** Top 10 HW's ATG...**

[K-DOGG]

yeah against sluggers he can lose but put him with volume punchers or boxers that are smaller than him and he'll own them. I dont consider levinksy and godoy as A level, they aint that highly regarded ok.

Baer, schmeling, conn and walcott are the a level wins.

Levinsky was a top contender when Louis beat him and Godoy was awkward as hell and gave Louis fits in their first fight...I think that deserves some recognition.

[Yogi]

Instead of just throwing out this frequent "lost to nobodies" comment of yours, Brownpimp, how about you tell us who these "nobodies" were by name?

I'm just asking because I do not see any "nobodies" in Charles' loss column, or save one very early in his career (4th fight...Eddie Record), I emphatically do not see any "nobodies" in Jack Sharkey's loss column.

To varying degrees, I'm familiar with every single one of those opponents in their respective loss columns and they all have name value to me, but I'm very curious as to why you would call them "nobodies"...

I'll save my guess as to that answer for now.

[Yogi]

Sharkey was one of the moodiest and inconsistant champs in history. He had a boatload of talent; but never had the right mindset to be dominant...that was his Achilles heel.

I'm wrong on this??

No, you're on the mark there, and it seems I missed the "of the" part of your previous post, because I took your statement to mean the three worst in history. But speaking of the " of the" part of your post now...

Are we talking three of the five worst?

Three of the ten worst or what?

Jack Sharkey's a mid-pack type of champion for me.

[butterfly1964]

Umm...WHAT?!

Yeah, I was about to say the same thing.

[K-DOGG]

No, you're on the mark there, and it seems I missed the "of the" part of your previous post, because I took your statement to mean the three worst in history. But speaking of the " of the" part of your post now...

Are we talking three of the five worst?

Three of the ten worst or what?

Jack Sharkey's a mid-pack type of champion for me.

I'd put him in the middle, truthfully; but have taken into consideration the knowledge of other posters here and elswhere whose opinions I respect as well as what I do know about Sharkey.

The thing about Sharkey that kills me is what I see as huge amounts of wasted potential. From the footage I've seen of him, he was a very good boxer with good technique, and a smoothness to his flow, as well as good power...yet he couldn't master hiimself. Stuff like that just irritates me, personally.

[Orishaman]

To use what you said in the other thread, concerning Greb, you don't know how good he was; and Gene was a light heavy at the time, just like Tarver who lost to Hopkins or Maxim who was losing to Robinson before the heat got to him...and Tunney came back to best Greb on three other occassions. So, that means he dominated an ATG, not too shabby...and that's the ONLY loss on his resume.

Regarding Sharkey, Carnera, and Braddock, no arguement really except that Sharkey was well past his best when Louis beat him, as was Braddock. Louis's wins over Baer, Schmeling, Conn, Nova, Levinsky, Godoy, and Walcott, among others are all significant wins over A opposistion.

Lewis is a threat in any era based on his size; but because of his inconsitancey, he's also in danger of getting clocked in any era. Dempsey and Louis, head to head, would breakdown and top Lewis IMO.

Tunney was lite years ahead of his contemporaries in terms of skills and technique....has to be on anyones ATG list and 10 HW ATG's

[K-DOGG]

Tunney was lite years ahead of his contemporaries in terms of skills and technique....has to be on anyones ATG list and 10 HW ATG's

I completely agree. I really wish he hadn't retired when he did, though. Can you imagine Tunny-Schmeling, Tunney-Sharkey, Tunney-Baer even?

He could have done much more to establish how great he was if he'd just fought on for a few more years.

[Orishaman]

To use what you said in the other thread, concerning Greb, you don't know how good he was; and Gene was a light heavy at the time, just like Tarver who lost to Hopkins or Maxim who was losing to Robinson before the heat got to him...and Tunney came back to best Greb on three other occassions. So, that means he dominated an ATG, not too shabby...and that's the ONLY loss on his resume.

Regarding Sharkey, Carnera, and Braddock, no arguement really except that Sharkey was well past his best when Louis beat him, as was Braddock. Louis's wins over Baer, Schmeling, Conn, Nova, Levinsky, Godoy, and Walcott, among others are all significant wins over A opposistion.

Lewis is a threat in any era based on his size; but because of his inconsitancey, he's also in danger of getting clocked in any era. Dempsey and Louis, head to head, would breakdown and top Lewis IMO.

Tunney was lite years ahead of his contemporaries in terms of skills and technique....has to be on anyones ATG list and 10 HW ATG's

[hhascup]

I completely agree. I really wish he hadn't retired when he did, though. Can you imagine Tunny-Schmeling, Tunney-Sharkey, Tunney-Baer even?

He could have done much more to establish how great he was if he'd just fought on for a few more years.

I agree!

A good friend of mind by the name of Paul Cavaliere, was Tunney's sparring partner. He was also Sharkey's and Louis's sparring partner as well. When Cavaliere passed away over 10 years ago, I gave him his eulogy.

He use to show me pictures of him with all of them.

I would have loved to see him continue another couple of years. I just met a guy that just wrote a book on Tunney and it's out in the book stories now.

[brownpimp88]

I agree!

A good friend of mind by the name of Paul Cavaliere, was Tunney's sparring partner. He was also Sharkey's and Louis's sparring partner as well. When Cavaliere passed away over 10 years ago, I gave him his eulogy.

He use to show me pictures of him with all of them.

I would have loved to see him continue another couple of years. I just met a guy that just wrote a book on Tunney and it's out in the book stories now.

how old are you like 60?