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

delete

 

Dempsey would beat Wlad h2h simply because Wlad is taller. Dempsey rarely had trouble with taller fighters.

 

Dempsey had some un-even moments as champion. He had to come back in one of the Brennan fights, might have benefited from a long count in the Firpo fight, and took too much time off ( no fights in 1924 or 1925 ) as champion, while not making matches with the best two contenders of his time in Wills and Greb.

Wlad's level off competition, and current results to me are a bit more impressive.

 

At this rate, I wouldn't rule that out but of course it's yet to be seen. The only thing that might hurt him in this regard is that I've seen a few of the better contenders (like Povetkin) just kind of lurking like vultures, seemingly waiting for Wlad to fade or retire before stepping up to the plate. Thankfully the Haye fight's going down, because I was worried a similar thing was going on there and it's a great fight that needed to be made.

Thanks for all the work you're putting in on the resume thread man, it's much appreciated. There's been other guys on the list besides Wlad that were far too easy to overlook until it was right there in front of me in one place. :thumbsup

 

I think, though (and this is the major problem with modern reigns which is usually caused by the alphabet rankinds) there is a major, major difference between a top 1-2 contender, a top 5 contender and a top 10 contender. This is where the modern fighters fall down.

And things are made worse (and this is a major problem) because there are now so many no 1 contenders that only a 'badly managed' fighter will fight any more than 1 or 2 live contenders, if that, before they get a shot at the world title. Otherwise, they will just cruise with fighters outside the top 10 or in the lower regions of the top 10. And this means more often than not, when you are fighting a top 10 opponent nowadays, you are usually either fighting an unproven maybe top 10 opponent, a solid journeyman who will never be more than a fringe contender and who is not world champion class or an aging ex champion. This means that a champion can really pick and cruise fighting top 10 fighters, and sometimes nowadays they get an easy shot of it fighting top 5 or even top 2 contenders.

Saying that, since Wlad has really stepped up recently. Chagaev, Byrd, Peter, Chambers, Haye are all as good a fighters as are available. Other than his brother, i think that he has done all he can, and while his legacy can go up or down massively, after his retirement or future results, at the moment, based on reasonable assumptions, he is looking good to be ranked with the greats, including Dempsey on resume alone.

 

That is a good point, but you also have to give credit to a fighter for establishing themselves as the best. I know Waldimir hasn't done this out and out because a certain Vitali is knocking around, but Wladimir has established himself as the premier Heavyweight in the sport today, and thats worth something IMO.

Could that not be construed as being a credit too him, he has been so dominant lately he has been untested?

I agree here, this is victories over the two best fighters of his era (Vitali and himself aside) and although I don't think Haye is a top Heavyweight of the era, many people do, and many important people do. SO his name could potentially go here, providing Waldimir wins (which I think he will.)

Valuev never posed much threat, lets be honest. Chageav beat Valuev convincingly and two razor close, controversial wins over John Ruiz and a robbery win over Holyfield do nothing to prove his credentials as a major player in the Heavyweight division.

He may have been a top 5 contender at some point after his second win over Ruiz until Haye beat him, but he was not a forerunner to be fighting Wladimir.

If he didn't hold the WBA title, which he should never have gotten, we wouldn't even be mentioning him here.

When do you propose he should have fought Ruiz?

Again, when do you propose he should have fought Golota?

Why what has Tua done whilst Wladimir was champ, and Tua wasn't even that good in the first place. How would he add 'massivly' to his legacy?

All you are doing is plucking the few fighters Wladimir never fought and trying to make a case for them, that does not exist. Tua, he never did anything. Its like me saying he did not fight Mike Tyson or Roy Jones Jr so it detracts from his legacy.

Agree.

I agree here. Although Valuev has gone from a 'solid fighter' to 'old and not that good' in the space of a few paragraphs.

There is no real challenges out their for Wladimir at the minute. Haye is a challenge but he is more of an'in-the-moment' challenge, looking back he won't be as important as he was, presuming he does not win.

It was the same with Eddie Chambers and Tony Thompson, they provided a more logical challenge at the time compared to what they will look like in the future. I thought Eddie Chambers was one of the best Heavyweights around going into the Wladimir fight.

 

Resume, Legacy, H2H. I like your attempt to systematize the ATG rating.

I've always put the most weight on H2H. I can really understand that one, and I think it can be objectified. But it leaves the old-timers struggling in the dust, and I love some of those old=timers.

Resume? Who were the guys he was fighting and how good were they? I think you can objectify that one, too. But don't you have to plug all their opponents into the same ATG rating formula to be fair to the old-timers?

Legacy. Now that is a really touchy-feel kind of thing. Could be similar to "charisma" or some such imponderable (is that a word?). But we (and the boxers) are not robots, and we love a good story. So I guess maybe it belongs in the equation, too. All the great boxers have a story.