Top ten heavies not to win the title.

Have visited this subject before on 606 but thought on the back of Steffans thread about the best fighters never to win the world heavyweight title thought I would try and organise them into some sort of top ten, particularly as I have just been reading about Wills and Godfrey and so they are fresh in my mind. Am sure, as tends to always be the case there will be a number of guys I have missed from the list and am sure the order will be changed soon enough but thought I'd throw my ten out there and see what people agreed with or disagreed with, pained me to put Wills above Langford but having improved my knowledge of Harry recently am pretty sure it is the right decision.

Harry Wills
Sam Langford
Peter Jackson
George Godfrey
Joe Jeannette
Jerry Quarry
Tom Sharkey
Nino Valdes
Ike Ibeabuchi
Sam McVea

About spot on Jeff but would take Godfrey, Valdes and McVea out and replace them with LaStarza, Young and Williams. Never been the biggest fan of Valdes and the great Archie Moore showed his limitations, the fact he didn't get his shot while LaStarza did makes him the more glamourised of the pair.

Valdes was the one I was going back and forth with so have no major arguments there but have to leave Godfrey in, maybe just because I've just read about him but does look to be the case a lot of his losses were very controversial including the loss to Sharkey, there are also a lot of rumours he was forced to throw a number of fights which perhaps takes some gloss off his record however even allowing for this the likes of Uzcudun, Fulton and Renault were more than decent.

Never been sold on many of the black heavyweights of the 20's though Jeff with the exception of Langford and Wills, those who didn't get title shots are often remembered more so than those who did but lost.

I would add Bert Cooper from the 90's. Came very close against Holy and was in a great slugfest with Moorer.

Don't think Cooper is amongst the best myself nor was he in the 90's, a gatekeeper at best.

I suppose there might be a grey area between what is classified as a heavyweight or not, but if we could consider men like Choynski, Loughran, Young Stribling and such as heavyweight for parts of their career then I might include them.

When I first saw the list I was immediately happy with nine of them, but the more I've thought about it the more I think all ten are probably right.

It was Valdes - of course - that had me scratching my head for a while. I thought about Chuvalo, Bonavena, Leotis Martin, Ron Lyle, Buster Mathis Snr. and a good few others going back quite a while, but as I thought about each one, ( and, in the case of Mathis, checked the record, ) Valdes seemed more and more to be a plausible choice, though I'd probably have him in tenth spot, and only then by a very squeaky margin over George Chuvalo, whose misfortune it probably was to have been born about fifty years too late.

bert cooper's a bit left field onetwo, now his brother henry, he was quality imo.

Never been sold on quarry's, i guess there's a feeling that any heavy around in that era was by definition a little unlucky, and he certainly had a few decent wins over some of the other alternative suggestions. He just..well.. looked a bit clueless to me. I guess watching ali toy with him doesn't help.

I'd like to throw a mention in for Roland LaStarza...

Although perhaps not quite worthy of a spot in the top 10 title missing warriors of all time - he is more than worthy of an outside mention.

I first gained an interest in Roland on the old beeb - when discussing that perennial question of who_did_marciano_beat.

Doing a bit more research, I learnt quite how good the guy was. Although not a big puncher, he was a consummate boxer - and came as close as anyone (other than Ezzy Charles) to beating Marciano in their first contest, as young, undefeated fighters.

LaStarza had come up with a relatively hard upbringing, doing the tough fights of the New York boxing scene. He fought a succession of crafty veterans - Buonovino, Brion etc - and was coming out on top until that first fight with the Brockton Blockbuster.

Dusting himself off and still bitterly complaining about the injustice of his first defeat, he fought his way to be ranked number 1 in the world through defeating Rex Layne - conqueror of Jersey Joe and Ezzy Charles - and stayed in the top 10 for 55 months across 5 years. He was known for being a boxer-puncher - although more of a boxer and was supposed to be quite slick.

His fall, when it came, was meteoric. Marciano handed him one of the worst beatings ever seen in a HW title fight, leading to fractures in the bones (allegedly) and blood clots that required surgery (verified).

He did well after boxing, winning parts in various TV shows, including the Batman of the 1960s.

He passed away, aged 82, in September 2009.

Although not quite in the class as Wills, Langford or McVea, he shouldn't be forgotten (as he sadly is on his way to being).

It strikes me as a shame that there are more articles on Wills or McVea - and I could find more information of Wills or McVea - people we are 2 generations removed from, than I can LaStarza - when there are people alive today who saw LaStarza box. Not that there should be less about Wills or McVea - just that we shouldn't forget those fighters of our not so distant past either.

Angelo Dundee always said Roland Lastarza was the most talented fighter he thought never to win the heavy crown..

Call me mystic truss but I had the strangest feeling the top two would be the top 2....

You're the one constant in an ever changing World Rowley!!

Stick Marvin Hart on the list too!!

Rowley, have you read giants on my shoulders? About heavyweight Frank steele?

I'm waiting on my paycheque to buy it

Langford for me personally

Am taking an extended break from the board guys, certain things going on and not in a great place. Will hopefully re-appear at some point in the future

Coxy

Oxy, agreed on LaStarza, for me a far better fighter than his contemporary Nino Valdes, had the latter got his shot and been beaten by Marciano I seriously don't think he'd be a consideration. There does seem to be a thin line between the best not to get a shot and the best not to have won the title.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Oxy, agreed on LaStarza, for me a far better fighter than his contemporary Nino Valdes, had the latter got his shot and been beaten by Marciano I seriously don't think he'd be a consideration. There does seem to be a thin line between the best not to get a shot and the best not to have won the title.

Agreed.

We rate Ibeabuchi highly stylistically - rather than on substance. Looking back at his career - its paper thin. A knife edge victory over a Tua who had already begun to forget how to move his head - and then a dominant stoppage of Byrd. Stylistically he was amazing - great output, great power. However - he didn't fight enough for us to see the key to beating him - and so we rate him as a great unknown.

Had he fought Lewis and lost - he wouldn't be ranked nearly so high.

If anyone wants something silghtly horrific - here's an interview with "Ike" from 2006. I remember reading it at the time and thinking - the guy's still mad. He's a danger to himself, don't let him out. So it was unsurprising really when the parole board turned him down.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=8879&more=1

The poor guy really has lost it, hasn't he?

HumanWindmill wrote:The poor guy really has lost it, hasn't he?

If "it" was ever there. Certainly a few hammers short of a toolkit.

That said, he passed me a viva on the limitations of the neurobiological approach to Psychology - so I'm eternally grateful to the man.

Id put Loughran and LaStarza instead of Godfrey and Valdes.

Loughran is inconsistent at heavyweight but has wins over Baer, Sharkey, Schaaf, Risko, Uzcuden and Ettore as well as one or two other contenders of the day.

LaSarza has already been mentioned.

Never too sold on Valdes and Godfrey. Valdes doesnt have much other thn a win over an aging Charles and a host of losses to other fighters and contenders. Godfey spent most of his career getting disqualified for not trying or hitting low. Few noteable wins and plenty of losses.

Every cloud and all that, oxy.

You must be getting mightily nervous now, I would guess. Everything going well?

Not sure. Keep looking at the clock and thinking - in 24 hours I'll have finished the first exam - and panicking a little.

I've worked - but tomorrow could well be tough.

manos de piedra wrote:Id put Loughran and LaStarza instead of Godfrey and Valdes.

Loughran is inconsistent at heavyweight but has wins over Baer, Sharkey, Schaaf, Risko, Uzcuden and Ettore as well as one or two other contenders of the day.

LaSarza has already been mentioned.

Never too sold on Valdes and Godfrey. Valdes doesnt have much other thn a win over an aging Charles and a host of losses to other fighters and contenders. Godfey spent most of his career getting disqualified for not trying or hitting low. Few noteable wins and plenty of losses.

I'd certainly agree with you in terms of pure quality, manos.

Colonial Lion alluded to this question of interpretation in his earlier post. Are we assessing the best bonafide heavies to have not won the title or the best quality fighters who tried and failed to win it?

If it's the latter, then Loughran, Conn, Stribling, Gibbons and Archie Moore all enter the fray, probably along with one or two others I've forgotten.

oxring wrote:Not sure. Keep looking at the clock and thinking - in 24 hours I'll have finished the first exam - and panicking a little.

I've worked - but tomorrow could well be tough.

Very best of luck to you, mate.

I couldn't begin to imagine how much you chaps and ladies need to absorb in pursuit of your profession, and I can't imagine too many others which would be so demanding.

I tended to base it purely on natural heavies, is hard enough to start with without muddying the waters. Manos think Godfrey is a tricky one as there are a lot of rumours he was forced to throw certain fights and as a black fighter operating in this era he rarely got any favours from the newspaper decisions or judges, apparently his loss to Sharkey was something of a robbery.

Is difficult because boxing is a results business but think in the circumstances of the time you have to make a leap of faith with some black fighters and have personally read enough reports to suggest that when he was able to cut loose and fight on the level he was the real deal, with Carnera even going as far as to say he hit harder than Joe Louis.

If it's the latter, then Loughran, Conn, Stribling, Gibbons and Archie Moore all enter the fray, probably along with one or two others I've forgotten..

... and possibly Greb as well.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Id put Loughran and LaStarza instead of Godfrey and Valdes.

Loughran is inconsistent at heavyweight but has wins over Baer, Sharkey, Schaaf, Risko, Uzcuden and Ettore as well as one or two other contenders of the day.

LaSarza has already been mentioned.

Never too sold on Valdes and Godfrey. Valdes doesnt have much other thn a win over an aging Charles and a host of losses to other fighters and contenders. Godfey spent most of his career getting disqualified for not trying or hitting low. Few noteable wins and plenty of losses.

I'd certainly agree with you in terms of pure quality, manos.

Colonial Lion alluded to this question of interpretation in his earlier post. Are we assessing the best bonafide heavies to have not won the title or the best quality fighters who tried and failed to win it?

If it's the latter, then Loughran, Conn, Stribling, Gibbons and Archie Moore all enter the fray, probably along with one or two others I've forgotten.

Loughran is really the only one I think deserves a placing based on his results there.

rowley wrote:I tended to base it purely on natural heavies, is hard enough to start with without muddying the waters. Manos think Godfrey is a tricky one as there are a lot of rumours he was forced to throw certain fights and as a black fighter operating in this era he rarely got any favours from the newspaper decisions or judges, apparently his loss to Sharkey was something of a robbery.

Is difficult because boxing is a results business but think in the circumstances of the time you have to make a leap of faith with some black fighters and have personally read enough reports to suggest that when he was able to cut loose and fight on the level he was the real deal, with Carnera even going as far as to say he hit harder than Joe Louis.

Absolutely agree on Godfrey, jeff.

I've seen bits an pieces of the Godfrey v Carnera fight, as I'm sure most of us have, and he looked the real deal to me. From all I've read about him I'd say he was shafted every bit as badly as was Wills, though in a different way.

As to your criteria for selection. I reckon it's better to stick to bonafide heavies as you did. Otherwise a top ten probably picks itself.

rowley wrote:I tended to base it purely on natural heavies, is hard enough to start with without muddying the waters. Manos think Godfrey is a tricky one as there are a lot of rumours he was forced to throw certain fights and as a black fighter operating in this era he rarely got any favours from the newspaper decisions or judges, apparently his loss to Sharkey was something of a robbery.

Is difficult because boxing is a results business but think in the circumstances of the time you have to make a leap of faith with some black fighters and have personally read enough reports to suggest that when he was able to cut loose and fight on the level he was the real deal, with Carnera even going as far as to say he hit harder than Joe Louis.

Im not sure, once maybe, twice perhaps but he has about ten disqualifications for the same offence. I think its more likely he was just a fighter that hit low consistently and fouled. He has very few noteable wins either in long career. I just dont see anything in his record thats all that impressive.

manos de piedra wrote:

Loughran is really the only one I think deserves a placing based on his results there.

Well, Archie Moore certainly earned his number one contender status, twice turning over Valdes and also beating the dangerous Bob Baker as well as a few other fringe contenders.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

Loughran is really the only one I think deserves a placing based on his results there.

Well, Archie Moore certainly earned his number one contender status, twice turning over Valdes and also beating the dangerous Bob Baker as well as a few other fringe contenders.

I know, but I would still place Loughran above him based on record. Loughran beat two guys in Baer and Sharkey that were actually world champions so its not that big a leap to imagine he was capable of winning it in that era. He also spent a fairly long time at heavyweight comparitively, enough for me to consider him there anyway, as opposed to Moore who flitted up itermittantly. I think the depth and body of work Loughran did at heavyweight, with wins over former and future champions and several rated contenders would put him ahead of Moore. Although in a head to head of course it might be different.

Baer was a rookie when Loughran beat him, though, and he was going through some very indifferent form, coming off a loss to Schaaf and about to lose to Risko and Uzcudan.

Sharkey flattened Loughran first time out, and when Loughran gained revenge in 1933 Sharkey was coming off a loss to King Levinsky and then a two year layoff after the Loughran fight.

I don't dispute that Loughran is a worthy contender if we are including the lightheavies, but I'm not convinced that his credentials are significantly better than those of a couple of others.

HumanWindmill wrote:Baer was a rookie when Loughran beat him, though, and he was going through some very indifferent form, coming off a loss to Schaaf and about to lose to Risko and Uzcudan.

Sharkey flattened Loughran first time out, and when Loughran gained revenge in 1933 Sharkey was coming off a loss to King Levinsky and then a two year layoff after the Loughran fight.

I don't dispute that Loughran is a worthy contender if we are including the lightheavies, but I'm not convinced that his credentials are significantly better than those of a couple of others.

Fair enough, I cant think of a light heavy with a better list of wins at the weight though, that ultimately never won the title.

Would edit that to include that I guess we are classifying Langford as an out and out heavyweight in light of the above remark.

Manos I tend to include Langford because despite the fact he would perhaps have been more natural at other weights the bulk of his peak years and major rivalries were spent at heavy and against heavies so for me he should be considered, also would seem a little odd to my eyes to put up a list on this topic that did not feature his name.

rowley wrote:Manos I tend to include Langford because despite the fact he would perhaps have been more natural at other weights the bulk of his peak years and major rivalries were spent at heavy and against heavies so for me he should be considered, also would seem a little odd to my eyes to put up a list on this topic that did not feature his name.

I wouldnt argue with that at all. But I think Loughran, while primarily a light heavyweight, probably had enough fights, wins and years at heavyweight to warrant inclusion in my own list. About half his contests were at heavyweight and he was top rated there for about 5 years.

Fighters like Foster or Conn I would not include as there campaigns were little more than just brief forrays rather than actual campaigns at the weight.

Manos think of all the light heavies would probably agree Loughran's time at heavy is substantial enough to be considered a little more than a foray which is not necessarily the case for a lot of those guys, have no idea whether he warrants a place in the top ten because to be honest his name never occured to me when putting the list together.

rowley wrote:Manos think of all the light heavies would probably agree Loughran's time at heavy is substantial enough to be considered a little more than a foray which is not necessarily the case for a lot of those guys, have no idea whether he warrants a place in the top ten because to be honest his name never occured to me when putting the list together.

Hes maybe not a surefire cert, but I would have in ahead of Valdes or Godfrey myself. Hes inconsistent at the weight but among his wins are Sharkey, Baer, King Levinsky, Steve Hamas, Johny Risko, Ernie Schaaf, Uzcuden, Al Ettore all of whom populated the top ten rankings in the early 30s. So while he never won the title and was inconsistent, he did beat most of the top constenders at one point or another and scored wins over a former champion (Sharkey) and a future champion (Baer). Also beat Braddock in that stretch aswell although it was a light heavyweight bout.

Of the two I would feel more comfortable getting shut of Valdes for him, as I said earlier think Godfrey is a little better than his record suggests, all subjective but am definitely more persuaded by the arguments to exclude Valdes than I am those to exclude Godfrey.

rowley wrote:Of the two I would feel more comfortable getting shut of Valdes for him, as I said earlier think Godfrey is a little better than his record suggests, all subjective but am definitely more persuaded by the arguments to exclude Valdes than I am those to exclude Godfrey.

I would agree. Im not masively familiar with Godrey so there is a wildcard factor with him, but Valdes was more or less proven to lack the ability to win or even set himself apart from the contenders (including some very average ones and some light heavies) in what was not a overly strong era to begin with. Cant help feel if he had actually been given his shot and lost much like someone like Quarry then nobody would be talking about him. With Godfrey I am not too sure given the colour barriers but do think it cant be a coincidence that he has about 10 DQs for fould play or lack of trying. They cant all be an injustice surely! He sounds a bit like Golota. Probably quite good when switched on but no telling what he hes going to do in the ring.

Bit of a wildcard suggestion and could be contentious given that he has no track record in the professional game but what about Teofilo Stevenson?

Given that he was fancied to do well had he turned pro in the ultra competitive '70s, it may not be too fanciful to suggest that he might belong on that list.