The Top-10 WORST Heavyweight Champs?

eh.... maybe Burns takes over for Fitzsimmons. I dunno, tough list. the version of Jack Sharkey that "won" the title deserves to be on this list more than Hart, imo.

 

Fair, Sharkey deserves consideration.

If I remember right, Hart does have a win over a young Jack Johnson. Still, surely one of the weaker champions.

 

Sharkey was actually a pretty good fighter --- he had talent, but let it get mired in inconsistency. Jack Johnson once stated, for whatever it's worth to you guys, that he thought Sharkey was the best of the current crop of Heavies (this was a quote from the early-30's, I think just following Tunney's retirement), & that was in comparison with guys like Baer & Schmeling...he is not one of the worst champs ever, just an under-achiever.

 

Ray might not have beaten Hagler though. :nono:

And Ray kept himself in shape.

Jeffries spent 6 years boozing, dropped a shit load of weight and still was competitive. In the Ray Leonard era, he would have dropped a decision and people would have been calling Johnson a bum for struggling with an old fat boozer.

 

I think the version of Sharkey that won the title is one of the top 10 worst. Especially the guy that lost to Carnera, whom I consider to be THE worst of the lot.

 

Carnera wasn't that bad. He was bad but was he worse than say....Braddock? Braddock didn't do any better with Louis and he only beat Baer because Baer preferred to clown and grin.

 

I feel like you have to base the rankings off something tangible.... Braddock has the win over Baer, and Carnera.... not so much. I don't think they are all that far apart, but I do rate Carnera as the worst of the lot. And didn't Braddock knock Louis down in their fight?

 

On the flip side of this...I don't know if you would be defending Ruiz on a regular basis if he hadn't fought Roy Jones. ::

 

Everything flows from Jones. Before too long Reed will be talking Denis Lebedev up and giving him a great chance of stopping Holyfield, who did, after all, arguably lose three fights to, yes, you have guessed it, John Ruiz.:bow::bow:

 

Two-shay!

 

Jones accomplishment vs Ruiz was impressive. Unfortunately, I don't think Ruiz was that good and that's irrespective of whether he did or didn't fight Roy Jones. Anybody who thinks a lot less of Ruiz for losing to Jones, or thinks a lot more of Roy Jones for beating Ruiz, is not looking at things in the correct light. I would argue that Roy beating Tarver after burning of 25lbs of lean tissue was more impressive than a 12 round over a guy who lost at 190 to the indomitable Sergei Kobozev. Likewise, whatever stench is attached to Ruiz for losing to Jones should be examined in light of the fact that John really didn't have too many advantages over Jones in the first place, bar power and strength, and should in any case be more than evaporated by his gutty displays vs Haye and Valuev in fights which had taken place years after what little talent Ruiz possessed had been eroded by the passage of time.

 

Watching Ruiz fight, I used to wonder whether he were idiotic or imbecilic, knowing full well he was no better than moronic.

 

::

Uh....huh

 

The guy was a slow, limited fighter. Thats about the size of it. No real mystery. He also lacked the natural size to overcome the issue. Unlike Haye, he had no reflexes or speed to overcome his technical shortcomings. This is why I put more stock in Jones win over Tarver than in Jones win over Ruiz.

I can understand people not liking Ruiz because of the Stinkathon's his fights were, but he showed grit, balls and a willingness to leave America.

Ironically, the source of so much of the derision for Ruiz {the Tua fight} was never repeated- with Jones ironically going on to get flattened repeatedly.

 

Ruiz at his mauling best during his first reign as WBA chump beats David Haye by unanimous decision.

 

list the heavies who qualify if you are going to do it this way

 

Jake already listed them, you cunt.

 

you trolling for a date, ma'am?

 

the difference between Michael and Leon is pretty amazing when you think about it

Both were highly successful, gold medal amateurs.

Leon was a crude, sloppy pro with little in the way of intangibles

Mike was confident, multi-faceted, able to rise to the occasion many times, he could beat you 10 different ways

 

They were both very unconvincing HW champs, however.

 

Mike Spinks beat an older but still terrific heavyweight for the title

Leon beat a corpse who was ready to be taken and looked shitty doing it

Mike is a much more impressive heavyweight than his brother

 

He is, but that says nought. Literally.

I am a very harsh marker of Michael at Heavy. He was small change.

 

I don;t disagree

just think it's unfair to even put him anywhere near his brother, LOL

 

I didnt mean to say he was. Just that both were supremely mediocre as HW champs.

 

yes, but one was still waaaaay more mediocre

 

Years ago (In an issue of the RING) I read an article about that fight and it mentioned that Johnson was winning handily until some folks in the audience with guns were brought to his attention and suddenly Hart got back into the fight and ended up with the decision.

 

Rahman, Ellis, and Willard are probably up there

 

Jack Sharkey was highly advanced for the 1920s, very skillful. He just had no heart or desire.