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

They're not skewed in terms of quality wins, but many journeymen's records are definitely abbreviated. They look less experienced than they are. It's a systemic bias, and applies to them like it does to the opponents that Johnson, Jeffries, Sullivan, Corbett, Willard, et al fought.

When it comes to contenders, that's different.

 

It's mentioned pretty frequently on here that documentation gets spottier as you go further into the past. It becomes less important as you get into the 30s-40s, and much less important from the 1950s onward.

So it does apply to a lot of fighters. Johnson, Sullivan, Wills, Willard, Langford, etc.

It doesn't add much to ATG fighters' records, either. Just acknowledges that their journeyman victims had more experience than their Boxrec stats suggest. (Unless you'd rate Ali significantly higher for beating a 9-5-2 Tony Esperti instead of a 0-0 Tony Esperti...?)

 

Also, a few fighters off the top of my head who meet this thread's criteria --

Dempsey -- For the reasons stated.

Tommy Hearns -- Lost his biggest challenges at 147 (against an opponent whose record has its own issues) and 160. Was even less dominant above those weights.

Jersey Joe Walcott -- It took him a lot of shots to win that heavyweight crown. Give another contender blessed with punching power five chances against two different champions and you might see a similar outcome.

Bob Fitzsimmons -- The talent pool just wasn't large enough at this point to know how good Bob was. And fantasy fights usually treat him as if he fights like a modern counterpuncher, which he didn't.

The Entire Mid-To-Late-Seventies Heavyweight Division -- Yes, all of it. Young, Lyle, Shavers, Bugner, and the rest of 'em. This era was probably worse than the late 80's when Tyson took over. Worse than the modern division, too. Probably as bad as the immediate period after Lennox Lewis's retirement, if not worse than that as well. A near-prime Ali couldn't impose himself on the early 1970s. A fat, old, and increasingly punch-worn Ali (whose tactics involved frequent clinches and letting people hit him) dominated the bunch from the mid/late 70's.

Jack Johnson -- Not for his record, but the fact that everybody seems to think he's some sort of modern slickster. Johnson's a squared-up boxer-wrestler with his feet positioned like he's fencing, whose "jab" was a wound-up punch that involved skipping. Great fighter, but yeah...

Corbett -- For the love of boxing history, Corbett, Corbett, Corbett. The man did not invent the jab. He was not an 1890s Gene Tunney. He did not usher in the gloved era. He was not the first to come up with lateral movement. Or the hook. Or boxing. In almost every respect, Corbett was the last orthodox London Prize Ring style fighter. Full stop. He was a great technician within those constraints, and he had amazing speed and reflexes. But John L. Sullivan he wasn't. Title bouts against either Jackson or Slavin might have unseated him long before Fitz did the trick.

Riddick Bowe -- For reasons I think others have stated. The man had a suspiciously short "prime" that basically involved standout fights against one opponent with a stylistic disadvantage.

Vitali Klitschko -- Okay, he's the #2 man of the post-Lennox era, but most of his record comes from either lower top-10 guys, or fights that deserve an asterisk (e.g., a ballooned-up Kirk Johnson, Solis getting injured). He's a long way behind Wlad. I don't see why so many rank them close together.

James Toney -- For reasons similar to Hearns.

 

Even Joe Louis's journeyman opponents from earlier in his career probably have more fights we don't know about.

That's true. Records from Dempsey's period are better than those from Johnson's, just as Johnson's were better than Sullivan's. It's a continuum.

I agree with you that Dempsey probably didn't have any "holy grail" fights that we don't know about. It's not like there's some secret closed-door fight against Wills or anything.

I'm just saying that some of those "0-0" guys are probably closer to 4-5, 7-8 or 19-12 guys. Doesn't really do much for Dempsey's record overall, does it?

I never said Dempsey was a top 10. Probably not a top 20. I rate him below Schmeling, for instance.

 

Oh, OK. Yeah. I see where you're coming from.