Can Wlad Klitschko beat a lot of old school greats?

In the 18 months leading up to his challenge for Dempsey's title, it seems that Miske beat and drew with Bill Brennan, drew with Battling Levinsky, lost a close one with Kid Norfolk, and lost to Gibbons and Greb.
Not once knocked out.

I'm guessing that might put him among the top 4 or 5 LIGHT-HEAVYS in the world, and since many of those guys were campaigning almost simultaneously at heavyweight, with perhaps only 3 or 4 bigger guys (eg. Wills and Langford) with better claims, I dont see why Miske cant be considered top 10 among the big boys.

None one doubts Ray Mercer was one of Lennox Lewis's better opponents, but his form going in was a loss to a "sick" Evander Holyfield, a draw with Marion Wilson, and a close split decision win over Jesse Ferguson in a fight where he was supposed to prove his superiority over the old journeyman. Since losing to a flabby 42 year old Larry Holmes over 4 years earlier, Mercer had failed to show anything to establish a pressing claim to be considered an elite contender.

Most of us think Mercer was one of Lewis's "better opponents" and dont scrutinize his record to doubt whether he deserved a ranking at all.
I know it wasn't a title fight but it's still a "major win" on the Lewis resume, IMO.

The critical eye can be applied in all directions.

The extent of Billy Miske's illness at the time will probably remain a mystery but his record before and after are certainly no reason to dismiss him as a disgracefully easy option for Dempsey.

 

Miske's record was better than Everett Martin's.

Most, if not all, of the Miske bouts we are talking about were NO DECISION bouts anyway. And I'm only going by brief comments on boxrec.
The only one it elaborates on is a definite "ND loss" to Greb.
A draw with Levinsky, the world's light-heavyweight champ is no disgrace.
It's hard to know what's what with all these NDs anyway. A few fight reports are needed before we can guess how these fighters performed.

Everett Martin was losing to guys like Johnny Duplooy and Francesco Damiani, he'd' been stopped by second-rate light-heavies two or three years earlier.
I respected Martin though, I just dont think equating him with Billy Miske is accurate. Holyfield defended his title against Bert Cooper - albeit as a substitute opponent - and I can name challengers from modern eras who were actually as bad as Martin, and more who were almost as bad on paper at least.

Okay. That's reasonable.

Yeah, it wasn't a title fight, just an example of someone with unimpressive recent form on paper but proved and known to be a respectable capable opponent.

Golota fought Lewis coming off TWO CONSECUTIVE DISQUALIFICATION LOSSES, Frans Botha was like 1-1-1 in his last 3.

These two fights WERE title fights, and I think the manner in which Lewis demolished both of them DOES add to his legacy. Botha's credentials were esp. weak but I cant say that destruction doesn't help convince me of Lewis's overall greatness.

He was a respectable opponent, a reasonable challenger but certainly not the most deserving challenger in the world.

 

I know you are familiar with the times, so I wonder why I'm having to explain myself, but here goes :
Holyfield was diagnosed as having a heart condition after his rather awful showing against Moorer. He retired before resurfacing claiming he had been cured by a miracle spiritual healer.
This was controversial of course.
Try to find a preview of the Holyfield-Mercer fight that doesn't mention Holyfield's health issue and the concerns over whether he should be in the ring.

And, yes, the concerns did linger on through the Bowe and Czyz fights.
George Foreman was ranting from ringside during the Bowe fight about "this man is sick ! He has a bad heart ! This is bad for boxing" etc. etc. etc.

Before Holyfield fought Tyson the heart condition thing was still very much in the foreground.

But you know all this already. My use of "sick" (note the speech marks) is historically accurate.

No, not the best, but still a good version of Tyson.
For example, no reason for me to consider the Tyson (post-Rooney, post-Spinks) who had just beat Carl Williams and Frank Bruno was ANY better than when he lost to Douglas. A little bit sloppy perhaps but still Tyson.

You have me pegged as a Holyfield fan and a Tyson and Lewis "hater", and frankly it's getting boring.
If the names Holyfield and Tyson and/or Lewis come up in any one post of mine I can be sure you'll find a way to read my "bias" into it.

Actually I've been persuaded that Lewis should rank higher than Holyfield on the all time list.
I'm not attacking Lewis at all. I'm actually showing where your (and others) attacks on Dempsey are flawed and nitpicky.
In my opinion.

I want to apply the same standards to all the fighters, and only try to get others to do the same here with Dempsey.

Miske wasn't a terrific challenger, he's not the most deserving guy in the world, he has an illness, but he's capable and has a respectable record. He's no bum, he's no joke. And Dempsey blasts him away in 3 rounds. That's ALL I'm trying to explain.
Analogies are just a way of conveying the message.

Yes, maybe.
Or maybe he wasn't sick at all. But that wasn't the feeling at the time Mercer fought Lewis. At that time Holyfield was considered sick, perhaps suffering a genuine heart problem, or damaged beyond repair through boxing, a victim of accelarating decline or just war-torn. Or steroids.

Fair enough.
But as I've stated the Mercer example is just to show that a "bad" recent record on paper isn't the whole story.
Mercer was pretty good against Lewis.

Well, I dont think Lewis has many many better ones over much better fighters.

But I would agree that Lewis has beaten many similar opponents more impressively. And that he has some (a few) better men on his record.

IN TOTAL IT ALL ADDS UP TO LEWIS BEING A GREAT HEAVYWEIGHT.

But I am arguing that Billy Miske was not Dempsey's greatest opponent either. I think Dempsey has lots of devastating wins over many similar opponents, and a few good wins over better ones. Dempsey destroyed Miske in 3 rounds.

I dont really understand what this attack on Dempsey is all about. Dempsey deserves credit for being a great fighter.

In the past I have been too harsh on Tyson, and perhaps Lewis too, but in these discussions recently I'm willing to give ALL THE GREAT FIGHTERS THE RESPECT THAT IS DUE THEM.

People ARE saying stuff like Dempsey only beat "crap" fighters, was "scared to death" of black ones and wouldn't last 90 seconds with a modern fighter. They ARE saying Billy Miske was not even top 25 in the world, that none of the fighters Dempsey beat had boxing skills, and that him getting stunned or rocked in such-and-such a fight proves he wasn't on a par with modern greats.
All I'm trying to do is expose the nitpicking that's being directed at Dempsey.

The easiest way to attack a fighter's reputation is by saying he never beat any good fighters.
You pulled me up on it when I've gone at Tyson, and quite rightly.
But some of the stuff being said or implied about Dempsey is seriously biased and unfair, IMO.
Even when he's knocking out contenders in a matter of seconds he's given no credit.

 

I'm not talking about an excuse.
As I understand it, Holyfield was diagnosed by a doctor and told to retire. Against his wishes.
Then, many months later, he had to find a doctor to clear him to fight, announce his comeback amid the damaging publicity, and secure a boxing licence. His belief in a "miracle cure" is irrelevant.

It's a bit of a long-winded and image-damaging alilbi for a loss, if you think it was
just that.
More likely it was a misdiagnosis or a temporary ailment from which he naturally recovered.

If you dont believe the boxing press and fans suspected "something's wrong with Holyfield" between Moorer 1 and Tyson 1 then you're being revisionist.

A higher number than you would, I guess.
The problem with the question is that the best Tyson I ever saw was probably mowing someone down in 2 rounds, whereas Douglas was beating Tyson up.
We've discussed this before and I think you just think I'm insane but I will always maintain that it's hard to look good when someone's beating the **** out of you.

That particular sparring partner was capable of great things now and then.

I remember reading reports in KO magazine of Tyson having his hands full sparring against young chinny muscleman Mike Williams in 1986 leading up to the Berbick fight.

In hindsight Tyson was not as well-prepared for Douglas has he had been for Berbick, but how many people thought a bad day in the gym meant anything BEFORE Douglas beat him up.
The odds seemed to grow longer against Douglas.

I think Tyson would have beaten Bruno or Williams that night.
And if you throw that version of Douglas in with the Tyson who fought Tillis, Thomas or Tucker then I can see him winning there too. It's not clear cut.

I'm glad you dont think I'm a hater.
I'm not biased either.
I could call you biased against Douglas on this issue, but really I guess it's just a difference of opinion.

I reckon your out-of-the-blue accusation of me being melodramatic was kind of extreme.
I refered to a "sick" Holyfield in passing (which was relevant to Mercer's form, which was just an analogy for a partial defence of Dempsey-Miske) and you opened fire on new fronts.
As far has I'm concerned we were discussing Dempsey primarily.

Read my posts.
I'm saying Ray Mercer was GOOD.
I'm saying Billy Miske was GOOD.
I'm saying Lennox Lewis was GREAT.
I'm saying Jack Dempsey was GREAT.

Holyfield, I refered to a "sick", and only mentioned him once in passing and that was enough for you to chime in.
If I was reading I wouldn't consider that has PR work for Holy, and a shadow upon Lewis. That's a very leftfield interpretation of what I wrote.

Mercer was a good capable fighter but his recent record was unimpressive.
Within the discussion on Billy Miske I believe it was in good context.
Esp. since Lennox Lewis is the modern champion who is being put forward as "far greater" than Dempsey in many of these discussion.

With hindsight we can doubt that much was wrong with Holyfield at all.

But with hindsight Billy Miske goes on a very impressive winning run after Dempsey KOs him, but that fact has been prohibited by certain postors.

That's fair enough.
I'd rate Dempsey in the top 5 but that's just my preference.