Dempsey, Liston, Holyfield, Frazier.

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by lufcrazy, Aug 19, 2011.


Page 25 of 33
  1. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    111,865
    45,624
    Mar 21, 2007
    How you know?
     
    McGrain, Oct 4, 2011
    McGrain, Oct 4, 2011
    #361
  2. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,669
    7,628
    Dec 31, 2009

    Of the film there is dempsey was the best HW of the period. and everyone said he was.

    wills missed his window but was no better than firpo by the time a dempsey vs wills match could be made.
     
    choklab, Oct 4, 2011
    choklab, Oct 4, 2011
    #362
  3. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    111,865
    45,624
    Mar 21, 2007
    That is total ****, a fight between Wills and Dempsey could never "be made".

    There was talk of it in 1919, if that's the mistake you're making.
     
    McGrain, Oct 4, 2011
    McGrain, Oct 4, 2011
    #363
  4. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    79,883
    20,453
    Sep 15, 2009
    How do we ever know anything? The right mix of observation and speculation.

    His destructions of willard and fulton sent him to the top of the world. There he stayed until his hollywood days.

    Maybe wills was better, maybe greb, maybe johnson, maybe langford, maybe a lot of people. None proved it and in my opinion, none fought better opposition between 1918 and 1923.

    Like how I say liston was best from 60-64, frazier from 68-73, holyfield from 90-92 93 and 97-99.

    There is very little we do know in boxing as it is a subjective sport.

    Johnson is my latest subject of revision however. I'm quite happy with my knowledge about dempsey but johnson's pre title run is catching my interest at the moment.
     
    lufcrazy, Oct 4, 2011
    lufcrazy, Oct 4, 2011
    #364
  5. Vanboxingfan

    Vanboxingfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,591
    212
    Feb 5, 2005
    Resume
    Holyfield
    Frazier
    Dempsey
    Liston


    Dominance
    Dempsey
    Liston
    Frazier
    Holyfield

    Legacy
    Dempsey
    Frazier
    Holyfield
    Liston

    H2H
    Liston


    Ranking

    Holyfield, Dempsey, Frazier, Liston

    Not an easy exercise regarding the last 3
     
    Vanboxingfan, Oct 4, 2011
    Vanboxingfan, Oct 4, 2011
    #365
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    111,865
    45,624
    Mar 21, 2007

    The best HW's of the era meet

    OR

    footage of both in their primes indicates a gulf

    OR

    the man you pick as clearly the best beats the better fighters.


    None of these things are true of Dempsey and you could argue that Wills beat the better men.
     
    McGrain, Oct 4, 2011
    McGrain, Oct 4, 2011
    #366
  7. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    79,883
    20,453
    Sep 15, 2009
    I never once said clearly the best.

    I never said there was a gulf.

    I believe wills aside, jack fought the best of his era (18-23)

    You could argue wills beat better fighters but during this time i'd disagree with you.

    Basically I don't see anything wills did during these 5 years for me to class him as the best hw.

    A similar example of a champ not fighting his number 1 contender is johnson not fighting langford. During this time I believe the number 2 did outshine the number 1.

    And that's the point, as number 2 the onus is on them to outshine and that's something I don't believe harry did.

    As I said, the sport is subjective and there's few things you can say with absolute certainty as a result of empirical evidence.
     
    lufcrazy, Oct 4, 2011
    lufcrazy, Oct 4, 2011
    #367
  8. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    111,865
    45,624
    Mar 21, 2007
    Well in 1921 Dempsey fought the inflated Carpantier. Wills went 11-0-0-1 with 7 or 8 knockouts. I think it's highly debatable that Dempsey had a better year here, and if resume is all you are basing this on, it has to be questioned.

    In '22, Dempsey beat Jimmy Darcy over 4 rounds. Wills went 7-1-1, the loss a DQ. That Dempsey did better this year is certainly quesitonable.


    I don't think he did anything outstanding...did Dempsey, really? He is 2-0 for the above years against a former flyweight and a four-rounder with a middleweight. Where is the dominance?


    Who do you think has the better resume overall?
     
    McGrain, Oct 4, 2011
    McGrain, Oct 4, 2011
    #368
  9. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,669
    7,628
    Dec 31, 2009
    I think wills deserved a shot about 1917-1919 but he kind of lost luster after that. 1917-1919 was harrys window but fairly or unfairly dempsey outshone him and got there first. After that wills was done as a genuine threat and after 1920-1922 there were much bigger fights to be made.
    1917-1919 Dempsey and wills were both equally worthy of a shot at Willard. perhaps dempsey looked an easier fight for willard so he went ahead of wills?
    Sure harry was still worth a title defence once jack was champ no doubt, but it was not the fashion then to defend against the most worthy contender until the champ had made enough money out of the title. As champ did Corbet,Fitz,jeffries defend against their toughest challenger first? As champ did burns fight Johnson first? As champ did Willard fight wills first? It might sound like an excuse but this was how it was.
    Just like all the other champions Dempsey eliminated other challengers in money fights first then signed to fight wills but wills was not the man he was in 1917-1919 and was drawing with bill Tate. It never happened. It should have but it never did. One thing for sure wills was not any better than firpo by the time it could have happened anyway. wills-firpo was a stinker.
     
    choklab, Oct 4, 2011
    choklab, Oct 4, 2011
    #369
  10. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    79,883
    20,453
    Sep 15, 2009
    Well this is the thing isn't it. Wills wasn't beaten enough quality opposition to lead to a usurpation in my eyes.

    Not just resume. Jack earnt his place at the top of the tree, no one did enough to outshine him imo until wills beat firpo.

    The better resume between 1918-1923 i'd say jack has a superior resume.

    Over a full career, in terms of depth you'd have to favour wills. In terms of best top heavy victories, that's up for debate.

    In overall greatness I judge a man on resume, skillset and legacy. I believe I have dempsey about 11 and wills about 19.

    When judging dempsey I look at the years 18-23 and his great victory over sharkey.
     
    lufcrazy, Oct 4, 2011
    lufcrazy, Oct 4, 2011
    #370
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    111,865
    45,624
    Mar 21, 2007
    What on earth is this based upon? The press in 1920 talked endlessly of a WIlls fight, and he lost ONE of about 30 fights, a dq. He absolutley thrashed Firpo, who you probably do consider a "genuine threat" and wasn't eliminated until 1925. And during all of these years, Dempsey was fading, then totally inactive...but Wills is "no threat"? Based upon what?

    The New York Times disagrees with you i'm afraid.

    SOUTH BEND, Ind., Sept. 28 (AP). -- Final articles for a Jack Dempsey-Harry Wills match will be signed tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock at Niles, Mich., according to an announcement tonight by Andrew M. Weisberg, hotel man and head of the local syndicate financing the match. Weisberg withheld further details, other than that the fight will take place after Aug. 3, 1926.

    1925:
    LOS ANGELES, Cal., Feb. 2. -- Tom Gibbons and Harry Wills will both have an opportunity to meet Jack Dempsey next Summer, it was declared today by Jack Kearns, manager for the heavyweight champion.

    Tex Rickard will promote a bout between Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills for the world's heavyweight championship. Such was the outcome of a threehour conference at Madison Square Garden yesterday afternoon between Jack Kearns, manager of the champion...one thing is for sure, the fight will be out of doors as the demands of neither Dempsey or Wills will be modest.



    These go on and on and on, and Wills is frequently referred to as the top challenger in this period. Your basing Wills's "no longer being a serious threat" is certainly not based upon the press of the time, nor is it based upon footage.

    So what is it based upon?


    It was a one-sided domination.
     
    McGrain, Oct 4, 2011
    McGrain, Oct 4, 2011
    #371
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    111,865
    45,624
    Mar 21, 2007
    You talk like being "the best" is the same as being "champion". There is no "Title" of the best...you either are or you aren't.

    If you base Dempsey supposed superiority upon resume, it doesn't jive, as beating a MW over a year just can't make you the best HW in those 12 months.

    Personally I think you are confusing "best" with "champion" here.
     
    McGrain, Oct 4, 2011
    McGrain, Oct 4, 2011
    #372
  13. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    79,883
    20,453
    Sep 15, 2009
    Conversely I think you're treating the two as mutually exclusive or at best independent. I believe the two are linked.

    Dempsey became the best after thrashing fulton and willard. Until the firpo-wills fight I don't think anyone took the mantle of "best" from him.

    Once wills beat firpo I put him as best until his loss to sharkey and tunney's win over jack himself.

    Whilst being champ doesn't make you the best nor vice versa there is some connection.

    I think you're confusing "best hw" with "hw fighter of the year" or maybe that's just how you do view it in which case i'd like to see a broader viewpoint of yours regarding hw history.

    Year by year (i tend to measure by era but I can buy your thinking) who do you see as the "best" from 1915-1930?

    I posted my views on my timeline thread.
     
    lufcrazy, Oct 4, 2011
    lufcrazy, Oct 4, 2011
    #373
  14. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,669
    7,628
    Dec 31, 2009
    nat fleischer called it a "mauling dreary affair"
     
    choklab, Oct 4, 2011
    choklab, Oct 4, 2011
    #374
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    111,865
    45,624
    Mar 21, 2007
    They are absolutely not linked, especially not in an era where it is harder for one race to get the title shot. This has to be quantified and handled. Of course they are mutually exclusive. You think Burns was the best HW on the planet up until the point his fight with Johnson was stopped? He was not even the best HW on the planet at the first bell.

    I think you have to prove that you are the best HW on the planet, not have it ordained by your title. That doesn't work now and it doesn't work then. We don't know who is the best now because Vitali and Wlad won't fight, and we don't know who was best then because Wills and Dempsey didn't. I'm all for judgement calls, but labelling Dempsey as the best HW for six years is a massive one.

    It can't be true based upon a year-on-year surmise of resume, it can't be true based upon footage, it can't be true based upon overall resume at the given time, it can't be true based upon the head-to-head meeting that never happened...

    So for you it is indeed like winning a title? You don't necessarily have to take it from him directly but you have to "overwhelm his position".

    I guess that's fair enough, but I think that it's not worth much in understanding the history or what was actually happening on the ground at the time.

    No I'm talking about who was the best HW, and how they proved it (or didn't).
     
    McGrain, Oct 4, 2011
    McGrain, Oct 4, 2011
    #375
Page 25 of 33