Top 10 underrated Heavyweight champions of alltime

1. Sonny Liston (How long would he have reigned without Cassius?)
2. Max Baer (Threw the title away but had quality and some quality victories..Rememebred for being boxing's clown)
3. Mike Weaver (Meat and potatoes with Larry in an era of slobs)
4. Riddick Bowe...Generally remembered for giving up his belt.
5. Ezzard Charles..Lost between Louis and Rocky..
6. Gene Tunney..Eclipsed by the guy he beat twice..
7. Vitali Klitscho...Seems to be outshone by his brother who needed his help to get revenge on Sanders.
8. Jim Corbett....More of a footnote than the guy who modernised Boxing...People forget he was owning Fitz.
9. Tim Witherspoon...Had a good record and a distinguished career that should put him close to the best of the last thirty years..
10.Jack Sharkey.....Linked Dempsey to Louis and deserves more respect..

I'd have thought Larry Holmes would have been up there, considered by many as having just kept the belt warm in the gap between Ali and Tyson. You class him as an ATG if I remember correctly?

Rocky Marciano never given the credit for beating old world class performers in Walcott, Moore, Louis.

Micheal Moorer good boxer just not everyones cup of tea

Tommy Burns will forever be remembered for loosing the heavyweight title to a black man, scandalous back in those days. Great proud champion who would defend his title against all comers. Tough little barrel chested man who defended his title twice in 1 night no matter what windy thinks.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Tommy Burns will forever be remembered for loosing the heavyweight title to a black man, scandalous back in those days. Great proud champion who would defend his title against all comers. Tough little barrel chested man who defended his title twice in 1 night no matter what windy thinks.

Cheeky sod, ONETWO. ( I replied on your thread, by the way. )

Glad you found a place for my man Sharkey, Truss.

I was considering Tommy Burns onetwo..just wasn't sure his opposition warranted but I could be wrong....

Frazier came close.....Moorer though I disagree with..

I'd have Ezzy Charles higher - but a good list Truss. You could argue that Jersey Joe could squeak in there as well.

If you're putting Tunney in the list - Tunney HAS to go higher up IMO - a great great boxer. Is the list is measured by how underrated they are, or by how able they are as boxers? If its by how underrated - then Tunney is not too badly placed.

Did consider Jersey Joe.. 2-4 I think against Charles and although robbed once lost twice to Louis....gave Rock a good fight...

erm probably be in my top 13 list Oxy.

I think James Jeffries has a shout at number 1.

Larry Holmes has been called underrated so often I don't think he is anymore among boxing fans. To the general public he's still vastly underrated

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I think James Jeffries has a shout at number 1.

Larry Holmes has been called underrated so often I don't think he is anymore among boxing fans. To the general public he's still vastly underrated

Jeffries would be my pick also, John, but I'd have him in my top ten, anyway.

Jeffries?????

Sorry but he's in most top 10's by stuffing a middleweight, an old Corbett and robbing Tom sharkey..

I think he's overrated..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Jeffries?????

Sorry but he's in most top 10's by stuffing a middleweight, an old Corbett and robbing Tom sharkey..

I think he's overrated..

Each to his own, Truss.

et tu old friend......

Still would be interested to know why you think he's underrated...

Unless you've forgotten how to formulate an argument since you were shot in Korea...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:et tu old friend......

Still would be interested to know why you think he's underrated...

Unless you've forgotten how to formulate an argument since you were shot in Korea...

It's the old shrapnel, Truss.

With Jeffries it's simply that, on his own turf, he had all the ingredients to be almost unbeatable. One of the toughest, strongest, most durable heavies ever, and with a mighty wallop. He was also a quick learner. From the crude, awkward fighter with the crouching style, he was persuaded - by Fitzsimmons, of all people - to develop a more upright stance, since Fitz told him he had been too easy to hit. Result was that by the time of the second Corbett fight hardened journalists were astounded by his improved skills. Only in the comeback against Johnson did he revert to the crouching style.

He won the title as a rookie, fought HOFers in one third of his fights, and was never beaten or off his feet until the Johnson fight.

Don't get me wrong, in a modern ring most of his successors box his ears off, but in a twenty or twenty five rounder I don't see many beating him.

As I say, though, each to his own, and I respect your opinion, as always.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I think James Jeffries has a shout at number 1.

Larry Holmes has been called underrated so often I don't think he is anymore among boxing fans. To the general public he's still vastly underrated

I agree that Larry is relatively unknown amongst the general public. But I'd have him as the second best HW in history.

Fairplay Windy.....Wanted to hear your argument and you provided it..

Not sure the public have much name recognition with all but a few heavy champs so Holmes isn't really being singled out..

My list was aimed at guys who have achieved and are not given enough respect for their achievements...

think Larry is more respected and lauded for what he did than the top 10 and what they did..

But it's a subjective call.

Good list and quality call on Mike Weaver.

Not sure what to make of Jack Sharkey after reading a hand written letter from Phil Scott that he was threatened before the fight to lose.

Larry Holmes was under rated always sort of looked apon as a stop gap between Ali and Tyson and was somewhat vilified for destroying Ali. But he was a top fighter and IMO top 10 heavyweight ATG.

Dare I venture Lennox Lewis? Doesn't always get the kudos he deserves, I personally have him in my top ten heavies.

I think you have to look at the heavies who generally never get mentioned in any top ten-fifteen list.

The Klitschko boys will have a massive argument. For guys with their stats and title reigns yet they will never come close to being top 10 despite effectively ruling an entire era. Few other heavies can claim that.

Liston I would agree. Remembered for the wrong reasons mainly.

Patterson could be worth a shout simply because he seldom ever makes a top 15.

Problem with guys like Tunney is that their reign is just too short to compare.

Holmes for all his moaning is generally recognised as being top class so I would exclude him.

Schmelling might be worth considering. Seldom appears top 15 and is often overlooked.

Bowe is definately another that at his best was extremelly good and a match for most heavies but is largely forgotten about.

slash912 wrote:Dare I venture Lennox Lewis? Doesn't always get the kudos he deserves, I personally have him in my top ten heavies.

You're having a fecking giraffe? Utter a single word about Lenny being anything less than Zeus and Goliath's love child and you get a whole bunch of apologists spitting out their shandy and screeching about how he was unprepared...twice.

Bob wrote:

slash912 wrote:Dare I venture Lennox Lewis? Doesn't always get the kudos he deserves, I personally have him in my top ten heavies.

You're having a fecking giraffe? Utter a single word about Lenny being anything less than Zeus and Goliath's love child and you get a whole bunch of apologists spitting out their shandy and screeching about how he was unprepared...twice.

Haha. Everyone claims he was unprepared and then claim he beat Tyson, forgetting that it was a shell of Tyson he beat. Always an excuse for Lenny.

Always an excuse for any loss you wish to disregard especially Tysons

The Mighty Atom wrote:Always an excuse for any loss you wish to disregard especially Tysons

Ha. Maybe so. There's a difference between being caught by a punch and then calling it lucky after the event and making excuses by saying he was unprepared. He was very prepared against McCall. Steward devisd a plan to counter Lewis's ponderous jab and McCall executed it.

I'll give him the excuse for Rahman seeing as he looked sluggish.

Lewis was underrated 3 defeats all avenged against fighters who clearly weren't up to his level. Not many fighters have dominated at HW like he did.

I actually agree Jeffries is under rated. Wins over greats in Fitz and Corbett as well as very decent guys like Ruhlin and Sharkey stand favourable comparison with most other heavyweights through history.

Is also easy to forget just how highly Jeff was regarded in his time. Am reading a biography of Marvin Hart at the minute and when discussing Hart and his various opponents nearly every fighter is mentioned in terms of their abilities and standing with the caveat they would not beat Jeffries or are not ready for Jeffries. It would not be exaggerating to say at his best he was largely considered unbeatable.

For me his record in terms of opposition faced and beaten coupled with his standing amongst his peers at the time mean Jeffries is a probable top five heavyweight and on the grounds he is often not afforded this standing in the modern era for me qualify him as underrated

rowley wrote:Is also easy to forget just how highly Jeff was regarded in his time. Am reading a biography of Marvin Hart at the minute and when discussing Hart and his various opponents nearly every fighter is mentioned in terms of their abilities and standing with the caveat they would not beat Jeffries or are not ready for Jeffries. It would not be exaggerating to say at his best he was largely considered unbeatable.

Has to be qualified with the fact that boxing as we know it was quite new. If boxing started in the mid 2000's people might be saying the same things about the K's.

Very true Scott but for me couple this with his wins over Fitz, Corbett, Ruhlin and Sharkey and Jeffries not only has the regard of his peers but wins over genuine top tier opponents, to make a more solid case for his greatness.

Scottrf wrote:

rowley wrote:Is also easy to forget just how highly Jeff was regarded in his time. Am reading a biography of Marvin Hart at the minute and when discussing Hart and his various opponents nearly every fighter is mentioned in terms of their abilities and standing with the caveat they would not beat Jeffries or are not ready for Jeffries. It would not be exaggerating to say at his best he was largely considered unbeatable.

Has to be qualified with the fact that boxing as we know it was quite new. If boxing started in the mid 2000's people might be saying the same things about the K's.

True, Scott, but it must also be considered that many who saw Jeffries, such as Fleischer, or, at the very least, rubbed shoulders with those who saw him, such as Jack Dempsey, also lived to see the modern era. Dempsey lived till 1983, for example, meaning that he saw Larry Holmes, yet he picked Jeffries as the best of the lot. Fleischer had him second best, and Tommy Burns, who lived to see Marciano, I believe, had Jeffries topping the pile, also. Even Tunney, who was dismissive of Jeffries' ' most uninteresting of styles ' reckoned that Jeffries was almost impossible to hurt and, therefore, a very real and formidable force.

Windy

You forget that because they're dead their opinions are therefore worthless.

Not dismissing it at all jeff, just wanted to mention. Great quality on his resume, I guess the main concern would longevity and how well his skills convert H2H. I'm more of a fan of looking at how they did in their era than if he beats someone who comes 50 years later though. I've almost certainly underrated him in the past.

No doubt Windy, and it's probably rule changes that came in afterwards that would harm him in comparisons. Over the longer distance, he's likely to catch up with a lot of people.

coxy0001 wrote:Windy

You forget that because they're dead their opinions are therefore worthless.

So they are, mate. Silly me.

I believe that the final paragraph of Scott's latest post raises an important issue.

When we make these comparisons, it is always on the basis that the old time fighter is dragged into today's ring, and never the reverse. Seems only fair to assess BOTH scenarios to get some impartial and objective opinion.

Scott the difficultly I have with the head to head argument is most people who tend to apply this (and I don't include you when I say this) always looks to place the real old timers in modern rings over 12 rounds with modern rules and scoring. Fair enough only if you are going to place the modern guys in a fight under Jeffries conditions, rules and in a fight over 20 or 25 rounds.

Have long argued if you put a Sullivan or Jeffries in a modern ring with modern gloves and scoring they don't perhaps come out too favourably. But the same is true in reverse, put fighters in 20 round fights, where holding is more permitted and fights are scored more on the perception of who would win were the fight to go to the finish and there aren't but a couple of heavies you would back against Jeffries with any real confidence. You could probably also say the same of Sullivan with fights to the finish.

HumanWindmill wrote:When we make these comparisons, it is always on the basis that the old time fighter is dragged into today's ring, and never the reverse. Seems only fair to assess BOTH scenarios to get some impartial and objective opinion.

Very true. A man who planned for and was effective over 20/25 is asked to come into a ring for 12 and marked down because of it. It's part of the reason I'm not a massive fan of ranking boxers.

Good points there, people think they were all slow, useless and predictable. The ring wasn't a very safe place to be back then and you have to protect yourself as nobody else would, fighters hovering over you waiting for you to rise. When you have 45 rounds etc ahead of you, and no lucozade or Panama Lewis potions between rounds, it's probably best to pace yourself. I don't think there would be many fighters in the modern era would fight under these conditions.

The Galveston Giant wrote:Good points there, people think they were all slow, useless and predictable. The ring wasn't a very safe place to be back then and you have to protect yourself as nobody else would, fighters hovering over you waiting for you to rise. When you have 45 rounds etc ahead of you, and no lucozade or Panama Lewis potions between rounds, it's probably best to pace yourself. I don't think there would be many fighters in the modern era would fight under these conditions.

Why would they want to? Boxing has changed for the better it is safer now. Modern training techniques and dieting have changed fighters as well it's very hard to compare the old timers to the modern day guys. Not many modern day fighters could imagine preparing for a fight that could go 45 rounds under such crude and brutal rules.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

The Galveston Giant wrote:Good points there, people think they were all slow, useless and predictable. The ring wasn't a very safe place to be back then and you have to protect yourself as nobody else would, fighters hovering over you waiting for you to rise. When you have 45 rounds etc ahead of you, and no lucozade or Panama Lewis potions between rounds, it's probably best to pace yourself. I don't think there would be many fighters in the modern era would fight under these conditions.

Why would they want to? Boxing has changed for the better it is safer now. Modern training techniques and dieting have changed fighters as well it's very hard to compare the old timers to the modern day guys. Not many modern day fighters could imagine preparing for a fight that could go 45 rounds under such crude and brutal rules.

In most cases it probably isn't necessary, prettyboy.

Fighters such as Johnson, Gans, Langford, etc., had the skills and styles to enable them to be transported directly to a modern ring and still acquit themselves well.

However, Jeffries' case is almost unique, since he was the archtypal ' long distance ' fighter. His entire ring strategy was based on outlasting, overpowering and outpunching his man over the long haul. His tremendous record and reputation deserves respect, in my opinion, since his qualities, in their own way, were just as impressive as those of the more recent fighters.

I know Prettyboy, i was just referring to what Rowley touched on that when comparing fighters from different era's, it's always in a modern ring with 12 rounds, and not under the conditions that the old timers faced, which if were being honest, most modern fighters would struggle with. This is what also makes it hard to compare them, but it's crazy for people to just write them of for not having the technique etc shown by todays fighters.

The Galveston Giant wrote:I know Prettyboy, i was just referring to what Rowley touched on that when comparing fighters from different era's, it's always in a modern ring with 12 rounds, and not under the conditions that the old timers faced, which if were being honest, most modern fighters would struggle with. This is what also makes it hard to compare them, but it's crazy for people to just write them of for not having the technique etc shown by todays fighters.

I agree it's crazy to write off for not having techniques I'll use Johnson as my example a great counter puncher. He maybe wouldn't be able to be as patient as he normally was if it was over 12 rounds but could beat most.

Would certainly agree on Riddick Bowe being under-rated.

Other than his epic trilogy with Holyfield, he tends to be remembered mainly for the wrong reasons (bin incident, punch up with Donald, scrap with Tillery, Golota fights). However, in terms of pure boxing ability, I've always regarded Bowe as the most accomplished HW since Larry Holmes.

J.Benson II wrote:Would certainly agree on Riddick Bowe being under-rated.

Other than his epic trilogy with Holyfield, he tends to be remembered mainly for the wrong reasons (bin incident, punch up with Donald, scrap with Tillery, Golota fights). However, in terms of pure boxing ability, I've always regarded Bowe as the most accomplished HW since Larry Holmes.

Above Lewis an olympic gold medalist?

J.Benson II wrote:Would certainly agree on Riddick Bowe being under-rated.

Other than his epic trilogy with Holyfield, he tends to be remembered mainly for the wrong reasons (bin incident, punch up with Donald, scrap with Tillery, Golota fights). However, in terms of pure boxing ability, I've always regarded Bowe as the most accomplished HW since Larry Holmes.

I have to agree with this 100%. It would have been a very interesting fight against Tyson. I wouldn't know who to pick. Bowe was dynamite inside.

azania wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:Would certainly agree on Riddick Bowe being under-rated.

Other than his epic trilogy with Holyfield, he tends to be remembered mainly for the wrong reasons (bin incident, punch up with Donald, scrap with Tillery, Golota fights). However, in terms of pure boxing ability, I've always regarded Bowe as the most accomplished HW since Larry Holmes.

I have to agree with this 100%. It would have been a very interesting fight against Tyson. I wouldn't know who to pick. Bowe was dynamite inside.

Are you talking Tyson 88/89?

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:Would certainly agree on Riddick Bowe being under-rated.

Other than his epic trilogy with Holyfield, he tends to be remembered mainly for the wrong reasons (bin incident, punch up with Donald, scrap with Tillery, Golota fights). However, in terms of pure boxing ability, I've always regarded Bowe as the most accomplished HW since Larry Holmes.

I have to agree with this 100%. It would have been a very interesting fight against Tyson. I wouldn't know who to pick. Bowe was dynamite inside.

Are you talking Tyson 88/89?

Yep. I rate Bowe very high;y. Tyson should beat him seeing the struggles Bowe had with Holy and decked by him also. But it would be a very interesting fight.

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:Would certainly agree on Riddick Bowe being under-rated.

Other than his epic trilogy with Holyfield, he tends to be remembered mainly for the wrong reasons (bin incident, punch up with Donald, scrap with Tillery, Golota fights). However, in terms of pure boxing ability, I've always regarded Bowe as the most accomplished HW since Larry Holmes.

I have to agree with this 100%. It would have been a very interesting fight against Tyson. I wouldn't know who to pick. Bowe was dynamite inside.

Are you talking Tyson 88/89?

Yep. I rate Bowe very high;y. Tyson should beat him seeing the struggles Bowe had with Holy and decked by him also. But it would be a very interesting fight.

I would take Tyson but would be close.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:Would certainly agree on Riddick Bowe being under-rated.

Other than his epic trilogy with Holyfield, he tends to be remembered mainly for the wrong reasons (bin incident, punch up with Donald, scrap with Tillery, Golota fights). However, in terms of pure boxing ability, I've always regarded Bowe as the most accomplished HW since Larry Holmes.

I have to agree with this 100%. It would have been a very interesting fight against Tyson. I wouldn't know who to pick. Bowe was dynamite inside.

Are you talking Tyson 88/89?

Yep. I rate Bowe very high;y. Tyson should beat him seeing the struggles Bowe had with Holy and decked by him also. But it would be a very interesting fight.

I would take Tyson but would be close.

I dont think I've seen Bowe in a boring fight. For a big guy, he threw a lot of punches and has great technique. Pity he decided to put a fridge in his bedroom and practically built an in-house KFC.

It's dedication. How much do you want it? Has stopped lots of very talented fighters fulfilling their potential. Joan Guzman is the most modern example I can come up with.

prettyboy1304 wrote:It's dedication. How much do you want it? Has stopped lots of very talented fighters fulfilling their potential. Joan Guzman is the most modern example I can come up with.

He certainly wanted his fried chicked badly.