BoxRec

Sometimes there are guys from the same era who seem to be pretty even but for some reason one guy is always consider better.

Some examples:
1. Joe Jeannette/Sam McVey - On this forum , Jeannette is always considered better seemingly without question. However, going by their records, comparison against common opponents, and their head to series, it seems very close to me. So why aren't they considered to have been pretty close?

2. Carmen Basilio/Gene Fullmer- Overall, they seem to be rated pretty evenly. However, on this forum, Basilio seems to get a lot more respect.
Fullmer lost less against ordinary opponents than Basilio, beat more quality opponents than Basilio, and won both of their head to head fights.
So why doesn't Fullmer get more credit?

3. Tim Witherspoon/Rest of the Alpha Soup champs of the 1980's-Witherspoon usually considered almost without question the best of the lot (Thomas, Berbik,Smith, Weaver, Tubbs etc)

I think you certainly can make a case for him, but why is this considered almost a No-Brainer?

I can answer the third one for you, from my perspective. I always assumed Witherspoon was the top dog of a poor bunch because he ran Holmes very close, won a title twice and fought very well against top ten opposition late into his career.
It's only lately, however, that I have really been able to watch the other active heavies of the 80's and I'm finding that there really was more depth to the division than people care to remember. Guys like Page, Thomas, Tucker you could make a case for being as good as Witherspoon, not to forget an abundance of capable top ten fighters like Williams, Smith, Dokes, Tillis.
I guess when you stop taking for granted what you hear and read and just watch the fights and make your own mind up........

I believe it has to do with the no-nonsense, disciplined,knowledgeable, and studied reflection that takes place within these hallowed halls.

..boxbuzzy willdo ANYTHING to get those two more entries he needs to get to 16,000

I think McVey is very underrated. Im not so sure Jeannette should be rated above him.

I definately think Fullmer was a better middleweight than Basilio but a better fighter? I dont know. Fullmer got a shitload of gift decisions etc. Not to mention he was one of the dirtiest fighters Ive ever seen and barely ever got called for his tactics. One referee even stated that was the only way he knew how to fight so there was no use penalizing him, Ridiculous.

I think Spoon was the best post Holmes/pre Tyson heavy. And for the record I thought he beat Holmes easily...

Ambling Alp wrote:Sometimes there are guys from the same era who seem to be pretty even but for some reason one guy is always consider better.

Some examples:
1. Joe Jeannette/Sam McVey - On this forum , Jeannette is always considered better seemingly without question. However, going by their records, comparison against common opponents, and their head to series, it seems very close to me. So why aren't they considered to have been pretty close?

2. Carmen Basilio/Gene Fullmer- Overall, they seem to be rated pretty evenly. However, on this forum, Basilio seems to get a lot more respect.
Fullmer lost less against ordinary opponents than Basilio, beat more quality opponents than Basilio, and won both of their head to head fights.
So why doesn't Fullmer get more credit?

3. Tim Witherspoon/Rest of the Alpha Soup champs of the 1980's-Witherspoon usually considered almost without question the best of the lot (Thomas, Berbik,Smith, Weaver, Tubbs etc)

I think you certainly can make a case for him, but why is this considered almost a No-Brainer?

--- Don't see any of your examples being close.

Jeannette has a much better record than McVey, almost twice the wins and the only member of the dusky quintet with a win over Johnson whom he beat as a still relative novice before the prime Johnson beats Burns. McVey appears to be a more exciting fighter, but easier to KO, and in their most memorable fight, that's exactly what happens when JJ finally bludgeons McV into submission at the end of 49 rds........sorted.

Basilio was a two division champ in 5 consecutive fights of the year between 55-59. He only lost to Fullmer at the end of his career above his original division......sorted.

Spoon is the lazy man's best non Tyson/Holmes career heavy of the 80s. Tony Tucker is a HOF talent supremely better than Spoon. Tucker would've been undefeated for years in his era as Holmesy would never, ever fight him, but only if Tyson and Lewis never existed. In fact, he whipped the first two fighters, Douglas and McCall before they ever got to be the first to mark up the perfect record of Tyson and Lewis. He gave Tyson the most problems of any of his defenses and well past his best when he had Lewis hurt and ready to go years later. Got derailed by family problems when he's manager father bilked his savings, got into the nose candy and was yanked around by King who was more interested in draining Tyson's assets.

Weaver and Smith were journeymen type fighters who struck gold. Tubbs, Berbick, Thomas, Tate, Coetzee, Bruno, Page, Spoon also had some good talent and skills. Very unrated era in terms of talent.

Don't forget the very occasional, Everyone was better than Sugar Ray Leonard.

Seamus wrote:Don't forget the very occasional, Everyone was better than Sugar Ray Leonard.

Who said that?

Ambling Alp wrote:Sometimes there are guys from the same era who seem to be pretty even but for some reason one guy is always consider better.

Some examples:
1. Joe Jeannette/Sam McVey - On this forum , Jeannette is always considered better seemingly without question. However, going by their records, comparison against common opponents, and their head to series, it seems very close to me. So why aren't they considered to have been pretty close?

2. Carmen Basilio/Gene Fullmer- Overall, they seem to be rated pretty evenly. However, on this forum, Basilio seems to get a lot more respect.
Fullmer lost less against ordinary opponents than Basilio, beat more quality opponents than Basilio, and won both of their head to head fights.
So why doesn't Fullmer get more credit?

3. Tim Witherspoon/Rest of the Alpha Soup champs of the 1980's-Witherspoon usually considered almost without question the best of the lot (Thomas, Berbik,Smith, Weaver, Tubbs etc)

I think you certainly can make a case for him, but why is this considered almost a No-Brainer?

1) I don't think Jeannette is seen as being a whole level above McVey. Joe vs Sam himself is 1 up, and also has a better track record vs Langford, whereas McVea did better vs Wills. In summary, I think Joe has the slightly superior record but they are clearly in the same playing field in terms of their respective all-time rankings.

2) Fullmer was the better middleweight, Basillo the better PFP fighter.

3) I don't agree Tim was clearly above the other alpha soup champs of the 80s at all. At his best he lost to Thomas, got edged by Tubbs . . .he's maybe placed on a higher pedestal simply b/c he's not seen as another Tyson victim like the others are, although he would've lost to Tyson like the others did.

16000? all i can say is i am proud to have replied to a few of buzz's mostly excellent posts

Dempseyfire (or anyone else that is interested),

1. Jeannete/McVey- It seems that a lot people seems think Jeannette was clearly better.

One interesting thing I noticed is that Jeannette had a lot more "newspaper decisions". If you go boxrec (which counts newspaper decisions) it looks like Jeannette has a lot more wins. So if you put a lot stock in newspaper decisions, it looks like Jeannette won a lot more fights. However, if you by official record, than it's a lot closer.

Same with the head to head. If you count them, Jeannette has a 2-1-1 edge against McVey. If you don't it's a 1-1-1 tie.

2. I guess my question about Basilio and Fullmer is why Basilio is considered better pound for pound?
I personally rate Fullmer higher as a middleweight than I rate Basilio as a welterweight.
As mentioned before, I think Fullmer beat even more good fighters than Basilio, and lost less to ordinary fighters.
Is that where I differ with so many other people? I mean, do people really have Basilo rated significantly higher at welterweight than Fullmer as middleweight?

Or does winning the title at two weight classes simply trump someone who stayed at the same weight class his whole career?
I don't think it automatically does, but I suspect most people disagree.

Just watching the two on film, they seem in many ways to be similar in style and ability. To me, they have to be very close.

3. I guess if I would have pick on the alpha champs I would go with Witherspoon, but only by the barest of margins. All of these guys had ups and downs.
I have seen Top 50, Top 100 Lists etc, and other alpha champs are way below Witherspoon and I don't understand that.
Dempseyfire may be right that it helps Witherspoon's cause that he didn't fight Tyson. Had Witherspoon gotton beaten badly, he would have been remembered for that. Tubbs and Berbik reputations really took a hit from getting blown out by Tyson.

dempseyfire wrote:3) I don't agree Tim was clearly above the other alpha soup champs of the 80s at all. At his best he lost to Thomas, got edged by Tubbs . . .he's maybe placed on a higher pedestal simply b/c he's not seen as another Tyson victim like the others are, although he would've lost to Tyson like the others did.

I think it might simply come down to the fact that he had two titles reigns and not just one (like everyone else outside of Holmes/Tyson did), and he figured into the picture a lot later into his career. The other titlists usually had one brief reign with one, maybe two defenses, then lost the title and plummeted into journeyman status.

Ambling Alp wrote:2. Carmen Basilio/Gene Fullmer- Overall, they seem to be rated pretty evenly. However, on this forum, Basilio seems to get a lot more respect.
Fullmer lost less against ordinary opponents than Basilio, beat more quality opponents than Basilio, and won both of their head to head fights.
So why doesn't Fullmer get more credit?

Because Basilio's rating is based more on viewing him as a welterweight, not a middleweight. And it was this welterweight Basilio that went up in weight and won a second title, something Fullmer never did.

2. Carmen Basilio/Gene Fullmer- Overall, they seem to be rated pretty evenly. However, on this forum, Basilio seems to get a lot more respect.
Fullmer lost less against ordinary opponents than Basilio, beat more quality opponents than Basilio, and won both of their head to head fights.
So why doesn't Fullmer get more credit?

Popularity. He was in more exciting fights and had more of a crowd pleasing style, and had a more endearing personality. That's the only real reason. Even with his Welterweight stats, he shouldn't be ranked over Fullmer.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Sometimes there are guys from the same era who seem to be pretty even but for some reason one guy is always consider better.

Some examples:
1. Joe Jeannette/Sam McVey - On this forum , Jeannette is always considered better seemingly without question. However, going by their records, comparison against common opponents, and their head to series, it seems very close to me. So why aren't they considered to have been pretty close?

2. Carmen Basilio/Gene Fullmer- Overall, they seem to be rated pretty evenly. However, on this forum, Basilio seems to get a lot more respect.
Fullmer lost less against ordinary opponents than Basilio, beat more quality opponents than Basilio, and won both of their head to head fights.
So why doesn't Fullmer get more credit?

3. Tim Witherspoon/Rest of the Alpha Soup champs of the 1980's-Witherspoon usually considered almost without question the best of the lot (Thomas, Berbik,Smith, Weaver, Tubbs etc)

I think you certainly can make a case for him, but why is this considered almost a No-Brainer?

--- Don't see any of your examples being close.

Jeannette has a much better record than McVey, almost twice the wins and the only member of the dusky quintet with a win over Johnson whom he beat as a still relative novice before the prime Johnson beats Burns. McVey appears to be a more exciting fighter, but easier to KO, and in their most memorable fight, that's exactly what happens when JJ finally bludgeons McV into submission at the end of 49 rds........sorted.

Basilio was a two division champ in 5 consecutive fights of the year between 55-59. He only lost to Fullmer at the end of his career above his original division......sorted.

Spoon is the lazy man's best non Tyson/Holmes career heavy of the 80s. Tony Tucker is a HOF talent supremely better than Spoon. Tucker would've been undefeated for years in his era as Holmesy would never, ever fight him, but only if Tyson and Lewis never existed. In fact, he whipped the first two fighters, Douglas and McCall before they ever got to be the first to mark up the perfect record of Tyson and Lewis. He gave Tyson the most problems of any of his defenses and well past his best when he had Lewis hurt and ready to go years later. Got derailed by family problems when he's manager father bilked his savings, got into the nose candy and was yanked around by King who was more interested in draining Tyson's assets.

Weaver and Smith were journeymen type fighters who struck gold. Tubbs, Berbick, Thomas, Tate, Coetzee, Bruno, Page, Spoon also had some good talent and skills. Very unrated era in terms of talent.

Great points about Tucker.

I've always thought of him as the best of the 2nd tier fighters of the 80s HWs, just for the reasons you have cited.

He did indeed give a peak rampaging Tyson a lot fo problems & the curious thing is,if he had got a shot at Mike in 1989ish, I think he might have beaten him, as Tyson was beginning to fall apart then (although none of us realised that as the time).

I just saw Basilio vs Fullmer I of 1959...It was a great fight. Fullmer proved to be stronger and was in his prime. You can tell that Basilio was ready to be taken in this fight. He had too many ring wars to that point.

Your right Sam McVey never gets credit coming in second after 50 rounds...is something to behold...well anyway, i'm the joejennette.com guy...and i'm not done with the site...it's only 50% done...my great grandfather was trained by jennette and lived right down the block from Joe...i was the one who brought jennette and mcvey back for the 100th Anniversary of the Greatest Fight of the Century...check it out...if you want a free membership to joejennette.com website just send me a message at [email protected] it's free to anyone who joins.

http://www.joejennette.com/

http://www.joejennette.com/April172009.html

i also created over 100 myspaces on boxers

here is mcvey and jennette

http://www.myspace.com/sammacvea

http://www.myspace.com/joejennette

Ambling Alp wrote: 1. Joe Jeannette/Sam McVey - On this forum , Jeannette is always considered better seemingly without question. However, going by their records, comparison against common opponents, and their head to series, it seems very close to me. So why aren't they considered to have been pretty close?

Jeannette was a respected contender for some time. Even in 1914-1915, when he was considered past his peak, he still was being considered for a title shot against Johnson. McVey was briefly rated as a leading contender after upsetting Sam Langford in 1911, but after Langford whupped him about 4 or 5 times in a row the following year, he faded back into the mix of other contenders.

Joe came to the top of the heap in boxing in the dismal White Hope era which extended roughly from the time Jack Johnson knocked out Tommy Burns, until Johnson was himself knocked out by Jess Willard.
During this period four african american men reigned supreme in the ring: Jack Johnson, Sam Langford, Sam McVey and Joe Jennette. Just which of these four fighters was the best is a matter that never was settled.
Of this great foursome Johnson was probably the best boxer, Langford the hardest hitter, and McVey the strongest.
Jennette was the best combination of the three. He was a good hitter, but not a killer like Langford. He was strong, but not as strong as the gigantic McVey, while as a boxer he did not class with Johnson but came close to it.
At strength, boxing ability, and hitting power he was a combination hard to beat, and he had the additional qualification of being able to eat up punishment. How he could take it. But as for courage and stamina and long distance fighting ability, he is simply the best.

joe jennette wrote: Joe never gets the credit but he helped organize the fund raiser for Sam when no one cared about Langford...Joe did...Today's historians like Ken Burns have an understanding for greatest especially african american's. He said like many historians from the past...and not the historians of today...that Joe Jennette was the EQUAL of Jack Johnson ranked sencond behind Ali.

- First off, big props for your Joe Jeannette website. Especially like the pic of the "Jeannette building" with his garage for servicing his limo business on the ground floor and the boxing gym on the upper. I do hope that is a national landmark permanently preserved.

However, Burns is a filmmaker, not any kind of historian any more than he's a baseball historian or jazz historian. When it comes to boxing, in reality there is precious little criteria for the "historian" moniker, thus any ol' rascal like Bert Sugar can lay claim to such.

IBRO is an independent organization of "historians" that anyone can join, and according to their concensus ratings, including Wills, the ranks are 3. Johnson, 15. Langford, and 18. Wills. Jeannette was one of several recieving votes, but not making the top 20, runner ups as it were.

I've always ranked Jeannette highly in spite of his lack of ring flair and drama because only Langford can be said to have taken on better overall competition, and Joe was incredibly durable as you noted, only being counted out very early and very late in his career. With 165 recorded fights, this is outstanding, and my personal ratings between the 5 are 1. Langford, 2. Joe, 3. Wills, 4. Johnson, 5. McVea.

What happens however is Johnson ends up transcending boxing and becomes an icon for the turn of the century much like Dempsey becomes for the 20s and Ali for the 60s. It becomes racist heresy to consider Johnson any less than at the top, and the other four can be dismissed: Langford being too small, Joe being too dreary, Wills being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and McVea not being up to snuff compared to the rest.

There is a short interview of Wills and Joe somewhere talking about their inability to get a crack at Johnson's title, and they both rate Langford as the greatest of their era, not rating themselves, Johnson, or McVea.

Finally, thought I'd introduce you to Joe's twin. Hank Griffin, eerily of near identical physical dimensions and appearance. Could be Joe's Paw or GrandPaw got around a bit if you know what I mean:

"my 25 years of research will be in my book "Square Joe: Indomitable Will" and if Ken Burns says Joe Jennette is Jack Johnson's EQUAL well then that's all I need"

Do you realize when you make statements like this they seriously detract from your credibility?

Bizarre shite.