Originally Posted by MadcapMaxie
Look at the early opponents of any heavyweight champion in history and you'll see a very similiar story. Foreman is consistantly ranked above Dempsey in Heavyweight lists, and look at his opponents before winning the title.
You seriously need to get over Dempsey, Seamus the fact you did all that research simply in order to trash on the man is pretty sad.
first, good point. but foreman was not really seen as a legitimate threat to frazier at the time for just that reason. what if foreman's legacy were based, at least in part, on those tomato can beating years?
Foreman's legacy is who he beat for the title (better by far than any of dempseys wins), who he defended against (norton, as good as any of dempseys defenses but far more brutal) and then in his comeback.
if foreman had beaten the equivalent of willard in the 70s (an inactive former farmer with a good jab...) and then defended against the same good but VERY small group of contenders and then retiring after ali humiliates him, would he be in the top 10? top 20?
what seamus is asking, rightfully so, is what competition, before or after winning the title justifies dempseys status?
on the surface, it clear isn't his pre-title run. on inspection, it isn't his title defenses. and then he lost twice to the best fighter he ever would face in tunney.
what are the 5 fives at any point in his career that are within sniffing distance of ali, foreman or johnson's (at least pre-title) resume?