Would you rank him above any of the following heavyweights and if so why? Holmes Holyfield Lennox Lewis Wlad Foreman Tyson Liston Marciano
No. Dempseys entire legacy rests on his perceived head to head ability, based on the opinions of his contemporaries. His record is **** poor for an all-time great fighter.
I largely agree with this. His resume (for whatever reason - inexperience, hunger, whatever) does not look too inspiring when contrasted with ATG resumes. However he did have a shattering punch, light feet and great speed. I think he'd have a good chance against most HW's on that alone.
Would I? probably not, although my dude above has listed the most likely candidate that i'd place him above. Could you or anyone else? Most definitley
It's amazingly subjective but to use this board's consensus as a measure, from blasting Fulton to outhustling Sharkey, I'd say Dempsey's handiwork is a little better than credited.
If you place a high premium on beating big heavyweights, then he is basically above everybody except Lewis. Oh the irony!
Given the physical advantages that Fulton and Willard had over him, combined with the fact that they were clearly elite fighters for the day, it seems staggering that they could not manage some sort of effective defence against him. Even with Tyson, guys that size usually survived a few rounds by holding on, or trying to keep him at range. Yes, I would say that Dempsey was as effective against big heavyweights, as pretty much anybody has ever been.
Dempsey was a unique and phenomenal talent. One of the greatest hwts ever to live. How he ranks vs the above list is a completely subjective exercise.
