Best Heavyweight Champion with double digit losses?

[QueensburyRules]

Who do you guys think was the best Heavyweight Champion that had atleast 10+ Losses on their record? I was watching a Jersey Joe Walcott highlight video and it triggered me to ask this question. He probably has the worst record of all the Heavyweight Champions but Good Lawd he was INCREDIBLY talented. Greatest heavyweight champion with double digit losses though? I don’t know. That’s why I’m asking lol!

https://*************/watch?v=BtwrGZnp9b0

- -Gotta say Leon.

Whooped the greatest in spite of having his front teeth KOed!

[Science]

Evander Holyfield and its not even close.....Any heavyweight under 6'6..Holyfield has a shot in beating them

[Willie Pep 229]

Evander Holyfield and its not even close.....Any heavyweight under 6'6..Holyfield has a shot in beating them

I agree Holyfield . . . but it seems odd to put a top ATG on this list.

Holyfield shouldn't have ten loses Finding out that Holyfield has ten loses is like discovering that Micky Mantle didn't hit 300 lifetime. It is not a proper refection of who they were.

I think Neon Leon is a more appropriate answer to the spirit of the question; we shouldn't think of Holyfield as being in this club.

Technically speaking you're right Holyfield with ten losses makes this a 'no brainer' question.

Maybe we should jump the number to 11 just out of respect.

---------------------------------------------------------

Alternative fact: Holyfield is no double digit loss fighter; the Mick had a 300 plus lifetime.

See doesn't the universe feel better this way.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Evander Holyfield and its not even close.....Any heavyweight under 6'6..Holyfield has a shot in beating them

That's ridiculous. A great fight? Absolutely. But he has neither the power nor the defensive wizardry to beat many of the best.

It's not despite his opponents' size that he excelled, but because of it. Many of his opponents thought being big would be enough. He lacked their size, but his skill and fitness compensated for it.

Witbout the PEDs I dunno how well he does. Like would we even know his name if he'd been a contemporary of Dempsey and Tunney? Super unlikely.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I agree Holyfield . . . but it seems odd to put a top ATG on this list.

Holyfield shouldn't have ten loses Finding out that Holyfield has ten loses is like discovering that Micky Mantle didn't hit 300 lifetime. It is not a proper refection of who they were.

I think Neon Leon is a more appropriate answer to the spirit of the question; we shouldn't think of Holyfield as being in this club.

Technically speaking you're right Holyfield with ten losses makes this a 'no brainer' question.

Maybe we should jump the number to 11 just out of respect.

---------------------------------------------------------

Alternative fact: Holyfield is no double digit loss fighter; the Mick had a 300 plus lifetime.

See doesn't the universe feel better this way.

That sort of explains it, doesn't it?

Mantle played when Baseball wasn't roided outfreaks playing Home Run Derby.

Holyfield was lucky enough to fight in an era when men can fights for DECADES.

Different medicine and different schedules. Different measures of greatness.

[5'9"-132lbs.]

He's all over the place.

I'm not A fan. He's hard to read.
He leads with his big head.

Evander Hollyfield
cruiserweight
light heavyweight
heavyweight

[Willie Pep 229]

I'm not A fan. He's hard to read.
He leads with his big head.

Evander Hollyfield
cruiserweight
light heavyweight
heavyweight

I would say he is one of the dirtier fighters. I was in the minority who thought Tyson was within his rights to bite the cheating bastard.

Holyfield lead with his head in both fights.

Then again everybody kept saying how Tyson was a throw-back fighter. I guess that was a lesson in being careful what you wish for. LOL

[Science]

That's ridiculous. A great fight? Absolutely. But he has neither the power nor the defensive wizardry to beat many of the best.

It's not despite his opponents' size that he excelled, but because of it. Many of his opponents thought being big would be enough. He lacked their size, but his skill and fitness compensated for it.

Witbout the PEDs I dunno how well he does. Like would we even know his name if he'd been a contemporary of Dempsey and Tunney? Super unlikely.

If he fought in the 10s and 20s when NOBODY could box, he would be the GOAT.

Jack Dempsey and Gene Tunney couldn't fight...go watch the videos

[Thunderstruck]

Jimmy Ellis had at least ten losses and fought all the big names 60/70s when the heavyweight division was full of killers.

[Dariusz]

My vote goes to Max Baer.