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

No for Basilio. But why should it count for Giardello? He would just be beating a man in a lower division.

The fact that Giardello is a middleweight doesn't make the other man anything other than a welterweight.

 

Well now you're saying something different to your point I questioned to begin this debate, which was a Tunney win in a fight contested under 175lbs counted towards his HW resume.

A Basillo win in a fight contested at 147 forms part of his WW resume, not MW.

A Tunney win in a fight contested under 175lbs counts towards his LHW resume, not HW.

It's reasonable to limit the credit you attribute to Dempsey's HW resume for victories over LHWs.

 

The last line is my basic point. If you dismiss Tunney beating a light-heavyweight, I think you should dismiss Dempsey also.

But you seem struck on a technical point. Whether both boxers made a 175 limit. But back in the day many fighters could make 175 but often fought at heavyweight. The 175 lb. weight limit was arbitrary. It could just as easily have been 170 or 180. If it were 170, all of these Tunney victories would be classified as heavyweight? To me, whom you defeat is critical, not the arbitrary weight limits.

 

I dont dismiss Tunney's win over Carpenter. It counts towards his LHW resume and his p4p ranking.

You saying Basilos win in your example counting towards his WW resume, not his MW, is exactly that same "technical point". I just apply it consistently.

 

Let's take an actual fighter-Billy Graham against Basilio and Giardello:

Billy Graham 148-Carmen Basilio 146 1/2--W
Billy Graham 147-Carmen Basilio 147-D
Billy Graham 147-Carmen Basilio 145-L

Billy Graham 148-Joey Giardello 151 3/4-L
Billy Graham 149-Joey Giardello 151 3/4-L
Billy Graham 149 1/2-Joey Giardello 155 1/2--W

It is clear to me Graham was always basically a welter and could have dried out to 147. Does Graham weighing 148 versus Basilio in their first fight make Basilio a middleweight scalp? That makes no sense to me. In Basilio's victory, Graham made 147, so this is a welter fight. Does his weighing 148 & 149 for his losses to Giardello make those middle fights?

Far more important is how both Basilio and Giardello did against Graham, rather than arbitrary focus on weights.

By the way, several years later Graham made 148 for Chico Vejar who weighed 152.

 

I like your content ,but I think you are splitting hairs here.

 

When I researched my top 20 rankings in the original 8 weight divisions, i made some allowance for slightly over weight non-title fights, to capture fights like your Graham vs Basillo example in the most sensible weight division. Anything contested up to 180lbs was LHW. I think my cut off for WW was 150lbs. I'm not saying my cut offs are the definitive ones, but anyone wanting their rankings to be consistent need to apply their own consistent criteria.

Applying my criteria, the 3 Bassilo vs Graham fights you cite would be classed as WW contests. All Graham vs Giardello MW.

You can apply whatever cut off you want for your own criteria. Your interpretation of a Tunney vs Carpentier contest where both boxers weighed 173lbs, being at HW, is quite possibly unique to you, though, so I recommend to factor that in when others rank Tunney differently at HW.

 

We are on entirely different tracks and evaluating different things. You insist on pushing me into your classifications, which are a moot point for me. I am not judging classifications for p4p. I am judging achievement.

For example, in 1943 Jake LaMotta at 161 defeated California Jackie Wilson at 145. For you the issue seems to be whether this fight should be classified as a middleweight or as a light-heavyweight fight. That issue is irrelevant to me. For me the main point is that LaMotta defeated a welterweight.

When Sugar Ray Robinson defeated Wilson he was also defeating a welterweight. If Ike Williams had fought and defeated Wilson, he would also have defeated a welter. But the achievement in all three cases would be the same. All three men beat the same welter.

If you want to give Williams more credit because he is beating a bigger man than Robinson who was beating an equally sized man and both more than LaMotta, who was beating a smaller man, fine. But they were beating the same man at about the same weight.

As for the issue between Dempsey and Tunney, if Dempsey wanted to earn credit for defeating heavyweights he should have fought heavyweights. These three men were light-heavyweights and so his achievement is beating light-heavyweights, the same as Tunney. The two men deserve equal credit for beating the same men at about the same weight. They are equal achievements. They should count for both or for neither.

Personally, I think it picky and foolish, given the success light-heavies often had against heavies back then, to not count them for both men.

The only valid issue against Tunney would be if these men had gone back, which McVey brought up.

So let's agree to disagree as we are not close to being on the same page in what we are evaluating.

 

I agree we are arguing different things.

You are claiming Tunney deserves more credit as a boxer (I term p4p) for his entire career resume, than Dempsey does.

I'm arguing that in fights contested at HW/180lbs+ Dempsey has a deeper resume than Tunney.

I think it's clear both arguments are correct.

 

"You are claiming Tunney deserves more credit as a boxer (I term p4p) for his entire career resume, than Dempsey does."

No. I am saying that considering them as heavyweights they deserve equal credit for defeating the same men at the same weight.

p4p is an abstraction which has no validity at heavyweight. A man of 260 or 220 or 190 or 170 beating an opponent of 173 is the same achievement for all four. One is not penalized in the heavyweight division for being large. Nor given extra credit for being small. These are just facts of life.

P4p issues are separate.

This thread is about if Dempsey is a top ten heavyweight, not his p4p ranking.

 

Charley Burley once fought a man who weighed 220lbs. By your logic Holman William's 3 wins over him count towards his HW resume.

Tunney vs Carpentier was contested at 173lbs. It was a LHW fight, not a HW. That is a fact.

 

"By your logic Holman William's 3 wins over him count toward his HW resume."

???? No. Burley was a middleweight. Burley's win over the 220 lb. guy is a win by a middleweight against a heavyweight.

"Tunney vs Carpentier was contested at 173 lbs. It was a LHW fight, not a HW. That is a fact."

Not in dispute. But Carpentier was 172 for Dempsey. So Dempsey was fighting a light-heavyweight. That is also a fact.

You are what your weight is. The weight of your opponent doesn't make you something you are not.

Whom you beat is your achievement and does not depend on division classifications.

 

Just to interject, Carpentier was also used up when Tunney beat him and not that good to begin with.

 

Yes, Dempsey remains, for me, an undisputed ATG!! No explanation why is necessary.

 

If you follow your logic - Tunney beat Carpentier in a fight that wasn't contested at HW. You've claimed it contributes to his HW resume. When I've said it doesn't because it wasn't contested at HW, you've said it does because Dempsey fought Carptentier at the same weight. So, your claim = fight not contested at HW, counts to the winners HW resume, because the opponent he beat also fought a HW. Williams beat Burley in a fight not contested at HW and Burley fought another fight at HW.

"Not in dispute". Hang on, does Tunney's win over Carpentier contribute to his HW resume or not, in your opinion?

I know Dempsey was fighting a LHW in Carpentier, I've never said otherwise. The win doesn't elevate Dempsey's HW ranking in any way in my view, partly for that reason. It does form part of his HW resume, though, does it not?