BoxRec

Sometimes It's Never Enough



Sometimes there has been champions in history who have been dismissed, and unrightfully so. Or maybe, they get downplayed because of certain circumstances and other factors.

Take Joe Louis for instance...

25 title defenses, nearly a 12 year title reign. Posts wins over former champions Max Schmeling, Primo Carnera, Max Baer, Jack Sharkey, Billy Conn, Jim Braddock and John Henry Lewis and posts wins over future champion Jersey Joe Walcott. His losses were to Schmeling, Charles and Marciano.

But even Louis gets a bunch of flack. Joe Louis, unfortunately, was a victim of his own dominance; beating virtually every worth while contender and name and eventually being left with second-raters to defend the title against.

The argument from time to time against Louis is that he didn't face a Frazier, Ali, Foreman. But then again, in this era of ours guys like Tony Galento, Tommy Farr, Lou Nova, and Lee Savold very well could be champs, if anything top 10 contenders.

Sometimes the circumstances are more political...

Tommy Burns is rarely mentioned, but when he is, he's the subject of ridicule. Too short, didn't defeat any 'good' opponents, etc. Unfortunately, this perception is quite off the mark.

Burns, though starting off as a middleweight, competed against the best of three different weight classes and he once held the HW title defense record (14) until Louis broke it against Simon.

He generally can be stated as being the first 'world' HW champion, as he defended the title against the champions of England, Ireland, South Africa and Australia and had previously fought black men and tried getting a fight against Sam McVey, in a time when America was very neutralized and disregarded foreign and colored competitors.

Burns was actually quite popular, that is until losing to Jack Johnson and was more or less barred from the United States, due to sports writers articles on a fight that they wasn't even present at. Losing to a fighter of Jack Johnson's caliber isn't something to be down about, yet Burns is dismissed as nothing more than the worst HW champion in history.

Though, if truth be told, had Burns fought any other man, he could have been champion for much longer and who knows, could have had the 20+ defenses like Holmes and Louis had.

And speaking of Larry Holmes...

20 defenses in seven years, and though against mediocre opposition by and large, Holmes did hold wins against Leon Spinks, Ken Norton, Earnie Shavers, and wins against future champions such as Tim Witherspoon and Trevor Berbick.

Yet, as Holmes followed Ali, he was never given his due. He wasn't as fun as Ali. He wasn't as fast as Ali. He wasn't as popular as Ali. Everybody wanted Cooney instead of Holmes. People asked him how he felt about almost matching Marciano's record. And he was hated even more when he tore Ali apart.

It was always somebody else but Larry Holmes. And despite it all, unifying the titles or not, everybody knew Larry Holmes was the true champion and the most dominant HW champion since the days of Louis.

Wasn't until in recent years he's been put into the top 10, and if truth be told, he probably deserves a higher ranking.

Rocky Marciano never lost as a professional. six title defenses in five years. highest kayo rating out of an undisputed champion in HW history. How could that be?

So he's dismissed...Walcott was too damn old, so was Charles and Moore was an old LHW champion pretending to be a HW. And let's not even mention Joe Louis, he might as well have been The Rock's grandfather.

All his opponents were hand picked dead men, all his fights were either life and death struggles or they were one sided blow outs. Somebody has to explain as to why such a small man, with the shortest reach in HW history, who cut easy and was by no means a boxing scholar, could have went undefeated.

Or maybe people just ain't willing to realize that maybe, just maybe, they were in the presence of sheer power, sheer might, and sheer determination, the likes of which that has seldom been seen since.

What of the other divisions?

Carlos Monzon is generally considered a top 3 middleweight champion, but people are always quick to point out that he never fought a Hagler, that his career was mostly built on fighting unheard of Argentine journeymen and defenses or not, they weren't against a Robinson, a LaMotta, a Flowers, etc.

Maybe had Monzon came a few years later onto the scene, he could have settled all questions. Or maybe not.

There are many men who are either so damn good they are taken for granted and abused, or they simply came a little too late or early, or they just were abandoned after losing to a guy they shouldn't have lost to.

Whatever the reason...sometimes it just isn't enough.

Don't get me started, there's two British middleweights who should be listed among the greats; full stop!

Your talking about world champions, I'd much rather focus on the Charley Burley's of the game, Most FEARED Fighters, they are the real greats!

Fighters who excelled at the Top for years, "ducked & exploited" in the name of protecting so called champion's, especially from the day's of old when fighters fought at their own weight and 'up', there was only 'one' world champion and boxers fought often into the hundreds even, fighting every other week, proving their worth...

A book on the Most Feared fighters, the Real Champion's is whats needed!

Charlie Burley is an excellent example of this thread. Burley was simply too good, too black. He never got to face the Robinson's of the world because for one reason or another he was side stepped, and he never got a title shot. After beating the likes of Zivic, Soose, Hogue, Moore, Williams...nobody wanted no part of him. Not Ken Overlin, and neither did Soose when he beat Overlin for the title, because he knew Burley would defeat him. So yes, I agree, Burley fits the bill for this thread. He was a victim of his own dominance.

As for Burns, I might be wrong, but I believe had he fought Sam McVey he would have had a chance. Not to say McVey, Jeanette were not good fighters, they were, but if you look back on them McVey was more or less a powerful man with decent skill and little more---Jeanette and Langford on the other hand were great tacticians and would have posed problems for Burns. And besides, Johnson defeated all three of those men on more than one occassion, so it's logical to fight the best black man on the planet rather than some man whose second best---Burns lost, but Johnson would eventually turn out to be one of the top 10 ATG HW champions in history, hardly something to be ashamed of---considering Burns did hurt Johnson [broke his ribs] despite his size and illness [jaundice].

HomicideHenry wrote:So yes, I agree, Burley fits the bill for this thread. He was a victim of his own dominance.

But thee was a little more to it than that. Burley also refused to play ball with certain 'shady characters' who controlled Boxing at the time, eg take dives.

He also suffered with bad hands that interupted his career a number of times.

But I agree Burley was a remarkable fight and was terrible avoided by many top fighters from Welterweight to Light-Heavyweight.

He was one of the greatest fighters ever to never get a shot at a world title.


Also Eddie Booker was a remarkable fighter who was avoided and never got the oppertunities his talents deserved.

The same can be said of Sam Langford, Harry Wills, Peter Jackson, George Godfrey and others who fit into what I call the 'Racist' category.

But sometimes I wonder if some of the black fighters have been all but turned into legendary figures because they never did get a shot...but does that automatically mean that they would have beaten the Dempsey's, Tunney's, Sullivan's, etc ?

As much as I have heard people talk how Dempsey avoided Wills, I can say I never was much impressed from what I heard of Wills---that though he had power and a battering ram of a straight right hand, he was no more better skill wise than any of the 'giants' of the time. Sure he beat Langford a number of times, but you have to remember Wills was all but a foot taller and Langford started off as a Welterweight. So does the win really stand as a measure of greatness?

To put it into modern day perspective, that would be like Mayweather fighting Wlad Klitschko and losing 11 times [like Langford did to Wills]. Now in my mind, that is a given. It's all but impossible for someone weighing 147 pounds to win, let alone knock out someone whose got more physical gifts [size, strength] and whose a genuine contender or 'could be' champion at HW.

I could say the same for Ali. Everything negative is magnified by some. He had the best resume of any Heavyweight champion, beat five HOF Heavyweight champions. You could base your whole career on a win over Patterson, on a win over Liston, on a win over Foreman or Frazier, or even Norton. Ali beat all of them. He beat some of the best contenders in boxing history, guys who could also have been champion today, but its never enough. There's always some complaint. He had 19 title defenses in two title reigns, Another champion like Holmes could hang his hat just on that, but for Ali its barely noticed, even if it wasn't 19 straight. He was in more fights of the year than any other fighter, yet there are people who insist he was boring.

The thing that bothers me the most is when people talk about Ali pre-64 and post-75. As if other fighters, including fellow Olympians, never had close fights or never got knocked down 17 or 18 fights into their career. Ali-Banks and Ali-Jones and Ali-Cooper are blown so out of proportion. I don't agree that Jones won that fight, I think it was close but clear. As for Banks and Cooper, its as if Ali never met another good left hooker. Then people talk about post-Manila, shot, pre-Parkinsons Ali getting controversial decisions with Norton and Young... c'mon. He should have retired after the third Frazier fight. A lot of champions went on past their best. I don't see anyone bad mouthing Louis because he lost to Charles and Marciano.

Burley is definitely underrated. As is Charles, who I just mentioned. I think Charles is someone who should also get more credit. Sometimes I get the impression that people think of Charles as just an average Heavyweight champion. But he wasn't a Heavyweight, he started out at Middleweight. He beat a ton of top fighters south of Heavyweight, including two wins over Burley (notably the second fight in which he dominated Burley), then he moved up and became Heavyweight champion and defended his title 9 times, went 2-2 with Walcott... then went life and death with Rocky twice and came close both times to beating him, and the only fighter to go the distance with Rocky in a championship fight. Yet Charles is rarely put top 10 P4P all time.

I think Whitaker should get more credit sometimes. McCallum as well, as we're talking about in the other thread. I think some underrate Hearns. Schmeling should get more credit, too.

But, I agree, its never enough.

As for the original post, I agree that no matter how great a fighter was, people will criticize him. To a certain extent, that is a good thing, (Assuming the criticisms are legititmate). It really has to be done when comparing 2 or more greats with each other.

Unfortunately, some fighters get criticized too often,unfairly, and their positives aren't mentioned enough.

As far as underrated (and overrated for that matter) I think it's important to differate between what the general perception of a fighter and and the perception of him on the "Boxers of the Past" forum.

In general, Charles,Whitaker,McCallum, and to a lesser extent Hearns,Burley and Schmeling are underrated.

One thing that is great about this forum is that there are some knowledgable people who talk about the underrated fighters.

To some people, Charles was a mid-level heavyweight champion. however, on this forum he usually gets his due. Most seem to realize that he had a phenomenal career before becoming a heavyweight. For example, when he was voted in the on the first ballot of the Boxrec Hall of Fame. (only 10 fighters were voted in on the first ballot).

Whitaker and McCallum seem to be pretty respected as well.

In general, when some people mainly think of Schmeling they think primarily of his ko loss to Louis. However, on this forum he gets some respect. For example last year jessmundo did a poll where everyone ranked their top 20 heavyweights and there was a point system to determine the best.. Schmeling came in #20, which is rougly where he should be.

Burley isn't that well known in general. (though at least he made the International Boxing Hall of Fame) . On this forum he seems to be pretty repsected. To be honest, I think some of his rivals like Booker,Marshall, and Williams are more underrated.

Hearns is sort of hit and miss. In general, he seems to be most remembered for losing to Leonard and Hagler.
On this forum, he seems to get some credit for his big wins (Cuevas,Duran, Benitez etc). However, he does get blasted from time to time.

HomicideHenry wrote:The same can be said of Sam Langford, Harry Wills, Peter Jackson, George Godfrey and others who fit into what I call the 'Racist' category.

But sometimes I wonder if some of the black fighters have been all but turned into legendary figures because they never did get a shot...but does that automatically mean that they would have beaten the Dempsey's, Tunney's, Sullivan's, etc ?

As much as I have heard people talk how Dempsey avoided Wills, I can say I never was much impressed from what I heard of Wills---that though he had power and a battering ram of a straight right hand, he was no more better skill wise than any of the 'giants' of the time. Sure he beat Langford a number of times, but you have to remember Wills was all but a foot taller and Langford started off as a Welterweight. So does the win really stand as a measure of greatness?

To put it into modern day perspective, that would be like Mayweather fighting Wlad Klitschko and losing 11 times [like Langford did to Wills]. Now in my mind, that is a given. It's all but impossible for someone weighing 147 pounds to win, let alone knock out someone whose got more physical gifts [size, strength] and whose a genuine contender or 'could be' champion at HW.

Langford was weighing a solid 200 lbs by the time he fought Willis.

Langford started his career around 150 (when he was still in his teens)

Floyd in his early 20s was fighting at 130 lbs.

Big difference.

Yeah but, imagine Mayweather putting on another 60 pounds and fighting as a HW. It's still too different, no matter how much you weigh in on fight night. You might have the HW bulk, but deep down you are still a welterweight.

There's a big difference.

Ambling Alp wrote:As for the original post, I agree that no matter how great a fighter was, people will criticize him. To a certain extent, that is a good thing, (Assuming the criticisms are legititmate). It really has to be done when comparing 2 or more greats with each other.

Unfortunately, some fighters get criticized too often,unfairly, and their positives aren't mentioned enough.

As far as underrated (and overrated for that matter) I think it's important to differate between what the general perception of a fighter and and the perception of him on the "Boxers of the Past" forum.

In general, Charles,Whitaker,McCallum, and to a lesser extent Hearns,Burley and Schmeling are underrated.

One thing that is great about this forum is that there are some knowledgable people who talk about the underrated fighters.

To some people, Charles was a mid-level heavyweight champion. however, on this forum he usually gets his due. Most seem to realize that he had a phenomenal career before becoming a heavyweight. For example, when he was voted in the on the first ballot of the Boxrec Hall of Fame. (only 10 fighters were voted in on the first ballot).

Whitaker and McCallum seem to be pretty respected as well.

In general, when some people mainly think of Schmeling they think primarily of his ko loss to Louis. However, on this forum he gets some respect. For example last year jessmundo did a poll where everyone ranked their top 20 heavyweights and there was a point system to determine the best.. Schmeling came in #20, which is rougly where he should be.

Burley isn't that well known in general. (though at least he made the International Boxing Hall of Fame) . On this forum he seems to be pretty repsected. To be honest, I think some of his rivals like Booker,Marshall, and Williams are more underrated.

Hearns is sort of hit and miss. In general, he seems to be most remembered for losing to Leonard and Hagler.
On this forum, he seems to get some credit for his big wins (Cuevas,Duran, Benitez etc). However, he does get blasted from time to time.

Well I was just talking in general, not necessarily about this forum. But I agree with all that.

I wanted to make a mention this earlier on this thread, but didn't get to it.

It does seem that boxers are a lot less immune to to criticism than in other sports.

For example, you almost never hear anyone say that Larry Bird was a horrible defensive player. Everyone just pretends that he wasn't and don't talk about it.

Year after year, Brett Favre singlehandly cost his team the game in playoff games and it barely seemed to get noticed.

In basketball, football, baseball, tennis, etc a close win is often described as a great win. If boxing it's often a "controversal decision" which tarnishes the win for the winner even if he fought great and deserved the win.

In boxing if a guy is knocking everyone out, people will say that he hasn't proved he can go the distance. As soon as he goes the distance with someone, people say that he really can't punch that hard.

A guy will win a fight easily and people will pick his one bad "round" of a fight and mention it over and over.

Great performances often aren't appreciated because the other guy is suddenly "shot", had an off night, out of shape etc.

Of course sometimes there is some validity in these criticisms, but often there isn't.

Nice argument Alp...especially the last bit on guys who are 'shot'...

I recall an article written once on Ricky Hatton, just before he fought Kosta Tyzsu, and they were talking about 'Cool' Vince Phillips, saying that he personally felt Tzysu hit harder and was the better fighter, being as he fought both men---and how the critics were quick to point out that Hatton went the distance with a 'shot' Vince Phillips, and later one someone argued that you couldn't have it both ways that it was either a good solid win for Hatton or it wasn't cus Phillips was shot---in either case, it didn't matter, nor did Phillips opinion matter, as Hatton beat Tyzsu anyways.