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

Yes, Ali was the best at the time for both, but Liston was old and not properly prepared, while Ali was prime.
When Frazier beat him, Frazier was prime and Ali slightly past his best.
You must also look at circumstances, not just results.

 

Thanks. Rocky is a little high for my taste. Johnson struggled ( on and off film ) and really beat and drew with bad title opposition, that's my main critique in an otherwise fine ratings

 

I see it a bit differently. In a non - head to head format with emphasis on who they best and when ( ring magazine ranked opponents and their record vs. them ) how they performed on film , and their overall ring record, factoring in the good and bad calls and when their losses took place.

1. Ali
2. Holmes
3. Lewis
4. Louis
5. Foreman
6. Wlad
7. Jeffries
8. Marciano
9. Holyfield
10. Vitali

 

Tyson ? didn't tyson get utterly slammed by douglas , holfield, lewis , and glassed jawed williams and McBride whose jaws were tougher than tysons
glass.
The greatest heavyweight ever will always be the Dempseys, Louis, Ali of this world and always will be...

 

I don't think that we can simply gloss over the fact that some of these fights took place at light heavyweight, and I don't think that you can build an all time heavyweight resume, based on fights that happened in another weight division.

If it was a natural light heavy being beaten in a heavyweight fight, then that is fair enough.

We also have to look at when Tunney fought these men, and whether they were somebody in the division at the time.

Another way to look at that, would be that Dempsey was one of the few heavyweight champions to beat the heir to his throne, and that he did it while himself far past his prime.

I have previously argued that Tunney's heavyweight resume get's overlooked, but saying that it is arguably better than Dempsey's is a step too far for me.

I am going to say right now, that I don't put a lot of weight on beating somebody who beat Dempsey's opponent X, unless it was in a very similar context.

 

"some of these fights took place at light-heavyweight"

My point is it makes no sense to me to count light-heavyweights beaten by heavyweights such as Dempsey, Johnson, and Jeffries on their heavyweight resumes, and then turn around and not count victories over the same sized men, and in Tunney's case, the very same men but weighing a bit more, on his heavyweight resume. My position is these fights count for all of them or none of them.

"Dempsey was one of the few heavyweight champions to beat the heir to his throne"

An heir, not the heir. The direct heir to his throne was Tunney. But this victory was sandwiched between the two losses to Tunney. Why should I give Dempsey more credit for beating Sharkey then I do to Tunney for beating Dempsey directly before and after that fight. My take is beating Sharkey was a worthy achievement, and in retrospect, Dempsey's most impressive win, which helps his all time ranking. It does not trump Tunney's wins over Dempsey himself. Beating the winner of a fight is more impressive than beating the loser.

"saying it is arguably better than Dempsey's is a step too far for me"

Not for me. The key to me is that Tunney beat Dempsey himself, and there is simply no good evidence that Dempsey had gone back so far that these are not the most impressive wins either man had. I don't see how Sharkey can be considered a win on the same level when this version of Dempsey KO'd Sharkey. Dempsey certainly has a deeper heavyweight resume, although Tunney's is not as thin as many like to claim, but beating the best heavyweight either beat counts a lot for me.

"We also have to look at when Tunney fought these men"

They weren't that old and scrutinizing their records, there is scant evidence they had gone back much.

"and whether they were somebody in the division at the time"

They obviously were. The wins over Carpentier, and especially Gibbons, were the main fights which earned Tunney his #2 heavyweight ranking and his shot at Dempsey. One might claim the wins over Greb were key, but Tunney had been beating Greb as far back as 1923 but was not rated at heavyweight until 1925.

"I don't put a lot of weight on beating somebody who beat Dempsey's opponent X"

It is true you can make this argument to some extent against every champion, at least in the old days. Other men beat their best opposition. But few would have this happening so widely across the board by the major contenders of their era, Wills, Greb, and Tunney. This leaves a definite smell of Dempsey not fighting or beating the best available opposition.

 

Good list. For me, the hardest rating to justify would be Jeff over Marciano, as they had such similar careers but with Marciano mostly having the edge when there is an edge between the two.

(in heavyweight rankings I don't give anyone an edge, nor dock them, for being big or small)

 

Like your list. It is ironic we end up with very close lists despite criteria disagreements. Kudos for Wills above Dempsey.

 

Me to. In heavyweights eras, no one is docked for size. Did they win, how many contenders did they beat and who close were some of their fights / did they have any questionable results. Rocky had to fights that may be losses in Lowry and LaStarza. He took a while to finish some of his title opponents too.

Head to head is a different story. When both have skills and one is significantly bigger than the other, the smaller man is docked.

 

We are not narrowing the issued here.

A light heavyweight fight is a fight were both fighters weigh in under 175lbs.

A heavyweight fight is a fight where neither man has to make any sort of weight cut.

M view is that If you are evaluating somebody's resume at heavyweight, you do it based on fights that took place under those very specific and clearly defined rules.

Again we don't seem to be on the same page here.

A past prime champion beating a future champion, is far more impressive in my eyes, than a prime champion or contender beating a past prime champion.

You are right Sharkey wasn't the direct heir to Dempsey's throne, he was also the heir to Tunney's throne.

I don't see how Dempsey can not have gone back, given his inactivity leading up to the Tunney fight.

I guess we must conclude that Tunney was better than Sharkey head to head, based on the somewhat circular logic that Dempsey beat him, but Sharkey had a much deeper resume than Tunney, and he would be relevant long after Tunney retired.

Basically he was beating men that Dempsey had already beat, when they had gone back significantly.

Isn't this just what you would expect Dempsey's successor to do?

I think that the argument becomes especially suspect, when it is a case of younger contenders beating older versions of the champions victims.

Again, this is just what you would expect them to do.

 

Never had him even in my top 100.

 

"A light-heavyweight fight is a fight in which both men weigh in under 175 lbs."

" A heavyweight fight is a fight in which neither man has to make any sort of weight cut."

You are focused on rules of classification, which I think irrelevant. One does not have to be above 175 to fight in the heavyweight division and in fact a fight can be in the heavyweight division with neither man weighing as much as 175. Tommy Burns had several such defenses against Jim Flynn, Jack O'Brien, and Jack Palmer. Burns was 170 to Flynn's 169, for example.

So by the way did Carpentier when he was champion of Europe. His fight with Ted Kid Lewis was for the world light-heavyweight title. Carpentier weighed 175. Lewis 157. But the European heavyweight title was also at stake. Carpentier beat Lewis, but later lost to Battling Siki and so Siki became both the world light-heavyweight champion and the European heavyweight champion.

I don't judge resume on the basis of rules. I judge the size and quality of the opponents. Two men beating the same opponent at basically the same weight is the same achievement regardless of one guy being smaller.

"A past prime champion beating a future champion, is far more impressive in my eyes, than a prime champion or contender beating a past prime champion"

Pretty convoluted logic for denying that Tunney beating the Dempsey of the same time Dempsey was KO'ing Sharkey is the more impressive legacy achievement. It is irrelevant how much Dempsey had gone back. He KO'd Sharkey. Sharkey being the heir to the throne doesn't put him on the same level as either Dempsey or Tunney. So Tunney has the most impressive scalp in Dempsey of any of these three men.

"I guess we must conclude Tunney was better than Sharkey head to head"

I am not judging that. I am judging accomplishment. He beat a man who beat Sharkey and beat him both directly before and after the Sharkey KO. Tunney also did a tad better against Heeney.

"younger contenders beating older versions of a champion's victims"

In Dempsey's case, this is not true at all of Greb, and not very much for Wills either. Wills beat men like Meehan and John Lester Johnson before Dempsey fought them. Wills beat Fulton two years after he fought Dempsey and Fulton had won 18 straight bouts in the interim.

"when they had gone back significantly"

Gibbons was coming off 10 straight victories. Carpentier had returned to successfully knocking over his usual Euro suspects until he lost to Gibbons. But he might well have lost to Gibbons on his best day. My take is saying these men went back "significantly" is an assumption without evidence.

I agree that Dempsey has a deeper heavyweight resume than Tunney, and Sharkey may well have a deeper heavyweight resume than either of them. But it also raises the question of how valuable is depth of resume in judging these records. It has to be balanced with the quality of the top scalps, and with consistency.

"I don't see how Dempsey can not have gone back"

Perhaps some, but also perhaps not as much many make out. If I accept that he had gone back, what does this say about Sharkey as a scalp? Sharkey goes down to the extent that Dempsey had gone back. Tunney obviously goes up to the extent that Dempsey had not gone back.

 

Tunney convincingly drubbed Dempsey,but for their 1st encounter Dempsey had been inactive.Tunney said he noticed that second time around Dempsey was a different animal,and he fleetingly proved it by flooring the Marine.