Dempsey lost to worse than Toney? If you mean Flynn, you are badly mistaken, he was probably better than Toney, and Dempsey was young at time. You can't mean Tunney.
But why mention it then? Sorry, but to me that makes this thread just look like another try to have a go at that man and I don´t wanna be part of that. It reached already ridiculous heights on here. But okay, you say it isn´t, then I´m sorry for stating it before. I don´t think it is. Dempsey is better at Toney in what Toney is best - infighting. And has a speed and power advantage. James might be able to mother Jack in the beginning because he is highly skilled defensivly but from round 4 on it would be all Dempsey and it would be just the question when or if the ref steps in to save him from getting really hurt or not. See, how you twist it around again. First you say it´s best vs. best and now it´s just Dempsey fans wanting to use just that fight because he is at his best. Yeah, "only" 32 years old, which isn´t the same as 32 years old today, with many fights under his belt - and many more not on his official record - with a style that was never meant for longevity, with a 3 year perior of inactivity which hurts a fighter of his style much more than most other styles and let´s not forget a fighter who lost his hunger. Yeah, sure Dempsey was in his prime vs Tunney. Yeah, same similarities as Roy Jones has with André Dirrell. :thumbsup An argument that´s not true. Tunney was not the only one with the technical ability of Toney - Gibbons for example was another one. And on top of that Dempsey was not far from done at the time of the fights and Tunney fought completly different to Toney. And what has this to do with this match-up? Right. Nothing. Tunney? Already exposed as a very weak argument here. Miske? You mean the guy he KOed in three when it really mattered? Yeah, 4 rounds mean much in pro boxing that´s why so many of them are happening at world level these days. :thumbsup Oh, really? Gibbons used footowrk and a jab to stay away from Demosey who didn´t let him. When they met in the exchanges Dempsey got the better most of the time. Gibbons looked best when he was able to use his feet. Tunney is levels above Jones. And a prime Dempsey should have a win over him - his own fault that he doesn´t nevertheless. Whow, now you are over-stretching here mate. Gibbons to me looks faster than Toney, has more power, better footwork, faster feet and is more variable. He isn´t smaller than Toney minus the blubber too. And surely not weaker. You are going at great length here. If Carpentier is B-class than so is Toney. Carpentier won the European title in everyone of the orginal weightclasses - as much worth as the alphabet belts nowadays and beat more worldclass contenders than Toney. He beat several while Toney never beat anyone as good as Dempsey - no shot Holyfield is not in that class. Well, at least he won those fights and didn´t lose to guys like Tiberi. :thumbsup Anyway, I made my point. Which means I´m out of this debate before it turns into a vicious circle again.
How much context can you put into 23 KO losses. Seriously. Enlighten me to how that a fat light heavy with 23 KO losses is better than a fat light heavy who was never KO'd, has displayed great skills on film, won a fistfull of titles in 3 divisions and KO'd a great, albeit past-it, former champ. That's some mental gymnastics I would like observe.
He fought Jack Johnson and went distance, fought Sam Langford, who some here (not me) rave about and say everyone ducked. He fought every fighter around in any division back in his time, including guys people here say everyone ducked. He went distance with Langford too. You can't say Johnson was greatest, and Langford was unstoppable breast who would ko anyone, then say Flynn was not god when he was competitive with them. He also sparred for extra money with anyone, including work as sparring partner for Jack Johnson.
And lasting the distance with Johnson makes him better than Toney? Johnson was nothing if not inconsistent, or worse, disinterested. And both Johnson and Langford destroyed him in other bouts. I understand records were not as pristine in those days, with fighting so often, not having great scouting or much patience for delays due to injury. Still, getting KO'd in 25% of your fights is a telling trend. Comparing a fighter of such a level to a guy who swept through three divisions and is generally regarded as one of the best of his generation is dubious at best.
I would not personaly rate Flynn as being on a par with Toney. There are however two factors that have to be taken into account with the Flynn KO of Dempsey: 1. It is always possible that it wasn't on the level. 2. If it was, it still was far from being Flynns beat win.