View Full Version : my top 35 heavyweights of all time


SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 12:23 AM
here are my top 35 heavyweights of all time


1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Jack Johnson
9. Joe Frazier
10. Mike Tyson
11. Sam Langford
12. Lennox Lewis
13. Ezzard Charles
14. James Jeffries
15. Jersey Joe Walcott
16. Evander Holyfield
17. Max Schmeling
18. Ken Norton
19. Floyd Patterson
20. Gene Tunney
21. Riddick Bowe
22. Jack Sharkey
23. Harry Wills
24. Peter Jackson
25. Max Baer
26. Jerry Quarry
27. Joe Jeanette
28. James Corbett
29. Elmer Ray
30. George Godfrey
31. Jimmy Young
32. Tim Witherspoon
33. Sam Mcvey
34. Archie Moore
35. Cleveland Williams

Heckler
03-23-2006, 12:36 AM
1)Muhammad Ali
2)Joe Louis
3)George Foreman
4)Jack Johnson
5)Larry Holmes
6)Jack Dempsey
7)Joe Frazier
8)Rocky Marciano
9)Sonny Liston
10)Mike Tyson
11)Lennox Lewis
12)Jim Jeffries
13)Floyd Patterson
14)Ken Norton
15)Ezzard Charles
16)Jersey Joe walcott
17)Riddick Bowe
18)Evander Holyfield
19)Max Schmeling
20)Gene Tunney

Kid Achilles
03-23-2006, 12:41 AM
I like the list because you consider all eras and pay respect to the forgotten great, The Black Prince, but I think Jeffries should be a few ranks higher. Remember that Langford openly avoided the man and Langford was a man who would fight ANYONE. That says so much to me about how feared Jeffries was in his day.

His record is also incredible and makes up for in quality what it lacks in quantity. Taking on Choynski in only his 7th fight? What durability and force of will he had to last against such dangerous contenders as green as he was. I can think of few champions (in any weight class, not just heavy) who faced such opposition that early in their careers.

Imagine Jeffries under modern training with a full amateur career and time to develop his defensive skills and combination punching. A fantasy for sure, but still. He would be a monster.

Yogi
03-23-2006, 01:04 AM
The arguments are there both for & against a higher ranking for Jeffries, but like Achilles, I'd have him a few spots higher on my own personal list in around the 8th position.

But ****, overall that's one of the very best all-time & historical rankings that I've seen for the division and I can certainly applaud Brockton for it...I also like the inclusion of guys who aren't often named in these things, like Jackson (I'd actually even have him higher than that myself...top 20 for sure to me), Godfrey, 'Violent' Ray, etc.

Yogi
03-23-2006, 01:06 AM
P.S. Heckler has a good list, as well.

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 01:11 AM
i'll take me a while to make up a top 35 list. there alot of factors to consider.

Kid Achilles
03-23-2006, 01:17 AM
I agree Butterfly. I takes real consideration to make a list like SuzieQ's and Heckler's, as well as a broad historical perspective. I haven't put the time into thinking beyond 15 or so myself.

Yogi
03-23-2006, 01:25 AM
I've complied these extended Heavyweight rankings in the past and one of the easiest ways to go about it, I thought, was to first off rate an era of about 20 years of Heavyweight history and keep going from there...

Eg. Rate the division from 1885-1905, 1905-1925, 1925-1945, etc., etc. up to 1985-now, and only include a fighter once, which would be his best era.

You eliminate a bunch of split hairs when you go about it that way, in my opinion.

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 01:39 AM
Remember that Langford openly avoided the man and Langford was a man who would fight ANYONE. That says so much to me about how feared Jeffries was in his day.

Jeffries is a hard spot to rank, and i have no problem with him being ranked a little higher. TO ADDRESS THIS POINT, when langford refused to fight him it was in 1905 or 1906. LANGFORD WAS ONLY 155LB DURING THAT TIME. surely a 155lb man wouldnt want to challenge a chizzled 220lb champion?? langford did not reach his heavyweight prime till about 1909 or 1910 when he started to weigh around 180lb.









His record is also incredible and makes up for in quality what it lacks in quantity. Taking on Choynski in only his 7th fight? What durability and force of will he had to last against such dangerous contenders as green as he was. I can think of few champions (in any weight class, not just heavy) who faced such opposition that early in their careers.

Imagine Jeffries under modern training with a full amateur career and time to develop his defensive skills and combination punching. A fantasy for sure, but still. He would be a monster.


i agree, and i have considered this. knocking out a hank griffin in your 3rd pro fight is incredible.








sam langford's win resume at heavyweight matches up there with anyones in history outside of ali. its phenominal. in his heavyweight prime which consisted of MANY fights, he lost just a couple times.

IT WAS LANGFORD, NOT JACK JOHNSON, WHO DOMINATED THE ERA. WHY? LANGFORD BEAT THE BEST CHALLENGERS OUT THERE ON A CONSISTENT BASIS. johnson ducked the best challengers out there. IN ESSENCE, it was sam langford who cleaned up the heavyweight division during johnson's reign. NOT JACK JOHNSON.

Kid Achilles
03-23-2006, 01:43 AM
A problem I have is comparing fighters from eras where twenty or more rounds were used for championship fights. Would Ali really be able to dance for 20 rounds against a relentless Jim Jeffries while both men were wearing smaller gloves (which makes body blows especially more damaging as one can hit to the body with small gloves or no gloves with little fear of breaking the hands)? Remember that Ali was not a bodypuncher at all and his style relied on him moving around the ring at an intense pace that might not work well within the expanded time constraints of a 20 round or longer fight.

I can imagine examples where an old timer takes on a modern fighter under his own rules, but loses to the more modern fighter under his rules. What then? Who's to say that Jeffries should have to agree to a fifteen round fight any more than Ali should have to agree a fight under conditions that favor Jeffries? Why should Mike Tyson have to go fifteen rounds with Ali when he's used to going 12?

This problem only arises of course when one takes into account head to head matchups which I assume both SuzieQ's and Heckler's do.

The more I look at it the more muddled it gets. Anyway, I'm off to sleep.

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 01:46 AM
Jeffries is a hard spot to rank, and i have no problem with him being ranked a little higher. TO ADDRESS THIS POINT, when langford refused to fight him it was in 1905 or 1906. LANGFORD WAS ONLY 155LB DURING THAT TIME. surely a 155lb man wouldnt want to challenge a chizzled 220lb champion?? langford did not reach his heavyweight prime till about 1909 or 1910 when he started to weigh around 180lb.











i agree, and i have considered this. knocking out a hank griffin in your 3rd pro fight is incredible.








sam langford's win resume at heavyweight matches up there with anyones in history outside of ali. its phenominal. in his heavyweight prime which consisted of MANY fights, he lost just a couple times.

IT WAS LANGFORD, NOT JACK JOHNSON, WHO DOMINATED THE ERA. WHY? LANGFORD BEAT THE BEST CHALLENGERS OUT THERE ON A CONSISTENT BASIS. johnson ducked the best challengers out there. IN ESSENCE, it was sam langford who cleaned up the heavyweight division during johnson's reign. NOT JACK JOHNSON.

then why did you rank langford below johnson?

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 01:50 AM
cause even on langfords best day, he wouldn't have beaten johnson IMO.


- johnson faced langford in 1906. langford was only 155lb, but he was far more experienced and johnson was still green and just 185lb. johnson basically shutout langford knocking him down twice.


STILL, the fight never took place and jack johnson defintley ducked sam langford, so he gets points taken off.

Heckler
03-23-2006, 01:59 AM
I totally forgot about langford to tell you the truth. To compile a list that accurately reflects your thoughts it takes quite some time.

Da Iceman
03-23-2006, 10:03 AM
you could put norton and tunney a little higher, i thought norton beat ali 2 times and tunney beat greb i think 3 times.

Southpaw Stinger
03-23-2006, 10:37 AM
1)Muhammad Ali
2)Joe Louis
3)George Foreman
4)Joe Frazier
5)Sonny Liston
6)Jack Dempsey
7)Rocky Marciano
8)Mike Tyson
9)Larry Holmes
10)Lennox Lewis
11)Jack Johnson
12)Jim Jeffries
13)Floyd Patterson
14)Ken Norton
15)Evander Holyfield
16)Ezzard Charles
17)Jersey Joe walcott
18)Riddick Bowe
19)Max Schmeling
20)Gene Tunney

K-DOGG
03-23-2006, 10:53 AM
Greatest World Heavyweight Champions

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Jack Johnson
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Mike Tyson
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Rocky Marciano
9. George Foreman
10. Joe Frazier
11. Charles "Sonny" Liston
12. Evander Holyfield
13. James J. Jeffries
14. Ezzard Charles
15. Gene Tunney
16. Max Schmeling
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Max Baer
19. Jack Sharkey
20. "Jersey Joe Walcott
21. John L. Sullivan
22. James J. Corbett
23. Tommy Burns


This list is compiled and organized based on overall dominance, longevity, and performance above and beyond the championship level (the ability to pull it out when the chips are down). Social Impact is also a factor; but not as important as boxing related criteria.

Da Iceman
03-23-2006, 11:33 AM
if its compiled on what you said joe louis would be on top then larry holmes.

K-DOGG
03-23-2006, 11:46 AM
In your opinion. :)

K-DOGG
03-23-2006, 11:48 AM
My process orbits around that criteria. Ali is on top due to his meeting that criteria, plus the depth of the division at the time he ruled, which was stronger than the Louis era and the Holmes era...though just barely. Also, his "above and beyond" portion plays out.

It's not an exact science; but I do the best I can to be consistant. To be fair, every little thing must be taken into consideration and the criteria must be the perspective of the era as well.

oldgringo
03-23-2006, 11:53 AM
Ali
Louis
Holmes
Foreman
Marciano
Johnson
Holyfield
Frazier
Dempsey
Lewis

About what my rankings would be...for today at least it will suffice.

Good lists otherwise though, I tend to think that Holmes was underrated and put him into that third spot. I feel like he could have beaten (or given them a real run for their money) any other heavyweight throughout history prime for respective prime.

I feel like some would have a problem with the ranking of Holyfield too. He, Frazier and Dempsey are tough for me to rank in there, but I've seen much more of these two and have been aware of their careers moreso than Dempseys, thus my ranking.

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 03:20 PM
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Muhammad Ali
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Muhammad Ali
10.Muhammad Ali
11.Muhammad Ali
12.Muhammad Ali
13.Muhammad Ali
14.Muhammad Ali
15.Muhammad Ali
16.Muhammad Ali
17.Muhammad Ali
18.Muhammad Ali
19.Muhammad Ali
20.Muhammad Ali
21.Muhammad Ali
22.Muhammad Ali
23.Muhammad Ali
24.Muhammad Ali
25.Muhammad Ali
26.Muhammad Ali
27.Muhammad Ali
28.Muhammad Ali
29.Muhammad Ali
30.Muhammad Ali
31.Muhammad Ali
32.Muhammad Ali
33.Muhammad Ali
34.Muhammad Ali
35.Muhammad Ali

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 03:20 PM
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Sonny Liston
3. George Foreman
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Floyd Patterson
7. Ken Norton
8. Jimmy Ellis
9. Cleveland Williams
10.Zora Folley
11.Jerry Quarry
12.George Chuvalo
13.Ron Lyle
14.Ernie Shavers
15.Henry Cooper
16.Oscar Bonavena
17.Bob Foster
18.Trevor Berbick
19.Brian London
20.Sonny Banks
21.Chuck Wepner
22.Charlie Powell
23.Joe Bugner
24.Archie Moore
25.Jurgen Blin
26.Doug Jones
27.Jimmy Young
28.Billy Daniels
29.Leon Spinks
30.Ernie Terrel
31.Buster Mathis
32.Richard Dunn
33.Jimmy Robinson
34.Alex Miteff
35.Tunney Hunsaker

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 03:20 PM
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Sonny Liston
3. George Foreman
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Mike Tyson
7. Joe Louis
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10.Lennox Lewis
11.Riddick Bowe
12.Rocky Marciano
13.Evander Holyfield
14.Floyd Patterson
15.Ezzard Charles
16.Gene Tunney
17.Ken Norton
18.Jersey Joe Walcott
19.Michael Spinks
20.Jimmy Ellis
21.James Jeffries
22.Max Schmeling
23.Sam Langford
24.Max Baer
25.Cleveland Williams
26.Primo Carnera
27.Vitali Klitchko
28.Jack Sharkey
29.Zora Folley
30.Eddie Machen
31.Ingemmar Johannson
32.James Toney
33.Rex Layne
34.Jerry Quarry
35.George Chuvalo

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 03:23 PM
i wish i saw the look on your faces when you read my first two lists. the sad part is that some of you actually would believe me! some of you will start flaming me right now without reading the third list! funny stuff!! :D :D

Da Iceman
03-23-2006, 03:26 PM
In your opinion. :)
you said based on dominance and longevity louis held the title longer than anybody and had more defenses, based on that he's #1

Yogi
03-23-2006, 03:27 PM
So Butterfly...Are you going to post a ranking that the rest of us won't see as an obvious joke or what?

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 03:28 PM
So Butterfly...Are you going to post a ranking that the rest of us won't see as an obvious joke or what?

uhhmmm, read the third list. :rolleyes:

Yogi
03-23-2006, 03:32 PM
uhhmmm, read the third list. :rolleyes:

I did, and judging by the majority of the placements, it was obvious that you were just ****ing around with us again.

I'm serious here...show us your REAL ranking, please.

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 03:33 PM
I did, and judging by the majority of the placements, it was obvious that you were just ****ing around with us again.

I'm serious here...show us your REAL ranking, please.

well, that's it. the third list is my actual list. :rolleyes: what's so wrong with it? :confused:

Yogi
03-23-2006, 03:36 PM
well, that's it. the third list is my actual list. :rolleyes: what's so wrong with it? :confused:

Yeah, yeah...you ain't sucking me into actually thinking that that last list is your real one, but nice try though.

K-DOGG
03-23-2006, 04:08 PM
you said based on dominance and longevity louis held the title longer than anybody and had more defenses, based on that he's #1

...but, that's not the only criteria, nor even the most important. Like I said in my other post, everything must be taken into consideration from a proportional stand-point...not JUST longevity and dominance. Quality of opposistion, displays of championship traits, etc. It's not a laundry list of criteria as much as it is ingredients in a cauldron.

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 04:18 PM
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Sonny Liston
3. George Foreman
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Mike Tyson
7. Joe Louis
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10.Lennox Lewis
11.Riddick Bowe
12.Rocky Marciano
13.Evander Holyfield
14.Floyd Patterson
15.Ezzard Charles
16.Gene Tunney
17.Ken Norton
18.Jersey Joe Walcott
19.Michael Spinks
20.Jimmy Ellis
21.James Jeffries
22.Max Schmeling
23.Sam Langford
24.Max Baer
25.Cleveland Williams
26.Primo Carnera
27.Vitali Klitchko
28.Jack Sharkey
29.Zora Folley
30.Eddie Machen
31.Ingemmar Johannson
32.James Toney
33.Rex Layne
34.Jerry Quarry
35.George Chuvalo





here i am going to comment on each of the guys from your list




1. Muhammad Ali
2. Sonny Liston- too high
3. George Foreman- too high
4. Joe Frazier- too high
5. Larry Holmes
6. Mike Tyson
7. Joe Louis- WAY to low
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10.Lennox Lewis
11.Riddick Bowe- WAY TO HIGH
12.Rocky Marciano- he should defintley be in the top 10
13.Evander Holyfield
14.Floyd Patterson
15.Ezzard Charles
16.Gene Tunney
17.Ken Norton
18.Jersey Joe Walcott
19.Michael Spinks- TOO HIGH
20.Jimmy Ellis- WAYYYYYYYYY TO High
21.James Jeffries- too low
22.Max Schmeling
23.Sam Langford- too low
24.Max Baer
25.Cleveland Williams- too high
26.Primo Carnera- DEFINTLEY should not be on the list
27.Vitali Klitchko- DEFINTLEY should not be on the list
28.Jack Sharkey
29.Zora Folley- DEFINTLEY should not be on the list
30.Eddie Machen- to high
31.Ingemmar Johannson
32.James Toney- DEFINTLEY should not be on the list
33.Rex Layne- DEFINITLEY should not be on the list
34.Jerry Quarry
35.George Chuvalo- DEFINTLEY should not be on the list

K-DOGG
03-23-2006, 04:25 PM
But; Ali did dominate, for 19 defenses in two reigns and beat some of the best heavyeight competition the sport has seen....and gave rematches and three peats. The man ducked no one and was on top from 1964-1970 and from 1974-79. That's not too shabby.

Liston, Patterson, Terrell, Ellis, Frazier, Norton, Quarry, Mathis, Lyle, Bugner, Forman, Shavers, & Foster.


While Bugner, Foster, Mathis, & Ellis were above average, the rest were great fighters. And Ali faced and beat all of them, avenging losses to Frazier and Norton.

Louis & Holmes lists of tough opponents isn't quite as impressive to my way of thinking.

Part of what puts Ali on top and what keeps Louis and Holmes a notch below is the list of competition that came along at the same time as Ali. A fighter without great opposistion is never fully tested.

Look at Roy Jones Jr.....great talent, great figher; but never had that defining moment in his prime where he was tested.

Hopkins....20 defenses....that's dominance and a long reign; but, once again, besides Tito..which is arguable at 160....B-Hop never had the test that pushed him over the top.

Hagler had Hearns

Leonard had Hearns as well.

Zale had Graziano

Ketchel had Papke

Ali had Frazier, Norton, Foreman, & Liston that helped showcase his greatness.

Louis had Schmeling, Baer, and Conn...and Walcott in the rematch.

Holmes had Norton, Weaver, Snipes, & Cooney


See what I mean?

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 04:47 PM
Louis & Holmes lists of tough opponents isn't quite as impressive to my way of thinking.


yes but louis defintley beat better competition than holmes.




- also JOE LOUIS BEAT FAR BETTER COMPETITION THAN ALI DID PRE TITLE

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 04:51 PM
Yeah, yeah...you ain't sucking me into actually thinking that that last list is your real one, but nice try though.

yogi, shut up! that is my real list. i don't base it on accomplishments, i base it on head-to-head matchups. so what wrong with my head to head matchup list?

K-DOGG
03-23-2006, 04:53 PM
yes but louis defintley beat better competition than holmes.




- also JOE LOUIS BEAT FAR BETTER COMPETITION THAN ALI DID PRE TITLE

No argument with the second half of your post; the first half is a little debateable.

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 04:55 PM
here i am going to comment on each of the guys from your list




1. Muhammad Ali
2. Sonny Liston- too high
3. George Foreman- too high
4. Joe Frazier- too high
5. Larry Holmes
6. Mike Tyson
7. Joe Louis- WAY to low
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10.Lennox Lewis
11.Riddick Bowe- WAY TO HIGH
12.Rocky Marciano- he should defintley be in the top 10
13.Evander Holyfield
14.Floyd Patterson
15.Ezzard Charles
16.Gene Tunney
17.Ken Norton
18.Jersey Joe Walcott
19.Michael Spinks- TOO HIGH
20.Jimmy Ellis- WAYYYYYYYYY TO High
21.James Jeffries- too low
22.Max Schmeling
23.Sam Langford- too low
24.Max Baer
25.Cleveland Williams- too high
26.Primo Carnera- DEFINTLEY should not be on the list
27.Vitali Klitchko- DEFINTLEY should not be on the list
28.Jack Sharkey
29.Zora Folley- DEFINTLEY should not be on the list
30.Eddie Machen- to high
31.Ingemmar Johannson
32.James Toney- DEFINTLEY should not be on the list
33.Rex Layne- DEFINITLEY should not be on the list
34.Jerry Quarry
35.George Chuvalo- DEFINTLEY should not be on the list

i don't think my list is that bad, considering it's the first time i ever made a top 35 list. also i base my list on head-to head matchups in their respective primes, and i think i hit the nail on the head there. :cool:

Yogi
03-23-2006, 05:11 PM
yogi, shut up! that is my real list. i don't base it on accomplishments, i base it on head-to-head matchups. so what wrong with my head to head matchup list?

Nope sorry...I don't believe you, Butterfly, because your list is/was obviously a joke.

sleazyfellow
03-23-2006, 05:17 PM
who isnt gonna list ali and louis in #1 or #2, those spots r reserved for most in their top heavyweights list, so lets see sumone who doesnt put them there at all n ignores them...id like to see who was #1 then

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 05:19 PM
Nope sorry...I don't believe you, Butterfly, because your list is/was obviously a joke.

tell me what's wrong with it?

Yogi
03-23-2006, 05:26 PM
tell me what's wrong with it?

I could either do that, or...I could save the skin from coming off of my finger tips, and instead tell you that your list is just about perfect.

Yaman
03-23-2006, 05:28 PM
Nope sorry...I don't believe you, Butterfly, because your list is/was obviously a joke.


Ahahahaha funny mofo.

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 05:29 PM
I could either do that, or...I could save the skin from coming off of my finger tips, and instead tell you that your list is just about perfect.

no, tell me what's wrong with it, in terms of head-to-head matchups.

Yaman
03-23-2006, 05:31 PM
Butterfly, he's ****ing with you.


Anyways, your list is not the worst i guess. Only thing i don't agree with is Liston at #2.

Yogi
03-23-2006, 05:35 PM
Anyways, your list is not the worst i guess.

I disagree.

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 05:36 PM
No argument with the second half of your post; the first half is a little debateable.


actually its not even close. louis defintley beat better competition than holmes. he beat better quality and quantity.

if u would like to debate it with me, lets do it

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 05:38 PM
I disagree.

tell me what's wrong with it.

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 05:40 PM
just remember, in all close/controversial fights, louis ALWAYS gave rematches and in the 2nd go round, HE DOMINATED leaving no question marks. SOMETHING HOLMES NEVER DID(ala norton, spoon, williams, and even weaver). He beat norton,williams, spoon controversial close decions, and HE NEVER GAVE THEM REMATCHES.

K-DOGG
03-23-2006, 05:47 PM
actually its not even close. louis defintley beat better competition than holmes. he beat better quality and quantity.

if u would like to debate it with me, lets do it

I'm not dissing Louis' chanmpionship competition, I just think Holmes's is underrated. He beat four men (Berbick, Weaver, Witherspoon, & Smith) who went on to win paper titles and beat good competition. Not to mention Snipes, Cooney, Spoon, & Williams were young up and comers when Holmes outsmarted them. The 80's were loaded with talent, the problem was motivation.

Louis ruled from 1937-1948; but had four years away from serious competition due to his service in WWII. His biggest tests as champion were Farr, Schmeling, Conn, Godoy, Nova, Mauriello (impressive win, btw...loved seing him comeback and turn it around withing 3 minutes), and Walcott.

I think the competition is about even and it could be argued Holmes has a slight edge in that department; but I still rank Louis second and Holmes third because Louis edged out Holmes in high calibre competition in pre-title fights.

smasher
03-23-2006, 05:48 PM
just remember, in all close/controversial fights, louis ALWAYS gave rematches and in the 2nd go round, HE DOMINATED leaving no question marks. SOMETHING HOLMES NEVER DID(ala norton, spoon, williams, and even weaver). He beat norton,williams, spoon controversial close decions, and HE NEVER GAVE THEM REMATCHES.
Holmes also never fought Michael Dokes or Greg Page, two of the more talented heavyweights fighting during the Holmes era.

Then again outside of a legally blind light-heavyweight (John Henry Lewis) Louis only fought one black heavyweight (Walcott) during his 12 year reign. Interesting how Jeffries, Johnson and Dempsey are criticized for drawing the color line and Louis whose reign was much longer and active than those three isn't...

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 05:49 PM
Holmes also never fought Michael Dokes or Greg Page, two of the more talented heavyweights fighting during the Holmes era.

Then again outside of a legally blind light-heavyweight (John Henry Lewis) Louis only fought one black heavyweight (Walcott) during his 12 year reign. Interesting how Jeffries, Johnson and Dempsey are criticized for drawing the color line and Louis whose reign was much longer and active than those three isn't...

that's one of the reasons i rank louis lower than most people would.

smasher
03-23-2006, 05:57 PM
that's one of the reasons i rank louis lower than most people would.Black heavyweights have dominated boxing for close to 100 years since Jack Johnson became champion. Marciano, Dempsey and Tunney are the only 3 white guys who could possibly deserve any consideration as top 10 ATG HW Champions in the last 100 years.

Strangely then that in the Joe Louis era quality black heavyweights suitable for a title fight oppurtunity seemed to mysteriously vanish for 12 years while Louis granted title fight oppurtunities to white stiffs like Jack Roper and Tony Musto......

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 06:03 PM
Black heavyweights have dominated boxing for close to 100 years since Jack Johnson became champion. Marciano, Dempsey and Tunney are the only 3 white guys who could possibly deserve any consideration as top 10 ATG HW Champions in the last 100 years.

Strangely then that in the Joe Louis era quality black heavyweights suitable for a title fight oppurtunity seemed to mysteriously vanish for 12 years while Louis granted title fight oppurtunities to white stiffs like Jack Roper and Tony Musto......

yeah, and that stupid "bum of the month" club. fighting people like buddy stinkin' baer, and still buddy managed to knock louis out of the ring, lol!

Yogi
03-23-2006, 06:14 PM
And what black Heavyweights did Louis duck again?

Late 30's/early 40's there wasn't that many black fighters that were even ranked inside the top ten, as Toles & Franklin are the only two I identify...Louis already beat Toles, who was never ranked higher than 8th pre-war. Whereas Franklin got up there in the rankings at the end of '41, but was quickly knocked out of that spot after going on a streak of getting KO'd. It wasn't til when Louis was off to war when we saw an increase in black talent in the division (Bivins, Ray, Sheppard, Thompson, Murray, etc.) and after the war Louis twice fought the best & highest ranked black contender that was available, Jersey Joe Walcott.

Judging by the fact that more than half of Louis' defenses came against fighters ranked inside the top three, I don't think it's fair to say that he ducked anybody from his era.

smasher
03-23-2006, 06:14 PM
yeah, and that stupid "bum of the month" club. fighting people like buddy stinkin' baer, and still buddy managed to knock louis out of the ring, lol!

Boxing was the one sport where black athletes could participate in professionally against whites. Every other major sport was segregated then so it would make sense that a black athlete looking to make money would gravitate towards boxing. As this was the depression era with jobs being scarce for whites much less blacks there had to have been plenty of active black heavyweight boxers during this time. So why didn't any of them get a title fight oppurtunity against Joe Louis???

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 06:22 PM
Boxing was the one sport where black athletes could participate in professionally against whites. Every other major sport was segregated then so it would make sense that a black athlete looking to make money would gravitate towards boxing. As this was the depression era with jobs being scarce for whites much less blacks there had to have been plenty of active black heavyweight boxers during this time. So why didn't any of them get a title fight oppurtunity against Joe Louis???

well, maybe cause alot of them were in other weight classes, but that is a very interesting question.

Yaman
03-23-2006, 06:22 PM
Joe Louis is the greatest, he would've beaten every HW ever. His competition was excelent but still, why the **** are you looking at that anyway. Dumbass top 35s if you're gonna judge like that imo.

Kid Achilles
03-23-2006, 06:23 PM
Boxing was the one sport where black athletes could participate in professionally against whites. Every other major sport was segregated then so it would make sense that a black athlete looking to make money would gravitate towards boxing. As this was the depression era with jobs being scarce for whites much less blacks there had to have been plenty of active black heavyweight boxers during this time. So why didn't any of them get a title fight oppurtunity against Joe Louis???

Name some of these black top contenders who were better than the white fighters that Louis was fighting on his way up and during his early years as champion. Just saying "they must have existed" does not prove anything unless you can provide some names and their ranking during the years Louis ducked them.

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 06:23 PM
Joe Louis is the greatest, he would've beaten every HW ever. His competition was excelent but still, why the **** are you looking at that anyway. Dumbass top 35s if you're gonna judge like that imo.

if i were a tyson fan i'd despise you. :D you have tyson in your avatar, but pick louis to beat him.

Yaman
03-23-2006, 06:29 PM
if i were a tyson fan i'd despise you. :D you have tyson in your avatar, but pick louis to beat him.

Yeah, and i think Tyson could beat him too in a few fights. You can't judge a fighter's place in history very high because you love him.

smasher
03-23-2006, 06:31 PM
Name some of these black top contenders who were better than the white fighters that Louis was fighting on his way up and during his early years as champion. Just saying "they must have existed" does not prove anything unless you can provide some names and their ranking during the years Louis ducked them.
Have you ever considered that in a segregated 1930's-40's America that up and coming black heavyweights were denied oppurtunities against white opponents? It's not as if blacks were denied oppurtunities in just about every other field during this time. This is a sociological fact.

A quick check of SuzieQ49's list shows 9 white fighters out of his 35 ATG heavyweights. Most of the posters seem to feel this is an excellent list which contains 3/4 black fighters.

Are you suggesting that in Louis's 12 year reign world class black heavyweights just up and vanished?

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 06:33 PM
Yeah, and i think Tyson could beat him too in a few fights. You can't judge a fighter's place in history very high because you love him.

for me it's not about love. it's my honest opinion.

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 06:36 PM
I'm not dissing Louis' chanmpionship competition, I just think Holmes's is underrated. He beat four men (Berbick, Weaver, Witherspoon, & Smith) who went on to win paper titles and beat good competition. Not to mention Snipes, Cooney, Spoon, & Williams were young up and comers when Holmes outsmarted them. The 80's were loaded with talent, the problem was motivation.

Louis ruled from 1937-1948; but had four years away from serious competition due to his service in WWII. His biggest tests as champion were Farr, Schmeling, Conn, Godoy, Nova, Mauriello (impressive win, btw...loved seing him comeback and turn it around withing 3 minutes), and Walcott.

I think the competition is about even and it could be argued Holmes has a slight edge in that department; but I still rank Louis second and Holmes third because Louis edged out Holmes in high calibre competition in pre-title fights.





louis beat - schmeling, walcott, baer 3 great heavies

in comparison.... holmes only beat 1 great heavy norton



edge in quality- louis






- louis also beat better depth

Yogi
03-23-2006, 06:37 PM
Have you ever considered that in a segregated 1930's-40's America that up and coming black heavyweights were denied oppurtunities against white opponents?

One of the top rated Heavyweights of that time, Bob Pastor, would say otherwise, considering he defeated the best of the black Heavyweights from before Louis went off to war...Roscoe Toles, Lem Franklin, and Turkey Thompson.

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 06:39 PM
I am posting something big right now on the black heavyweights of the 1940s.




bob pastor is the key word here. he beat many of the top black heavyweights of thhe 1940s. also smasher, LOUIS LOST 4 YEARS DUE TO WAR. HAD HE CONTINUED TO FIGHT FROM 1942-46 HE DEFINTLEY WOULD HAVE DEFENDED AGAINST MORE BLACK PEOPLE

RockyMarcianofan00
03-23-2006, 06:40 PM
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Sonny Liston
3. George Foreman
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Floyd Patterson
7. Ken Norton
8. Jimmy Ellis
9. Cleveland Williams
10.Zora Folley
11.Jerry Quarry
12.George Chuvalo
13.Ron Lyle
14.Ernie Shavers
15.Henry Cooper
16.Oscar Bonavena
17.Bob Foster
18.Trevor Berbick
19.Brian London
20.Sonny Banks
21.Chuck Wepner
22.Charlie Powell
23.Joe Bugner
24.Archie Moore
25.Jurgen Blin
26.Doug Jones
27.Jimmy Young
28.Billy Daniels
29.Leon Spinks
30.Ernie Terrel
31.Buster Mathis
32.Richard Dunn
33.Jimmy Robinson
34.Alex Miteff
35.Tunney Hunsaker

Marciano's not even in his top 35 :rolleyes:

besides that i see some good names

Kid Achilles
03-23-2006, 06:42 PM
Have you ever considered that in a segregated 1930's-40's America that up and coming black heavyweights were denied oppurtunities against white opponents? It's not as if blacks were denied oppurtunities in just about every other field during this time. This is a sociological fact.

A quick check of SuzieQ49's list shows 9 white fighters out of his 35 ATG heavyweights. Most of the posters seem to feel this is an excellent list which contains 3/4 black fighters.

Are you suggesting that in Louis's 12 year reign world class black heavyweights just up and vanished?

If that was the case (which is debatable until you prove evidence of these top ten worthy black heavyweights) it still isn't Louis's fault as champion. A champion should fight the top ranked contenders in his division. Louis did this, and for the most part he crushed them all. How can you hold it against Louis if there were black fighters out there who were denied opportunities to fight white contenders (and even we're talking about missed opportunities to fight them, not neccesarily beat them) in order to reach him? You can't. It's not as if there were these great black contenders who had proven themselves and Louis was ducking them.

Dempsey 1919
03-23-2006, 06:45 PM
Marciano's not even in his top 35 :rolleyes:

besides that i see some good names

that was a joke list. read the one after that.

RockyMarcianofan00
03-23-2006, 06:53 PM
oh sry
been awhile since i was on the bored so i just skimmed through it

sorry

smasher
03-23-2006, 06:54 PM
HE DEFINTLEY WOULD HAVE DEFENDED AGAINST MORE BLACK PEOPLEJack Johnson's title reign probably did more harm than good to the black heavyweights that came after him. Joe Louis had a protocol to follow so as not to offend whites and distance himself from Jack Johnson's image. Louis was never to raise his hands and celebrate after defeating a white opponent, he was not to be photographed with a white woman, he was to be portrayed as a family man, and was to be subdued and humble during interviews among other such rules directed by his management.

This was the sign of the times in those days. Imagine the scandal that would have erupted had it become known that Louis had an inter-racial affair with white figure skater Sonji Henning.

Louis was loved because he wasn't Jack Johnson and Ali was hated because he wasn't Joe Louis.

My thread IS NOT a slight on Joe Louis, it is a sign of the times. Louis would not have had the power to choose his opponents during this time. I'm sure Mike Jacobs did that.

RockyMarcianofan00
03-23-2006, 06:55 PM
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Sonny Liston
3. George Foreman
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Mike Tyson
7. Joe Louis
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10.Lennox Lewis
11.Riddick Bowe
12.Rocky Marciano
13.Evander Holyfield
14.Floyd Patterson
15.Ezzard Charles
16.Gene Tunney
17.Ken Norton
18.Jersey Joe Walcott
19.Michael Spinks
20.Jimmy Ellis
21.James Jeffries
22.Max Schmeling
23.Sam Langford
24.Max Baer
25.Cleveland Williams
26.Primo Carnera
27.Vitali Klitchko
28.Jack Sharkey
29.Zora Folley
30.Eddie Machen
31.Ingemmar Johannson
32.James Toney
33.Rex Layne
34.Jerry Quarry
35.George Chuvalo
well at least he made top 12

can't ask for miracles lol

i think George Foreman is better then liston anyday, Frazier arguably as well

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 06:58 PM
here are some of the better 1940s black heavyweight contenders


6'2 200lb Elmer Ray- top 50 heavyweight of all time. huge punching boxer-puncher of the 1940s. Elmer Ray ranked # 1 heavyweight contender by Ring Magazine 1946.

5'11 185lb Jimmy Bivins- Hall of famer. bivins was the duration HW champion during the war years. Ranked # 1 heavyweight contender by Ring Magazine 1942-43.

outside of walcott and charles........bivins and ray were the 2 best heavweight contenders of the 1940s


5'9 200lb turkey thompson- big punching top heavyweight contender during the 1940s. Rated # 3 by Ring Magazine in 1942.

6'2 210lb Lem Franklin- big punching top heavyweight contender early 1940s. Rated # 2 contender by Ring Magazine in 1941.

6'4 210lb Harry Bobo- big punching top heavyweight contender early 1940s. Rated # 5 contender by Ring Magazine 1942.

6'2 200lb Roscoe Toles- top heavyweight contender of late 30s/early40s. Toles ranted # 4 contender by Ring Magazine 1942. toles actually fought louis and was knocked out in 6 rounds, but this fight took place in 1935 when roles was just 2-4 and very green.




There were quite a few black fighters that Joe Louis failed to meet during his career, a lot of whom I believe would have given the “Brown Bomber” some quality opposition more so than some of the fighters that he defended the title against. Some that he could have fought in either the 1930s or 1940s are Elmer Ray, Jack Trammell, Leroy Haynes, Jimmy Bivins(in 1940s), Larry Gains, Harry Bobo, Turkey Thompson, Elmer Ray, Unknown Winston, “Tiger” Jack Fox, Roscoe Toles(prime version), Seal Harris(louis sparring partner), Lem Franklin, George Godfrey, Buddy Walker, Curtis Sheppard to name a few of the top guys.


-The stories behind the fights may shed some light on what was going on. Joe took the fight with John Henry Lewis against the wishes of his managment. Jacobs wanted no part of it. They let Louis have his way but it was one of his lowest grossing title defences. After that a black challenger was going to have to establish himself as a serious challenger to get a title fight. As far as I can see the only black challenger who was ranked in the top ten for a prolonged period during Joes pre war career was Turkey Thompson and he was hovering around the lower half of the top ten. After the war Bivins, Ray and Walcott were all serious forces in the division. Of the three Walcott was seen as the least credible challenger and Bivins the most. I beleive that Bivins was to fight Louis after Maurellio but Walcott eliminated him. Elmer Ray was looked on as the obvious replacement but Walcott uncharitably eliminated him as well leaving himself as the mandatory challenger. The rest is history. It is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight that Louis should have fought Bivins and Ray but the timing was never on their sides. They had their stay on top while Louis was in the army and while he was less active in the postwar years.


-the black fighters louis faced pre title were eddie simms and roscoe toles. Roscoe toles was actually a very good contender of the era, but he was green when he fought louis.



Was Louis protected?? certainly, to an extent just like every fighter, but regardless NO ONE OF THAT ERA could beat Joe Louis at the top of his game!



- louis's defense, Louis knocked out bob pastor, who beat a lot of those dangerous avoided top black contenders of the 30s-40s. also Joe Louis beat the best black heavyweight of the 1940s jersey joe walcott. -also one must remember louis e missed 4 years due to war. im sure louis would have fought a lot of these top black heavyweights from 1943-46 had he got the chance.


- guys like buddy baer, tommy farr, bob pastor, abe simon, tony galento, tami mauriello, max schmeling, billy conn, arturo godoy, lou nova these guys were just as good or better than those black heavyweights louis failed to meet.

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 07:01 PM
NOTE: i am leaving out jersey joe walcott and ezzard since they won titles




top 10 black heavyweight contenders of 1940s



1. Elmer "Violent" Ray 6'2 195lb heavyweight peak 1946
http://www.boxrec.com/media/images/9/92/Ray_Elmer_1.jpg

* herbert goldman rates elmer ray in his top 20 heavyweights of all time

- i rate elmer ray in my top 30 heavyweights of all time. ray is a vastly underated heavyweight. he not only had devastaing KO power, he also had solid boxing skills. ray fought out of a crouch bobbin/weavin . ray was in essence a puncher-swarmer a rare breed. Ray also beat both jersey joe walcott and ezzard charles when both were at/near there best.






2. Jimmy Bivins 5'11 187lb heavyweight peak 1945
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/images/bivins.jpg






3. Lee Q Murray 6' 210lb heavyweight peak 1946
http://www.boxrec.com/media/images/d/d3/Murray_LeeQ.jpg



4. Turkey Thompson 5'9 205lb heavyweight peak 1943
http://www.pugilistica.com/BoxingArchive2/AlbertTurkeyThompsonC1940InRingFullFPInRingFront.J PG















continued...................

Kid Achilles
03-23-2006, 07:01 PM
Louis was loved because he wasn't Jack Johnson and Ali was hated because he wasn't Joe Louis.

This is one way of looking at it but it completely ignores the fact that Louis was a patriotic American in a time of war (and a time when patriotism was unanimously looked highly upon) and Ali was completely opposed to the war of his era. Ali refusing the Vietnam war draft was HUGE. Many people disliked him for his mouth (the early 60's were similar to the late 50's and the image of the simple, clean living, and modest athlete was still highly valued) before the war but it was the issue of his stance on Vietnam that had huge consequences towards his public image. That was when people started to really HATE him rather than just find him an amusing and slightly vexing clown.

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 07:02 PM
continued...............




5. Lem Franklin 6'2 200lb heavyweight peak 1941
http://www.boxrec.com/media/images/f/f5/Franklin.Lem.jpg





6. Roscoe Toles 6'2 205lb heayvweight peak 1942
http://www.boxrec.com/media/images/c/c4/Toles_Roscoe.jpg





7. Curtis "hatchetman" Sheppard 5'11 185lb heavyweight peak 1943
http://www.boxrec.com/media/images/c/ce/Sheppard.Curtis.jpg





8. Harry Bobo 6'4 210lb heavyweight peak 1942
http://www.boxrec.com/media/images/7/75/Bobo_Harry.jpg

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 07:02 PM
continued.......................








9. Buddy Walker 5'11 195lb heavyweight peak 1944

- anyone that has a pic that would be great





10. Eddie "dark spoiler" Blunt 6' 220lb heavyweight peak 1941
http://www.boxrec.com/media/images/5/51/Blunt_Eddie.jpg

K-DOGG
03-23-2006, 07:07 PM
louis beat - schmeling, walcott, baer 3 great heavies

in comparison.... holmes only beat 1 great heavy norton



edge in quality- louis






- louis also beat better depth

Scmeling also beat Louis and did it when he was younger...Max was 32 when Louis stopped him under extraordinary circumstances; but I honestly don't think anyone could have beaten Joe on that night. Baer was pre-title, which I've addressed, and Walcott I think is a little overrated by most. Walcott was 34 like Louis when they fought and most of his career he fought at light heavy and middle, so I'm not so quick to attach the term all-time great heavy to Jersey Joe.

So, in retrospect, young Louis, as champion, beat Schmeling and Walcott...which is what I referred to: title reign opposistion.

Schmeling, 32, and six years removed from his title reign or best years.

Walcott, 34, 46-11-1 (losing 3 by K.O. and fighting most of his career below heavyweight)

And it can be arued both Walcott and Schmeling beat Louis the first time around. Still, credit to Louis for reversing the tide in the rematch.

However, I don't think 32 year old Schmeling and 34 year old Walcott trump 33 year old Norton, Shavers, who stopped Norton in 1, Weaver who goes on to win WBA title, Berbick who goes on to win WBC Title, Snipes & Cooney both in 20's and undefeated, 25 year old Witherspoon..also undefeated, and goest on to win WBC & WBA belts, Smith who goes on to win WBA belt, and young undefeated Williams when Larry was well past his prime at 35.


Sorry, the scales just don't tip towards Louis if all you use is that version of Schmeling and Walcott. That looks to be far more in Holmes favor if you remove Conn, Farr, Nova, Mauriello, and Godoy...all good challengers....from the equation.

Louis edges out Holmes because of two things, in my book.

1. Pre-title competition
2. The enormous pressure to win the Schmeling fight. Most men crack under that kind of pressure; but Louis excelled. Even though Schmeling was past his best by 38, the event was mind-boggling...which is why Louis is #2 on my list and not #3.

K-DOGG
03-23-2006, 07:08 PM
SuzieQ....just saw your collection of fight photos of Black Contenders from the Louis era. That's impressive as hell, dude. Props!!

Yaman
03-23-2006, 07:11 PM
Great stuff SuzieQ. Awesome posts.

The_One77
03-23-2006, 07:18 PM
here are my top 35 heavyweights of all time


1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Jack Johnson
9. Joe Frazier
10. Mike Tyson
11. Sam Langford
12. Lennox Lewis
13. Ezzard Charles
14. James Jeffries
15. Jersey Joe Walcott
16. Evander Holyfield
17. Max Schmeling
18. Ken Norton
19. Floyd Patterson
20. Gene Tunney
21. Riddick Bowe
22. Jack Sharkey
23. Harry Wills
24. Peter Jackson
25. Max Baer
26. Jerry Quarry
27. Joe Jeanette
28. James Corbett
29. Elmer Ray
30. George Godfrey
31. Jimmy Young
32. Tim Witherspoon
33. Sam Mcvey
34. Archie Moore
35. Cleveland Williams


tell me why is Tyson so high, he shouldn't be higher than Lewis at all

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 07:27 PM
Scmeling also beat Louis and did it when he was younger...Max was 32 when Louis stopped him under extraordinary circumstances; but I honestly don't think anyone could have beaten Joe on that night. Baer was pre-title, which I've addressed, and Walcott I think is a little overrated by most. Walcott was 34 like Louis when they fought and most of his career he fought at light heavy and middle, so I'm not so quick to attach the term all-time great heavy to Jersey Joe.


sorry but u dont know what ur talking about KDOGGG...........


- WALCOTT WAS A HEAVYWEIGHT HIS WHOLE CAREER. CHECK HIS RECORD.



- WALCOTT WAS A CHIZZLED 195LB HEAVYWEIGHT HIS WHOLE CAREER! walcott was bigger than schmeling WHO FOUGHT AT 190LB


- the only time walcott ever weighed under 175lb was when he was 16! ali when he was 16 weighed under 170lb!


- walcott top 15 heavyweight of all time, defintley the best louis ever beat. I SEE U NEED TO POINT OUT WALCOTTS AGE? well if u were smart, you would know walcott was a fighter who got better with age. louis on the other hand was past his prime when he beat walcott.



Scmeling also beat Louis and did it when he was younger...Max was 32 when Louis stopped him under extraordinary circumstances;

nice try buddy, schmeling was the same fighter he was 2 years ago since beating joe louis. ever since he beat louis, he dominated his fights showing no signs of aging. schmeling was in his prime in both fights.

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 07:35 PM
why dont u point out to us that norton was 34 when he fought holmes 15 even rounds and norton would win only 1 of his next 4 fights!

or that shavers was 33 and looked better on film in the early 1970s


or why don't you point how to us how holmes had a habit of beating up on green fighters

carl williams- ONLY 16 pro fights when he fought holmes and was robbed

bonecrusher smith- ONLY 15 pro fights when he fought holmes

marvis frasier- ONLY 10 pro fights when he fought holmes

tim witherspoon- ONLY 15 pro fights when he fought holmes

david bey- ONLY 14 pro fights when he fought holmes


trevor berbick- ONLY 19 pro fights when he fought holmes


osscie osacio- ONLY 13 pro fights when he fought holmes


renaldo snipes- ONLY 22 pro fights when he fought holmes




see how i can spin it around toward holmes?

smasher
03-23-2006, 07:38 PM
here are some of the better 1940s black heavyweight contenders

6'2 200lb Elmer Ray- top 50 heavyweight of all time. huge punching boxer-puncher of the 1940s. Elmer Ray ranked # 1 heavyweight contender by Ring Magazine 1946.

5'11 185lb Jimmy Bivins- Hall of famer. bivins was the duration HW champion during the war years. Ranked # 1 heavyweight contender by Ring Magazine 1942-43.

outside of walcott and charles........bivins and ray were the 2 best heavweight contenders of the 1940s

5'9 200lb turkey thompson- big punching top heavyweight contender during the 1940s. Rated # 3 by Ring Magazine in 1942.

6'2 210lb Lem Franklin- big punching top heavyweight contender early 1940s. Rated # 2 contender by Ring Magazine in 1941.

6'4 210lb Harry Bobo- big punching top heavyweight contender early 1940s. Rated # 5 contender by Ring Magazine 1942.

6'2 200lb Roscoe Toles- top heavyweight contender of late 30s/early40s. Toles ranted # 4 contender by Ring Magazine 1942. toles actually fought louis and was knocked out in 6 rounds, but this fight took place in 1935 when roles was just 2-4 and very green.

There were quite a few black fighters that Joe Louis failed to meet during his career, a lot of whom I believe would have given the “Brown Bomber” some quality opposition more so than some of the fighters that he defended the title against. Some that he could have fought in either the 1930s or 1940s are Elmer Ray, Jack Trammell, Leroy Haynes, Jimmy Bivins(in 1940s), Larry Gains, Harry Bobo, Turkey Thompson, Elmer Ray, Unknown Winston, “Tiger” Jack Fox, Roscoe Toles(prime version), Seal Harris(louis sparring partner), Lem Franklin, George Godfrey, Buddy Walker, Curtis Sheppard to name a few of the top guys.
Good job on the legwork SuzieQ49.

It always amazes me when Louis is defended for not fighting certain black opponents with the simple argument that they lost a certain fight or to a certain fighter. Joe's white opponents all had losses and still got title fights. Jack Roper had 40 losses for heaven's sake yet he still got a title fight...

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 07:38 PM
However, I don't think 32 year old Schmeling and 34 year old Walcott trump 33 year old Norton, Shavers, who stopped Norton in 1, Weaver who goes on to win WBA title, Berbick who goes on to win WBC Title, Snipes & Cooney both in 20's and undefeated, 25 year old Witherspoon..also undefeated, and goest on to win WBC & WBA belts, Smith who goes on to win WBA belt, and young undefeated Williams when Larry was well past his prime at 35.




walcott was in his prime at 34 years old


norton was PAST HIS PRIME at 34 years old





JUST REMEMBER KDOG, its not abot age. a lot of holmes opponent were young, BUT THEY WERE ALSO INEXPERIENCED AND GREEN!

Yogi
03-23-2006, 08:26 PM
Some of those guys weren't even in a position to fight Louis during his title reign, nevermind for the title...Godfrey had already retired after finishing his career on the other side of the world. Gains was also finishing his career on the other side of the world and hadn't been a ranked contender since the early 30's. Seal Harris? Come on...he was already retired two years previous, and was earning money as nothing but Louis' sparring partner. Jack Trammell, Leroy Haynes, Unknown Winston...what are we talking about pre-title competition here or what?

Here's Ring Magazine's monthly ranking for Nov of 1941;

Champion: Joe Louis
1: Lou Nova
2: Billy Conn
3: Buddy Baer
4: Lem Franklin*
5: Bob Pastor
6: Abe Simon
7: Melio Bettina
8: Turkey Thompson*
9: Alberto Lovell
10: Arturo Godoy

Louis' had just defeated the #2 contender, Billy Conn (who was #1 at the time of the fight, and was scheduled for a rematch in '42 when he was again the #1 contender after Nova lost) and his next defenses after this ranking came against Lou Nova (#1 contender), Buddy Baer (#3 contender), and Abe Simon (#5 in their annual)...Lem Franklin and Bob Pastor were the two other highly ranked contenders in the title position, and there were talks that whoever won that fight was going to be in position for a title shot at Louis. Without the war, Franklin would've very likely gained a title with a win, but he lost, so it's a moot point.

Bivins gained his #1 position in the 1942 annual after defeating the likes of Mauriello, Savold and especially Pastor in the fall of 1942, which was after Louis had been inducted into the army (in Jan of 42, and his fight with Simon in March was for army relief/benefit, which saw Louis give up his entire purse for the cause) .

Toles gained his high ranking in the 1942 annual rankings by defeated the likes of Lovell & Godoy, but again, those wins came after Louis had already been inducted into the army.

Ditto for Harry Bobo, whose work in 1942 got him rated...specifically a claim to the title according to some states, which he won late in 1942.

Unless these black fighters were enlisted in the army (doubtful, seeing as they were all still active through the war years) and were willing to give away their purses from a championship fight with Louis (which both Louis & Simon did, and Louis & Conn had planned to do later in the year) then they just weren't going to be getting into the ring with Louis in the early months of 1942.

1938 to 1941 is the period you want to be looking at for a possible black challenger to Louis title, not at the very end of 1942, which was basically less than a month short of a full year after Louis had been inducted into the army.

Da Iceman
03-23-2006, 09:52 PM
nobody would pay to see two black men fight for the heavyweight championship in the 30's and 40's.

sleazyfellow
03-23-2006, 10:26 PM
nobody would pay to see two black men fight for the heavyweight championship in the 30's and 40's.

mayb except for other black ppl... :boxing:

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 11:03 PM
Some of those guys weren't even in a position to fight Louis during his title reign, nevermind for the title...Godfrey had already retired after finishing his career on the other side of the world. Gains was also finishing his career on the other side of the world and hadn't been a ranked contender since the early 30's. Seal Harris? Come on...he was already retired two years previous, and was earning money as nothing but Louis' sparring partner. Jack Trammell, Leroy Haynes, Unknown Winston...what are we talking about pre-title competition here or what?

Here's Ring Magazine's monthly ranking for Nov of 1941;

Champion: Joe Louis
1: Lou Nova
2: Billy Conn
3: Buddy Baer
4: Lem Franklin*
5: Bob Pastor
6: Abe Simon
7: Melio Bettina
8: Turkey Thompson*
9: Alberto Lovell
10: Arturo Godoy

Louis' had just defeated the #2 contender, Billy Conn (who was #1 at the time of the fight, and was scheduled for a rematch in '42 when he was again the #1 contender after Nova lost) and his next defenses after this ranking came against Lou Nova (#1 contender), Buddy Baer (#3 contender), and Abe Simon (#5 in their annual)...Lem Franklin and Bob Pastor were the two other highly ranked contenders in the title position, and there were talks that whoever won that fight was going to be in position for a title shot at Louis. Without the war, Franklin would've very likely gained a title with a win, but he lost, so it's a moot point.

Bivins gained his #1 position in the 1942 annual after defeating the likes of Mauriello, Savold and especially Pastor in the fall of 1942, which was after Louis had been inducted into the army (in Jan of 42, and his fight with Simon in March was for army relief/benefit, which saw Louis give up his entire purse for the cause) .

Toles gained his high ranking in the 1942 annual rankings by defeated the likes of Lovell & Godoy, but again, those wins came after Louis had already been inducted into the army.

Ditto for Harry Bobo, whose work in 1942 got him rated...specifically a claim to the title according to some states, which he won late in 1942.

Unless these black fighters were enlisted in the army (doubtful, seeing as they were all still active through the war years) and were willing to give away their purses from a championship fight with Louis (which both Louis & Simon did, and Louis & Conn had planned to do later in the year) then they just weren't going to be getting into the ring with Louis in the early months of 1942.

1938 to 1941 is the period you want to be looking at for a possible black challenger to Louis title, not at the very end of 1942, which was basically less than a month short of a full year after Louis had been inducted into the army.


yogi,

sorry i made you do all that uneeded but still well informed good work. the guys i listed up top were black contenders that louis could have faced anwhere in his career including PRE TITLE.


sorry for the confusion!

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 11:06 PM
seal harris is a good story. he was louis sparring parnter later on his career. I have clips of him knocking harris out in sparring! harris was a good fighter though. throw his record book right out the window along with all the dives he took during his career!

SuzieQ49
03-23-2006, 11:07 PM
the biggest myth about jersey joe walcott is his size. since he came along with charles and moore, people tend to think walcott was the same size. THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

-most of walcotts career he was a chizzled 6' 195lb heavyweight

smasher
03-24-2006, 07:09 AM
nobody would pay to see two black men fight for the heavyweight championship in the 30's and 40's.
You're right. As I said it's not an indictment of Louis. It's a sign of the times. I also believe that the powers in boxing at that time did not want a black man to hold the title other than Joe Louis. Louis demeanor was contructed, formulated and presented in a way that white society accepted. Had Louis been more of a Jack Johnson type character I doubt he ever would have gotten a title shot against Braddock after being convincingly KO'd by Schmeling only a year previous. It's quite possible Louis would have been shut-out of a title fight oppurtunity for the rest of his career. Joe's connections through numbers men Julian Black and John Roxborough as well as a promise of future ring earnings to Jim Braddock helped Louis secure a title shot so soon after a devastating KO loss. Based on the outcome of Schmeling-Louis, Schmeling should have gotten the title fight not Louis.

By the end of the Louis era the white establishment accepted a black heavyweight champion and from then on starting with Louis-Walcott the color barrier was gone...

Da Iceman
03-24-2006, 07:54 AM
only because louis was so respectable.

Kid Achilles
03-24-2006, 11:43 AM
Louis demeanor was contructed, formulated and presented in a way that white society accepted.

There were certain rules Louis agreed to abide by (don't be seen with white women, don't gloat over fallen white opponents etc), but the humble nature that was so beloved by America at the time was all his. Louis was always the nice guy who ran from the bullies as a kid, rather than fight them. That is just the way he was. Obviously he wasn't in reality a perfect saint but your insistance that his demeanor was a fabrication is insulting to the man, especially when those who knew him in private saw a laid back, sensitive gentleman with a sense of humour and who disliked violence, very similar to his public image.

I could just as easily say that Ali and Johnson had constructed their personas in a way meant to provoke white America and get attention. I know for certain that the way Ali behaved around the media wasn't the way he behaved around close friends. What would you say to that, that Ali's media personality was all an act? It was, after all, largely inspired by professional wrestling.

smasher
03-24-2006, 12:03 PM
There were certain rules Louis agreed to abide by (don't be seen with white women, don't gloat over fallen white opponents etc), but the humble nature that was so beloved by America at the time was all his. Louis was always the nice guy who ran from the bullies as a kid, rather than fight them. That is just the way he was. Obviously he wasn't in reality a perfect saint but your insistance that his demeanor was a fabrication is insulting to the man, especially when those who knew him in private saw a laid back, sensitive gentleman with a sense of humour and who disliked violence, very similar to his public image.

I could just as easily say that Ali and Johnson had constructed their personas in a way meant to provoke white America and get attention. I know for certain that the way Ali behaved around the media wasn't the way he behaved around close friends. What would you say to that, that Ali's media personality was all an act? It was, after all, largely inspired by professional wrestling.
Never did I use the word fabrication but the truth is Joe Louis WAS NOT the image portrayed to the public. While he was a beloved champion Louis was also a womanizer (while married) which included affairs with white women (taboo in the 30's-40's) a heavy drinker in his army days, a gambler and later a smoker and in retirement an alleged drug user, all things that his management would never have wanted the public to know of.

The humble and respectable Louis was never so humble and respectable to speak out in print about what he would have done to "Clay" had he ever fought him. "HOW I WOULD HAVE CLOBBERED CLAY" was an article by Louis in Ring Magazine in 1967. I'm sure white America loved the fact that Louis continued to refer to Ali as 'Clay' even though he had changed his name to Muhammad Ali 3 years earlier all the while mapping out exactly how he would win by KO and downplaying Ali as a fighter, saying things such as "he has a million dollar mouth and a dime's worth of courage" things he sure as hell never would have said regarding a white opponent.


Ali was his own man and did and said what he pleased or believed in often to the detriment of his acceptance by the public. Ali's image was designed by no one else but himself.

Kid Achilles
03-24-2006, 01:02 PM
Joe Louis WAS NOT the image portrayed to the public. While he was a beloved champion Louis was also a womanizer (while married) which included affairs with white women (taboo in the 30's-40's) a heavy drinker in his army days, a gambler and later a smoker and in retirement an alleged drug user, all things that his management would never have wanted the public to know of.

This is all well known, but womanizing and drug use does not change the fact that he was a quiet, modest guy who felt uncomfortable talking trash to his opponents. The very core of the Louis image was the real Louis who everyone loved. I couldn't care less if he cheated on his wives or if he abused coke and heroin. There are plenty of people in the world right now who are good willed, loving people but are drug users or who cheat on their wives. The fact that Louis gambled or cheated on his wives during his career or used dope after his career does not change the fact that he was at the core of it all a lovable person.

IMO it was was his perogative to talk some **** about Ali, who had made negative comments about Louis before. As far as I'm concerned, after all the talking Ali did he was open game for anyone to talk a little smack to, especially a former great champion like Louis.

smasher
03-24-2006, 01:10 PM
This is all well known, but womanizing and drug use does not change the fact that he was a quiet, modest guy who felt uncomfortable talking trash to his opponents. The very core of the Louis image was the real Louis who everyone loved. I couldn't care less if he cheated on his wives or if he abused coke and heroin. There are plenty of people in the world right now who are good willed, loving people but are drug users or who cheat on their wives. The fact that Louis gambled or cheated on his wives during his career or used dope after his career does not change the fact that he was at the core of it all a lovable person.

IMO it was was his perogative to talk some **** about Ali, who had made negative comments about Louis before. As far as I'm concerned, after all the talking Ali did he was open game for anyone to talk a little smack to, especially a former great champion like Louis.
You're missing my point. I'm not discussing Joe's personality. I'm discussing HIS IMAGE THAT WAS PORTRAYED TO THE PUBLIC. A black heavyweight champion womanizing with whites, cheating on his wives (which he had kids with) drinking heavily and using drugs would have been destroyed by white America as it did Jack Johnson. This side to Joe was kept guarded and secret from the public for very good reason.

Funny how the white Tony Galento talked smack to Louis and Louis never returned the talk. Hmmmmm....

Dempsey 1919
03-24-2006, 01:15 PM
You're missing my point. I'm not discussing Joe's personality. I'm discussing HIS IMAGE THAT WAS PORTRAYED TO THE PUBLIC. A black heavyweight champion womanizing with whites, cheating on his wives (which he had kids with) drinking heavily and using drugs would have been destroyed by white America as it did Jack Johnson. This side to Joe was kept guarded and secret from the public for very good reason.

Funny how the white Tony Galento talked smack to Louis and Louis never returned the talk. Hmmmmm....

speaking of which...

I feel great. I could kill this guy Louis right now!

Awww, that bum! Joe Louis is a bum! I wanted a rematch. I could knock him out. He's a bum!

:D :D

K-DOGG
03-24-2006, 01:37 PM
SuzieQ49.....We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I can kind of see your point about those young fighters being "green"; but also remember Cassius Clay had only 19 fight when he whupped Sonny Liston, so, ultimately, it's a matter of perspective. Same case with age and Walcott. You say he got better with age and was in his prime at 34. I say NO MAN is in HIS PRIME at 34, just as I think there's NO WAY Schmeling was IN HIS PRIME at 32. Neither fighter was shot; but neither fighter's reflexes were what they would have been in their mid to late 20's, which is what I define as prime...one's physical peak.

I will agree that Walcott could conceivably been a better fighter at 34 than Norton was; but I believe it is also conceivable that the reason Norton lost to Shavers and Cooney had as much to do with his style as it did his age. Norton always froze against punchers...example, look at the Foreman fight. Norton was not 34 when George clocked him in round 2.

This really just boils down to two different perspectives. The fighters on Holmes roster you question could have been a little more seasoned for their own good; but, likewise, the fighters you listed on Louis' resume could have stood a little less seasoning to my take. Perspective.


Louis does belong above Holmes IMO; but Holmes deserves more respect than you appear to give him.

SuzieQ49
03-24-2006, 02:06 PM
You say he got better with age and was in his prime at 34. I say NO MAN is in HIS PRIME at 34, just as I think there's NO WAY Schmeling was IN HIS PRIME at 32. Neither fighter was shot; but neither fighter's reflexes were what they would have been in their mid to late 20's, which is what I define as prime...one's physical peak.



you don't understand. a fighters "prime" is when he is at his BEST as a fighter, NOT HIS PHYSICAL PEAK. its when he is at his best as a FIGHTER.


bernard hopkins did not reach his prime until mid 30s


lennox lewis prime was early-mid 30s



archie moore did not reach his prime till 30s






look at walcotts record when he was in his 20s, are u telling me walcott was in his prime when he was losing all those fights YET HE WAS OUT OF HIS PRIME WHEN HE WAS BEATING GREAT FIGHTERS?







This really just boils down to two different perspectives. The fighters on Holmes roster you question could have been a little more seasoned for their own good; but, likewise, the fighters you listed on Louis' resume could have stood a little less seasoning to my take. Perspective.


so what your trying to tell me is that joe louis did not beat a prime walcott?


does anyone else agree with this?

Yaman
03-24-2006, 02:09 PM
Smasher, you need to shut the **** up because your posts are insulting to Louis. Annyone who says that Louis was not a good guy(Or anything similar to that) is an ignorant hater.

Joe Louis is the greatest :cool:

Dempsey 1919
03-24-2006, 02:11 PM
Smasher, you need to shut the **** up because your posts are insulting to Louis. Annyone who says that Louis was not a good guy(Or anything similar to that) is an ignorant hater.

Joe Louis is the greatest :cool:

he did run around with white woman, for example actress lana turner, etc.

Kid Achilles
03-24-2006, 02:13 PM
So he should be criticized for loving white women? :confused:

Dempsey 1919
03-24-2006, 02:14 PM
So he should be criticized for loving white women? :confused:

i'm not saying that. point is he was an infidel, and that's not cool.

Yaman
03-24-2006, 02:15 PM
Hilarious. So he's not a good guy then?
Everybody loves women diffirently. Who cares if they're white or black.

smasher
03-24-2006, 02:15 PM
So he should be criticized for loving white women? :confused:
He would have been more than criticized for it in the 1930's and 40's. In some states at that time inter-racial marriage was illegal. How well was Jack Johnson recieved for 'taking up with white women?'

Kid Achilles
03-24-2006, 02:20 PM
Smasher,

I misunderstood your first post and thought you were trying to tear into Joe Louis's character, as many revisionists attempt to do with the Uncle Tom stuff, stating he wasn't half the man Johnson or Ali was. After rereading your post, it is clear to me you were observing that a Jack Johnson or Ali type personality would have never been given the opportunities that Joe Louis was after his loss to Schmeling.

That I can agree with.

smasher
03-24-2006, 02:24 PM
Smasher, you need to shut the **** up because your posts are insulting to Louis. Annyone who says that Louis was not a good guy(Or anything similar to that) is an ignorant hater.

Joe Louis is the greatest :cool:
Tough talk from a 110 lb 13 year old white kid with a peanut allergy. Stop wearing your baseball hat sideways and pull yor ****in' pants up. You're not kidding anybody, wannabe...

Yaman
03-24-2006, 02:26 PM
Tough talk from a 110 lb 13 year old white kid with a peanut allergy. Stop wearing your baseball hat sideways and pull yor ****in' pants up. You're not kidding anybody, wannabe...


You envy my body fool.
And i'd rather look like that than a 40 year old, half bald, ugly, sweaty shirt wearing white perv.

smasher
03-24-2006, 02:29 PM
You envy my body fool.
And i'd rather look like that than a 40 year old, half bald, ugly, sweaty shirt wearing white perv.
One Reese's Pieces in your soother sucking yap and you're out for the count Slim Shady...

K-DOGG
03-24-2006, 02:46 PM
you don't understand. a fighters "prime" is when he is at his BEST as a fighter, NOT HIS PHYSICAL PEAK. its when he is at his best as a FIGHTER.


bernard hopkins did not reach his prime until mid 30s


lennox lewis prime was early-mid 30s



archie moore did not reach his prime till 30s






look at walcotts record when he was in his 20s, are u telling me walcott was in his prime when he was losing all those fights YET HE WAS OUT OF HIS PRIME WHEN HE WAS BEATING GREAT FIGHTERS?

I do understand; but argue that while a fighter's prime years and peak years do not necessarily overlap, they are usually pretty close along the time line. Walcott at 34, when you say he was in his prime, he was an all time great. Besides Charles and Ray, what great fighters did Walcott beat? An old Joe Louis, if you're counting the first fight as a loss...that's it. So, in Walcott's "prime", against Louis, Charles, & Marciano, this all time great went 2-6. That's not a good argument.








so what your trying to tell me is that joe louis did not beat a prime walcott?


does anyone else agree with this?

Also, you say I don't know what I'm talking about that Walcott fought most of his career as a heavyweight. Kay, last I checked Joey Maxin was a light heavy....who beat Walcott. Doesn't speak well for Jersey Joe, does it?


Here's a suggestion. Maybe, just maybe Joe did finally get to take the craft seriously, unlike in his youth when he had to work odd jobs all the time and rarely had the chance to properly prepare for a fight. Maybe, after the Ray win, and before the Louis "loss", Joe was able to get in proper shape and do proper training and amassed enought knowledge to take advantage of the much older 34 year old Brown Bomber and effectively, essentially, and technically beat him. Joe, after Blacburn's death and after the four years of WWII exibitions, was an OLD 34. So, it is remarkable that this old 34 beat a relatively young 34 in the rematch, which looked to be going the same way. Now, just becaue Walcott was a relatively young 34, it doesn't mean he was in his prime. He still lost twice to Charles by fairly comfortable margins..and the only reason there was a third fight was because Walcott had accused Charles of fouling, which encouraged Charles to sign for a third and fateful time.

I'm not saying Walcott wasn't slick and crafty, he was. But, he was a huge underdog when he took Louis to school in the firt fight....which undoubedtly had the same effect on his reputation as the Tyson win did on Douglas before he quit against Holyfield. Remember how everyone was singing Douglas's praises.....substitute Walcott.

After the initial Louis fight, Walcott was knocked out in the rematch, outpointed easily twice by Charles, stops Charles on a well timed hook, outpoints Charles in the 4th affair, puts up a helluva fight against Marciano while going out on his shield (further enhancing the Walcott myth), and then quits after being dropped by an uppercut in Round 1 of the Marciano rematch.


Once again, I'm not saying Walcott wasn't great on some level; but I feel you and many others give him way too much credit for his losses and how he performed losing against your heros...thus making him a hero in his own right....with an overblown reputation.

SuzieQ49
03-24-2006, 04:48 PM
Besides Charles and Ray, what great fighters did Walcott beat? An old Joe Louis, if you're counting the first fight as a loss...that's it. So, in Walcott's "prime", against Louis, Charles, & Marciano, this all time great went 2-6. That's not a good argument.

first of all, the 1947 version of joe louis that walcott beat was still a great fighter. i think that 1947 version of louis would have beat evander holyfield. remember, louis was fighting a ****load of exhibitions during the war years, but when he came back he still showed he had his power and punching arsenal by flattening conn and mauriello plus he was bigger and stronger.
the reasons why joe louis was past his prime was because he was slower, and his reflexes and timing were defintley slower. however, he still had very goodhandspeed and that combo he knocked walcott out with was possibly the best sequence of punches a fighters ever thrown. so this first fight which should have been a walcott victory is a HUGE win. the 46-48 version of louis was still a great fighter.

-louis aged DRAMATICALLY after the walcott fights.


-walcott twice beat a top 15 heavyweight of all time in ezzard charles, THATS A HUGE DEAL. he was also the only man to knockout a prime ezzard charles and he did so with ONE PUNCH!


what other great fighters did he beat besides charles, louis?

- he beat top 50 heavyweight IMO and one of the most dangerous and best heavyweights of the 1940s elmer "violent" ray

- he beat HALL OF FAMER jimmy bivins, whos argueably top 50 heavyweight of all time. he also beat bivins at his peak in 1946 when bivins hadnt lossed in 3 years. THIS IS A HUGE VICTORY, bivins was the duration heavyweight champ during war years and many people considered him the # 1 heavyweight besides joe louis.

- he beat Hall of famer harold johnson knocking him out in 3 rounds. johnson hurt his back in this fight, but walcott had already knocked johnson down and had been beating him up before the stoppage. just to let u know on how good the johnson victory is, harold johnson beat eddie machen top 50 heavyweight of all time

- He twice beat Hall of famer light-H joey maxim. Maxim was in the contender scene at both light-H and heavyweight in the 1940s and was rated # 10 heavyweight contender by the RING MAGAZINE when walcott beat him. maxim later went on to become light-H champion. maxim was a master boxer with a granite chin.

- he easily outboxed and beat 6'2 220lb Joe Baski, a top heavyweight contender of the 1940s. Baksi was a skilled big man who was very strong and used his size well. Baksi was the # 4 rated heavyweight contender by the RING MAGAZINE when walcott beat him.

- he beat lee Q murray- a top heavyweight contender of the 1940s. Lee Q murray was one of the highly avoided dangerous black heavyweights who no one wanted to fight. Lee Q murray was big and strong, and was a dangerous puncher. lee Q was rated # 2 contender by RING MAGAZINE at the time

- he beat curtis hatchetman sheppard- another one of the highly avoided dangerous black contenders of the 1940s. sheppard was a WICKED HITTER, one of the hardest punchers of that era. no one wanted to fight sheppard. sheppard was the only man to ever knockout joey maxim, and he did so with 1 punch! walcott climbed off the floor in this fight to knockout sheppard in 10 rounds. sheppard was rated # 6 contender by RING MAGAZINE at the time.

- He beat Tommy Gomez a top 10 contender, who was considered one of the hardest punchers of that era like sheppard. Gomez was a devastating puncher, and at anytime in the fight if u got carelss, he could put u out with one punch. walcott knocked gomez out in 3.


- he beat Willie Reddish- a top 10 contender and one of the highly avoided black heavyweights of the 30s-40s. Reddish is a unkown fighter, but he was very good and beat some good fighters during his career. walcott outboxed reddish early in his career.


walcotts competition break down:

HE BEAT 5 HALL OF FAMERS: Ezzard charles, joey maxim, harold johnson, jimmy bivins, joe louis(first fight)

he beat great heavyweights: Joe Louis and Ezzard Charles

He beat very good fighters/top contender heavyweights: elmer ray, harold johnson, jimmy bivins, Lee Q Murray

he beat good solid top 10 rated heavyweights: Curtis Sheppard, Joe Baski, Lee Oma, joey maxim, Tommy Gomez, big Ollie Tandberg, Willie Reddish, Omelio agramonte, undefeated 6'5 220lb hein ten hoff.

thats a damm fine win resume if u ask me!





i dont know if u see walcott on film, but on film he looks incredible. hes very fast in his hands and feet, elusive, has the best footwork in history, hes very tricky and unpredictable, very good counterpuncher, one of the best heavyweight ring technicians of all time, very good jab, very hard puncher in both hands(especially left hook), top notch ring smarts, his combinations are fast and accurate, hes strong, very good inside fighter, fairly good size 6'0 197lb.

i mean how in gods name is he overated?




u say he went 2-6 vs those guys but thats misleading because he was robbed vs louis so its really 3-5. plus he also beat charles TWICE, so that cancels out the losses, he went 1-1 with joe louis, and he nearly beat rocky in the 1st fight.

SuzieQ49
03-24-2006, 04:55 PM
But, he was a huge underdog when he took Louis to school in the firt fight....which undoubedtly had the same effect on his reputation as the Tyson win did on Douglas before he quit against Holyfield. Remember how everyone was singing Douglas's praises.....substitute Walcott.


Kdog,

Yes. Due to ignorance at the time he was thought of as an overpromoted journeyman. History would prove otherwise. They tended not to recognise the potential of the black contenders. Guys like Ray and Turkey Thompson were seen as ham n eggers for much of their careers. John Henry Lewis and Jimmy Bivins were seen as bona fide contenders. Walcott was not recognised even after the Louis fights in many quaters. Gene Tunney said that if he had got the decision he would have been a lame duck champion. Today of course many people on this board see him as Louis's best oponent. I think his late career reign as champion and ironicaly the first Marciano fight which he lost got him his due credit.



did u know that walcott once was louis sparring partner in 1936, and walcott was kicked out of camp for flooring joe louis?



After the initial Louis fight, Walcott was knocked out in the rematch


after which he knocked louis down again and was well ahead on points until joe louis knocked him out. louis is the greatest puncher of all time, no shame there!


puts up a helluva fight against Marciano while going out on his shield (further enhancing the Walcott myth)

or further proving how great he was







- i doubt u have seen walcott on film. because theres no one i know thats seen walcott on film and hasnt been impressed


- u need to read up more on walcott and watch him on film. if u knew about his early career, you would have a lot more sympathy for him. he got a lot of bad breaks. however he finally met up with felix boccichio, which was a dream come true for walcott. also if u knew more about walcotts era, u would realize he beat some darn good top contenders.

smasher
03-24-2006, 05:01 PM
:

HE BEAT 5 HALL OF FAMERS: Ezzard charles, joey maxim, harold johnson, jimmy bivins, joe louis(first fight)
He lost two lopsided decisions to Charles getting 9 counted in one of them. Walcott should never have been granted a third fight based on his poor showing in fight #2.

He was outpointed and defeated by light-heavyweight Joey Maxim.

He defeated a young light-heavyweight Johnson due to Johnson collapsing and being unable to continue with a legitimate and verified back injury.

He lost to Bivins on 2 of 3 scorecards. Because he floored once Bivins he was granted the win on points.

He lost to Joe Louis twice getting 10 counted in one of those losses.

SuzieQ49
03-24-2006, 05:09 PM
He lost two lopsided decisions to Charles getting 9 counted in one of them.

He was outpointed by light-heavyweight Joey Maxim.

He defeated a young light-heavyweight Johnson due to Johnson collapsing and being unable to continue with a verified back injury

He lost to Bivins on 2 of 3 scorecards. Because he floored once Bivins he was granted the win on points.

He lost to Joe Louis twice getting 10 counted in one of those losses.

- they werent lopsided as u think. the scores dont tell the fight. the first fight was a very tactical battle and charles got the better of walcott about 9 rounds to 6 or 10 rounds 5.

- the 2nd fight was the most action packed fight, and walcott hurt charles throuhout the bout. charles won about 10 rounds to 5. whats the difference between being floored in a 9 count and a 1 count? walcott could have gotten up at 2 but hes a smart fighter and waited till 9. also that left hook counterpunch charles hit walcott with was one of the best thrown punches i have ever seen.


however walcott also twice beat charles, and scored a knockout over charles so walcotts KO win over charles in the 2-2 series snaps the tiebreaker. walcott outboxed charles in the 3rd and 4th fights becuase he was more aggresive and let his hands go more, something he never did in the 1st and 2nd fights.





He was outpointed by light-heavyweight Joey Maxim.


bad decision, most thought walcott won. walcott also beat maxim twice





He lost to Bivins on 2 of 3 scorecards. Because he floored once Bivins he was granted the win on points.



so wut, under modern rules walcott would also win because of the knockdown. walcott won fair and square, knockdowns count for a lot in boxing. bivins was at his peak and hadnt lossed in 3 years when walcott beat him. bivins was a master boxer.





He defeated a young light-heavyweight Johnson due to Johnson collapsing and being unable to continue with a verified back injury

i got sources that tell me othewise. walcott knocked johnson down in the 2nd and had him out on his feet in the 3rd before johnson collasped hurting his back






He lost to Joe Louis twice getting 10 counted in one of those losses.[/QUOTE]

he was robbed vs joe louis. did evander holyfield really draw with lennox lewis?


- louis is the greatest puncher of all time.

smasher
03-24-2006, 05:36 PM
How do you know Johnson didn't enter the ring with his back already injured? Maybe that explains how Walcott was able to floor him.

In any event he lost to all of the hall of famers he fought (excepting a young, inexperienced, injured, light-heavyweight Johnson).

Walcott's wins over Maxim were by split decision and majority decision, pretty close fights with a light-heavyweight.

In the 70's and even 80's fights were still being scored in some states on the rounds system. Walkcott loses to Bivins had the fight taken place under those rules.

In other fights with ranked contenders Walcott was stopped by contenders Tiger Jack Fox, Abe Simon, and Al Ettore and dropped a convincing decision to Rex Layne.

Please tell me how Walcott was granted a 3rd title fight after being dominated by Charles and then being solidly outpointed by Lane.

Did I mention losing to 8-12 Johnny Allen during this time?

SuzieQ49
03-24-2006, 05:57 PM
How do you know Johnson didn't enter the ring with his back already injured? Maybe that explains how Walcott was able to floor him.

In any event he lost to all of the hall of famers he fought (excepting a young, inexperienced, injured, light-heavyweight Johnson).

Walcott's wins over Maxim were by split decision and majority decision, pretty close fights with a light-heavyweight.

In the 70's and even 80's fights were still being scored in some states on the rounds system. Walkcott loses to Bivins had the fight taken place under those rules.

In other fights with ranked contenders Walcott was stopped by contenders Tiger Jack Fox, Abe Simon, and Al Ettore and dropped a convincing decision to Rex Layne.

Please tell me how Walcott was granted a 3rd title fight after being dominated by Charles and then being solidly outpointed by Lane.

Did I mention losing to 8-12 Johnny Allen during this time?



smasher,


from the sources i got, it stated how johnson didnt hurt his back till the 3rd round. walcott floored johnson in the 2nd.

perhaps maybe on that first knockdown, when johnson fell to the floor he hurt his back?




In any event he lost to all of the hall of famers he fought (excepting a young, inexperienced, injured, light-heavyweight Johnson).

walcott also BEAT every hall of famer he faced, besides marciano


woa woa. dont say that. johnson was a far better fighter in the early 1950s. he was far past his prime by the time he finally won the world title.

when johnson fought walcott, he was 28-1 and had beaten jimmy bivins with his only loss being a close one to archie moore. JUST ONE YEAR LATER, HAROLD JOHNSON BEAT MOORE.






Walcott's wins over Maxim were by split decision and majority decision, pretty close fights with a light-heavyweight.


ive got newspaper reports on the fights, email me if u want to see them.

- as far as i know, the AP had walcott winning all 3 fights. the 2nd and 3rd fights were considered to be clear decisions for walcott, despite one judge voting different.


heres the judges scores in the 2nd walcott-maxim fight

2 judges scored walcott 6 rounds to 3 1 even

1 judge 5-5 even


AP scored it 6 rounds to 3 walcott with 1 even


"the camden negro, thus avenged a loss to maxim he suffered last summer, in which the clevelander won an UNPOPULAR DECISION."- New York Times




3rd walcott-maxim fight

walcott won another clear decision according to ringsiders and AP





In the 70's and even 80's fights were still being scored in some states on the rounds system. Walkcott loses to Bivins had the fight taken place under those rules.


under the rules he was fighting in, he won. he beat bivins. he knocked him down. thats a 10-8 round today






In other fights with ranked contenders Walcott was stopped by contenders Tiger Jack Fox, Abe Simon, and Al Ettore and dropped a convincing decision to Rex Layne.

Please tell me how Walcott was granted a 3rd title fight after being dominated by Charles and then being solidly outpointed by Lane.


you know the circumstances about the tiger jack fox, abe simon, al ettore fights. they should not be held against him.


i will explain why walcott got a 3rd title shot later

Mike Tyson77
03-24-2006, 07:05 PM
IT WAS LANGFORD, NOT JACK JOHNSON, WHO DOMINATED THE ERA. WHY? LANGFORD BEAT THE BEST CHALLENGERS OUT THERE ON A CONSISTENT BASIS. johnson ducked the best challengers out there. IN ESSENCE, it was sam langford who cleaned up the heavyweight division during johnson's reign. NOT JACK JOHNSON.



I also remember Jack Johnson beating the crap out of Sam Langford. They did fight, if you remember. Johnson won a 20 round UD knocking Langford down twice.

sleazyfellow
03-24-2006, 07:32 PM
I also remember Jack Johnson beating the crap out of Sam Langford. They did fight, if you remember. Johnson won a 20 round UD knocking Langford down twice.

he did beat the crap outta langford but i think there was more of a weight issue cause langford at the time was 40 pounds r sumthing below johnson, remember it was back in the day and they didnt mind matching middleweights against hw

smasher
03-24-2006, 08:03 PM
Did I mention losing to 8-12 Johnny Allen during this time?SuzieQ49,

"Outboxing and outpunching the slower yet more experienced Walcott, Allen cruised to a solid victory. At the final bell Walcott trudged wearily to his corner while Allen appeared fresh as if he could have fought several more. It was Allen's greatest moment in his career."

-JOHNNY ALLEN-BOXING'S FORGOTTEN HEAVYWEIGHT
by James Randall Lahey
Pendant books 1966

SuzieQ49
03-24-2006, 11:31 PM
SuzieQ49,

"Outboxing and outpunching the slower yet more experienced Walcott, Allen cruised to a solid victory. At the final bell Walcott trudged wearily to his corner while Allen appeared fresh as if he could have fought several more. It was Allen's greatest moment in his career."

-JOHNNY ALLEN-BOXING'S FORGOTTEN HEAVYWEIGHT
by James Randall Lahey
Pendant books 1966


thats great stuff, thanx for sharing that. times were different back then, who knows what was going on with walcott at the time. all we know is that was walcotts 3rd fight back from a 4 year retirment. things were hard and lots of foul business was going on during that time.

could walcott have taken a dive in this fight? if not, how do u explain the reason walcott was able to beat the **** out of allen easily in the following 2 fights?



would u like to explain to me why walcott was 182lb for this fight considering in his other fights he was over 190lb? was walcott perhaps very malnourished and weak for this fight?

it says walcott was "slow and and truged wearily at the bell"

perhaps that only furthers my example walcott was very weight drained and it affected his stamina and preformance. he weighed just 182lb for this fight.


- sure this is an embarrasing mark on walcotts record. BUT

A. he dominated allen in there next 2 meetings including knock out

B. it was his third fight back from a 4 year retirment and he weighed just 182lb for this fight, WHICH IS VERY SKETCHKY considering in his next fights he would be weighing in at around 195lb. this could very well mean he was horribly weight drained.

C. lots of foul business and scandels going around at the time. walcott was a black fight. he could have thrown this fight on purpose.


THIS ALLEN LOSS WAS BEFORE HE MET FELIX BOCCHICHIO AND STARTED TO GET TO GO TO BED WITH A MEAL IN HIS STOMACH EVERYNIGHT AND HAVE WORLD CLASS TRAINING. ever think about that?

smasher
03-24-2006, 11:56 PM
thats great stuff, thanx for sharing that. times were different back then, who knows what was going on with walcott at the time. all we know is that was walcotts 3rd fight back from a 4 year retirment. things were hard and lots of foul business was going on during that time.

could walcott have taken a dive in this fight? if not, how do u explain the reason walcott was able to beat the **** out of allen easily in the following 2 fights?



would u like to explain to me why walcott was 182lb for this fight considering in his other fights he was over 190lb? was walcott perhaps very malnourished and weak for this fight?

it says walcott was "slow and and truged wearily at the bell"

perhaps that only furthers my example walcott was very weight drained and it affected his stamina and preformance. he weighed just 182lb for this fight.


- sure this is an embarrasing mark on walcotts record. BUT

A. he dominated allen in there next 2 meetings including knock out

B. it was his third fight back from a 4 year retirment and he weighed just 182lb for this fight, WHICH IS VERY SKETCHKY considering in his next fights he would be weighing in at around 195lb. this could very well mean he was horribly weight drained.

C. lots of foul business and scandels going around at the time. walcott was a black fight. he could have thrown this fight on purpose.


THIS ALLEN LOSS WAS BEFORE HE MET FELIX BOCCHICHIO AND STARTED TO GET TO GO TO BED WITH A MEAL IN HIS STOMACH EVERYNIGHT AND HAVE WORLD CLASS TRAINING. ever think about that?SuzieQ49,

I've re-read parts of the book and have come up with the following quotes that might shed some more light on Johnny Allen.

"In subsequent years Allen would lose his taste for boxing due to a less than amicable split with his trainer Walter Skidmore. With the loss of focus Allen never again was able to get himself in the same peak state of body and mind that he utilized in the Walcott victory." page 153

"Walcott brought a lean, chiseled, and well trained physique into the Allen fight. If there was ever any doubt Walcott wouldn't be in shape for his comeback, those doubts were erased by fight time when Walcott removed his robe." page 137

"In the early rounds Walcott's cobra quickness and juke moves proved ineffective against the focused Allen, who stuck to his game plan of disrupting the punching rhythm of the future heavyweight champion." page 138

"In later years Walcott would make no excuses for losing to Allen. "I was ready" said Walcott some 20 years later "but Allen was a much better fighter than I had anticipated." page 140

SuzieQ49
03-25-2006, 12:18 AM
SuzieQ49,

I've re-read parts of the book and have come up with the following quotes that might shed some more light on Johnny Allen.

"In subsequent years Allen would lose his taste for boxing due to a less than amicable split with his trainer Walter Skidmore. With the loss of focus Allen never again was able to get himself in the same peak state of body and mind that he utilized in the Walcott victory." page 153

"Walcott brought a lean, chiseled, and well trained physique into the Allen fight. If there was ever any doubt Walcott wouldn't be in shape for his comeback, those doubts were erased by fight time when Walcott removed his robe." page 137

"In the early rounds Walcott's cobra quickness and juke moves proved ineffective against the focused Allen, who stuck to his game plan of disrupting the punching rhythm of the future heavyweight champion." page 138

"In later years Walcott would make no excuses for losing to Allen. "I was ready" said Walcott some 20 years later "but Allen was a much better fighter than I had anticipated." page 140



great stuff, thanx for sharing. perhaps johhny allen was the emanuel agustus of his day.

-of course, the 2nd fight in which walcott beat allen easy came 2 months after the allen victory so this was the same allen.


one thing i want you to think about.....

it talks about how "With the loss of focus Allen never again was able to get himself in the same peak state of body and mind that he utilized in the Walcott victory."


funny how it says this even though entering the 1st walcott fight allen had a losing record. NOW, ENTERING THE 3RD WALCOTT FIGHT, HE HAD WON 6 OF HIS LAST 7 FIGHTS WITH HIS ONLY LOSS BEING TO TOP 10 CONTENDER CURTIS SHEPPARD. ENTERING THE 3RD WALCOTT FIGHT, HE IN FACT HAD A WINNING RECORD.

- so even though allen "suddenly was never the same after beating walcott" HIS RECORD DOES NOT REFLECT THIS. IT SHOWS ALLEN IMPROVED AFTER THE WALCOTT VICTORY.



-of course, i dont know what this whole thing is about. walcott was not in his prime vs allen. anything pre felix boccichio Walcott was not in his prime



- walcott may have looked very lean considering he was light. HOWEVER, in all his other fights EXCEPT THIS ONE, HE WAS OVER 190LB. I THINK THIS CLEARLY SHOWS HE WAS VERY WEIGHT DRAINED. JUST BECAUSE U LOOK LEAN, AND UR LIGHT DOESNT MEAN UR IN SHAPE. THIS ALLEN LOSS WAS BEFORE BOCCHICHIO SO WALCOTT WAS MALNOURISHED AND NOT EATING GOOD MEALS, WHICH EXPLAINS WHY HE CAME IN TOO LIGHT AND WAS SO WEAK AND RAN OUT OF GAS IN THIS FIGHT.

- walcott wasnt even with his trainer dan florio when this fight took place.



GREAT VICTORY FOR ALLEN, but this fight is very sketchy and certainly I do not hold it against walcott for many reasons. the first reason is this was pre bocchichio.

SuzieQ49
03-25-2006, 12:20 AM
then again, judging from the obvious bias in that story which tries to make it look like allen beat a prime jersey joe.

how bout johhny allen vs rocky marciano, joe louis, ezzard charles?


walcott beat or nearly beat all 3 of them. and allen beat walcott, so allen defintley could do the same to louis, charles, marciano right?

Heckler
03-25-2006, 05:05 AM
Smasher, you need to shut the **** up because your posts are insulting to Louis. Annyone who says that Louis was not a good guy(Or anything similar to that) is an ignorant hater.

Joe Louis is the greatest :cool:

Louis was definately a good guy. However, i do not hold him as highly as i do Ali. Conforming to what was 'proper' and accepting the position African-Americans were given in society were not actions and beliefs that contributed to the equality African Americans eventually secured. Like alot of African-Americans of the time he was passive and conservative. Muhammad Ali, love him or hate him you cannot deny his contribution to the civil rights movement. A man of his stature refusing to conform to what was expected of African-Americans at the time, showing that people must be assertive and deviate from conservative views in order to achieve progress was HUGE.

People can constantly berate Ali and there is no problem, one bad word about Louis and people get irritated. Louis was a great man no doubt, but not perfect.

Dont take this as me trying to take a pick at Joe's Character. Merely an observation.

smasher
03-25-2006, 08:18 AM
then again, judging from the obvious bias in that story which tries to make it look like allen beat a prime jersey joe.

how bout johhny allen vs rocky marciano, joe louis, ezzard charles?


walcott beat or nearly beat all 3 of them. and allen beat walcott, so allen defintley could do the same to louis, charles, marciano right?Heres another quote from the book that I found this morning.

"Angelo Dundee current trainer of Cassius Clay remembers Allen fondly. "He was plenty tricky and very underrated. He'd get that jab of his going pop, pop, pop, he had that rhythm and if the other guy got cute he'd drop that right hand of his. It kept guys honest. He wasn't a big puncher but he had some kick. I remember me and Charley Goldman working with a young Rocky Marciano and we threw Marciano in with Allen for a sparring session. Marciano couldn't touch Allen. He was lunging and missing with that clubbing style Maciano had in the early days all the while Allen is pop, pop, pop. Anyway Marciano came in off-balance and Allen uncorked a sneak right and put Marciano on the seat of his pants. Goldman had to call a stop in the action, that's how hurt Marciano was. After that we threw Allen in against another young heavyweight I had at the time named Nick Gamble. They used to call Allen 'Smasher'. Anyway, Allen toyed with the kid for a few threads and basically just had fun in there. But that was Allen. He respected the young guys enough to play around with them for a bit. I would be surprised if anyone would take the time to write a book on an obscure fighter like Johnny Allen ." page ha ha

SuzieQ49
03-25-2006, 09:04 AM
Heres another quote from the book that I found this morning.

"Angelo Dundee current trainer of Cassius Clay remembers Allen fondly. "He was plenty tricky and very underrated. He'd get that jab of his going pop, pop, pop, he had that rhythm and if the other guy got cute he'd drop that right hand of his. It kept guys honest. He wasn't a big puncher but he had some kick. I remember me and Charley Goldman working with a young Rocky Marciano and we threw Marciano in with Allen for a sparring session. Marciano couldn't touch Allen. He was lunging and missing with that clubbing style Maciano had in the early days all the while Allen is pop, pop, pop. Anyway Marciano came in off-balance and Allen uncorked a sneak right and put Marciano on the seat of his pants. Goldman had to call a stop in the action, that's how hurt Marciano was. After that we threw Allen in against another young heavyweight I had at the time named Nick Gamble. They used to call Allen 'Smasher'. Anyway, Allen toyed with the kid for a few threads and basically just had fun in there. But that was Allen. He respected the young guys enough to play around with them for a bit. I would be surprised if anyone would take the time to write a book on an obscure fighter like Johnny Allen ." page ha ha

:D


- im not gonna lie, after reading that post, you had me on the ground tearing up laughing so hard! LMAO HAHAHAHAHAH THAT WAS THE FUNNIEST **** I EVER READ!




god dammit smasher you got me! i guess im still too "green" for you

:*******: :*******:

smasher
03-25-2006, 09:08 AM
:D


- im not gonna lie, after reading that post, you had me on the ground tearing up laughing so hard! LMAO HAHAHAHAHAH THAT WAS THE FUNNIEST **** I EVER READ!




god dammit smasher you got me! i guess im still too "green" for you

:*******: :*******:
Sorry pal. Never again, I promise.:D

SuzieQ49
03-25-2006, 09:12 AM
which poster was it that you convinced your avater was your real photo? thats funny ****

Dempsey 1919
03-25-2006, 01:02 PM
which poster was it that you convinced your avater was your real photo? thats funny ****

it was yaman. :D

K-DOGG
03-25-2006, 06:24 PM
Walcott was borderline all time great, which means, in a nutshell, that he wasn't consistant enought to be considered and all time great.

I've never denied the man was a fantatastic stylist and even an innovator to a large degree...and yes, I've seen film of him. I have nothing but respect for the man. However, a prime Joe Louis wouldn't have had nearly as much trouble with him....or, maybe he would. The fact is we'll never know.

Louis retired after stopping him in the rematch, which tells me Louis knew the jig was up; he was past it. Who am I to argue with Louis? Louis was still a dangerous puncher, as all punchers are, even after their best days are done. Even Archie Moore kayoed a would be mugger when he was in his 70's. As you even stated, SuzieQ49, Walcott was beating Louis in the rematch until the knock out. What happened was that Walcott made the mistake of trading with a puncher....never punch with a puncher....and he paid the price.

Walcott did beat some good opposistion; but lost more times than not when he faced great opposistion...aka Louis, Charles, & Marciano. And to be honest, only Marciano was near his prime. Charles was at his best at 175 and Louis was on the downside of the hill after giving Uncle Sam four years of his life. Exhibitions are not even remotely on the same level as a Championship contest.

How good Walcott could have been had he not had all those problems early in his career is debateable...maybe he could have been an All-time Great. The truth is he made the most of the opportunity when it finally came beating (really) Louis the first time, and eventually beating Charles....and putting up one hell of a fight against the smaller, cruder, hard-punching and very determined Marciano.

All props to Jersey Joe for making the most of the opportunities he was given.

SuzieQ49
03-26-2006, 05:07 PM
walcott certainly beat charles in his heavyweight prime. charles was only 29 years old and HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION when walcot beat him. charles hadnt lost in 3 years and was coming off wins over louis,walcott. charles was very much in his prime in 1951.


- everyone makes a big deal out of nortons win and preformances over ali. why not walcotts over joe louis?

- I think walcott is defintley a top 20 heavyweight, i rate him 15th greatest.

IBRO boxing panel voted him 16th greatest heavyweight of all time


- walcotts win resume was a very good one compared to other heavyweight champs.

Hydro
04-03-2006, 11:32 PM
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Johnson
6. Lennox Lewis
7. Joe Frazier
8. Mike Tyson
9. George Foreman
10. Jack Dempsey
11. Sonny Liston
12. Ezzard Charles
13. Evander Holyfield
14. Sam Langford
15. James Jeffries

Desaturated
07-13-2007, 08:38 AM
1. Ali
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Tyson
4. Bruno
5. Foreman
6. David Haye
7. Dempsy

hardhitter18
07-13-2007, 12:25 PM
here are my top 35 heavyweights of all time


1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Jack Johnson
9. Joe Frazier
10. Mike Tyson
11. Sam Langford
12. Lennox Lewis
13. Ezzard Charles
14. James Jeffries
15. Jersey Joe Walcott
16. Evander Holyfield
17. Max Schmeling
18. Ken Norton
19. Floyd Patterson
20. Gene Tunney
21. Riddick Bowe
22. Jack Sharkey
23. Harry Wills
24. Peter Jackson
25. Max Baer
26. Jerry Quarry
27. Joe Jeanette
28. James Corbett
29. Elmer Ray
30. George Godfrey
31. Jimmy Young
32. Tim Witherspoon
33. Sam Mcvey
34. Archie Moore
35. Cleveland Williams

your list shows that you clearly know **** about boxing, this is THE list of top 10 heavyweights ever:

1. Eric "Butterbean" Esch
2. Nikolay Valuev
3. Riddick Bowe
4. Ray Mercer
5. James "Buster" Douglas
6. Leon Spinks
7. Floyd Patterson
8. Max Schmeling
9. Mike Weaver
10. Wladimir Klitschko

ceboxer15
07-13-2007, 01:15 PM
your list shows that you clearly know **** about boxing, this is THE list of top 10 heavyweights ever:

1. Eric "Butterbean" Esch
2. Nikolay Valuev
3. Riddick Bowe
4. Ray Mercer
5. James "Buster" Douglas
6. Leon Spinks
7. Floyd Patterson
8. Max Schmeling
9. Mike Weaver
10. Wladimir Klitschko

man, you talking not knowing anything about boxing, look a your list, it's really ****ed up, who the hell puts Buster Douglas on their list? Just because he beat Tyson, doesn't make him a top 10 heavyweight.

anyway, here's my top 10 heavyweights:

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Gene Tunney
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Joe Frazier
9. Sam Langford
10. Larry Holmes

Dempsey 1919
07-18-2007, 12:28 AM
your list shows that you clearly know **** about boxing, this is THE list of top 10 heavyweights ever:

1. Eric "Butterbean" Esch
2. Nikolay Valuev
3. Riddick Bowe
4. Ray Mercer
5. James "Buster" Douglas
6. Leon Spinks
7. Floyd Patterson
8. Max Schmeling
9. Mike Weaver
10. Wladimir Klitschko

They unbanned this guy?:nonono:

Panamaniac
07-18-2007, 02:25 AM
your list shows that you clearly know **** about boxing, this is THE list of top 10 heavyweights ever:

1. Eric "Butterbean" Esch
2. Nikolay Valuev
3. Riddick Bowe
4. Ray Mercer
5. James "Buster" Douglas
6. Leon Spinks
7. Floyd Patterson
8. Max Schmeling
9. Mike Weaver
10. Wladimir KlitschkoThere's a phrase reserved for all who takes this post seriously.*






*You've been punked!

Terry A
07-18-2007, 09:09 PM
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4 Sonny Liston
5. George Foreman
6. Mike Tyson
7. Joe Frazier
8. Rocky Marciano
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Riddick Bowe
12. Sam Langford
13. Evander Holyfield
14. Wladimir Klitschko
15. Jack Johnson

hardhitter18
07-20-2007, 12:16 AM
man, you talking not knowing anything about boxing, look a your list, it's really ****ed up, who the hell puts Buster Douglas on their list? Just because he beat Tyson, doesn't make him a top 10 heavyweight.

anyway, here's my top 10 heavyweights:

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Gene Tunney
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Joe Frazier
9. Sam Langford
10. Larry Holmes

someone please ban this guy! your list sucks! who the hell puts Sam Langford on their list? the guy wasn't even a heavyweight, you moron. he was like 5'6" and weighted 160 a most, he was too small. not only that but he was very overrated. he had a very weak chin and his style was too easy to figure out. Learn your boxing history, you ****ing douche.