Is Dempsey top-10 HW on your all-time list?

We'll have to disagree then because I think Joe Louis is a boxing god whereas Dempsey belongs with Jeffries and Sullivan.
They were tough in their day but head to head with more modern fighters they look primitive and wouldn't succeed

 

Lol i did think the same. Tyson over lewis ,holyfield,frazier and foreman is laughable. Biased list

 

Since I checked my privilege first, I am immune from prosecution.

 

If I stick to quoting Eddie Futch can I stay ?
:?

 

Whose rule is that ?

 

What about Dempsey over Liston Vlad and Holyfield ???
Are they fighting at 185lbs or with different rules

 

You're not actually serious about this are you?

 

Social Justice Warrior Code.

Tyson at 5 is a slight reach.

 

It depends on criteria but his resume can't be held high when you consider the primeness and quality of his opponents. And H2H he isn't skilled enough to beat the best.

Not top 15 in either, for boxing social impact, selling himself and selling the sport though, you could have him as a top 5.

 

that'd put stallone and jake gynenhall in.

 

borderline top ten h2h, lower in acheivements.

 

I do reckon Dempsey is a good h2h fighter. If he fights as he did against Willard and Gibbons there's not many I favour over him.

If he fights as he did against Firpo I could imagine Toney stopping him.

 

I don't think an innactive, undertrained, old Jess Willard and a Tommy Gibbons who really didn't have a significant victory at heavyweight represent satisfactory litmus tests for such a judgement.

Call me crazy.

 

The Willard fight was a perfect game plan, it was what Haye tried to follow against Wlad. I'm not gonna make any illusions about the quality of Willard that night but the game plan we saw Dempsey follow was class. We know about his power and speed and head movement, this shows about his discipline, patience and technique.

The Gibbons fight, I'm ignoring what you say about HW accomplishment. This is two men similar sized. Gibbons is undoubtedly great, Dempsey was able to nullify the great fighter wholly and totally. Admittedly, Tommy was not a patch on Mike, but he was a very talented fighter.

That being said, I don't think your crazy. I've always said judgements on old fighters requires a bit of a leap of faith. I'm willing to make it based on what I've seen.

 

I'm not going to make a crusade about it. Tommy was a great fighter but not a great or even proven heavyweight. Willard showed up as he chose to show up. He signed the contract.

In the end, Dempsey beat who was put before him and I'm not sure he had much to say in the choice of who was put before him. I have always conceded him greatness but he isn't breaking my Top Ten. Too many more proven fighters have followed him.

Now is this horse sufficiently flogged?