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

I think it certainly a possibility. Wlad is on the cusp of greatness due to longevity, and his career could go either way. It is really strange for someone to be so dominant for so long and yet still have so many question marks over his head, but that is the way things have turned out. In reality, i dont think that dempsey's resume shows his level of dominance as well as Wlad's does.

I personally think that Wlad's run as champ started with either Byrd or Chagaev. But i dont think that it is just his no 1 that he didnt fight. Not fighting Valuev for such a long time (i think i have dates right) must hurt him, as Valuev was a solid fighter. He didnt fight Ruiz, he didnt fight Golota (well maybe for Good reason), I think Tua would have added to his legacy massively. Diddnt fight lewis (not his fault). There are so many fighters who could have done better, but unfortunately because they never fight each other to create a champion, Wlad is left to fight fighters who are unproven and we dont yet know how good they are or arent. He is fighting his clear no 3. But really, is haye any good at all? Who knows. Haye may never beat a decent heavyweight, save for an old and not that good Valuev, yet he is the no 3 fighter.

 

Very hard to compare, this era is better, the HWs are bigger/stronger, some are technically better and better athletes. As for facing the best of the best, neither have really managed to do so although Wlad couldn't because Lewis retired and Vitali is his brother - a much better reason. Wlad has also been a more active champion facing more ranked opposition and more top3 rated opponents

When all is said and done I will be ranking Wlad above Dempsey, probably even if he loses to Haye

 

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrm.

No.

 

Dempsey hasn't fought fighters as fast as Haye, Sanders, Chambers, Byrd

 

If he loses to Haye (depending on what Haye does of course and assuming he is knocked out in his next fight against Vitali), i think that 15 is way too high. Although i suppose the manner of the loss might be important. If he ends up losing in a Holyfield Bowe or Frazier Ali style war, he might actually come out okay from the loss. I think there is still to much uncertainty to rank Wlad.

 

I would have thought that Gibbons, Carpentier and Miske would make the 4 fighters above seem slow and pedestrian. Particularly in the later stages of the fight. I get the feeling that at best, those guys were about as quick a Bill Brennan.

 

Holyfield has "room to improve" due to still being active? :huh

Holyfield has been a shot fighter since 2000, & his dreadful record for '00-'11 stands at 8-6-1 with 1 NC. :verysad

 

Shot Holyfield is a zombie these days. I swear Sherman Williams was going to KO him if they hadn't managed to get the fight stoppage due to his ridiculously small cut. Perhaps if somebody can put "poison" in Wlad's water bottle, Shot Holyfield can beat a gassed Wlad, just like Brewster did. :rofl

 

I agree with you about his early resume not really measuring up, but as a whole, it's been improving dramatically since the Byrd fight. I think it's easy to slag off his resume because people really don't realize the number of rated contenders he's beaten throughout his entire career until they list them. It kind of sneaks up on you. The numbers there surprised me when I looked in the resume thread I bumped up.