The Most Dominant Boxer of Every Decade

First topic message reminder :

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1735940-the-most-dominant-boxer-in-every-decade

Thought this might make for some interesting Friday discussion. In summary:

1880s - John L
1890s - Fitz
1900s - Joe Gans
1910s - Jimmy Wilde
1920s - Harry Greb
1930s - Hank Armstrong
1940s - Joe Louis
1950s - SRR
1960s - Ali
1970s - Duran
1980s - JCC
1990s - RJJ
2000s - Mayweather Jr

With 9 Yanks, 1 Brit, 1 Mexican, 1 Panamanian and 1 debatable, as a list it certainly supports Truss' oft lauded views of US dominance, if nothing else.

Did inactivity prevent the second Sugar from taking the 80s slot? Should Jack Johnson have been in for the 1900s?

What say you all??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Let's not be silly..

Ha ha ha. The perfect reposte to being mocked for being patronising. Quality truss.

milkyboy wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Let's not be silly..

Ha ha ha. The perfect reposte to being mocked for being patronising. Quality truss.

Tophat tries to mock me all the time.......It hides his lack of boxing knowledge....

But I don't mind...

It's not ok Pacquiao but it's fine for Mayweather, no issue with catchweight fights but they do come with a disclaimer nor should they be for world titles.

I have no issue with Jones career from 160-175lbs but think it's a bit unfair on the men who went before like Hagler, Greb, Ketchel and Monzon when they would have had to have taken on challenges levels above Ruiz. Were it not for boxing politics then Charles and Langford would have achieved it years before.

Hagler wouldn't take on Spinks at 175..

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Were it not for boxing politics then Charles and Langford would have achieved it years before.

Neither of them held middleweight titles. Jones remains the only guy alongside Fitz who has held titles at both middle and heavy.

Rowley wrote:

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Were it not for boxing politics then Charles and Langford would have achieved it years before.

Neither of them held middleweight titles. Jones remains the only guy alongside Fitz who has held titles at both middle and heavy.

May pay to re read what I actually wrote then, as a huge fan of Burley you should know better than most how difficult it was to get what you deserved as a black fighter.

Nice list! Can't argue with it, really

Stil think it is a bold claim to say Charles and Langford would have acheived it. Think might would be a more appropriate claim. Am in no doubt Charles would have won the light heavy title, but he was little more than a kid at middle and soon outgrew the division. Not sure he would have stuck around long enough to annex the title.

Am in no doubt Langford could have beaten Ketchel for the middle title and the light heavy title had the opportunity arose. However at the time his form justified him getting the shot to win at heavy he would have had to take the title off Johnson. Possible but is no more than a 50-50. Too many imponderables to say they would have done it.

I think the whole landscape of the 1940's middleweight scene was affected by two very different things, the second world war and the BMR not getting title shots. This isn't a dig at Zale in particular but in no shape or form was he the most deserving man to fight for or win the title, throughout his splintered reign he must have been the 5/6th best middleweight of the time.

In beating Burley twice as well as Yarosz, Basora and Christoforidis, Charles would have been well worth a title shot if it was possible for a black fighter to challenge at the time.

Langford is a trickier proposition but I feel he would have beaten Johnson at some point to win the title, he may have lost it straight back but he was more than capable of holding it for at least a short time.

My take on the fitz jones thing.

They're both great achievements, but if you're going to flag that heavies are getting bigger as a plus for jones, you kind of have to mention that 6'2  Ruiz is hardly the epitome of that. Any extra pounds werent muscle. There was a reason jones picked him over say Lennox Lewis, where that argument had a bit more credence. And of course he did have a choice in today's alphabet world.

Ruiz lost to another ex middleweight in toney... In the ring at least ... Even if the worlds worst advert for steroids lost that out of the ring.

Whoever the opponent it's a great achievement for jones. But let's not over egg this pudding... as puddings go, johnny was the recipient of enough rotten eggs.

Still don't see how the fact that some people in the past might have been able to do it downgrades the acheivement of someone who actually did do it. If it was an absolute given that they would have acheived it I could half see your point but there are reasons beyond their skin colour that mean neither is anything more than a possibility.

What he actually did was beat a belt holder nothing more nothing less, he didn't emulate Fitzsimmons and he didn't even emulate Spinks, were he to have beaten Lewis it would be a great achievement but he picked on the weakest of the weak.

And as I said previously my opinions on the matter will change when other middle champions do likewise.

With Rowley on this - the fact he did it at all is the achievement, not the manner of which he performed it. If we take the shine off that it shouldn't be because of RJJ's choice of opponent, it should more be on the sanctioning bodies for having such a poor champion in the first place.

How about 'the most dominant British fighter of a decade'? Far more scope for kicking off.

seanmichaels wrote:How about 'the most dominant British fighter of a decade'? Far more scope for kicking off.

Lewis.

Anyone who argues.....realise you're wrong and f*ck off.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:With Rowley on this - the fact he did it at all is the achievement, not the manner of which he performed it. If we take the shine off that it shouldn't be because of RJJ's choice of opponent, it should more be on the sanctioning bodies for having such a poor champion in the first place.

Why shouldn't we criticise Jones' choice of opponent, he could have gone for Lewis, Byrd, Sanders or Ruiz so it's only fair we point out he chose the weakest and easiest to beat. It is partly the WBAs fault but nobody took the claims of Byrd, Sanders or Ruiz as champions seriously as it was purely because of boxing politics they hadn't beaten the man.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:How about 'the most dominant British fighter of a decade'? Far more scope for kicking off.

Lewis.

Anyone who argues.....realise you're wrong and f*ck off.

These 2 not have a shout: Barry McGuigan 80's, Steve Collins 90's?

We have to blame the fragmentation of boxing. The achievement was for a former middleweight champion to become a world heavyweight champion. it hadn't been done before and it has now. The manner of which it was performed could be described as dubious but thats not Jones' fault. What if he'd taken on Byrd and tonked him in 1 round and Ruiz turned out to beat his next 3/4 opponents handily? Would he have taken the easy route then? Bear in mind RJJ also had one eye on the fact he'd beaten Evander Holyfield. Think hindsight is clouding your judgement here, Ruiz isn't this terrible lump unworthy of holding the belt. If you're going to blame anyone, blame someone for the fragmentation of the titles.

I'd have said Hamed for the 90's ahead of Lewis.

seanmichaels wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:How about 'the most dominant British fighter of a decade'? Far more scope for kicking off.

Lewis.

Anyone who argues.....realise you're wrong and f*ck off.

These 2 not have a shout: Barry McGuigan 80's, Steve Collins 90's?

No. 

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:I'd have said Hamed for the 90's ahead of Lewis.

No.  

Nothing dubious about Jones beating the WBA champion...

Choose your words more carefully....

Think the ref could be called into question personally at times, but nevertheless a win is a win.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:We have to blame the fragmentation of boxing. The achievement was for a former middleweight champion to become a world heavyweight champion. it hadn't been done before and it has now. The manner of which it was performed could be described as dubious but thats not Jones' fault. What if he'd taken on Byrd and tonked him in 1 round and Ruiz turned out to beat his next 3/4 opponents handily? Would he have taken the easy route then? Bear in mind RJJ also had one eye on the fact he'd beaten Evander Holyfield. Think hindsight is clouding your judgement here, Ruiz isn't this terrible lump unworthy of holding the belt. If you're going to blame anyone, blame someone for the fragmentation of the titles.

No it's not hindsight, Ruiz was a terrible lump unworthy of winning a title, he got his shot because Lewis took on the more dangerous Michael Grant instead, Lewis would have beaten him out of the title scene entirely, he was lucky. Chris Byrd was one of the better heavyweights of the 00's and I would regard him as Wlads best win, far better than Ruiz and with his speed and elusiveness would have been a far sterner test for Jones while Sanders probably knocks him out quite early. I don't take Pacquiaos title at light middleweight seriously nor do I Jones' at heavyweight and for the record the little known Bob Fitzsimmons got there first.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:I'd have said Hamed for the 90's ahead of Lewis.

No.  

A lot of Lewis' better wins came in the 00's; Botha, Tua, Grant, Rahman redemption, Shell of Tyson and Vitali. In the 90's he also lost to McCall and struggled with Mercer and Bruno, at the time Hamed was steamrolling everyone with a slight blip against Kelley.

106 years is a long time ToT - but I get what you mean. I still think its a remarkable achievement and given how much he was outweighed on the night, its a feat we don't see often for a reason.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:I'd have said Hamed for the 90's ahead of Lewis.

No.  

A lot of Lewis' better wins came in the 00's; Botha, Tua, Grant, Rahman redemption, Shell of Tyson and Vitali. In the 90's he also lost to McCall and struggled with Mercer and Bruno, at the time Hamed was steamrolling everyone with a slight blip against Kelley.

I refer you to the post where it said "realise you're wrong"  

It's an achievement in the strictest sense but it's no different to Burley making mince meat out of JD Turner, beating class counts not a useless slob.

Don't see why British/UK boxers of the decade need be especially controversial, although there are a couple of judgement calls, no doubt. Since the war, I might go: 40s - Monaghan, 50s - Turpin, 60s-Winstone, 70s - Buchanan, 80s - Honeyghan, 90s - Hamed, 2000s - Lewis. Accept that some might say Conteh for the 70s, that Lewis has a call for the 90s and Calzaghe for the first decade of the twentieth century, but there aren't too many bona fide contenders.

Would I be right in saying Honeyghan isn't in the Boxing HOf and yet Barry is....

and they are both 80's........

Yes and yes, Truss - does say more about the Hall of Fame than mere words can manage. Honey's 80s record, including Mittee, Shufford, Rosi (away), Curry (away), Blocker, Bumphus, Hatcher seems a fair way in advance of Barry's from this distance in time, although I dare say that someone will be able to construct a decent comparative case in Barry's favour.

Curry isn't in there either......But Zaragoza is....

Your Hall of fame is more bonafide

I really must make an effort to resume that, if there is any sort of interest from enough people.

I'm sure there would be..............Another pet peeve is Stallone in the HOF...

Boxing made stallone or at least Wepner-Ali did...Not the other way around.

Captain would be more than happy to contribute to a reopened hall of fame

as would i

ShahenshahG wrote:as would i

You may have to write more than one line on something..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:as would i

You may have to write more than one line on something..

There isnt enough space for more than one line on your dick, can i carry on past and write on your forehead?

So it was you peeping in the Oyster..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So it was you peeping in the Oyster..

Yeah. Sadly the pearls were missing

Why is di ck not blocked? Although it would have been a problem if were discussing Dick Cheney... or Tom, Dick, and Harry...

I disagree with Floyd winning the 2000s, but a case can be made so its a good list

kingraf wrote:Why is di ck not blocked?

Because we wouldn't know what to call you If it was..

Kingraf... Obviously

a list of most dominant of every decade does seem somewhat unfair on the likes of Whittaker, who dominated two long established divisions at least as much as Jones dominated SMW and LHW , but whose reigns bridged two decades rather than falling neatly into one.

horizontalhero wrote:a list of most dominant of every decade does seem somewhat unfair on the likes of Whittaker, who dominated two long established divisions at least as much  as Jones dominated SMW and LHW , but whose reigns bridged two decades rather than falling neatly into one.

Serves Pea right for being born in 1964 rather than 1969 like Roy, idiotic move as far as I'm concerned and I have no sympathy for him!

In fairness (and seriousness!) Whitaker did bring a little of it on himself by letting his personal life become so entangled in the marching powder. He was still arguably unlucky to lose to De la Hoya in any case, but had he been as focussed on boxing then as he had been a few years beforehand he might well have asserted his authority over Oscar to an even greater degree to put that fight beyond doubt, even if he was past his absolute peak.

His positive test for cocaine at the end of 1997 ended any hopes of a De la Hoya rematch for the following year, which many felt Oscar would have honoured, as well as doing him out of a planned (and basically signed, sealed & delivered) fight against Quartey for the WBA belt. Either of those fights would have really given him a good chance to bolster his claim as the best fighter of the nineties, even if some of his best work had come in the late eighties as well.

A year's a long time out when you're hitting your mid-thirties and living such a poor lifestyle and I think that suspension effectively put an end to Pernell's career, right at a time when Roy was hitting his absolute best form (in particular, the demolition of Griffin (II), the knockout of Hill and that absolutely fantastic showing against Johnson, all of which came between 1997 and 1999).

I love Pea to death, and I have him above Jones in the pound for pound stakes, but I think Jones edges him out for the title of being the best of the nineties.