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

And you consider every possible explanation, except that there might actually be something in it?

 

I usually have Mike around 5-8 placement. I like dominant reigns, people who reigned supreme in their era. Who dominated better than Tyson? His accomplishments are high in my opinion. Along with Ali and Foreman, Mike regained the title 10 years after first winning it. Those are the only guys, 3 of them, to do that at heavyweight. I can only think of a handful of guys who accomplished more than Tyson...Ali, Louis, Holmes, Marciano and the next batch of Wlad, Lewis, Foreman, Frazier and Holyfield can be debated on personal tastes and formulas.

Wlad might bump him down a notch. Longevity plays a big role in my rankings too. But the topic here is Dempsey. I think he did enough to stave off some newer belt holders. He was vicious in the ring and brought a new style that fans are up. My kinda fighter.

 

:rofl

 

:deal

 

I put him at 5 earlier. There's an argument for that but it may be a reach. 7 is probably more accurate. His degree of domination and cleaning out the division was extremely impressive. Again, Dempsey did far less over a very watered-down and artificially extended reign. Marciano fought a depleted era of old timers on their very last legs. Holmes even had less than a stellar line-up of foes.

No one's reign is or will ever be perfect.

 

Yes, food for the nostalgic and regressive minded.

 

At least you're consistent :good