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

Dempsey's historical ranking should be negatively impacted by not facing Wills, but Langford was no longer a top contender during Dempseys reign. He'd lost about 7 in a row to Wills before Dempsey won the title.

 

Jack Johnson ducked prime versions of Langford, McVey and Jeanette. Speaking of Jeannette, Dempsey actual had a chance to fight him as an old man when he stepped in as a sub with gloves and trunks on! Of course he passed. He didn't want anything to do with Langford either before becoming Champion.

 

Well, Tyson has Holy. In hindsight he is far and away the best challenger during Tyson's reign (in hindsight Holmes was probably the best challenger during Ali's second reign and Frazier during the first tbf), but even at the time he was the most interesting challenge out there after Tyson demolished Spinks.

Tyson had every intention of facing him, but the fact is that it didn't happen.

 

For a few months yes, but Wills was for several years.

 

I'm not comparing the two, I'm just challenging the assumption that Marciano fought all his outstanding challengers, he didn't.

 

I don't have Dempsey in the top 10, but maybe top 15. Fulton, Willard, Firpo, Miske (first fight) and Brennan were good scalps. Sharkey too, on paper at least, since it seems more like Sharkey's loss than Dempsey.s win.

But he's not bumping the likes of Tyson, Frazier, Holy etc that he would need to if he'd make my top 10.

 

That's fair, I'd say.

 

Sam Langford, when asked how Harry Wills (whom he fought 18 times in his career) would do against Jack Dempsey, said in the June 5, 1922, Atlanta Constitution "Well if he ever fights Dempsey my money will be on the present champion. Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen. He hits twice as hard as Jim Jeffries and is as fast in the ring as James J. Corbett."

 

I will take these names in turn, and say what they would have amounted to, if Dempsey had defended against them.

Godfrey
A good title defense, but not better than the ones that were happening.

Norfolk
A good title defense, but not better than the ones that were happening.

Langford
A grotesque spectacle of a once great fighter getting destroyed, and thank god it never happened.

McVea
A grotesque spectacle of a once great fighter getting destroyed, and thank god it never happened.

Clark
A questionable title defense.

Now one you missed out is Big Bill Tate, who might briefly have had a good case after his series with Wills.

Bottom line, if Dempsey had fought Wills, I could probably forgive him not fighting the others.

 

Ruddock was at least as interesting as Holyfield after each had fought Dokes. Tyson unified all of the belts though . I think that's good enough.

 

He beat Godfrey, McVea, and Clark in 1920. I think Dempsey could've fought him, especially pretitle. Dempsey might've lost 7 straight to Wills too if he had those fights.

 

Ruddock beat Dokes after Tyson's reign so not really applicable.

And no one said what Tyson did isn't good enough. Relax. You don't have to be so defensive of your hero (even though I knew you would be, tbf ).

The fact just is that he never defended against the most interesting challenge out there after Spinks. He planned to, but it never happened.

If we're talking Tyson's second reign, then Lewis is more of a flat out duck. He had every intention of facing Holy after Douglas. The same can't be said of Lewis in '96.

 

I'll say one thing for you, you're not afraid of adopting positions that put you at a severe disadvantage in debates.

1917-20 Langford went 40-15-7. The best 2 x HWs he fought during this period were Wills, who he went 0-8-1 with, & Fulton, who he went 0-2 with. Dempsey KO'd Fulton in 1 round in between Fulton's 2 x wins over Langford.

If you want to criticise Dempsey's reign, criticise it for his failure to defend against Wills, or even Greb. Criticising it for failing to defend against Langford is a bit like criticising Wlad's reign for failing to defend against Holyfield. It's both unnecessary & senseless.

 

Dempsey is very difficult to rate because of his inactivity and post Willard match making .. at his best version I have trouble rating any 190 guy H2H top ten .. too many tough much bigger men ... I could consider him too ten heavyweight P4P but even that is very tough based on same reasons ..