My ten greatest heavyweights

Mc, you may aswell just come right out and just admit - you just have a big big problem with Dempsey - and anyone who could possibly suggest that he was even one of the top 5 (!!??) heavyweights ever is living in cloud cuckoo land - you're never going to give him the credit he deserves ever - even if it suddenly came to light that Dempsey had had a secret fight with Wills behind the scenes and Dempsey had happened to annihilate Wills in 1 round you still wouldn't wanna back off one iota - just accept it many many many people down through the last 80 odd years have thought Dempsey was the greatest heavyweight champion ever - and you arguing til your blue in the face will never change that and will never disprove it one way or the other - you talk like you are the god of everything that is boxing like everything you say is just total fact and can't possibly be wrong and its really really tiresome - nothing you say carries any weight with me - you just come across as up your own ass and frankly a bit patronising...oh and one last thing whatever you say and think Dempsey was the greatest heavyweight ever btw (behind Rocky Marciano obviously :good)

 

Regarding liston. I am fully prepared to agree that from 59 he was the premiere hw until 64. However his run during this time isn't enough to see him enter the top ten imo. On my h2h list he's number 3. On my atg list he's number 11 and almost certain to drop a place over the next two years.

Dempsey, I again conform to the belief that aside from wills he fought the best over a 5 year period. A win over langford would be great but it has to be conceded that a win over fulton was better by far. I think his run was great considering his time and a past prime win over sharkey is greater still. With confidence I have him number 10 but again live in the certainty he'll drop a place over the next two years. H2h i'm not too sure where I rate him.

 

I rate Tom Sayers [a true middleweight] ,as the most remarkable bare knuckle fighter. Small but tough as nails. Sayers was to BNF what Harry Greb was to modern boxing....

 

I put John L more in the glove era though, he had more glove fights than London prize rules. He only fought like 5 times with out the gloves.

I cant really put him as a pure bare kunckler like Cribb or Pearce. He belongs more in the glove era.

 

I am with you on this one.

Sullivan is the first gloved champion, not the last bareknuckle champion.

 

Surely the modernists tout bobby gunn as the goat bareknuckle champ.

 

Welcome...

 

Sure, but you understant my point.

Sullivan was a specialist with gloves, who was forced to take a small number of fights with bare knuckles to secure his title claim.

Given his way, he never fights without gloves.

 

I'm starting to think the standards that Wlad is being pushed to come up to are just a little high. He's already gone unbeaten since 2004. He's won 11 title fights in a row, beginning with the win over Byrd in 2006.

Another FIVE years unbeaten and I'd say he'd have done enough to surpass just about everyone, arguably. And a certain lock for top 5 anyways.

I'm one of the few here who will admit that he already stands about equal with Lennox Lewis, not because I love Wlad or hate Lewis (although some will insist I do), but because the only way to rate these unexciting behemoths is on their dominance and consistency, their accomplishments. They stack up about the same.
The best Lewis managed was 10 straight title wins, over 7 years. So it's hard to see how Wlad is far behind him. But that's just my take, and hopefully food for thought for some.