Does anyone still have Dempsey as a top ten heavy? Top 15?

More "Revisionist" history...historians have him as an all time great...new generations exclude him because some guy at the bar says that Fury is the greatest! READ NPEOPLE...DO THE RESEARCH!!! MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDS!!!!! There...I feel much better!!!

 

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali

3. Larry Holmes
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Rocky Marciano

6. Jack Johnson
7. Wlad Klitschko
8. Jim Jeffries
9. Sonny Liston
10. Mike Tyson
11. George Foreman
12. Joe Frazier

13. Harry Wills
14. Jack Dempsey
15. Evander Holyfield

Conscious I have Jeffries higher, whilst Foreman and Frazier, lower, than most.

H2H across vastly different eras doesnt factor into my rankings.

Whilst I acknowledge some eras were stronger than others, I dont factor that in as much as some others.

Quality of opposition beaten is my most important criteria, though dominance counts a lot for me. So, my list is more than who has the deepest win resume. Dominance in a fighters prime is a key criteria.

 

Agreed. It's a quandary often faced when ranking. I.e. was the dominant fighter so dominant because the best opposition of his era was relatively weak, or because he was better than the best boxer of other eras? Whilst my interpretation in this regard is by no means absolute, I tend to think it more likely that the best fighter of one era is an outlier compared to peers of other eras, than the dozen or so top contenders ALL are.

I have Ortiz at #3. I could see him at #1, but not #4.

 

I wouldnt argue which way round Jofre, Olivares and Ortiz were ordered. They are a clear top 3 for me.

I have 1. Jofre; 2. Olivares; 3. Ortiz; though researching and ranking fighters by decade for Rummys thread has thrown up some potential inconsistencies with my divisional rankings. If/when I re-do them I fear I may have no option to move Olivares to 1. I say fear because I'm a big Jofre fan.

Jofre definitely the higher p4p imo, his FW resume separating him from RO and MO.

 

Interesting points.

Where dominant runs are concerned, I tend to start from the position of "The era was relatively weak" - and then try to prove that hypothesis. This of course demands that the opposition in scope are themselves examined.

Unfortunately, the more recent eras frequently suffer in this respect, since a fair few of the challengers, these days, get shots at the title without being proven themselves - making them more difficult to evaluate.



Incidentally, I also have Ortiz at #3.

 

That's reasonable, though I start(ed) from a neutral perspective.

I agree the additional weight divisions, proliferation of world titles and fighters boxing less often mean that a closer look is often required for "dominant" fighters in more modern eras.

 

He’s my number 1 because it’s my P4P list not yours. He just etched Slapsie for the crown.

 

As time goes on it’s getting increasingly harder to have him among the upper echelon but he was still a great fighter regardless of ratings which I don’t really do anymore

 

He's just outside my top ten.

If I'd made a ten ten list eighty years ago, he would have been number one.

 

I do

 

All depends on the criteria. One can concoct reasonable standards that put him in the Top 10 or similarly outside the Top 15. Using the blanket term of "greatness" doesn't satisfy me and seems more touchy-feely nostalgic.

Do I have him in my Top 10? No. But inside Top 15.