Who Do You Rank Higher - Dempsey Or Liston?

Yes. Yes I do.

 

Carl Morris, who held a win over Fulton, is a decent win too.

But it isn't an all time great resume.

And his failure to fight Wills and Greb is a massive black mark.

 

You said he was a "strong contender" for the top 20 which if true, he would've regularly shown up in people's list which as I've established, is clearly not the case. As a matter of fact, Patterson shows up in the top ten much more often than Sharkey does in the top 20. Because YOU think "Sharkey is underrated here" (clearly a minority view) does not change that.

 

So original. I’d be a rich man if I had a nickel for every time I heard a poster say “I forgot more about x than you’ll ever know”.

I couldn’t care less whether the entire forum agrees with me or disagrees. I’m not going to add pointless threads about heavyweights in a forum drowning with pointless threads about heavyweights. There’s a clear level of difference in maturity here.

Yes.

I think if you read Sharkey’s resume and then Patterson’s you’ll find it laughable that Patterson is “much more proven against better opposition”

Who wouldn’t.

 

Have you ever tried to understand Sharkey's resume and career? This man fought more top level opponents than 90% of champions and had very deep resume. 1920s and 1930s aren't popular on this forum, but I don't care about that. Sharkey has excellent resume and looks excellent on film. I'm not sure if I'd pick Patterson over him H2H to be honest.

 

Very true

 

Consider this.

None of Dempsey's 1918 fights exist. That was his best year. That's like not filming Mike Tyson in 1988.

The first man to floor and KO Bill Brennan. The first man to KO Battling Levinsky. Taking out #1 contender Fred Fulton in less than 20 seconds. All that good stuff and it's barely mentioned because there's no visual reference.

Make them all available on film. Then take away Liston's fights with Williams and few others.

Dempsey wins.

 

Yeah dempsey had over 60 one round kos and not one is on film

 

In the 1970s, when there were more people around who lived to see both Sonny and Dempsey live, Dempsey was universally rated higher than Sonny Liston.


World Boxing 1974 Readers Poll

1Joe Louis
2 Jack Dempsey
3 Rocky Marciano
4 Jack Johnson
5 Muhammad Ali
6 Joe Frazier
7 Gene Tunney
8 Jim Jeffries
9 Sonny Liston
10 Ezzard Charles



Nat Loubet, 1975

1Joe Louis
2 Jack Dempsey
3 Jim Jeffries
4 Jack Johnson
5 Rocky Marciano
6 Gene Tunney
7 Bob Fitzsimmons
8 James J. Corbett
9 Muhammad Ali
10 Joe Frazier

 

My point which evidently has escaped you is that, judging by your posts and lack of objectivity when it to certain fighters, I'd match my knowledge of Liston against yours' any day!

You know nobody agrees with your ridiculous view that any of Dempsey's victims were better than Patterson. Simply laughable.

Straight forwardly untrue. The link I posted was a recent top 20 heavyweight list from posters on this forum and not one of Dempsey's victims including Brennan, Miske, and Sharkey were among the top 20 while Patterson was on nearly every poster's list.

Even 70sfan who rates Sharkey higher than anyone I've seen acknowledges that Patterson had the better resume.

No argument here.

 

Is that why you left that other thread about Liston and Marciano with your tail between your legs? You throw a fit just because someone doesn’t agree with you. Gonna go on a limb and guess you’re like 15

No. I’m not going to add on to the bs heavyweight threads because you’re a child. You have as much ability to make a thread as me. If it proves your point so much then post it but you won’t because it’s a dumb thread.

You didn’t post it in a reply to me. I’m not going to waste my time going through your post history. The onus is on you.

There’s no footage on most of Dempsey’s prolific opponents and the footage we have is extremely limited in comparison to Liston’s so of course Patterson gets rated significantly higher.

Since you have a hard on for the opinions of other posters then it must be a surprise to you that most people think Sharkey does better against modern heavyweights than Patterson does.

Reread my reply and you’ll realize that this comment is nonsensical. Btw that’s a blatant lie. 70s said the opposite in this thread.

 

This is the post where I supposedly "left that other thread with my tail between my legs" "Thank you! If everyone else is on the same page, I'd like to say enough is enough. Choklab has been exposed (yet again) and I really have no interest in partaking yet another 100 page war, and I'm actually starting to feel bad for the fool me, George, and others have made of him. I personally don't want to take part in any further mockery being made of Chok. Therefor I have made the decision to call it a day. "

You're not going to because you know you're wrong. None of Dempsey's victims are as good as Patterson. It's simply an unsupportable view.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/top-20-heavyweights.626535

That's no excuse. Patterson being rated higher because their's more footage on him is laughable. Using that logic, Shannon Briggs would rate higher than Dempsey.
Since you have a hard on for the opinions of other posters then it must be a surprise to you that most people think Sharkey does better against modern heavyweights than Patterson does.

I await your apology for this false accusation.

 

Liston is rated much higher today because now people have access to his fights, complete records and contemporary news reports of him at the time that were not available previously. As well as the fact that, as Ali's status rose, losing to him was no longer the black mark everyone thought it was.

 

Liston was often not rated at all until the end of Muhammad Ali’s career where Sonny benefied from a Renaissance.

Before then it is important to note Sonny was regarded at Sharkey or Max Baer level type champion. Started out promising, very gifted but ultimately was eclipsed by champions of a greater Resume. And it is assembling the resume, the domination and creating of a wider international impact that is the basis of an all time great raking. This surly is why Sonny Liston ranked lower among those that lived through his time.

The last century the most historically important heavyweight champions were Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson. Each had their own era. Even Larry Holmes (as good probably as any of them) didn’t quite make this status. But even Larry was a more important champion than Sonny Liston.

Jack Dempsey is certainly a more historically important figure than most champions. He did not get a Renaissance because he didn’t need one. His status among the generations of his lifetime always was of a higher echelon than could be possible for anyone else. This makes him more important. It counts.

Lots of champions benefit from a Renaissance. If you were born before the renaissance of a former champion then you are entitled to detect this change and remark upon the previous stature of the champion before his Renaissance.

Who knows? In years to come people might reevaluate a champion like Michael Moorer or Wilder who certainly don’t make any ATG lists today.