|
 Lee's Unnatural Mailbag
By Lee Groves (March 28, 2006)
 Send this page to friend Give us your feedback
Last week, Marty Mulcahey and I listed my top 10 "unnatural heavyweights" of all time. I don’t know about Mr. Mulcahey, but my list prompted several members of MaxBoxing Nation to chip in with alternative choices. This week’s "Unnatural Mailbag" provides a rundown of who earned the Readers’ Choice Awards for Best Unnatural Heavyweights of All-Time.
Sam’s the Man
The list that you and Martin had created would have had credibility if you considered fighters that had not been given the deserved chance to fight for the heavyweight title. Racism and fear of losing were reasons why great fighters like Sam Langford and Harry Wills were not granted title fight opportunities. Langford happened to be one of these fighters, though, unlike Wills, was an unnatural heavyweight. Because Stanley Ketchel and Bob Fitzsimmons were white, they were permitted to fight for the heavyweight title. Though they may have been somewhat deserving based on the white competition they had faced, it doesn't justify their inclusion in this listing. I think it would have been fair to include more boxers that weren't given title shots. Mickey Walker, for example, drew with Jack Sharkey. That was a considerable feat.
Stanley Ketchel fought one decent light heavyweight, (Philadelphia) Jack O'Brien, and then was carried by Jack Johnson. Who cares that he dropped Johnson? Look at some of the fighters that dropped Joe Louis. It's difficult to even name them all. The bottom line is Ketchel, as great a middleweight champion he was and possibly could have been a good light heavyweight, he accomplished nothing at heavyweight.
Sam Langford, on the other hand, dropped Johnson twice, legitimately, in a 15 round decision loss. You could easily make a case that Langford was arguably the second or third best heavyweight in the world from '05-'20. Look at the fighters he had beaten during his time: Joe Jeannette, Harry Wills, Sam McVey – all top heavyweights of whom he beat more than once. Dempsey later admitted that he wouldn't fight him because he was so good. Keep in mind, his career began as a lightweight. Regardless of title belts, Langford may have been one of the top five most accomplished boxers of all time and having him lower than one or two on a list such as this one is a shame.
J.D.
Marty and I approached our lists from different angles, and our combined efforts offered a broader overview on the subject. Since James Toney was challenging for Rahman’s WBC belt at the time of Marty's suggestion, I limited my pool to those who challenged for a heavyweight title to tie Rahman-Toney to my list. I figured that linking the list to a current event would be a good literary device. Marty, however, was more freewheeling with his criterion and included those who didn't fight for the championship. His list covered a deeper pool of fighters while mine is more structured -- and perhaps limited.
I agree with you that Sam Langford was one of the greatest who ever fought – his results speak for themselves. It was a terrible fact that a number of deserving black fighters didn't receive their rightful opportunities to go for the richest prize in sports. And those black fighters who did win world titles – Joe Gans being one – were forced to accept conditions and results that didn't reflect their true abilities. That's what makes judging this period of time so tricky for me; we know how good they are, but the results that are in the record books don't demonstrate their true greatness. Those who were alive back then knew it, but we in the present can only go by word of mouth, written reports that were racially biased and the record books. Word of mouth can be slanted with attitudes, so even that method isn't perfect, and virtually everyone who was alive when Langford fought are either dead or listed among the world's oldest people. To find a rabid boxing fan among those people would be quite a find indeed.
What occurred with Wills, Jeannette, McVey and others was wrong. But unfortunately, we can't change history – we can only make sure that the present and the future are better. I don't think anyone can argue that what is going on today – as bad as it is especially on the political side – is still much, much better than what was going on back then. We now have television, the Internet and worldwide boxing publications to expose the sport to the masses as well as videotapes to study – as well as a much different mindset as far as racial equality. The best pound-for-pound fighters in the world are of differing races and when they achieve great deeds in the ring, they are honored instead of reviled. Filipino Manny Pacquiao earned his place by beating, among others, Mexican Erik Morales. By doing so, a possible rematch with Marco Antonio Barrera is now the hottest fight in the sport. People will certainly pay to see that – I know I would. We have fighters of many races among the very best, and that is a great thing.
The Byrd is the Word
I read the piece on your picks for the best "unnatural heavyweights" this morning and thought someone was missing from the list. It finally occurred to me who it was, and I was curious to see if you meant to leave out Chris Byrd or if you don't think he makes the cut.
Love your work.
AT Townsend
He bores the hell out of me, but definitely merits making this list.
Craig
When I researched this list, Byrd was one of the fighters I considered because of his smallish size. But then I discovered that virtually all of his professional career was spent at heavyweight. In his pro debut, a six-round decision over Gary Smith, Byrd weighed 169 pounds, and he weighed 171 for his first round KO of Mike Sullivan. But in his third fight, a 193-pound Byrd decisioned Exum Speight, and from then on he campaigned as a heavyweight. It’s hard to believe that Byrd has spent the last 12 years in the Land of the Giants, and it’s a tribute to his talent that he not only survived but thrived. I agree that Byrd deserved a look, but he didn’t make the cut because his time at lower weights was limited and lacked world-class significance.
More of Moorer, Less of Jones
Lee...for the most part a good list, but not sure how you can rank Jones ahead of Billy Conn and/or include him in the place of Michael Moorer for that matter. Jones had a win against Ruiz, that's it. Moorer fought and beat another member of your list, Holyfield. Conn's expolits at HWT were against Joe Louis (an all-time great). Jones body of work at HWT is just too narrow to include him....and while I'm a fan of Toney and I think his spot would have been merited if he'd prepared properly and won last week, you have to question him under the same guidelines. A seriously faded Holyfield is his best performance at HWT.
Of course this stuff is all opinion...but I think if you include Jones, Moorer has to go on the list and Conn should be ahead of him.
Howard
I agree that Michael Moorer is a good name to consider because he won belts at light heavyweight and heavyweight. Moorer was simply devastating at 175, and he threw his powerful blows with such technical perfection that he reminded me of a southpaw Joe Louis. I think Moorer would have helped his cause had he defeated Virgil Hill, Prince Charles Williams or Jeff Harding, who were the other 175-pound champions at the time Moorer held the WBO belt. At heavyweight, Moorer only notched two successful defenses in his two reigns, and his one-punch KO loss to George Foreman greatly damaged his historical standing.
As for Jones vs. Conn, you bring up a good point that Jones only had one fight at heavyweight while Conn had several wins over good heavyweights en route to his first fight with Louis. For me, Jones' long list of achievements at lighter weights and the fact that he was considered the sport's best pound-for-pound fighter for nearly a decade carried more weight with me. Plus, at the time Jones fought Ruiz, there were more than a few observers who thought Ruiz's mauling, brawling style would wear out the smaller Jones in the late rounds. Instead, Jones was dazzling and his heavyweight cameo was just the icing on a Hall of Fame caliber career.
A Vote for Tunney
Am I seeing things or have you missed off Gene Tunney from your list? I have to say that one fight against Ruiz pushes Jones way, way too high.
Best
Jason
You’re right: I didn’t include Gene Tunney, though he achieved quite a lot as a light heavyweight. The reason why I kept him off the list is because during the time Tunney fought, there wasn’t a lot of weight difference between the best light heavyweights and the best big men. Thus, his jump wasn’t as dramatic. Tunney weighed 189 ½ when he dethroned the 190-pound Jack Dempsey and was the identical weight for the rematch against the 192 ½-pound "Manassa Mauler." There were some giants around, but they weren’t nearly as skilled as they would eventually become.
As for Jones, I included him because though he had one fight at heavyweight – a fight in which he not only won but looked terrific in doing so – the weight of his accomplishments at lighter classes was the thing that propelled him up the list. Not saying that you do, but a lot of people hate Roy Jones for his attitude and his unwillingness to take on certain opponents that would have further cemented his legacy. Instead, he fought mandatories that only served as showcases for the talent fans already knew he had. I was as frustrated by those things as anyone else. Still, one can’t ignore Jones’ record in three other weight classes and that’s why he is where he is on my list.
Discuss this Topic - Go to the forums
 E-mail Lee Groves
|
