Originally Posted by Seamus
Absolutely agree about Foreman.
The difference between Ali and Dempsey is that Ali actually had a credible reign as heavyweight champion and as a contender after he was stripped and before he regained the championship. He did not avoid his two greatest challengers. He did not sit on the title. With Dempsey you get neither a great ascendancy to the throne nor a great reign. In fact, it is all a game of shadows and some myth making about a single day in Toledo. Where I come from we call that "All hat and no cattle."
Ali,Louis,Marciano all fought the best of their era's and it would be reaching to state otherwise...Dempsey fought the best of his motley era as did his predecessors (Johnson could have fought more blacks) As champ a fight with Wills would have been a good one in retrospect but there were factors outside of Dempsey that shot the match down, Greb would have created some interest but IMO Dempsey had the style to beat both men and have an easier time beating Wills....In comparison to Dempsey Holmes with his many avoidances and failure to unify with Tate,Dokes,Coeztee,Weaver,Thomas,Page and even gave up a Title($) not to fight Page and failure to rematch tough or controversial fights = Weaver,Norton,Witherspoon,Williams....IMO Holmes takes the cake,and although I think Holmes beats most of these guys I am not certain and I do think he would have lost to at least one of them because of style.
IF we look at Louis rematching the tough Godoy, Walcott,Schmeling,Conn,etc. and any tough fight and Marciano with Charles,Walcott,Lastarza, and Ali vs Norton and Frazier and think these greats set a fine example of how ATG Champions should conduct their business with rematches and being the sole Champion
I like your OHIO saying "All hat and no cattle", in NY we say "all flash and no cash"