Which layoff was more devasting for one's particular legacy?

I think it's interesting that the consensus top two heavyweights, both with great longevity have long lay-offs in the middle of their primes.

I don't think that's a coincidence either.

Now as far as I'm aware, there were only two (#1 at least) contenders that escaped Louis' fists due to WWII, Bettina and the other escapes me.

I don't think that took away from him at all.

The most harmed by this is definitely Vitali for me. His legacy is nothing on the others but that time off was his chance to build one properly. The others had already built up a decent reign by that stage, Vitali was just beginning.

Of course, I feel that he was destined for Wlad's shadow.

 

Dempsey suffers the most IMO, because he missed out on some important fights for his legacy, and he's the only one of the group that never won another title fight after his layoff.

In a twisted way, I think Ali's legacy may actually benefit from his layoff, because it gave other fighters like Frazier and Foreman the opportunity to distinguish themselves as greats - and then brought more credit to Ali when he beat them both, rather than if he had diffused them while they were only rising prospects.

 

Howsabout Jim Jeffries? He could have beaten a 1906 Johnson but not so much a 1910 Johnson.

 

any time there is a thread about Jack Dempsey everyone always seems to bring up the fact that he had a layoff but funnily enougth they don't mention Mike Tyson, Joe Louie or Vitali Klitschkos layoffs.

 

Jeffries.

He started it at his absolute peak, and no injury forced him to do it!

Some people can't be helped!

 

Excellent post.

I don't think Louis was going to improve after Blackburn's death. Conn II was what should have been expected of Joe following his wartime layoff, but he looked like his old self against Mauriello again [and said he felt like it as well]. Not sold on Walcott exposing Louis in some sort of decline. JJW simply updated the Pastor playbook, utilizing an approach the Bomber never would have looked comfortable against. Take away Walcott, keep Louis active in continual defense of his title during the post war years, and I believe he holds it into the 1950s. Charles does not dethrone Joe as a challenger. But Louis was not evolving any further without Blackburn.

Tyson's career may have been extended by his layoff. I think he was already in decline prior to his incarceration, a detainment which suspended his deterioration until his return.

For Dempsey, we can tack on 1921 to 1923 as well, the two year hiatus between Carp and Tommy Gibbons. Even if he fights and knocks out Wills in 1925, or for a single bout at any time during his reign, it's still not the same as continuing a pace of two annual defenses after 1920. The early and mid 1920s were not an especially stacked era in heavyweight annals, and he could have easily been the first Queensberry era HW to reach a dozen successful defenses before Tunney emerged in 1926. [Does the end justify the means though? Jack was the highest earning boxer in history OUTRIGHT, until the mid 1970s, and the highest paid athlete of 1925 WITHOUT defending his title. What does HE care what we think of him and his legacy in 2013? But for our purposes here, yes, he does suffer the most legacy wise.]

 

Dempsey's was voluntary. He basically said "I don't have to defend my title, but I'm not giving it up' so he could be a party boy.

He also ducked worthy challengers while he put the title in deep freeze as he did by refusing to cross the color line.

His legacy, to me, suffers not from the layoff so much as the fact that he chose it nd completely disrespected the championship.

 

Tyson career was extended by the layoff, but to what purpose? he missed out on all his most meaningful fights and his skills were still further diminished by the time he came out.

The difference between the Ali/Tyson layoffs is the timing.

Alis came right slap bang in the middle of his prime, he lost his best years and declined but he still ahd enough to contend with the division, but he didnt miss much in the division while he was in exile, the division picked up as soon as Ali came back

with Tyson, he was already on a decline and he was taken out in 91, same year where the division began to pick up with all the new guys like Bowe, Lewis, Morrison etc.

Had Tysons prison sentence happened around 88-91, i think his career would have played out slightly better.

Had Tyson not gone to prison, i feel his career would have been over 96-98 anyway.

 

He made over $100,000,000.00 after his release from jail. That's pretty much the purpose Azzer. The build up of anticipation for his return resulted in what was very likely a far higher payoff than if he'd been active between Ruddock II and McNeeley. [Big paydays likewise eluded Ali until after his return from exile. And they allowed Rickard and Kearns to generate huge payoffs and gates through the build-up of Dempsey's infrequent defenses. Keep in mind that Jack was popular only as a newly crowned champion and former champion, never as a defending champion, due to allegations of draft dodging during WW I.]

Pretty much.

I've sometimes said Ali needed Frazier to prove Muhammad was a great fighter, while Joe needed Ali to become rich.

Frazier did a tremendous thing to successfully step into the void left by Ali's absence and resettle the HW hierarchy, but Joe did not revive boxing as Muhammad's return did. Smoke was an exciting fighter, but an infrequent competitor, and not a controversial or compelling personality, any more than Foreman would be. Until 1977, Ali stepped in the ring as often as possible, and boxing needed a top heavyweight who could do that.

Good analysis.


I'm gonna go back to the Blackburn and Louis analogy with Tyson and D'Amato for something of an alternative suggestion here. Cus was an old man sure to not live for long anyway. Atlas and Rooney were never going to be the guys to succeed in handling Mike after D'Amato was gone. Aside from Floyd Patterson, I don't know who else could have had the positive influence to pull it off after the otherwise inevitable premature decline following the deaths of D'Amato and Jacobs.

 

Great question ...

Louis/Ali/Dempsey is a toss up as we never saw any of these men in their physical prime ... Dempsey's is less excusable as it was self imposed.

Tyson was already on the slide and Vitali ws post thirty and likely as good as he was ever going to get ... w Vitali it's more a matter of injuries as I believe he has never fully recovered and much of his style has been modified to compensate for his injuries ...

 

I would say Vitaly Klitschko, because he is the fighter on the list who lost most of his key legacy fights due to the layoff.

If he had not been forced into temporary retirement, it could have been a real game changer.

 

Dempsey's title reign was already a farce and a fraud. The layoff couldn't really damage it further.

Since everything about his title reign was showbiz, it's best to refer to it as an intermission.