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

"I would like to see your ratings"

I don't think you will like them, but here they are at heavyweight. My criteria is how the man did in his own time against the opposition of his time. Keys are longevity. Domination of opponents. And facing and beating the best available in your time. (I do not consider p4p at all in this rating. I consider it purely an historical ranking)

1--Muhammad Ali
2--Joe Louis
3--Rocky Marciano
4--Lennox Lewis
5--Larry Holmes
6--Jack Johnson
7--George Foreman
8--Wlad Klitschko
9--Jim Jeffries
10-Joe Frazier
10-Evander Holyfield (tie)

Why they didn't make it:

John L Sullivan--just don't see him doing enough to be considered, although a great fighter in his day.
Jack Dempsey--not really outstanding on any of my criteria, and heavily docked for not fighting Wills. (by the way, until I was well into my thirties, he would have been my pick for #1. Why? Everyone said so. But now I don't think his record stands up to scrutiny)
Gene Tunney--I rate him in the top five at light-heavyweight. Not enough done at heavy to rate him there.
Bob Fitzsimmons--Also in top ten at light-heavyweight. Not enough done at heavy to rate him there.
Max Schmeling--any claim rests basically on one fight, and the bad loss in the Louis rematch knocks him out of consideration.
Sonny Liston--would make a top ten p4p list, but the bad losses to Ali drag him down for me. Losing to Ali in itself was not that awful, but the way he did was.
Peter Jackson and Harry Wills--deserve more consideration than they usually get. Both might be higher in all these conversations if it had not been for the color line freezing them out.
Sam Langford--is probably on balance more reasonably considered as a light-heavyweight.
Vitali Klitschko--Would rank very high h2h, but whom did he beat to rate? Somehow lost to the two men who could have put him on this list.
Tyson Fury--I wouldn't consider him anyway until he retires, but beating an old Wlad and an unproven Wilder isn't enough to earn a rating. He has to beat a couple of top men. I don't know anyone I would rate above him h2h. Like Vitali, at the top for years but somehow never getting into the ring with many really top men.
Mike Tyson--too many really bad defeats, so outside top ten.

There is my list. Enough here to make everyone angry with me.

 

Where's the Boxing God Mike Tyson ?!????????
And do tell how can men like Foreman, Holyfield or Frazier rank ahead of Mike Tyson or Sonny Liston given the criteria you said you use ?!?
Liston cleaned out the division in the late 50s (say 58) and reigned until 64. So he has around 6 years at the top absolutely dominating everyone.
Tyson did the same, cleaned out the division, became the youngest champ, unified all the belts, 4 years as champ. Regained the title in the 90s though he was never the same boxer by that point.
Their achievements are far more impressive than Foreman's, Frazier and Holyfield's.
Holyfield only has wins over a past his best Tyson and an old Foreman. Lost vs Bowe, lost vs Lewis. He never dominated for as long as Liston or Tyson.
Foreman lost in a even more embarrassing fashion vs Ali than Liston did. He only has 2 good wins in the 70s, vs Frazier and Norton.
Was only champ for 1 year. Regained the title in the 90s, but only due to a lucky punch. Lost to all good men he faced in his comeback.
Frazier beat some good boxers in the late 60s and a comeback Ali, but he never dominated the way Liston or Tyson did.

 

Tyson had already completed a longer title reign than most of the guys listed before any defeat happened. That’s a double standard.

 

Well, I had forgotten Mike but I remembered and added a comment on him just before reading your critique.

Liston vs Frazier--This is almost a no brainer for me. Frazier defeated Ali and fought him tough 3 times. Liston flopped twice against Ali. Which fighter did Liston beat who would be favored against Frazier? Patterson? Machen? Folley? Harris?

Holyfield vs Tyson--Holyfield beat Tyson twice and was the older man.

Foreman and Holyfield over Tyson and Liston--"the criteria you said you use"--the first of which was longevity. Are you disputing that Foreman and Holyfield were at the top much longer than Tyson and Liston? Foreman made my list because of re-winning the title in his forties. It was such a remarkable achievement that it negates some of my issues with his career.

"Foreman lost in a even more embarrassing fashion vs Ali than Liston did"

Foreman got to the 8th round. Liston went down and out with the first punch in the second Ali fight. I would be hard-pressed to think of any more embarrassing loss suffered by a top ten all time contender than that Liston loss.

"only due to a lucky punch"

I don't believe in lucky punches. This is the poorest argument possible, I think.

"he had only two good wins--Frazier and Norton." Frazier definitely, and Norton probably, were better than anyone Liston defeated.

Thanks for the reply. I don't expect folks to agree with me. Just my take.

 

Just one point.

In my ratings I take into consideration the whole career. So it ends up judging them by their overall career and not peak efforts. Tyson and Liston were impressive but then suffered bad defeats which drag them down for me. In Liston's case, however, I don't think he ever beat anyone who proves that much in an all time sense.

 

Yes I rate Dempsey top ten heavyweight.

you have to if only for a historical sense in that the majority of boxing people who lived through his era and into later boxing eras usually held Jack in the highest esteem. On par with everyone else.

Also, Without Dempsey taking the sport into that kind of level, or being good enough to take it to that kind of level, how can you measure anyone else?

Secondly. Dempsey is a heavyweight, not a SHW or a cruiser. A legit heavyweight. Part of the history of an entire era outside of boxing.

So if he’s not making someone’s top ten because he rates behind a number of more recent SHW champions then throw those SHW guys out. They’re in another division. It was still heavyweight in Jacks day. Not cruiser. Not SHW. But HW.

 

Ok, I'll look into it.

You're not abiding by your own criteria, longevity and domination (in their own era). It's irrelevant how they both did vs Ali.
Liston had way more longevity and beat his opponents in a far more convincing fashion than Frazier did.
But since you brought it up, Liston was around 40 when he faced Ali. Barely trained for the first fight and had a shoulder injury. Took a dive in the second.

I could ask you the same question. And again, it's irrelevant.
Liston beat a prime Williams, who has a good chance of beating Frazier. Machen was also more slick than Frazier, but that doesn't guarantee him a win.
Liston will mop the floor with Frazier.

Again, completely irrelevant. And even though Holyfield was older, he was way more match sharp and prepared. Not to mentioned roided to the gills. On the other hand, Tyson was a shell of his former self.

Of course I am. Neither Foreman nor Holyfield had as long reigns at the top as Tyson and Liston, nor as many successful title defenses.

Again, he won due to a lucky punch. Moorer, who wasn't even a proper HW, dominated him all night long until his ego got the better of him and he decided to show everyone he can stand there and trade with Foreman. Had he just kept his distance, he'd have easily won on points.

Foreman was ahead cause Ali allowed him to be ahead in order to tire him out. Also, the version of Ali that Liston faced was faster than the one Foreman faced.
And like I said, Liston took a dive.

That's reality, whether you like it or not.

I disagree, and Liston would beat both anyway. And he'd also beat Foreman.

 

That's what I also pointed out.

 

This is the criteria you use, in your own words: "My criteria is how the man did in his own time against the opposition of his time. Keys are longevity. Domination of opponents. And facing and beating the best available in your time."
Therefore whom they beat bares no consequence, it's irrelevant if Liston's opponents were better or worse than someone else's.

 

You make a good point. I was a bit inconsistent there.

The main point I was trying to make is that except for Patterson, Liston didn't beat champions. They were only contenders who were losing badly to other contenders. Machen was KO'd by Johansson and beaten by Harold Johnson. Folley was KO'd by Lavorante and Jones. Harris was KO'd twice by Cleroux. Henry Cooper outpointed both Folley and Harris. None of these men had that big win which put them at least for a while at the top. Johansson actually did, KO'ing Patterson, Machen, and Cooper. So I am not certain when the division was cleaned out as Liston didn't fight Johansson. (I think he would have beaten him if he did)

But Liston losing to Ali and Frazier beating Ali is critical for me. Ali was the best at the time for both.

 

I respect this ratings. I don’t agree with all of it but I respect it and it’s reasoning.

 

"It's irrelevant how they both did against Ali"

I think beating the top man available goes directly to domination.

Domination for me is winning consistently, not necessarily blowing opponents out, which gives an advantage to a big puncher in comparison to a boxer. Anyway, this often depends on which fight is considered. Was Liston more dominant against Machen and DeJohn than Frazier was against Ellis and Chuvalo?

"Liston had way more longevity"

Not really if judged by being at the top. Liston was in the ratings 10 times over a 13 year period (1958-1970). Frazier was in the ratings 10 times over a 10 year period (1966-1975). Liston was in the top five 7 times from 1959 to 1964 & 1968. Frazier was in the top five 9 times from 1967 to 1975. Frazier was recognized as champion by some from 1968 to 1973, by everyone from 1971 to 1973. Liston actually had a short title reign. He was champion from 9-25-1962 to 2-25-1964, a total of one year and five months. Even Foreman in the 1970's was champion longer, from 1-22-1973 to 10-30-1974, a total of one year and eight months. Liston just fought for many more years without being in the ratings.

"Liston . . . took a dive"

So. Am I supposed to give him a higher rating because of that? If you enter a ring, you better win. If you don't give an honest effort, tough. (Personally I don't think he took a dive, but either way his performance is what it is)

"Liston would mop the floor with Frazier"

I have said I ignore h2h opinions. What is historical fact is Frazier did much better against Ali.

"Tyson was a shell of his former self"

but we have no evidence he would have won earlier. The historical fact is Tyson lost to Holyfield, and lost badly. As I said, I take the whole career. Tyson was not an old man when he got clobbered by Douglas. He might well have lost to Holyfield at that point.

"he won due to a lucky punch"

I suppose he was just as lucky as a baseball player who swings for the fences and hits a homer, or a field goal kicker who tries a sixty yard field goal and makes it, or a golfer who puts his approach shot within ten feet of the pin. All tried to do something and did it. Foreman shot a right in an attempt to KO his opponent and did. That he knocked out Moorer is an historical fact. Anyone's opinion that this was luck is totally irrelevant.

"Moorer wasn't a proper heavyweight"

who won the title from Holyfield who beat Tyson.

*It seems to me your argument is based on cutting off careers before the flops. For me, it doesn't work that way. I will cut slack for being old but don't buy into abstractions about this guy being the greatest at such and such a time and so we must ignore his total career. This seems to be the argument most used for Dempsey, Liston, and Tyson, all of whom came a cropper against their top opponents.

 

Interesingly, despite our differences as to what qualifies as a HW contest, your list is remarkably similar to mine. Same top 5 (ordered slightly differently) and 8 of your top 9 are in my top 9. Foreman is the only 1 who isnt, I have him at #11 and recognise I rank him lower than average.

 

would you post your heavyweight ratings here. I would like to see them. I think I remember seeing your ratings, but the old memory being what it is, I need a refresher.

 

Sure.

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Holmes
4. Lewis
5. Marciano
6. Johnson
7. Wlad
8. Jeffries
9. Liston
10. Tyson
11. Foreman
12. Frazier
13. Wills
14. Dempsey
15. Holyfield

I'm not home to check and I'm not 100% on my 16-20. I think its Charles, Langford, Bowe, Tunney, Vitali. Something like that, though I've got a nagging feeling I have Walcott or Paterson at 20, so I'm not certain.