Louis' Best Opponent

[The Shoemaker]

Jeffries #1 of all time ? First off, everyone in his era ,fought in antiquated, stupid stances with their heads way back, their left hands straight out away from their bodies and practically ALL of their weight on their back foot. I am not talking about Charley Burley, or Schmelling, or the Soviet Bloc style either, Jeffries' era is an exaggerated style of that. Most of them don't jab, don't throw straight right hands, don't throw combinations, can't slip a punch (they sway their heads further back). They fight a quasi-wrestling style of holding and hitting. Jeffries was no different. Watch his fight with Tom Sharkey, what's the big deal ? All i see is two guys holding and mauling each other, sprinkled in with a few roundhouse punches. Jeffries' vaunted power ? I find it interesting that he couldn't knock out a middleweight Joe Choynski. I realize that Jeffries wasn't experianced-(not that you had to be in that era) but i am sure Foreman, Liston, Ali or any other heavy near Jeffries weight will KO a middleweight (I suppose George Foreman in 1971 would fight Carlos Monzon to a draw, or a 1962 Muhammad Ali would fight Joey Archer to a draw- they wouldn't even license those bouts). I loved Jeff's plan of attack in the first Corbett fight (a bout in which the greatest heavyweight in history, lost about 20 out of the first 23 rounds against an older fighter ,who Jeffries had a 30 llb weight advantage) . According to the reports-" Jeff was in a crouch, with his head far back and his left arm out straight, then Jeff charged corbett, using his straight left hand like a battering ram". I am sure that would work against Ali (unless Ali broke out laughing, which is a good possibility if he saw something that stupid). Of coarse when you have two fighters leaning back, tying each other up, 165 llber's can magically hang with 215 llber's.

It's interesting that a lot of these self-proclaimed "Boxing Historians" (I doubt that 90% of them have degrees in history) on one hand blast modern fighters for not fighting 200 fights, and scream what a farse it is when guys win titles in their 13th fight, but they ignore the fact that Jeffries won a title in what, his 12th fight (I can't remember). The fact was that Jeffries was huge for his era (6-2,215) strong, and had athletic ability, so in THAT ERA of limited skills, it didn't take much to contend. Of coarse, I would even question Jeffries' supposed Track times. If you match Jeff's alleged feats to the Olympic times of the era (1896) he'd have about 5 world records. Just because David Willoughby wrote that Jeffries did these feats, doesn't make them true. The first thing they teach you in history is SOURCE CRITICISM, which doesn't mean that you take something to be true if you find it in a book
(even if it supports your theory). Mickey Mantle allegedly ran a 3.1 going to first base, of coarse the person who made he claim was the Yankee publicity man, who was a notorious bullshitter (I can't remember his name). Hey why bother checking the source ?

Boxing was in it's infancy at the turn of the century, it was converting over from the bare knuckle era-that's why everyone fought that way. I can see why Dempsey ate that style up- and basically made the style of Jeffries, corbett, Fitz, Burns, and Johnson OBSOLETE. Christ, Jim Corbett was credited with being the first fighter to throw a left hook (I am sure it was better than Frazier's, who took years to perfect his), same with the jab. And how good was Corbett, the same guy who could win 20 out of 23 rounds against Jeff ? He didn't have a clue how to react when Fitz nailed him with a body shot- he was paralyzed and the people at the fight were in a state of shock about the vaunted "solar plexes punch" - What kind of an era is that ? I havn't even mentioned that black fighters were also shut out of heavyweight title fights as well. Last point-don't tell me Choynski had a "freakish" chin, since 145 llb Joe Walcott KO'ed him. I know Barbados Joe Walcott hits harder than Foreman.

[Kid Achilles]

The guys who saw and wrote about Jeffries were the same guys who lived to see Dempsey, Benny Leonard, Joe Louis, Robinson, etc. If Jeffries, Fitzs, Corbett, etc were as incompetent and uncoordinated as you paint them, don't you think the writers and the world as a whole would have noticed?

"You know, it's funny to think that only twenty years ago there were slow, lumbering dinosaurs flailing around and leaning on each other and we considered that a title bout. When did everybody suddenly learn how to fight?"

If these guys were so clearly inferior to Dempsey and other modern heayvweights (who were around just twenty years later), no one would have had anything to say about them other than that they were pioneers and great "for their time". In truth, many guys insisted that they were better than Dempsey, Tunney etc. I can understand you arguing that "they were just biased towards the past" but if these old guys were as bad as you see them, let's be real, no one would have complimented them the way they did. No one one have stood up and made a fool of themself by proclaiming them better than the modern guys who were light years ahead of them in your eyes.

I should note that an old Corbett sparred a three round exhibition bout with Gene Tunney in 1925 and Tunney came away very impressed with Corbett's skill. It was also said that right up until his 50's Jack Johnson sparred with any younger boxer who was willing and most often kicked their ass. We're talking 1930's and 1930's.

Also, who trained Joe Louis? Jack Blackburn, who was born in 1883. Now if Blackburn fought in such an obsolete style, how would he have had anything constructive to teach Joe Louis?

[The Shoemaker]

Kid,
Of coarse they were biased, it's human nature to look at the past with rose-colored glasses, even Socrates stated that the youth wasn't worth a shit. When Jeffries was champ, they said he wasn't as good as Sullivan, when Dempsey was champ he wasn't as good as Jeffries, when Louis was champ, he wasn't as good as Dempsey, when Marciano was champ ... I think you get the picture. I can also give you examples of Dempsey questioning louis' chin, Tunney stating that dempsey would KO Louis in one round and during the 1950's he stated that dempsey would beat Marciano, Charles and Walcott in the same night. What, are you telling me that Nat Fleischer was objective ? He won't rate Charles and moore at lightheavy (Carpentier's #7, that's a joke in itself), wouldn't rate Robinson at Welterweight (he does rank him 5th at middleweight, that's a shock) no Ike williams at lightweight, no Liston or Ali at heavy, it's a joke. And back in the 70's, when everyone kissed Fleischer's ass, they all said-"well he's seen them all". The same 1970's writers who said that the heavyweights of that era wern't worth a shit.

As far as the styles, don't you think that if the lean back styles of that era were superior, trainers like Dundee, soliman, Futch, Brown, and Arcel would have trained thier fighters that way ? I mean boxing is a multi-million dollar business. Dempsey and tunney made those styles obsolete. As far as Blackburn, he never taught Louis or any of his fighters that style. In fact Jack Johnson, who hated Blackburn, used to bitch that Louis was being trained the wrong way and if he had Louis, Louis wouldn't have lost to Schmelling. Could you imagine wasting Joe Louis' talents by having him lean back and put all his weight on his back foot ? (try throwing a left hook on the heavy bag when your left arm is away from your body, your head and chest are arched back, and all of your weight is on your back foot). Obviously, Blackburn was smart enough to notice a change in boxing during the 1920's and adapted.

You never answered my questions on Jeffries. If he is the greatest fighter ever, how come Super Middleweights like Choynski can go 20 rounds with him, how does Fitz go 11 rounds with him at 165, how does Sharkey go 20 with him (I think Sharkey weighed 178 for their first fight and was 5-8) I would think with his "vaunted" power and tenacity, those guys wouldn't see the second round. Could you imagine Louis, Liston, Foreman, or Lennox Lewis defending their titles against Super Middleweights ? They wouldn't even license the fights.

[Roberto Aqui]

You never answered my questions on Jeffries. If he is the greatest fighter ever, how come Super Middleweights like Choynski can go 20 rounds with him, how does Fitz go 11 rounds with him at 165, how does Sharkey go 20 with him (I think Sharkey weighed 178 for their first fight and was 5-8) I would think with his "vaunted" power and tenacity, those guys wouldn't see the second round. Could you imagine Louis, Liston, Foreman, or Lennox Lewis defending their titles against Super Middleweights ? They wouldn't even license the fights.

I'll answer with the obvious.

Jeffries was a very raw inexperienced fighter for most of his career. Here he was, going against storied contenders in his first fights and KOing most of them, which he and only he could do because of his extraordinary size, strength, and natural talent. He did not get comfortable in his new Ryan style until halfway through his title reign. When he retired, he was at his absolute peak for a traditional heavy with enough top fights under his belt to be very experienced and would be a tough night for most heavies who ever lived.

Why were little Henry Cooper, Doug Jones, and Sonny Banks able to easily compete against a talented Olympic gold medalist like young Clay, all losing fights whose results are questionable?

[Kid Achilles]

Why is a fat James Toney at 5'8" able to hang with today's natural heavyweights? Because he is so much better and smarter than them (gets them to fight his fight) and has a great chin. If you can concede that an old, obese Toney can beat today's top heavyweights (and he's proved he can), why is it such a stretch to imagine a fit Fitzsimmons, Choynski, or Sharkey lasting with a green Jeffries?

And please don't give me that "oh but at least Toney actually weighs over 200 pounds" stuff. Would you respect Sharkey more if he came to fight at 250 pounds with a big gut and rolls of fat on his neck?

Personally I'd rather get hit by James Toney's right hand, (who was never a big puncher even as a middleweight and proportionally his power has gone down with each weight class he's grown out of) at 233 pounds of flab than a solar plexus blow from an all time great puncher in Fitzsimmons. Same goes for Tom Sharkey, who could bend a friggin' silver dollar with his hand. As strong as Rahman is, I don't see him replicating that feat.

You are comparing these guys to middleweights but the fact is they hit like heavyweights and could take a punch better than most heavyweights (at least Sharkey could anyway), so I would consider them heavyweights.

Now Toney, with his pillsbury doughboy gut and fists of feather, that is a blown up middleweight if I ever saw one. The burden of shame lies on todays heavyweights for being unable to take him out.

[mike]

i dont see whats the big deal of ranking jefferies first. he could have beem as good as anybody ever. ted is VERY knowledgable and callis is one of the worlds best. whats the porblem? says more about some of the people vehemently aguing against it ;than anything else.

[Elmer Ray]

As far as the styles, don't you think that if the lean back styles of that era were superior, trainers like Dundee, soliman, Futch, Brown, and Arcel would have trained thier fighters that way ? I mean boxing is a multi-million dollar business. Dempsey and tunney made those styles obsolete. As far as Blackburn, he never taught Louis or any of his fighters that style. In fact Jack Johnson, who hated Blackburn, used to bitch that Louis was being trained the wrong way and if he had Louis, Louis wouldn't have lost to Schmelling. Could you imagine wasting Joe Louis' talents by having him lean back and put all his weight on his back foot ? (try throwing a left hook on the heavy bag when your left arm is away from your body, your head and chest are arched back, and all of your weight is on your back foot). Obviously, Blackburn was smart enough to notice a change in boxing during the 1920's and adapted.

i disagree shoemaker. blackburn was WAY ahead of his time. he has a very modern style. have u ever seen gans on film? gans is way ahead of his time, and though there is no film of blackburn, blackburn is the same way. both have very modern styles.

all those punching techniques blackburn taught louis, were techniques blackburn used when he was fighting. thats why blackburn was special. blackburn is the most underated lightweight of all time.

[hagler04]

Jefferies on film actually looks just like George Chuvalo in stance and style.


To suggest that in a period of 10 years people suddenly got 'smart' and turned away from the 'old stupid style' is ridiculous. And you're suggesting that nearly EVERYONE who saw Jefferies Johnson etc. ranked them on par or over Dempsey, Louis, Ali b/c they had rose tinted glasses? Get out of here. How many knowleagble basketball historians don't rate Jordan and Olajuawan (sp?) as two of the best ever and up there with anybody but rate Cousey and Russel over them b/c of their 'bias' . . .give me a break.

As stated, many of these old timers, esp. Johnson, routinely whupped on much younger guys in their 50s in the friggin' 1930s, if their style had become so obsolete that would have never happened. And who was training these fighters from the 20s and 30s . . . .guys who FOUGHT IN THE TEENS AND TURN OF THE CENTURY! But I guess Blackburn just watched a sudden new style and taught that to Louis

[Ted Spoon]

mike,

You just summed up this scenario perfectly.

When a ratings list is displayed the observers who feel compelled to reply are there to make their stance known -- An agreement or passionate disagreement, not uncommon to carry some sting in the tail.

A little consideration is needed.

First ask why one may rate a fighter where he does (it's not unlikely I am better rehearsed on the subject in hand), then ask yourself; "Is that diabolical footage I viewed on Jeffries in anyway complementary?"

Rating a fighter like Jeffries is not your average exercise, a different formula is needed. One must extract all that they can to then piece together, which will help counter that lack of material. First n' foremost, such film needs to be slowed down, zoomed in and analysed multiple times.

-Read fight reports, check the vibe in the newspapers of the time.

When you play ping-pong with film n' newspaper research you can better see what the writers were typing about instead of blindly cringing at a time when Boxing was far different.

Michael Jackson’s 'Moonwalking' may float better with a more modern crowd, but in no logically explainable way is it more 'advanced' or plain 'better' than 'The Jive'. Dig?

This ever re-producing theory of an evolved sport stems from the seeds of ignorance that your everyday encyclopaedia plants.

Ted Spoon will make sure that the 'ol myth of Corbett's newly implemented ring craft proving the Bain of the 'primitive' Bare Knuckler John L. will do well to survive before my time is up.

If Muhammad Ali were to fight Jeffries during the 1960's he would of won an easy points decision over 15, however, had he climbed into Jeffries lions den during the 1900's he would be wrestled, and pummelled to defeat within 45 potential rounds of hell.

Those eras have such a stark contrast in rules n' regulations -- you may as well consider them different sports.

-Why did they pose like that?

-Why did they fight like that?

-Why don't men fight like that anymore?

-Why are there no longer any 180lbs man eaters?

The answer can be found in the question; "Why do Footballers play so differently to Rugby players".

As boxing has changed to better suit a more civilized world the potential for older tricks cannot be re-kindled, for the rules restrict such tactics/styles.

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

A few quick points on my pick of Johnson for #3

-George Gardner, Denver Ed Smith, Frank Childs, Tommy Burns, Stanley Ketchel. These were all top notch fighters of a different recipe that Johnson tamed.

-Sam McVey, a beast at the age of 18 could not do anything with Johnson in 60 rounds worth of fighting.

More than a few of Langford’s acquaintances believed he was at his absolute best in the 140's as a welterweight, further, Johnson went onto put on another 20lbs of muscle after their 1906 battle, which Sam later recited as his ‘careers worst beating’.

-His demonstrated superiority over his opponents an vaunted ability impress -- personal perception.

[wildhawke11]

Tex Rickard stated that he loved Jack Dempsey and made a lot of money out of him. But he said the greatest fighter he thought was Jim Jeffries. When asked about what he thought the result would have been if Jeffries and Dempsey had ever met. He in fact said he thought Jeffries would have beaten Dempsey. Not sure if this in my opinion would have been the correct result. But it does tell us that Rickard must have really rated Jeffries. Should we base our top 20 fighters always on a who would have beaten who, i dont think so. I feel strongly the time frame the fighter fought in and the competition around at the time has to be a major factor in reaching a decision on this one.

Lets imagine if boxing is still alive in 100 years from now. Its not impossible that the future HW champ could weight nearly 500lbs, well maybe i am out of course on this figure, but you get the idea. Now match up Joe Louis or Ali against this 500lb fighter and its obvious who would win. Yet this champion's record might read fights 50 lost 20. Now should this 500lb fighter be ranked over Ali, Louis, Marciano etc etc in a Top 20 list even thought it is a safe bet he would have beaten them all. I dont think so and i am sure most here wont.

Anyway if you want to compare fighters from the past in regard to there skills and if they could have completed with the modern so call improved advanced fighter. Best to forget the HWs because of the weight difference over time and look a little closer at the LWs, WWs and MWs where at least the poundage is pretty much the same. I think this way would give us a better perspective as to if the old timers could complete and perhaps at times beat the more modern fighters.

[Monte Cox]

Of coarse they were biased, it's human nature to look at the past with rose-colored glasses, even Socrates stated that the youth wasn't worth a shit. When Jeffries was champ, they said he wasn't as good as Sullivan, when Dempsey was champ he wasn't as good as Jeffries, when Louis was champ, he wasn't as good as Dempsey, when Marciano was champ

A very one sided myth.

The Sep 10, 1904 Police Gazette published an article "Jeffries Greater Fighter Than John L. Sullivan -is the opinion of the best judges of boxing."

So in his own time Big Jeff was considered greater than Sullivan, just as Ali was/is considered one of, if not the best during his time (post Zaire on).

Supporters were divided between Dempsey and Jeffries. Rickard thought Jeffries was better, Hype Igoe preferred Dempsey.

The same with Dempsey and Louis, there were plenty of Louis supporters who thought he could beat Dempsey. Not everyone who saw them both agreed.

As far as the styles, don't you think that if the lean back styles of that era were superior, trainers like Dundee, soliman, Futch, Brown, and Arcel would have trained thier fighters that way ? I mean boxing is a multi-million dollar business. Dempsey and tunney made those styles obsolete. As far as Blackburn, he never taught Louis or any of his fighters that style. In fact Jack Johnson, who hated Blackburn, used to bitch that Louis was being trained the wrong way and if he had Louis, Louis wouldn't have lost to Schmelling. Could you imagine wasting Joe Louis' talents by having him lean back and put all his weight on his back foot ? (try throwing a left hook on the heavy bag when your left arm is away from your body, your head and chest are arched back, and all of your weight is on your back foot). Obviously, Blackburn was smart enough to notice a change in boxing during the 1920's and adapted.

Nonsense.

Jack Blackburn said, Aug 3, 1935 Pittsburgh Courier, How I Trained Joe Louis, "In training Joe Louis...I remembered the same methods I used in training myself." So much for the false idea that he changed the way Louis fought from his day.

Blackburn had around 160 pro fights, fought Joe Gans 3 times and never had the better of him, Blackburn had nothing but respect for the skills of the old master, he fought Langford 6 times, "black dynamite" lightweight/welterweight Dave Holly 5 times, Further Louis fought in a very similar style to that of Joe Gans, that is the type of fighter that Blackburn taught Louis to be. Sam Langford echoed this saying, in the July 20, 1935 Chicago Defender, that the young Joe Louis was “another Joe Gans” and commented that he considered Gans “the greatest fighter of all time.”

As far as straight punches go Gans, Langford, Johnson some of the earliest greats recorded on film all threw straight punches. They all had educated left jabs. Left hook? Gans left hook was murderous, dropping welterweights. Fitz knocked out corbett with a left hook to the body. Jeffries best punch was his left hook.

I recently watched the old Corbett-Fitzsimmons film. Corbett fought alot like Ali, dancing with his hands down, moving left, moving right, jabbing, throwing hooks from unexpected angles and straight right hands (although I think he lacked real power with his right, his left was his best punch), he also attacked with two handed combinations. Corbett dominated the fight really, but lets not forget that Fitzsimmons won. Toughness, endurance, durability, patience are just as important of attributes as pure boxing skill and when you have 20 or more rounds to work with those atributes take on greater significance.

The two biggest differences between the era of the old master and the "modern" era are:

a) the refs allowed more inside fighting in those days. Old time fight announcer Joe Humphrey's said in Sept Ring 1936 that "body punching is an art that seems to be lost on the present generation." Today it is to the point where the referees break up the the boxers almost immediately when they fall into a clinch. Obviously techiniques designed to combat inside fighting, such as the lean away stance are less effective when there is little infighting.

b) beginning in the 20's they fought less rounds in big fights. For instance 85% of Gans fights were 15 rounds or less, but he trained to be able to fight a 20 round main event and fights to the finish. By the 20's finish fights were out politically, so fighters did not have to pace themselves quite as much, but skills such as glove blocking and catching jabs, parrying etc were used by many "modern" like fighters including Louis, Benny Leonard, Kid Chocolate, etc.

As far as leaning from punches. Ali was continually leaning from punches in the 1960's. The only difference is he was running away. Some of old fighters like Fitz, would lean back out of range and stay in punching position by shifting their weight back forward this was particularly effective with all the inside fighting allowed, once that changed and there were fewer rounds fighters could waste more energy so styles became less consertative, but that does not mean the techniques they used were not effective. The fact that there were fewer rounds, less infighting allowed and fighters did not have to conserve as much energy caused a change in styles, not because there was a lack of effectiveness in what they did under the rules that they fought under.

As I said Gans, for example, could do both. He mostly fought like Louis, shuffle forward, waste few punches, he could apply the lean back against dirty infighting, but he was just as likely to dance out of danger-he had good footwork but only did it when necessary. If a fighter hears ding round 21, ding round 23, ding round 33 he is not going to rely on footwork as his primary method of defense. Really- blocking, parrying, slipping, dodging, upper body evasions are far better methods of defense since they allow a fighter to remain in position to counter and do not expend as much energy. Fundamentally relying on legwork is not the best method of defense.

After WW2 there is a gradual decline in boxing skills, especially defensively. Big money forced the fighters to fight less often, and take fewer risks in training. The great Abe Atell featherweight champ 1901-1912 was very critical of this saying, Jan. 1949 Ring, "(today) Boxer’s don’t train right. The way fighter’s train today is all wrong. They wear head gear in the gym. You never see one of them parry a left jab in training. They just duck their head and know it wont hurt them, but then they get into the ring with the same habit. That is why you see so many cut eyes these days. And you seldom see clever fighters anymore. I havn’t seen a fighter who knows how to feint a fighter out of position since Gene Tunney and Tommy Loughran retired. And nobody knows how to get away from punches these days. They don’t learn defense."

One of our modern greats, Joe Frazier, said in an interview (KO Magazine Mar 1999) that one reason fighters lack real good technique today is that they are not trained by fighters who were great fighters themselves. Men like Ray Arcel and Angelo Dundee where great masters of strategy in mapping out fight plans for their fighters, but they were not great teachers of technique like Jack Blackburn for instance, because they were not real fighters themselves. Trainers, like fighters are not often good at everything. I think Buddy McGirt is a good trainer of technique for the modern ring, but strategically he had Gatti fight the wrong fight against Mayweather- I want to say I dont think Gatti wins regardless- but Gattis' only chance was to swarm PBF and pressure him, he was not going to win by trying to outbox him.

In a sense Ali ruined boxing because he was so gifted athletically he got away with things that other fighters could not. Kids today think good defense is good footwork. That is not the case, it actually takes more energy to dance away than it does to block or slip a punch. Duran was the last really great fighter in some ways. Chavez was good offensively, but not defensively like Duran. Some of the techniques of boxing have slipped away. I like what I see in Mayweather, he has some old school skills like shoulder rolling, glove blocking, etc. Langford used to do the same thing, he fought from 1903 on. So dont be so quick to critcize the old timers skills. There have been great fighters in every generation that could compete in any era.

-Monte

[Monte Cox]

double post

[mike]

monte- as far as the one sided myth- its myth. when jeffries came up he was compsred favorablely by those who saw him- usually ONLY AFTER he retired - as well it should be after louis got through in 1950- only a small % picked him over dempsey that is of men who saw both - ali fewer % over luis or dempsey of those who saw them , it depends on the fighter. also as far as modern skills - there was plenty of that in the 1900s in the light weight classess- look at the films.

[mike]

when a fighter first becomes champ- he SHOUDNT be rated on an all time basis to begib with- after they retire- then rate them- and many were qabout were they belonged.

[The Shoemaker]

Wildhawke,
As far as using Tex Rickart as an "expert" opinion on Jeffries-Dempsey comparisions, I believe the Gans-Nelson fight in 1905 that Rickart promoted was the first actual professional fight that Rickart had ever seen (although he did promote barenuckle and amatuer fights in some obscure mining towns). Since Jeffries retired in "04", I doubt if Rickart had even seen him fight. Not that it would matter, since I would hardley call Rickert a boxing expert (all he did was promote). I'd take his opinions with a grain of salt. So unless Jeffries wowed him in his fight with Johnson, a fight in which Rickart as a referee didn't have a clue, I don't see where his opinions matter on the subject. Being a pediphile/child molester, I doubt Rickart was consumed with the art of boxing-he was a promoter. Using Rickart would be like using Don King as a source on who would beat who.

[The Shoemaker]

Monte,
First off, you never answered my question as to "if Jeffries was so powerful, why did these 165-175 llber's hang with him ?" Do you want to know what Foreman would do to Monzon, Fitz, Choynski, or any 165 llber that ever lived ? He'd shove their scrawny asses into a corner and start ripping, they'd be lucky to see the 1 minute mark of the first round. Why do you guys factor in size, weight, reach, and strength when you evaluate fighters of today, but you guys will throw all of that out the window when you view the past. What is Tommy Burns at 5-7, 175 going to win a title in the past 50 years ? No matter how tough they were, their not getting around the laws of physics (probably a poor choice of words but I am sure you know what I mean-as great as he was Sam Langford is still 5-7, 175, what do you think he's going to blast Tyson out). Like I asked in a previous discussion, if size, height, reach, and weight have no factor, why hasn't there been a power puncher weighing around 185 llbs in last 45 years ? 180 llb Bob Foster's devestating left hook doesn't move an elite heavyweight of his era, why do you guys think that Bob Fitzsimmons at 165 magically would generate heavyweight power. Like I said, boxing's a multi-million dollar sport, if a 185 llber or lower could win the title-they would. Same with the lower weights. Isn't it strange that during this "Golden Era" of 1900-1919, Middleweights could beat heavyweights, welterweights could hang with light heavyweights, and lightweights could beat middleweights. Maybe because when you have two fighters fighting each other with their left arms out and all their weight on their back foot and their heads way back, a lightweight can hang with a middleweight.

Better trainers in the 19th and early 20th century. First off I doubt if many fighters even had trainers that were worth a shit, and if they did what era did they come from- 1880's ? So you are telling me that 1880's bare knuckle fighters knew more than Dundee and Soliman. And your comments that Dundee and Arcel didn't know fundementles-come on. They spent their lives in the gym. Hey, I think Blackburn was an excellant trainer, but I wouldn't place him on the same lofty pedistool that you do. You'd think that maybe Blackburn would have had Louis better prepared for Conn. What, did the Dumbass think that conn was going to stand in front of Louis and trade with him. He didn't have a clue, and don't give me this "Louis wore him down" theory (as though he was Joe Frazier), the only reason Conn lost was because he got gready after he had hurt Louis. As far as your "great fighters make great trainers" theory, what was Joe Frazier a great trainer ? And I can give you a ton of other champions who failed as trainers. People praise Archie Moore for being some guru, how many world champions did he produce ? I know him and Sadler did a lousy job with Foreman in regards to fundementles. Of coarse both of them were quick to jump on Foreman after he lost to Ali, as if the kid wasn't following their "search and destroy game plan". You also contridict yourself on Duran, stating that he was the last technically sound fighter- who trained him-Ray Arcel.

The first thing anybody does in defending that era (1895-1919) is point to Joe Gans, as if everyfighter in that era fought like Joe Gans. I've seen Gans-Nelson on film, yes he does at times look like a modern fighter, which in that era makes him look like a god. The majority of the fights were two guys leaning back, throwing roundhouse punches and wrestling each other. Of coarse you state that "Corbett reminded you of Ali in his fight with Fitz". That one is so far out there, i can't even argue it. Same with Jack Johnson having a great left jab. All I see in johnson fights is a guy that reaches out and grabs his opponents arms, then underhooks one arm and overhooks the other, then he wrestles the guy around the ring, hitting him with his free hand
Of coarse if John Ruiz mauls and ties up his opponents you hear "he's a discrace to boxing, I'll never watch another fight", but if Johnson does it, "he's a master infighter". Of coarse most people view that era with rose-colored glasses. Same with ali, everyone cracks on him for his flaw of swaying his head back to avoid punches, how do you think 99% of the fighters of that era fought ? Go watch the tape of Corbett-Courtney, they look like two school kids fighting on a playground, swaying their heads back to avoid the others punch. But one's name is jim Corbett, so we have to look at him with awe. There is a reason that the style from that era became obsolete and it wasn't because the trainers didn't teach defense. Because it DOESN'T WORK.

Lastley- as far using ex-fighters from one era to state the superiority of their own era (Abe Attel-the same crook who fixed the 1919 WS). They're that way in any sport. Football players from the 60's say that todays players suck, as if the 1965 Green Bay Packers with their 240 lineman can compete today (Dwight Freeney is faster than anyone on the Packers team, and he weights 290 llbs). Same with baseball, as if Babe Ruth is going to run up on a pitch, using a 48 ounce bat. Ruth wouldn't know what to do with Rivera's cut fastball that would run in on his hands-since he's never seen that pitch (or a slider, or face a 6-10 lefthander like Johnson, who's arm angle to a lefty looks like the balls coming from the first base dugout). I already gave you Gene Tunney, saying that Dempsey would KO Louis in one round or beat Marcinao, Charles and Walcott on the same night as an example. like I said, the one sport that none of you guys who view the past with stars in their eyes argue about is Track and Field. Why, BECAUSE THERE IS A CLOCK- end of arguement. Sorry for the length of the responce.

[The Shoemaker]

Kid,
As far as James Toney. Toney's functional weight is probably about 210-215, not 185. If he weighed 185, any heavy would easily muscle him around the ring and throw his ass into a corner or the ropes and beat on him. That's why Spinks, Hollyfield, toney, Bryrd, or any other SUCCESSFUL lower weight fighter in the past 50 years bulked up (probably on roids) in order to compete at heavy. They have to be bigger and stronger in order to have the strength to keep the heavies off them. No, I am not saying that having a barrell of fat around your waist helps a fighter, nor am i saying that muscle through roids and weight lifting improves their punches, but it beats the alternatives which is either fat or weighing 185 llbs. and everyone jumps on toney's case. I'll tell you one thing toney has about 100X the boxing skills than Tom Sharkey, Fireman Jim Flynn or practically any of the garbage of that era. His problem (besides being overweight and out of shape) is that he has a middleweight frame and middleweight power. no matter what chemical inhancements he uses, he's still going to be 5-9. I've heard arguments about Toney "cleaning out the heavyweight division"-who'd he beat ? A shot Evander Hollyfield and a limited fighter in John Ruiz. He also had a rip off draw against Rahman. Of coarse James Toney becomes the latest arguement that the 175 llbers of "The Golden Era" would dominate the heavyweights of the last 40 years. No, James Toney is not a 180 llber with 70 llb's of fat around his waist. If he dropped down to 180 (I don't know if he could at his age), there is no way he could compete. It's the same arguement to justify the "Golden Era" Bill Tate becomes Larry Holmes, Luis Firpo becomes George Foreman, and Jess Willard suddenly has skills-that justify's the arguement that Dempsey at 185 would beat the post-1960 fighters.

[The Shoemaker]

Ted Spoon,
You do make an excellant point stating that if you stuck Jeffries into 1967, Ali would easily beat him. And, i agree with you that Ali might have a bitch of a time fighting Jeffries in 1905, where mauling and wrestling is allowed, along with the fight being scheduled for 45 rounds (although i think that most of Jeffries title bouts wee 25 rounds-I could be wrong). But I will argue that the one aspect of Ali's game that people overlook or underrate is his physical strength. Maybe it's not on Jeffries' level, but he is very strong. Zaire especially showed that, especially since foreman was used to muscling his opponents.

I am not so sure on Jack Johnson. Like i said, Johnson fought in an era, when most guys stood in front of each other and winged punches. It usually came down to who had the best chin and best endurance. Johnson added defense to the game, even though his idea of defense was to tie the guy up and hold with one hand and hit him with arm punches with the other. As far as Johnson beating Langford, according to box rec, I think he had a 30 llb weight advantage, which no one seems to mention. And , after he became champion ,Langford chased Johnson around the world trying to get a title shot, like Johnson chased Burns. Johnson would give some assinine figures, but still wouldn't fight langford even when the figures were agreed to (kind of like Maywhether giving some stupid figure to Winky Wright, then being shocked when Wright agreed to it). Of coarse I'd still favor Johnson, because he'd still have a size and weight advantage, since when you match up two fighters who both have ability, the bigger one usually wins. I know using height, reach and size to determine the winner of a fight, is such a shock to some of the writers on this site

[The Shoemaker]

Wildhawke,
As far as your assumtion that if 100 years from now there would be a 7-5, 500 llb heavyweight champion, who is fluid and athletic. If the posters of that era view the past with rose-colored glasses like the some of the ones on this site, they'd still think that Dempsey at 185 would beat him (too quick), or that Fitz at 165 would drop him, or that a 5-7, 175, llb face -first fighter like Sam Langford would walk right through him.

[The Shoemaker]

Monte,
I forgot to add that here have been unbelievable skilled defensive fighters in the past 40 years. Look at Beneitez. Ray Leonard, who had unbelivably fast and accurate hands had a bitch of a time landing on him. And Beneitez wasn't facing fighters who fought off their back foot, they were attacking him. Hopkins, Toney, Byrd, jimmy young, were all a bitch to hit. Even guys coming forward like Duran, frazier and Quawi were a hell of a lot harder to hit than Sam Langford. Did Langford give you side to side or up and down movement like Frazier or Quawi, did he make himself smaller by dropping low. No- he came in basically face-first (at least in the flynn and Lang fights)
Athleticism's another joke. What the hell would they think if they saw Tyson fight in that era (no-he's not Sam McVey). Here is a guy who is 220 llbs, with fast and accurate hands, who can throw combinations and has a good chin. What, do you think that Sam Langford, Tom Sharkey, and Fitz are going to trade with him ? That's crazy

[Sharkey]

Shoe

You took some time to tell us that true historians question sources. I didn't realize that this endeavor meant disregard sources. You intone that anyone worth his salt in wishing to be truly learned in history of something needs to be skeptical of agendas, bias, and the need to have his voice resonate for resonance sake.

And then you disregard your own advice. Which puzzles me with every post you make. Rose colored glasses are worn by those you don't agree with. There is then, a way to see things as they really are, which would be accepting your points and conclusions. However, I choose to question the source that is you, given you continuously place a conclusion where only points and theories should be.

If we are to take Rickard's opinions with a grain of salt as you adivse, due to his alleged lack of eye-witness abilities... why would you advocate your own opinions given you have likely seen less boxing from Rickard's time and before he was a promoter than he did? Even if you were around in the first quarter of the 20th century, as less than even a promoter..in fact one who is seeking to have his theories accepted, you would carry even less credibility for objectivity, by your own definition.

Do we not have in your posts, another case here of the practice called 'giving credence to that which agrees with us, and that only.' A varied and inconsistant acceptance and denial of similar sources and evidence? We are to discredit Rickard's comments by declaring Rickard unfit to have a comment in the first place..but in Fleischer's case he is competent but plainly biased...

All the while contrary voices are given weight for reasons murky or guessed at? The lessons in the steps to being a true historian that you typed are meaningless without application that follows a logical flow, it seems.

Rickard may be incorrect. But it won't be because we or you say he is..or further it doesn't seem to follow logically from a case-building standpoint that what he said is (if that fails) wrong to begin with because he is not qualified to begin with.

What I read in your posts above again amounts to the tactic of not dealing with what he said via rendering him a non-issue. Such seeks to eradicate the source, under the guise of questioning it. Instead of focusing on the source, focusing on the testimony drives closer to the truth when the source cannot realistically be disqualified, given the interrogator or seeker of the historical data is himself possessing of the same flaws..if not worse. One cannot it seems know the answers before the research begins, can it? The newsmedia can get away with such...perhaps.

There may be many steps to doing historical research. However, historical research would be wise to keep in mind logic. Logic dictates that the appeals to "ignorance", "popularity", strawmen" and the like are not valid..and I am sure this applies to any research, historian-such and otherwise.

Shall we take your word for things with any more respect than you give to those who are cited as having different views than yours...given your urging of us all to question the source?

[Elmer Ray]

shoemaker, what makes u think more highly of rocky marciano, considering he was only 185lb?


shoekmaker,


sam langford fought GREAT skilled big man and hard hitting big men in his career like ......

6'3 210lb harry wills - possibly top 20 heavy of all time. wills was a very skilled big man with and a devastating puncher.

5'11 215lb sam mcvey- top 30 heavy of all time. mcvey was a HUGE puncher, and very chizzled 215lb. langford was able to take his best punches.


langford posseses very long 75" reach despite being 5'7. I think langford is one who would do very well against some of the bigger men. he was all around very skilled not to mention he had devastating power, enough to flatten durable big men in any era.

[Sharkey]

This is your own typing:

effries #1 of all time ? First off, everyone in his era ,fought in antiquated, stupid stances with their heads way back, their left hands straight out away from their bodies and practically ALL of their weight on their back foot. I am not talking about Charley Burley, or Schmelling, or the Soviet Bloc style either, Jeffries' era is an exaggerated style of that. Most of them don't jab, don't throw straight right hands, don't throw combinations, can't slip a punch (they sway their heads further back). They fight a quasi-wrestling style of holding and hitting. Jeffries was no different. Watch his fight with Tom Sharkey, what's the big deal ? All i see is two guys holding and mauling each other, sprinkled in with a few roundhouse punches. Jeffries' vaunted power ? I find it interesting that he couldn't knock out a middleweight Joe Choynski. I realize that Jeffries wasn't experianced-(not that you had to be in that era) but i am sure Foreman, Liston, Ali or any other heavy near Jeffries weight will KO a middleweight (I suppose George Foreman in 1971 would fight Carlos Monzon to a draw, or a 1962 Muhammad Ali would fight Joey Archer to a draw- they wouldn't even license those bouts). I loved Jeff's plan of attack in the first Corbett fight (a bout in which the greatest heavyweight in history, lost about 20 out of the first 23 rounds against an older fighter ,who Jeffries had a 30 llb weight advantage) . According to the reports-" Jeff was in a crouch, with his head far back and his left arm out straight, then Jeff charged corbett, using his straight left hand like a battering ram". I am sure that would work against Ali (unless Ali broke out laughing, which is a good possibility if he saw something that stupid). Of coarse when you have two fighters leaning back, tying each other up, 165 llber's can magically hang with 215 llber's.

It's interesting that a lot of these self-proclaimed "Boxing Historians" (I doubt that 90% of them have degrees in history) on one hand blast modern fighters for not fighting 200 fights, and scream what a farse it is when guys win titles in their 13th fight, but they ignore the fact that Jeffries won a title in what, his 12th fight (I can't remember). The fact was that Jeffries was huge for his era (6-2,215) strong, and had athletic ability, so in THAT ERA of limited skills, it didn't take much to contend. Of coarse, I would even question Jeffries' supposed Track times. If you match Jeff's alleged feats to the Olympic times of the era (1896) he'd have about 5 world records. Just because David Willoughby wrote that Jeffries did these feats, doesn't make them true. The first thing they teach you in history is SOURCE CRITICISM, which doesn't mean that you take something to be true if you find it in a book
(even if it supports your theory). Mickey Mantle allegedly ran a 3.1 going to first base, of coarse the person who made he claim was the Yankee publicity man, who was a notorious bullshitter (I can't remember his name). Hey why bother checking the source ?

-----------------------------------
Now, were you around at the time any of this happened? Please tell me when and further why you are not a biased and result-oriented guy. It seems silly to me to write lengthy posts panning fighters not from your time, and further disqualifying people from that time as being biased, while at the same time taking fighters from your time and speculating how they would do agains the fighters of yesteryear who fought when you were not alive.

Every critical claim you apply to the defrocked biased psuedo-historian applies to you and your similar claims.

I am asking you because you have held yourself out as the anti-historian..the exemplar of research and the corresponding insight derived from such.

I see nothing different from what you theorize, your methods or your own bias..just that it is asking for the consideration of an opposite result than those you claim are BS'ers.

Why would anyone accept your points when they are on the same bedrock as those points you call incorrect or worse, not even worth considering?

[Chuck1052]

As a young man, Mickey Mantle was a tremendous all-around
athlete who could run and hit with power. Whatever his
time for running between home plate and first base, Mantle
hit in very few double plays and had a very good stolen
base percentage, which means that it is likely that he
was very fast.

- Chuck Johnston

[mike]

obvioulsty you guys dont have the the jeffries ruhin round. semi crouch with sort punches and two to three puch combo- there were definateb reasons for the various stances and lessening of combos - but you guys most certainly have not seen the gans, nelson wolgast moran from that period.or clos to it

[The Shoemaker]

Elmer Ray,
I could be wrong about Rocky; he would look like a pipsqueek next to Lennox Lewis. And he's going to have a bitch of a time getting past his jab and right hand. That's the trouble, everyone brings up Lewis' chin, it's GETTING to Lewis' chin that's easier said than done. But he just look's like a 210 llber fighting in a 185 llb body, maybe because he is fighting Charles, moore and other smaller heavies. like I said, he's built like a fire plug and I think he's an exception. But he'd still run into size problems against say Lennox Lewis- I know Lewis' chin is questionable, but GETTING to his chin is easier said than done (Tyson and Tua both have strong chins and have power, but they couldn't get past his jab and straight right). You're correct Marciano goes against all of my arguments. And he would have a bitch of a time with 6-3 to 6-5 (fluid) fighters with 80+ inch reaches. But he's always had to overcome reach problems his whole career. I lumped him in a class with Frazier and Hollyfield. He may beat both of them and Liston (doubt it but would be a hell of a fight), but lose to Lewis and others who are rated below him. It's hard rating top tens or twenties, because you sometimes have to rate fighter A higher than fighter B, even though fighter B beat fighter A- Styles have a lot to do with it. I'd pick Tua to beat Tyson and Tua doesn't belong in anyone's top twenty (Ray Mercer might have the chin to beat Tyson as well)

As far as Langford: People complain about Marciano's defense, but watch Langford on film. for a 5-7 guy to get inside, he's got to at least some kind of head movement. He basically just walks right in (he sways his head back a little) of coarse in that era, it's not like he has to slip a jab or a straight right.

Wills: the only film on wills i ever saw was a clip against Uzcedon. Looks like a typical Firpo- type winger from that era. The accounts on the firpo fight was that it was a terrible fight to watch, mostly wrestling and clinching.

McVey : again- hard for me to judge off of a clip or off of stills. but if he had Tyson's hand speed, acuracy, or punching power- I am sure he'd have been legendary, and like Dempsey, cleaned up that era.

[The Shoemaker]

Sharkey,
First off, i've already admitted my bias towards the post 1940's fighters, but at least I've based my bias on things such as size, athleticism, and not using an obsolete fighting style.

As far as my methodology: at least I back up my theories with, what i feel are valid arguements. I asked "if Jeffries is so powerful, how come he can't knock out a 165 llb'er ? You didn't answer it. Same with my arguemnt on "why there hasn't been a 185 llb contender in 45 years" . You brought up some arguement about the "need" to get bigger. Did you ever think that Hollyfield, Toney, Spinks, or Moorer took roids, or lifted weights, because they needed the strength to prevent their bigger opponents from throwing them around in the ring ? And, did you notice that they were the only ones that were succesful (nah, just coincidence, I'am sure they'd have been better off staying at 185-what a joke). I brought up bob foster, who i think is an excellant example. he has a devestating left hook, but his punches don't do anything to an elite heavyweight-why not ? But Bob Fitzsimmon's magically will ? (hey, foster did knockout 200+ llbers, like Sonny Moore, Charley Polite, Willie Besamonov).

Part of any arguement is to refute other peoples arguements or sources. But, I have given credit when they make valid points. I told Mike that his arguement that Jack Sharkey, who fought both Louis and Dempsey, said that dempsey hit harder was a strong arguement. I told Ted Spoon that he made an excellant point that Ali would have a bitch of a time fighting Jeffries in a 45 round fight using 1905 rules (45 round fights don't exactly favor the boxer). I should have told Monte Cox that his Police Gazette article stating that Jeffries was better than sullivan did refute my point that the people of that era thought Sullivan was better (although I am sure if i researched it, there is a good chance that I'd find people writing that sullivan was better). I also countered it by bringing Gene Tunney's assinine arguements into play about Dempsey KO'ing Louis in the 1st round, and dempsey KO'ing Marciano, Charles, and Walcott in the same night (oops-I shouldn't have said assinine, i should respect the source, since Tunney had seen all of them and i havn't- give me a break !) Yes, i said that Nat Fleischer was a biased old man in the 1970's, but at least I backed it up, with what i felt were valid examples. I've praised you for stating that the influx of large, fluid athletes in the last 30-40 years is based on the increase in US population rather than genetics. Valid point, but it doesn't refute my argument that the athletes of today are bigger, stronger, and faster than their predessors, which I use in my boxing arguements as to why the small heavies have been phased out since 1960

You criticise me for refuting Tex Rickert as a source on Dempsey/ Jeffries. Don't you think that my point that Rickert's first professional fight he'd ever seen was Gans-Nelson, which occured one year AFTER Jeffries retired is a valid arguement that Rickert never saw Jeffries fight, except in his debacle against Johnson in 1910 ? I also brought up that Rickert wasn't a huge boxing fan, wasn't an expert on the sport, and was like King/Arum simpley a businessman, who's opinons on the sport don't carry much weight IMO. At least if I crticise Rickert as a source, i give my reasoning behind it. If you are going to criticise me for dismissing rickert as a source, argue my points as to WHY, I feel he should be dismissed as a source. Do I not have the right to use source criticism in questioning Jeffries' alleged Track and Field feats by bring up that the times attributed to him would have been by far world records in 1896? i don't know maybe they were accurate, but can't I question the source ?

Monte Cox brought up Dundee as an excellant strategest, poor teacher of fundementles. Possibly true, but I'd bring up that Ali wasn't going to listen anyway, so dundee left him alone, knowing that his physical skills would negate his technical flaws and that like freddie Roach with James Toney, Dundee may as well go along for the ride, make millions, and gain a reputation (mostly with cosell) as the greatest trainer in the sport, which got him Sugar Ray Leonard. I also pointed out that two Dundee fighters Jimmy Ellis and Willie Pastrano were excellant fundementle fighters- what's wrong with that arguement ? Or the arguemnt that post WWII fighters neglect defense- I listed a bunch of counterpunchers, who live and die with defense.

I've also raised legitimate points that generally, it's human nature to view the past through rose-colored glasses (the parents who had to walk five miles to school each day, uphill in both directions). I've given examples of it. Ray Nitschke says his teams in the 60's would kill the teams of today. What, just because he played in that era doesn't mean i can't attack his points ? I can't bring up the fact that a 240 llb defensive tackle from the 63 packers is not going to two gap a 330 llb guard from today (not that you would know what two gapping is). I could also bring up the point that players on the 1950's Browns and Lions said that they would beat the 60's packers and the 1940's Bears players said that they would beat the Browns and Lions. Under that logic, the 1940's Bears running a single-wing (which is as antiquated as the old lean-back style), with 180 llb lineman would beat the NFL teams of today ? Don't I have the right to say that that's an idiotic statement, despite the fact that if the observer's seen the 1940's Bears and i havn't ? Same with someone saying that Bob Fitzsimmons or Tommy Burns would be champion today. Hell, i don't know anything's possible the football teams of the 40's might beat the teams of today, and Fitz and Burns may magically overcome their huge size defiancies combined with their antiquated styles and blast out Lennox Lewis or mike Tyson.

Of coarse people have the right to shoot down my arguements and question my own bias (which every human being has) but like i said, at least I give examples backing up my statements and attempt to counter other peoples arguements. You know it's easy for you to sit back and "cherry pick' some of my arguements, ignoring the ones you can't answer, but at least I bring some discussion and arguements to the site. Tell you what, why don't you bring some of your opinions on the sport to the site, or don't you have any worth discussing ? And unlike you, if i do find fault with your comments I'll tell you WHY, I disagree, instead of "how can you dismiss Rickert as source, he was there and you wern't" (so was a tortoise). It's a little different world to present an arguement, than it is to sit back and nit-pick. Put one out there, there has to be something controversial that you believe and wonder why the majority feel the other way on.

[Sharkey]

I'll be happy to oblige. I have actually stated my opinion about a number of things. If you cannot recall them, perhaps it is because they usually stop short of claimed certainty, nor do they usually follow a paragraph in which I claim those that do not agree with me are not in full possession of their faculties or are in fact just arguing despite knowing they are wrong.

It is much more difficult to 'cherrypick' then you can imagine..especially when it isn't cherry-picking at all.

When I make a point, I will give you the further benefit of knowing exactly what it is based upon which will be clear and consistant.

I thought I asked you, in two posts, how you can reconcile the holding of opinion based upon less than certain evidence as well as bias, while rejecting another opinion as biased and based on less than certain evidence.

In the future...I will not ask you to clarify your points, or the methods in which you arrived at them. Even when you go to great lengths to reveal them in your posts. If they are not for me to question then at least I finally can save the trouble of doing so.

[The Shoemaker]

Chuck Johnson,
I never said that Mantle wasn't an amazing athelte before he got injured. It's just that the 3.1 to first base is kind of mind-blowing, considering little speedsters like Willie Wilson or Vince Coleman couldn't come close to that number when being timed. Then i brought up the point that person who timed him was the Yankee's PR man (it's killing me that i can't remember his name) who was a bullshitter. Yet, everyone accepts it as fact without considering the source. It's the old addage, "the wilder the claim the stronger the evidence needed to back it up". Hey, maybe Mantle did run that fast, but i wouldn't pass it off as fact.

[Sharkey]

Here is one for you Shoe:

Carmen Basilio would have defeated the Ray Leonard that Duran did. And he would have defeated that particular Duran as well.


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

Sticking to the topic at hand, Billy Conn from their first meeting was Louis' "best opponent"...he faced a still great fighter, and beat him to the punch and was effective in rushing, swarming, and moving. Conn's power relative to his weight increased as he fought heavies, and while JJW was powerful and slick, he also wasted time, often threw too few punches, and would have had a terrible time planting blows on the Conn of the first Louis fight. Billy was leading Louis slightly and Walcott was, ahem, close to winning..however, it is difficult to match them against each other, or make a value judgement against one another based on how each did against Louis.

Further, who is to say Godoy would not have foiled Joe? Is it possible Baer swats Conn like a flea when Billy gets brave?

Sharkey was done when he fought Joe.

The Schmeling of the first Louis fight was a similarly rather slow fighter compared to Billy, and Billy's body attack and speed would serve him well to not get bowled over by Der Max. Conn did wonderfully against heavyweights, and managed to wreak havoc on flighty and survival-oriented Bob Pastor.

It may be difficult to consider Conn beating Galento who could very well prove impossible to keep from fouling etc...but Billy would slice and dice him says me. Nova was a mess when he fought Louis, part having the tar kicked out of him by Galento and part being a space cadet...

The Charles Louis fought, and the Marciano were excellent fighters, who match up well with Billy. Perhaps they count into the equation...given it is almost impossible to see Conn getting by Rocky...

In the end, I am not sure if there was a best fighter so to speak. Given Rocky never lost..and that any potential foe will bear the burden on not being lumped into mirroring someone similar (or not-so) that Rocky defeated, would not one have to say Marciano if the way we figure these things is on a who-beats-who basis?