Who Do You Rank Higher - Dempsey Or Liston?

It's being difficult because it's a very specific criteria. Being in the HOF doesn't make someone great, or even a good win. Jess Willard being in the HOF is ridiculous. He isn't better than say, Machen imo. Guys like Gibbons, Levinsky and Miske aren't remotely close (in terms of H2H abilities and/or achievements at HW) to Patterson, Williams, Machen or Folley. Sharkey is Dempsey's best win, Patterson is Liston's best.

Being in the HOF isn't the same as being a good win, and one fighter being in the hall of fame doesn't mean they're better than one who isn't. Is Mancini better than Marcel? Absolutely not. That's why it's being difficult, it's too pandering. Like, why does being in the HOF matter when they other guy would kick the **** outta him? Patterson would send Gibbons to the mincer.

 

Willard knocked out Jack Johnson. Who was Machen's best win?

Dempsey and Liston are pretty even to me as far as head-to-head fighters go. Historically, Dempsey is much bigger. In terms of wins on his resume, Dempsey is probably bigger, too. But Ali was better than anyone Dempsey fought by a mile.

Dempsey kept going when he was getting beaten up. Liston didn't. Liston was a quitter. In terms of who I'd rate higher, all things being equal, that's probably the deciding factor to me.

 

Fred Fulton is a really good win for Dempsey - doesn’t get the coverage it should. A minority of people believe it may have been a set up and it was filmed shame it has not surfaced.
Fulton has a great resume and was the favorite going into the match.

 

I forgot more about Liston then you'll ever know.

Make a poll on who agrees with me, and who agrees with you.

Patterson is a near-consensus top 20 heavyweight. Does anyone put any of the above men anywhere near the top 20?

I disagree. Patterson was much more proven against much better opposition.

I'd probably agree.

 

Seriously? Do you not think Liston would not have beaten that Willard just as decisively? Hell Patterson would've beaten a prime Willard, let alone the 37 year old inactive slob!

 

He wasn't better than Luis Firpo, Bill Brennan or Billy Miske.

 

That's because Joe Louis hadn't seen Mike Tyson.

 

Hi The Seamus.

 

What's with people and agenda's around here??

 

Sharkey is certainly a strong contender for top 20 and you're definitelt selling him short. He has comparable resume to Patterson and I have him below only because he had more losses.

 

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/top-20-heavyweights.626535 This was a recent top 20 heavyweight thread. Please show me where Sharkey shows up in the top 20 even once.

 

It's not my fault that Sharkey is underrated here. What makes you believe that Floyd is much better than Sharkey and has much better resume?

 

It's the hall of fame, not the hall of skills, or hall of ability.

Willard ended one of the most legendary reigns in boxiana, in a legendary contest, and wa dethroned by one of boxings biggest stars in another legendary contest.

I think Willard is pretty underrated, but he's no ATG, and was over the hill when he lost to Dempsey.

Worth noting Gibbons et al are probably not in the HoF for what they did at heavyweight either.

 

Yeah I know why they get in, that's why I don't think it's a fair measurement of someone's résumé.

Gibbons is an ATG, one of the best to ever do it (I had him top 35 iirc), but he's a natural MW... who had no HW résumé to speak of. I can't say that's a good win, coz it isn't. Certainly not better than Machen or Williams imo.

If Willard was over the hill for Dempsey, why should that be pegged as a top win? He beat up a slow, disinterested old man.

Sharkey and Patterson is the main comparison here imo, and whilst I'd say Floyd is better, I don't need to since Liston beat him twice.