Which fighter do you rate MUCH lower than the general consensus?

who do u think?

reasons?

havent I said enough?

 

I think he's pointing out the possible inaccuracy in his opponents' records. I don't think anybody would make case for Dempsey based on some missing fights in his record at this point. That would be ridiculous. The guy is one of the most popular boxers in the history of the sport. He has been and is still echoed endlessly by trainers, boxers, ex-boxers, historians, journalists, old fans, young fans, batsh1t crazy nuthuggers and bored-to-brain-dead trolling detractors. Sounds highly unlikely that amongst this vast and varied pool of Dempsey interested people from different ages and backgrounds, no-facking-one could provide with a decent counterpoint to his known record. And it's not as if that would change matters much anyway. Even if we didn't knew every single name in Dempsey's record, we know exactly the ones that should and could be in his record and are not. The ones that mattered most.

 

Gene Tunney. Made his rep beating bloated, has-been middleweights and a less-than-at-his-best Dempsey. He carefully tiptoed around the potential landmines of his era. Compare his record with that of Greb, B.Leonard or Mickey Walker. He shouldn't even be in the same conversation. BTW, if one bothers to do the research it becomes clear that Tunney only beat Greb clearly ONCE. The other one was close and their second fight was an outright robbery. The draw should have gone to Greb. Greb is pretty much 3-2 vs. Tunney.

George Foreman. A strong but clumsy, flailing robot who could crush you if you didn't move too much. Give him a slick boxer and watch him get tied into knots. There aren't too many slick boxers from his era to now that I wouldn't pick to make him look silly.

Roy Jones. I could write a book. I won't waste the energy.

Just my opinion, comrades :smoke

 

Possibly Nicolino Locche. I believe we tend to rate fighters we admire higher than we ought to.

I think Locche could embarrass some historic fighters no one else would embarrass, but I think he could be shown up by some comparatively ordinary fighters due to his anemic offense.

So strictly in a pound-for-pound beat-anyone-put-in-front-of-you deal, I suspect I'd have him much lower than most.

But I love him to pieces, and am glad such an oddly shaped man has shown the world that boxing is not about brawn.

 

So, among Dempsey's lesser opponents, he is asking us to assume on no basis whatsoever that their existing records misrepresent their abilities in proportion of wins to losses. So I am to suppose that this applies to all of his lesser victims listed, that they all have been maligned by the erosion of time.

And to his more important victims, which are really the crux of my argument, guys like Flynn, Pelkey, Morris, Smith, I am again to suppose that these "name" fighters all have important victories which never made the papers and were left unrecorded in lieu of their losses to lesser fighters, that the sampling of their career trajectory going into meeting Dempsey is radically skewed (all in the same direction) by the fates of history.

Excuse me my guffaw.

 

burt bienstock is just getting his coffee.

 

Johnson. Not that he was a "con job" in the least, more that he should be viewed with the same healthy dose of perspective as other 'pioneers'. If we are going to omit the likes of Sullivan from the all-time head to head conversation altogether (not unfairly) on the grounds that he was a product of his time and that being a standout in those days by no means equips him to compete with the best of later, more evolved boxing eras - well, the same has to be said of Johnson. He is obviously well ahead of Sullivan individually and of a more evolved time for the sport himself, but still on the primitive side, closer to Sullivan's than Louis'. Yes, he stood head and shoulders above the plebes and was ahead of his time - and perhaps we only ever saw the scope of his talents at partial capacity due to his anachronistic prowess making life easy and having most of his opposition stymied with his slick counter-punching style and the safety net of imposing clinches and controlling the action inside - but I can't reconcile favoring him over later greats as many seem to, nor view him anywhere inside a top 5. Hell, I've seen him placed in a top 5 period, not just HW! (never mind that he never established himself as the absolute best of his contemporaries and drew the color line himself against some fine black heavies of whom a couple may have been at least his equal)

He is an important figure inside the ring and out, he was a trail-blazer and great athletic specimen for his day, the Mann Act was bull****, and he certainly should be recognized among the All Time Greats - but top 5 heavy (or pound for pound :-() of all time? Favored to beat Joe Louis? Holmes? Ali? No sir. I can't see it, and there is enough footage of enough meaningful bouts of his to say that confidently.

 

Cant see it cause it wouldnt happen..Great post!!

 

Ismael Laguna.

 

:good:good

 

Besides Jack Johnson who was already mentioned I gotta go with Lenox Lewis. He is without a doubt the most overrated fighter in history. I can't even comment on this guy without my blood pressure going up.

 

I think some fans, trainers and fighters get too carried away with Floyd's schoolings of B level guy's. After Canelo there was too many people who should know better tagging him as the GOAT or as great as the top tier fighters.

Calzaghe for obvious reasons.

 

You're not allowed to have this opinion.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected