Which fighter's legacy has benefited most from a fight not happening?

I think Sanchez would have done well against Arguello, same with Pryor against Leonard. Burley/Ray Robinson is a good shout though, imo.

 

Impossible to say really but Harry Wills is a good shout. He's a top tenish all time HW, had he fought Dempsey and been blown out it would of been absolutely devastating.

 

Old George Foreman has maintained the mystique of an unstoppable H2H monster, who would have KO'd Peak Tyson, Frazier, Marciano & Dempsey in the eyes of many. This is based on his performance against Peak Holyfield in 1991, but while it was a brave effort in a hugely entertaining fight, Foreman's performance has been hugely exaggerated. Personally, I only awarded a single round to George of the 12 (but I admit a couple others were close) & to me it was basically a one-sided brutal beatdown. If Foreman & Tyson had fought in 1991, there is no doubt in my mind that Tyson would have beat him up horribly & destroyed his comeback mystique (while lining his pockets with gold). Honestly I favour Tyson of 1985-2000 over the Foreman of 1987-1997 & I believe 2003 Tyson would have proved too much for him also.

 

How about if floyd mayweather fought and beat up kostyzu

 

Although this post feels tenuous and unsatisfactory to me, I've gone ahead and clicked Submit Reply anyway. (In a different mood, I'd probably delete it, as is often the case. Composing my thoughts accurately about Wills and Dempsey so that they're not misstated has been an elusive task.)

Tyson was a can't lose proposition for Foreman, a can't win proposition for Mike, and they both knew it. As old as Foreman was, a loss to Tyson wasn't going to harm his legacy. Sanchez, Ayala, Pryor, Langford, DM, Wlad and Valdez were all expected to lose to their proposed opponents. Lummox and Riddickulous would have been six of one, half a dozen of the other.

For me, the slam dunk winner of this sweepstakes is Harry Wills. He's gotten more historical mileage out of never fighting Dempsey than anybody else for any non-fight the sport has ever seen. (And that includes Burley for SRR, and Peter Jackson for Sullivan.) If Harry had lost to Jack, I think the fact he was over six years older than Dempsey, and physically and stylistically matched the template of so many of Jack's quick knockout victims, would have resulted in a fair degree of damage control for his reputation. That depends to a certain extent on how early in Dempsey's seven year reign Wills gets to him. Not fighting Jack helps his legacy more than losing would have harmed it.

With some hesitation, I do think Dempsey is the one who most undeservedly has his legacy questioned because of the Wills void. His inactivity in general merits more criticism, although there really weren't any fighting champions between 1909 and 1938, aside from Carnera. (That is, HW titleholders who defended more than twice within the span of a year. Primo does not get enough credit for bringing it out of mothballs.)

Upon further reflection, I might produce an entirely contradictory reply, completely excluding the names I just discussed.

 

If Leonard had fought Hagler as he should have done in 82/83/84/85 instead of lurking at ringside feigning retirement then he would have seen his career end staring up at the ref playing out the 10 count & He should have fought Hearns again in 83/84 or Duran in 83 but SRL is no one's mug as he knew certain defeat awaited him:bbb

Best lurk around & wait till everone had beaten each other up & got old, now i wonder where Floyd Mayweather got his idea's about taking extended vacations from when the storm clouds of impending fistic doom are on the near horizon:yep

 

In fairness, what if Wills matched Dempsey and Dempsey lost? What would that do to Dempsey's reputation?

As Dempsey supporters are vehement in claiming Dempsey would have blown out Wills easily, I think Dempsey's standing would actually have been in more jeopardy in such a bout. After all, Dempsey went on to be annointed an ATG and the best heavy of the first half of the century not fighting Wills. It is difficult to see how he could have done much better if he had fought him.

The thesis that Dempsey's reputation suffered from not fighting Wills carries within it the premise that Dempsey would have slaughtered Wills. I am not as certain that is true as some of other posters, having never seen film of Wills in his prime.

 

I don't know but it's a pretty smart question ... Wills / Dempsey would have decided a lot ... Dempsey's greatness ...

Foreman is lucky as hell he never got a Tyson fight .. the image of a 270 pound grandpa on the canvas would have been tragic ...

 

1. "Wills was never champion"

Pretty tough to become champion if the champion doesn't fight you. By the way, the New York State Athletic Commission did vote in 1926 on whether to vacate Dempsey's title and award it to Wills. Dempsey won the vote 2 to 1 and thus kept title recognition.

2. "Will's legacy was able to accumulate significant mileage over the years on the premise that he could have beaten Dempsey."

I am not willing to go so far as to say he definitely COULD NOT have beaten Dempsey. He was never given the chance to prove what he could or could not do. He is, after all, the wronged party in all of this.

3. It does seem to me that in these Dempsey-Wills debates, there are a lot more Dempsey posters arguing that Dempsey would have crushed Wills than Wills posters arguing that Wills wins. Wills posters tend to emphasize his record.