Are Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua greater than Jack Dempsey?

Why would Sharkey beat Parker? Sure, he's an alright boxer, but this is a guy who lost to Risko and would be against a tougher, bigger, better and quicker boxer than himself.

I see Parker using his reach and speed and making Sharkey come forward, then beating him to the punch all night.

 

Risko would have beaten Parker too.

 

So no names then?

Parker's given awesome accounts of himself against Joshua and Whyte, whilst beating Ruiz. I fail to see how that is hit and miss. Especially when I'd pick Joshua to beat Dempsey too.

 

Sharkey was inconsistent, sure, but I don't think Parker is a better boxer than him. Sharkey was very skilled IMO, he was let down by his temperament.

Parker is one of the most average heavyweights I have ever seen. IMO the slick Sharkey boxes circles around him.

 

Sure. If you say so.

A guy who built his rep on beating, and losing to, LHWs whilst losing a good third of his fights is favoured to beat Parker? Sure. If you say so.

 

Right now I’m only going to compare Fury and Dempsey.

Both Tyson Fury and Jack Dempsey won the linear heavyweight title from aging champions past their primes. The key difference here is that the one who Fury beat is now recognized by most as an ATG. The aging champion who Dempsey beat isn’t. That and said ATG wasn’t coming off three years of inactivity. Continuing on, Fury never had any early career losses. Dempsey has a few including a first round KO defeat to Fireman Jim Flyn. I won’t call Flynn a bum as I don’t know much about him but Im fairly certain that it was a less than flattering loss. Tyson Fury has already faced and soundly defeated a professional who was 42-0-0-41 in professional fights and has campaigned heavily to face his only standing rival in Anthony Joshua. Dempsey sat on the title for three years without a single defense and never faced his only worthy counterpart in Harry Wills. To be clear Fury’s career is still in progress while Dempsey’s has had time to resonate with experts for a century. But if Fury were to retire tomorrow, I would absolutely view his resume as being the greater of the two.

 

Risko was one of the best heavyweights never to win the title.

He has a lot of losses, because of his punishing schedule, but at his peak he was one of the top three heavyweights in the world.

He was widely topped to be the heir to Gene Tunney's throne after he retired, but of course he drew Schmeling in the first round of the tournament.

 

He lost against Joshua and Whyte, and some think that he was lucky to get the decision against Ruiz.

Outside of that there isn't much.

This is exactly the kind of fighter that you don't pick to be consistent against world class opposition.

 

He barely lost to either imo. I had the Joshua fight 7-5, and the Whyte fight 6-6 with a KD for Whyte. And I thought he beat Ruiz.

That's not hit and miss, that's better results than what Sharkey would have.

 

Dempsey was coming to the end of the road when he lost to Tunney, who was the best fighter in the world, and he still went on to beat the heir to his throne in Sharkey.

For contrast Fury imploded almost the day after he won the title, and Joshua lost to Ruiz at a time when he should not have been losing to that caliber of fighter.

My point is that both Fury and Joshua still have considerable potential for expanding their resumes, but it is too early to compare them to any dominant champion.

 

Okay? He wasn't the heir to Tunney's 'throne' and lost to Mickey Walker. A welterweight. Twice.

At Parker's peak he was a top 3 HW. And it was a better era.

 

I think part of what is being over looked is that we don't have footage of Dempsey's pre title opponents. For example, we don't know how good Fred Fulton or Carl Morris were. It's hard to gauge the quality of some of his opposition.

 

What does DKSAB stand for??

 

Well its certainly not better than what Sharkey managed in the real physical universe.

Sharkey beat more ranked opponents than some dominant heavyweight champions!