10 greatest title reigns

[Slimey Limey]

Look Louis' era was by no means the worst, but it wasn't great either.

I think its pretty obvious that the 70's was the greatest era, only the 90's comes close to that IMO. But I do think and this is only my opinion that it has never been worse than it is now, also the 80's was ****, but could of been much better. With the exception of Tyson and Holmes they were all fat and lazy. Shame because Tubbs,Dokes and Witherspoon wasted their talent and Bruno trained the wrong way he could also of been a lot better.

People think the 80s fighters were **** because they wasted their careers? Yeah they started takingt crack, but that doesn't diminish the fact that they were talented, modern like fighters AT ONE POINT THAT FORMED THE DEVISION, and those would have beaten fat 10 ton Galento, and windmilling Baer, and any Bum of the month corpse.

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]BoxRec is a useful tool for those who actually know what they're looking at.[/QUOTE]

If you knew what you were looking at you would have also notified the fighters' LOSSES instead of just their WINS. So what you did was you created a biased argument that only suited your opinion and made yourself look like a hypocrite.

Sadly, it seems you've closed your mind to quality of any fighter prior to the color TV era. There isn't a whole lot I or anyone else can say that is likely to penatrate your willful ignorance toward boxing prior to your own lifetime.

Sadly, all you can do these days is just repeat the exact same garbage you spew at every poster that doesn't agree with your biased hypocritical ideolegy.

I would hazzard to say that you have an agenda: That is, to make Mike Tyson's mediocre resume look better than it was by desparaging the records of others

WHich is the exact opposite of what you're doing.

You have a thing for hypocrisy there mate.

They know the 1980s were probably the weakest era for Heavyweights on record with the possible exception of that which we are currently in.

Lets match the 80s heavyweights up against any worhtless Tony Galento fat **** from Louis' era and then we can see just how bad they were as you claim.

No amount of rhetorical agitprop is going to make the likes of Trevor Berbick, Tyrell Biggs, and Carl Williams anything other than jokes that were only contenders because the had the great fortune of fighting in such a weak era.

I mentioned a lot of others too mate. They would **** on those ancient slobs Louis beat on, and got knocked down by, and sometimes beaten by(Conn, Walcott, Charles, etc).

[Slimey Limey]

Louis' run at HW is probably the best.

his competition was average though, not great like some people are saying.

It was better than Rocky's era but not as good as Ali's.

I'm also going to point out that Abe Simon looks like a comical giant in robin hood and probably would have been knocked out by any half decent heavyweight.

Tony Galento is also an overrated bum, leaving his face open and being 70 lbs overweight doesn't classify him as a legit HW champion.

all in all, Louis rightfully deserves to be at the top of this list, he is the epitome of a boxing champion.

I know you don't believe that crap. You're a bright lad, but you're letting these slimey pricks intimidate you and influence your posts.

[StarshipTrooper]

People think the 80s fighters were **** because they wasted their careers? Yeah they started takingt crack, but that doesn't diminish the fact that they were talented, modern like fighters AT ONE POINT THAT FORMED THE DEVISION, and those would have beaten fat 10 ton Galento, and windmilling Baer, and any Bum of the month corpse.

If you knew what you were looking at you would have also notified the fighters' LOSSES instead of just their WINS. So what you did was you created a biased argument that only suited your opinion and made yourself look like a hypocrite.

Sadly, all you can do these days is just repeat the exact same garbage you spew at every poster that doesn't agree with your biased hypocritical ideolegy.

WHich is the exact opposite of what you're doing.

You have a thing for hypocrisy there mate.

Lets match the 80s heavyweights up against any worhtless Tony Galento fat **** from Louis' era and then we can see just how bad they were as you claim.

I mentioned a lot of others too mate. They would **** on those ancient slobs Louis beat on, and got knocked down by, and sometimes beaten by(Conn, Walcott, Charles, etc).

Against such willful ignorance as this what can one say? He is, it seems, convinced the lineup of overweight, crackheaded never-weres that Tyson faced was actually a murderers row of world-beaters: Very sad. The lack of any kind of knowledge of fighters from the 1940s makes it impossible to have any kind of rational discussion because, to be quite frank, you don't know what the **** you're talking about. Since you have absolutely no knowlege of boxing prior to your own lifetime and are content to keep it so then the only honorable course would be for you to refrain from commenting on such subjects. Sadly, I doubt you'll take the honorable course as the temptation to share your ignorance must be overwelming.

PS. Your spelling is as downright awful as your ignorance.

Poet

[them_apples]

I'm just going to leave a note and say this current HW era is years behind the advancement the lower weight classes have made.

the 70's up until today has produced some really technical, physically superior boxers in the lower weight classes.

However, the heavyweights have been on a crash course into the dump yard for the past few years. They all come in fat and 250 lbs. Fighters like washed up Holyfields and smaller Ruslan Chagaevs are still kicking around beating these bums.

the 70's was generally the pinnacle of heavyweight boxing. You had big men that didn't resemble giants with down syndrome, they came to fight at 5% body fat, rarely hitting over 230 lbs.

The 2 worst era's for me personally was Rocky's, an era consisting of old men coming from LHW to resume the role of heavyweights.

and Dempsey/pre Dempsey era, Everyone had dozens of losses and you had title holders such as Jess Willard.

Can't forget today's garbage HW division to.

After saying all that, the 80's doesn't look so bad.

Bonecrusher Smith
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Pinklon Thomas
Tony Tucker
Michael Spinks
Tim Witherspoon

Looks like trash compared to the 70's, but pretty much everything does.
Put them beside Sam peter, Areolla, Primo Carnera, Jess Willard, Valuev.....then it doesn't seem like the worst division after all.

[1SILVA]

I'm just going to leave a note and say this current HW era is years behind the advancement the lower weight classes have made.

the 70's up until today has produced some really technical, physically superior boxers in the lower weight classes.

However, the heavyweights have been on a crash course into the dump yard for the past few years. They all come in fat and 250 lbs. Fighters like washed up Holyfields and smaller Ruslan Chagaevs are still kicking around beating these bums.

the 70's was generally the pinnacle of heavyweight boxing. You had big men that didn't resemble giants with down syndrome, they came to fight at 5% body fat, rarely hitting over 230 lbs.

The 2 worst era's for me personally was Rocky's, an era consisting of old men coming from LHW to resume the role of heavyweights.

and Dempsey/pre Dempsey era, Everyone had dozens of losses and you had title holders such as Jess Willard.

Can't forget today's garbage HW division to.

After saying all that, the 80's doesn't look so bad.

Bonecrusher Smith
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Pinklon Thomas
Tony Tucker
Michael Spinks

Looks like trash compared to the 70's, but pretty much everything does.
Put them beside Sam peter, Areolla, Primo Carnera, Jess Willard, Valuev.....then it doesn't seem like the worst division after all.

Don't forget Tim Witherspoon. The 80's Terrible Tim would be a dominating champ today with this sorry sack of filth

[them_apples]

Don't forget Tim Witherspoon. The 80's Terrible Tim would be a dominating champ today with this sorry sack of filth

Yea just added

[Steak]

Heavyweight ratings by Ring Magazine:

1937:

1. Max Schmeling
2. Tommy Farr
3. Nathan Mann
4. Alberto Santiago Lovell
5. Tony Galento
6. Jimmy Adamick
7. Lou Nova
8. Bob Pastor
9. Roscoe Toles
10. Andre Lenglet

1938:

1. Lou Nova
2. Max Baer
3. Bob Pastor
4. Tony Galento
5. Maxie Rosenbloom
6. Len Harvey
7. Clarence (Red) Burman
8. Roscoe Toles
9. Gus Dorazio
10. Tommy Farr

1939:

1. Tony Galento
2. Bob Pastor
3. Lou Nova
4. Tommy Farr
5. Max Schmeling
6. Johnny Paychek
7. Red Burman
8. Gunnar Barlund
9. Roscoe Toles
10. Lee Savold

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.ph...yweight--1930s

1940:

1. Max Baer
2. Arturo Godoy
3. Red Burman
4. Abe Simon
5. Buddy Walker
6. Buddy Baer
7. Pat Comiskey
8. Lee Savold
9. Otis Thomas
10. Lem Franklin

1941:

1. Billy Conn
2. Lem Franklin
3. Bob Pastor
4. Melio Bettina
5. Abe Simon
6. Turkey Thompson
7. Buddy Baer
8. Lou Nova
9. Arturo Godoy
10. Roscoe Toles

1942:

1. Jimmy Bivins
2. Tami Mauriello
3. Turkey Thompson
4. Roscoe Toles
5. Harry Bobo
6. Big Boy Brown
7. Lee Savold
8. Lou Brooks
9. Tony Musto
10. Joey Maxim

1945:

1. Billy Conn
2. Tami Mauriello
3. Jimmy Bivins
4. Elmer Ray
5. Bruce Wood****
6. Lee Oma
7. Freddie Schott
8. Arturo Godoy
9. Jersey Joe Walcott
10. Joe Baksi

1946:

1. Tami Mauriello
2. Elmer Ray
3. Jersey Joe Walcott
4. Bruce Wood****
5. Lee Q Murray
6. Curtis Sheppard
7. Melio Bettina
8. Joe Baksi
9. Joe Kahut
10. Joey Maxim

1947:

1. Jersey Joe Walcott
2. Elmer Ray
3. Lee Q Murray
4. Pat Comiskey
5. Joe Baksi
6. Tommy Gomez
7. Joey Maxim
8. Turkey Thompson
9. Bruce Wood****
10. Phil Muscato

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.ph...yweight--1940s

Those who Louis fought are boldened.

but at the same time, a few of those guys were not in the rankings UNTIL Louis fought them. most noticably Arturo Godoy. its very likely that Godoy only got in the top ten because he was able to take Louis to a controversial split decision.
which isnt necessarily a bad thing, if a fighter looks good in a fight, he should be ranked higher. but I just feel like it needed to be said, because sometimes it means more if the guy was in the top ten BEFORE a guy beats them.

and you can do the same thing for Tyson.

1985
Michael Spinks, Champion

Pinklon Thomas
Larry Holmes
Tim Witherspoon
Tony Tubbs
Greg Page
Gerrie Coetzee
Trevor Berbick
Carl Williams
Mike Weaver
Michael Dokes

1986
Michael Spinks, Champion

Mike Tyson
James (Bonecrusher) Smith
Pinklon Thomas
Tim Witherspoon
Tony Tubbs
Trevor Berbick
James (Buster) Douglas
Tony Tucker
Frank Bruno
Tyrell Biggs

1987
Michael Spinks, Champion

Mike Tyson
Evander Holyfield
Tony Tucker
Tim Witherspoon
Pinklon Thomas
Carl Williams
Trevor Berbick
Adilson Rodrigues
Tyrell Biggs
Mike Weaver

1988
Mike Tyson, Champion

Evander Holyfield
Carl Williams
Adilson Rodrigues
Tim Witherspoon
Michael Dokes
Razor Ruddock
Tony Tucker
Orlin Norris
James (Buster) Douglas
Francesco Damiani

The guys in bold were top ten ranked before he fought them, the underlined ones are the guys he beat during his title reign, ignoring what they were ranked when he fought them.
was it a strong era? nah. lots of potential, but most of them never really fulfilled it.

but I have to admit, I question Louis's division if Tony Galento could be ranked in the top 5 three years in a row, and be rated the #1 contender in 1939...

regardless, I find Louis's wins over Baer, Schmeling, Carnero, Walcott, etc fantastic with or without a questionable division. you jsut have to read between the lines in some of his title defences, which you have to do for all fighters.

[Thunder Lips]

but I have to admit, I question Louis's division if Tony Galento could be ranked in the top 5 three years in a row, and be rated the #1 contender in 1939...

Because in that time he was 12-1, 12 KOs; including wins over number one Lou Nova(though obviously controversial), Nathan Mann(a well regarded Louis opponent), Al Ettore(a top 10 fighter), and of course his surprise performance against Louis.

TIME magazine Article on Galento leading into the Louis fight, he caught the public's eye and was very popular it seems so it was possible his good but not amazingly great achievements were overrated until he completely fell apart by the time of the Baer fights.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,882963,00.html?iid=chix-sphere

More on Galento: credit Maxboxing


"So, how did Galento rise from the ranks of club fighter to world title challenger? It was a confluence of events, and a vital cog was the manipulation of an eager press. Galento was not taken seriously until wily publicist Harry Mendel (a former sports writer who knew a good story when he saw one) played up Galento as the beer drinking everyman. The rough edges were smoothed over, and Mendel's memorable one-liners began to emerge from Galento's lips. Pictures of Galento boxing kangaroos and wrestling bears began to appear in the sports pages.

...............

The subplot was taking shape, and Galento did his part in the ring as well. From the summer of 1937 to the fall of 1939, Galento went undefeated, knocking out all eleven opponents. His big break was an eighth round kayo of Philadelphia's Al Ettore, the ninth rated heavyweight at the time. That win, bolstered by kayos of former title challengers Harry Thomas and Nathan Mann, turned Galento into a top ten heavyweight. Knocking out comedian Jackie Gleason, who unknowingly challenged the fat heckler, did not improve Galento's rating

......

The barroom bouncer did not possess the ring savvy to corner or lead the shaken champion into his punches. The moment was lost, and the fight turned back in Louis' favor. The Brown Bomber had escaped, and in the fourth, a straight right hand followed by a three punch combination felled Galento. The toughman regained his footing, but stumbled face first into the ropes, where the fight was stopped.

Movie and radio offers flooded in for Galento in the wake of his dramatic performance. So did offers to fight the Baer brothers, and rising prospect Lou Nova. In typical Galento fashion, he partook of both. In one of the most horrid bouts of the decade, Galento knocked Nova out, using every foul in his vast arsenal. Perhaps Karma set in, and brothers Max and Buddy Baer beat up Galento badly, and sent him into retirement."

[-CANE-]

People think the 80s fighters were **** because they wasted their careers? Yeah they started takingt crack, but that doesn't diminish the fact that they were talented, modern like fighters AT ONE POINT THAT FORMED THE DEVISION, and those would have beaten fat 10 ton Galento, and windmilling Baer, and any Bum of the month corpse.

Not denying that there were some talented fighters, I stated as much in my last post.

I don't think it was **** just because many wasted their careers. I don't know if you remember how bad it was before Mike Tyson came along and cleaned up the division. Joe Louis would of done the same thing had he been fighting those same fighters.

The windmilling Baer as you put it was a fine specimen of a man and he had tremendous power and would of beaten the likes of Carl Williams and Tyrell Biggs. Galento wasn't a great fighter but more intelligent than I think you give him credit for.

I think it's easy to say a modern fighter would easily beat an old timer, but you have to remember these old time fighters fought for very little, which is why they fought so often and at very short notice and had so many defeats.

But they showed more heart and desire than 95% of modern fighters.

Also you have to think that boxing moves on and evolves, pit Joe Louis now with todays training methods etc against todays fighters and see how he fares. In fact Joe Louis was so far ahead of his time he wouldn't look out of place against todays fighters.

I just think your being a little unfair, either that or your here just to wind a lot of people up.

[TheGreatA]

but I have to admit, I question Louis's division if Tony Galento could be ranked in the top 5 three years in a row, and be rated the #1 contender in 1939...

regardless, I find Louis's wins over Baer, Schmeling, Carnero, Walcott, etc fantastic with or without a questionable division. you jsut have to read between the lines in some of his title defences, which you have to do for all fighters.

Galento was ranked because of his "win" over Lou Nova.

Nova was a pretty good fighter:


4:05 & 4:35, not exactly Floyd Mayweather or James Toney but pretty close to it.

The longevity is a factor. As you can see, Tyson only defended his titles against the top ranked fighters for about 2 years while Louis did so for a decade.

Louis did destroy Godoy in a rematch so he should count as a top 10 ranked fighter that Louis fought.