Dempsey, Liston, Holyfield, Frazier.

Good comments, so i will justify how I made my choices. Dempsey's legacy is based on two things. One being that we're still talking about him almost 100 years years after he fought, and two, boxing was the biggest sport in world at the time he was champ. He was getting multiples of amount that Babe Ruth was getting and against Tunney, they fought in specially built rings that held over 100K people in them. Holyfield never achieve this.

But if you're taking legacy in the ring, it's a much closer call and Holyfield could get the nod.

As for Liston and Dempsey, I believe Dempsey still has the record for the most first round knock outs, so it's pretty hard to beat him in that department. Of course in those days a fighter could stand over his opponent and make it next to impossibe for him to recover considering he'd get hit again as soon as he stood on his feet.

 

"I was a pretty good fighter. But it was the writers who made me great." - Jack Dempsey

Jack Dempsey said that.

 

I said machen but I could have just as easy said folley. Off the top of my head I was looking for another contender who remained high in the ratings during two champions reigns without getting a shot. the point I was making was folley and machen were really Patterson’s contenders but were passed over like wills was with Willard. Obviously you are going to say "but both machen and Valdes were beaten where as wills kept winning" - at an albeit lower level. Perhaps Valdes would have been a better comparison when he tried to remain unbeaten after his win over Charles but blew it against moore, maybe there is not a clear comparison after all?

 

What exactly does legacy mean? Is that like impact on the sport or something?

 

I think wills recorded better wins before that point IMO. nothing to do with how old he was, just was not landing the right fights and recording sensational wins.

from 1921 wills began to struggle with bill tate. he was not knocking him out anymore like he used to. that draw and the 1924 firpo 12 rounder aparently did not excite anyone. getting barred in philedelphia for turning a main event into a badly disguised gee up wiith his mate sam mcvea could not have helped either in 1920. wills landing firpo was a real chance to make a splash but for all his "domination" wills wasnt young enough to duplicate Dempseys performance against the wild bull.

come now, It would be borring if I kept agreeing with you all the time.:hey

 

Gotcha.

 

Great points..especially regarding 100k gates. So for that reason Dempsey's legacy will last for centuries to come.

Dominance wise I still hold Liston to be tops...he was considered unbeatable leading upto the Clay fight...something that none of the other 3 have had the honour of having. 1960 Liston was just King Kong on steriods! Pure Highlight reel KO's. Guys were KO'd before hitting the deck. Patterson hitting the deck 3 times in the rematch....Frazier destroying Ellis for the Title was special and Dempsey annihilating Willard was nerve tingling but Sonny eclipses both of those guys for dominance over his opponents.....Frazier's level off opponent was better and Obviously Holyfield fought wars against top counter fighters but sonny's dominance was unreal..

 

Im not repeatedly boosting or trashing anyone, I said all along I wish wills fought Dempsey -he was the #1 contender after all. I do aknowlege this. It stank that they never fought but IMO wills was not a better fighter than dempsey during 1920-26'.


I think in your anger you have misinterpreted me about the 1917-1920 period being wills's window where he most deserved a shot. It is the period I think wills has a genuine chance of beating Dempsey after that IMO I don’t think it is the 50-50 fight on paper that the public might have believed firpo was. Saying I understand why there was public interested in carpentier and firpo is not saying they were more worthy than wills at all, since wills was #1 after all and they were not. Firpo was possibly seen as equal a threat as wills and team dempsey chose firpo over wills while he was still hot. It happens. I understand that Dempsey never got round to wills, even you your self are now saying Dempsey wanted it after tunny but you seem to want to believe I don’t think wills DESERVED a shot. I think He did.

Is it total **** to say that wills deserved a shot from 17-19 because that was when he stood more chance of winning? Is it total **** to suggest it is less of a deal wills did not get his shot after 1924 (or when ever it was) because he stood less chance of wining?

 

I thought I was being sensible and consistant.