Dempsey (1919-1926) compared with wlad (2004-2011)

The massive difference though is that while both didnt fight their main contender, Dempsey did fight and beat the best fighter in the world before meeting that contender. Much akin to Wlad fighting and beating Lewis before starting his run. I think that is massive.

 

I would not consider Willard the best fighter in Willard's entire championship rein. I think Wlad has clean out his era better than Dempsey did, I know it hurts to say it for some people, but its the truth.

Other reason is Wlad is not faceing his number 1 because its his brother, but he is fighting his number 2 in Haye. Something Dempsey never did.

Dempsey didnt fight his number 1 because the guy had the wrong skin color.

 

It actually wasnt because the previous champ retired that Wlad never beat Lewis, it was because Wlad got knocked out! Otherwise, Wlad and Tyson were both on Lewis radar. Still, i can see your point.

The problem is that When you dont beat the reigning champ, there will always be a big question mark over you until you prove you are number one. Wlad never really proved he was the best fighter in the world because he never beat the second best fighter in the world. Dempsey beat Willard, and it was up to Harry to prove that he was the best fighter in the world, which sadly he never did get a chance too. I think there is a huge difference between being no 1 and being no 2 more often than not. With hindsight, Wlad can recover the lost ground but that is still a big if. I stand by my statement, there is a big difference between being the best fighter in the world and dodging a few good contenders and it being unclear whether or not you are the best fighter in the world because you are dodging a contender. For these reasons, i think that Dempsey's reign has a slight advantage, although i suppose it is possible that this could be offset by Wlad seeming to fight a little more regular.

Let us not forget that Dempsey was pretty much retired for about the last three years of his reign. Maybe it has more in common with Vitali's reign? although you still get the same problem.

 

Resume: Wlad. Neither man has an eye-popping list of defenses, but Wlad's done more of it. Important to note that Sharkey wasn't a defense for Dempsey, and that was probably his biggest scalp once he got the title.

Dominance: Wlad. While Dempsey had his share of dominant defenses, Wlad's been exceptional in this regard and it's an aspect of his career that deserves mention. If we go back to his title fight with Byrd, he's perhaps lost a few rounds, tops. The fights have hardly been competitive, whereas Dempsey's inactivity cost him in terms of his defenses. The Gibbons and Brennan bouts he won clearly, for example, but not in as dominant a fashion as a more active, hungrier Dempsey would've. Dempsey's destruction of Willard is the single most dominant title fight either's had.

Legacy: Here's where it gets tricky, mainly because Wlad's still active and legacy can be a really vague term with different meanings to different fans. Speaking in terms of U.S. popularity and real impact (not simply weighing out whose boxing argument looks better on paper and declaring their legacy stronger) I find it hard to believe that Wlad could ever eclipse Dempsey. I'm not certain any heavyweight besides Ali and Louis (Tyson deserves a mention) can say they were in that class legacy-wise and had the cult of personality that Dempsey had. As for why that's the case that Dempsey left such a strong legacy, it's a long story that's been told better by others. I can think of no better one line argument towards Dempsey's legacy than this: If he didn't leave one hell of a legacy, the mythology surrounding Dempsey that drives guys on here nuts would've never existed.

Whether one thinks it's deserved or not is beside the point. I just don't see Wlad, even if he continues his dominant reign, ever making the old master trainers, boxing guys, and media turn into drooling fanboys like Jack did. And that's the difference in legacies for me between the two guys. The only heavyweight fighter of the past 30 years who will carry that kind of impact is Tyson.

 

Excellent post from top to bottom!

 

I rank Wlad higher by about 4 places. Dempsey would smoke him though.

 

No, he wouldn't.


You're ridiculous.

 

Dempsey is a joke. He ducked Wills and had a three year break from defending his title.

**** Dempsey!

 

Wladimir Klitschko's run since mid-2004 gets underrated.

I don't think much of his performance against Brewster in 2004 though.
I'll throw that out, and to be fair, throw out Dempsey's 1926 outing.

Klitschko's run from 2004 (starting with the Williamson fight) through 2010 is better than Dempsey's run of wins from 1919 to 1923, in my opinion.

 

1918 was a big year for Dempsey.
I mean, he established himself with the Brennan and the Fulton fight especially, more than Wlad did in 2004 or 2005.
Wladimir wasn't actually back at/near the top until the Peter 1 and Byrd 2 fights, in 2005 - '06.
On the other hand, I accept that he was number 1 contender for a while before he lost to Sanders in 2003.

I definitely believe Wlad gets overlooked in regards to how his consistency and reign stacks up against others. I say he's comparable to Lennox Lewis in that regard, but people scream at me for suggesting so.