. Anything Johnson did as champion didn't quite amount much to a hill of beans facing limited, slow, plodding, small, old, white hopes, when Langford was facing the real threats. Sure Johnson had beaten the same men, but not as frequently as Langford had done or as convincingly. Think about it, Langford was so dangerous that even when he was half blind he was still a top contender in the reign of Jack Dempsey, and even Dempsey had to admit he was afraid of one man and that was Langford. Johnson, I also hold down, because what films there are of him don't show me a skilled boxer, or even a fast one as the legends show, but that of a mauling, clinching, bruiser/counter puncher. It's no wonder he dodged Langford in a rematch. Once was enough and that was a heavyweight Johnson facing a 157 pound Langford. Johnson was all about the quick, fast money and the controversy. Langford was a work horse, and should have been champion at 147, 160, 175 and heavyweight.

Yeah, no worries, i was just counting down the decades as the 20s was the last one i did. When we get to the 1880s or so, i will start to really look at some of the different results.

I am gong to have to think about your comments regarding Langford. How do you think that Langford's results against Wills stand up, particularly in the late part of the decade when they were pretty evenly matched. Wills claims to have dominated Langford for all his fights (other than those where Langford KOd him. If this is true, could we really expect prime langford to do much better? I must say, With Johnson, Wills, Langford, McVey, Jeanette and several good but underated guys like Willard, Jim Johnson, etc, this decade might even arguably have as much talent as the 70s. It actually surprised me, because i had always thought of it as pretty much a wasteland of heavys.

HomicideHenry wrote:I find it hard to believe a Jack Root, Marvin Hart, Tommy Burns, or even some of the black contenders being able to beat him in that day and age when (though MQ rules) was still a fight to the finish.

Jeffries fights were not fights to the finish.

The Great John L wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:I find it hard to believe a Jack Root, Marvin Hart, Tommy Burns, or even some of the black contenders being able to beat him in that day and age when (though MQ rules) was still a fight to the finish.

Jeffries fights were not fights to the finish.

When fights are scheduled 20, 25, 45, rounds it may as well be fights to the finish.

Yeah, no worries, i was just counting down the decades as the 20s was the last one i did. When we get to the 1880s or so, i will start to really look at some of the different results.

I am gong to have to think about your comments regarding Langford. How do you think that Langford's results against Wills stand up, particularly in the late part of the decade when they were pretty evenly matched. Wills claims to have dominated Langford for all his fights (other than those where Langford KOd him. If this is true, could we really expect prime langford to do much better? I must say, With Johnson, Wills, Langford, McVey, Jeanette and several good but underated guys like Willard, Jim Johnson, etc, this decade might even arguably have as much talent as the 70s. It actually surprised me, because i had always thought of it as pretty much a wasteland of heavys.

I agree with you 100% the era was not only one of the greatest eras in boxing history, but the greatest era for promoters, especially when Johnson was champion. As bad as racism is, it sure as eff made alot of people rich looking for the next white hope. But to call the era itself a white hope era is really a disservice to the truly legendary fighters and athletes of the time. Most 'candidates' were cannon fodder, but when you get to the nitty gritty, the top 10-20 guys would be on an even playing field with most any other era.

HomicideHenry wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:I find it hard to believe a Jack Root, Marvin Hart, Tommy Burns, or even some of the black contenders being able to beat him in that day and age when (though MQ rules) was still a fight to the finish.

Jeffries fights were not fights to the finish.

When fights are scheduled 20, 25, 45, rounds it may as well be fights to the finish.

Most of his important fights were scheduled for 20 rounds, but many were shorter. I think the only one that was scheduled for 45 was the Johnson fight, and that didn't work out too well.

I think Jeffries might be the most under rated of all HW champions, but this myth that always seems to come up when he's mentioned that he would have been unbeatable in fights to the finish is just that; a myth.

HomicideHenry wrote:I agree with you 100% the era was not only one of the greatest eras in boxing history, but the greatest era for promoters, especially when Johnson was champion. As bad as racism is, it sure as eff made alot of people rich looking for the next white hope. But to call the era itself a white hope era is really a disservice to the truly legendary fighters and athletes of the time. Most 'candidates' were cannon fodder, but when you get to the nitty gritty, the top 10-20 guys would be on an even playing field with most any other era.

Yes, an under rated era with a few greats, and a large number of capable HWs.

Most of his important fights were scheduled for 20 rounds, but many were shorter. I think the only one that was scheduled for 45 was the Johnson fight, and that didn't work out too well.

I think Jeffries might be the most under rated of all HW champions, but this myth that always seems to come up when he's mentioned that he would have been unbeatable in fights to the finish is just that; a myth.

When you factor in that Corbett chopped him up for almost 20 rounds, and then Jeffries kayoed him; it does make you think he has the greatest claim to being unbeaten in fights that would have been ongoing for a long time. Don't forget, that in his debut as a fighter, he fought a 'fight to the finish' with a man who had 100 plus matches to his credit, and Jeffries kayoed the man in 14 rounds. If it was called upon, I believe he could have beaten most any heavyweight in such circumstances.

My only issue is that…

Corbett was a highly skilled and gifted fighter. But he was smaller than Jeff and Corbett was not a big puncher for his weight…and had been KO’d by a body punch from a middleweight (okay the hardest middleweight puncher of all-time…but even so).

If Jeff is being busted up by a heavier man…and a harder puncher…

This is not to put down Jeff who was a formidable fighting man and a supreme athlete. And one of the true great Heavies.

Ezzard wrote:My only issue is that…

Corbett was a highly skilled and gifted fighter. But he was smaller than Jeff and Corbett was not a big puncher for his weight…and had been KO’d by a body punch from a middleweight (okay the hardest middleweight puncher of all-time…but even so).

If Jeff is being busted up by a heavier man…and a harder puncher…

This is not to put down Jeff who was a formidable fighting man and a supreme athlete. And one of the true great Heavies.

#1- People tend to forget that Corbett was equally skilled in dirty fighting at close range as he was at long range; despite being 178 pounds, he did pack a solid hard punch, even though he wasn't blowing anyone away early

#2- To discredit Corbett because of the body shot stoppage loss to Fitzsimmons, is a disrespect to the great Fitzsimmons himself; don't forget even though he was 167 pounds he arguably gave Jeffries the toughest fights of his career, but then again with skin tight- three ounce gloves it probably didn't take much to bust someone wide open then. Still, Fitz' power and skills was such that he was a competitive contender at 175 and heavyweight up until his retirement.

#3- Jeffries did face Tom Sharkey, the big strong Irishman who was ranked by RING magazine as one of the hardest punchers of all time, and also one of the dirtiest. IN fact, they fought twice. Sharkey was arguably a poor man's Marciano, but that would probably a slam against Sharkey who was a threat to everyone in the division in what was one of the more unerated eras in boxing history.

HomicideHenry wrote: #3- Jeffries did face Tom Sharkey, the big strong Irishman who was ranked by RING magazine as one of the hardest punchers of all time, and also one of the dirtiest. IN fact, they fought twice. Sharkey was arguably a poor man's Marciano, but that would probably a slam against Sharkey who was a threat to everyone in the division in what was one of the more unerated eras in boxing history.

Man, Sharkey had tree trunks for legs:

NT

Ric wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote: #3- Jeffries did face Tom Sharkey, the big strong Irishman who was ranked by RING magazine as one of the hardest punchers of all time, and also one of the dirtiest. IN fact, they fought twice. Sharkey was arguably a poor man's Marciano, but that would probably a slam against Sharkey who was a threat to everyone in the division in what was one of the more unerated eras in boxing history.

Man, Sharkey had tree trunks for legs:

Obviously, the first proof of PED usage by a boxer.