Does anyone still have Dempsey as a top ten heavy? Top 15?

Very well said. I read it twice. Tunney is under rated by those who place Dempsey way above him. His record is cleaner too and IMO has a near equal resume, perhaps better when you factor in he has wins over Dempsey and Greb.

Tunney retried in his prime at age 31. He had more big fights ahead of him. Outside of boxing the man was interesting. For example did you know he owned the first complete collection of Shakespeare's plays! And many boxing books. He also lectured at Yale.

 

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I was very busy yesterday.

"Sound reasonable."

To me, no. I disagree with this criteria, at least at heavyweight, as it is an unlimited division. And we have to remember that these divisions are a bit arbitrary. There was no cruiserweight division until about 40 years ago. Many of the historical heavyweight champions would now be cruiserweights. Prior to 1903 there was no light-heavyweight division either. Fitz would be a modern light-heavy but was the heavyweight champion. If the first Louis-Conn fight had been 12 rounds, and played out the way it did, Conn would have been heavyweight champion but was a light-heavy. The heavyweight champion is defined as the man who can beat anyone else in his own day, regardless of size.

So for me the key is the weight of the opponent. Off box rec Levinsky, Carpentier, and Gibbons were all heavier when they lost to Tunney than when they lost to Dempsey. It makes no sense to me to say that because Dempsey was 190ish (or let's say Jeff at 220) while beating men of this weight these are impressive heavyweight wins, but beating the same men doesn't count for Tunney.

I understand where you are coming from on this, but just don't agree.

Gibbons "I consider him past prime"

Perhaps, but was he prime at 32 for Dempsey? And where between these two fights did he show deterioration? He beat Carpentier and Norfolk, two of his more impressive wins, in 1924. So I see knocking Gibbons against Tunney but puffing him up against Dempsey as arbitrary.

"champ for 7 years"

It helps to sit on the title for 4 of those years. I personally would at least put an asterisk on something like this for champs like Corbett or Dempsey who were inactive for such long periods as champions (unless there is some outside excuse, like being drafted into the army or having the govt after you like Johnson or Ali)

"Burke, (34-19-6 going into the Tunney fight)"

This is always where the rubber hits the road in evaluating old time fighters. I repeat the list of heavyweights Burke beat--Fred Fulton, Larry Gains, Johnny Risko, Quinton Romero-Rojas, Floyd Johnson, Ermino Spalla, Bob Martin, Sully Montgomery, Jim Coffey, Bob Roper, Homer Smith, Otto von Porat.

That is a rather impressive list, even given I suppose that some were past their best and other greenish. It is like the records of many old-timers. Unimpressive in won and lost, but imposingly deep resumes. Why? The best were consistently fighting the best. Winning 2 of 3 games is not all that impressive in college football, but in the NFL? If a team can go 11-6 they are a worthy team and a decent opponent for anyone. The NFL is the best 32 gridiron teams and they only play each other, so losses are common. There are hundreds of colleges and the best teams rarely meet so many can run up what on the surface are imposing won-lost records.

I gave my evaluation of Tunney's heavyweight resume in an earlier post. As for Dempsey's, I don't find it nearly as impressive as you do. Most of these men were past it (Smith and Flynn), lost to someone Tunney beat (Brennan, Miske) or lost to Tunney himself (Gibbons, Carpentier, Levinsky). The best scalp is Sharkey, but Dempsey between two losses to Tunney KO'd Sharkey, so I can't see this win as somehow trumping Tunney beating Dempsey twice.

The big hole in Tunney's heavyweight resume is never fighting really big heavyweights. But it is a hard sell to me that he couldn't have beaten guys like Firpo and Fulton when lesser men his size were doing it. A lack of evidence is never evidence for the opposite take.

 

"At #14 I rank Dempsey average to below average compared to others. At #19 I rank Tunney average to above average at heavyweight."

Could you clarify this. I admit it makes no sense to me. Dempsey is rated higher but is average to below average while the lower ranked Tunney is average to above average.

It is possible you switched below and above in a typing glitch.

 

I have a tough time seeing Levinsky and Carpentier on their best day handling Tunney. It is also not clear they had gone back. It seems more likely there were never all that good.

Gibbons showed no signs of being washed up prior to meeting Tunney. He was coming off an impressive win over Norfolk only a few months earlier.

 

Whether they could beat Tunney on their best day is irrelevant .
Gibbons was33 and having his last fight.
Levinsky was 31, his record after Tunney was lost 3 of his last 12 he never beat anyone worth mentioning after Tunney, and its speculated he sold his title to Carpentier 2 years earlier.

Carpentier was 30 he had lost his last fight to Gibbons,drew with a journeyman after losing to Tunney,lost to a young Loughran ,beat 2 more journeymen and retired.
All three were past their best ,all three were really light heavies.
Norfolk was on the way out too,unranked he lost 4 of his next 7 and retired.

 

No problem mate, no need to apologise.

I think our different criteria is, at least contributing to, our different viewpoints. I'm unclear on yours. For example, Tunney and Carpentier both weighed 173lbs for their fight. I have this listed as a key win in the notes I used to rank Tunney at LHW, where I rank him #3 all time. It didnt factor into how I rank him at HW. Do you factor this win into your ranking of Tunney at HW, LHW or both?

 

Sure.
Dempsey is no. 14 on my all time HW list. Hes usually around that or a little higher on most peoples lists.

Tunney is no. 19 on my HW all time list. Most people rank him similarly or lower than that.

Does that make sense?

 

That does,

so your use of "average" is for what you consider other folks' average ratings for each. Okay. That wasn't clear to me.

 

Yes. If I give Dempsey credit for beating a man at a lesser weight, I will give Tunney credit for beating him at that or a higher weight.

There might be other factors, age or lack of experience, but I won't use weight when they are both fighting the same man at about the same weight.

The opponent's weight is key to me. Why give big guys extra credit for beating the same man?

 

Correct

 

Tunney vs Carpentier was contested at LHW so it contributes to Tunney's LHW resume in my view.

Dempsey vs Carpentier was contested at HW so it contributes to Dempsey's HW resume, imo.

It's not that Tunney doesnt get credit. He gets credit at LHW and from a p4p perspective.

 

Tunnny resumes of wins stacks up nicely to Dempsey.

Why does every one assume Dempsey blows Harry Greb out or stops him? Think about it. Greb beat many of the same guys that Dempsey did never was floored! Greb was not to small as would weigh 175 vs about 190. Factor in Greb stamina, movement, defense. and like JD his fouling ways.

 

"Whether they could beat Tunney on their best day is irrelevant"

Not entirely. It matters if these men were good enough to beat either Dempsey or Tunney at any point. In other words, were they good enough to matter and add much to a heavyweight resume?

"Levinsky was 31"

Actually 30

"His record after Tunney was lost 3 of his last 12"

??? Not exactly certain what is being said here, but Levinsky was coming off a win over future champion Mike McTigue two fights earlier. His record was always spotted with defeats. He had lost two of three going into his fight with Dempsey, one to Bartley Madden.

Carpentier was 30 and coming off KO's of Marcel Nilles, Joe Beckett, and Arthur Townley, which is the level of victims for him through most of his career.

The bottom line for these two is that 30 is not exactly ancient with many fighters being near their best at that age. There is no evidence going in that either had gone back very much, nor is there any evidence they were ever much better than when they fought Tunney.

"Carpentier had lost his last fight to Gibbons"

And? Someone had to win this fight and Tunney beat both men.

Levinsky--"It's speculated he sold his title to Carpentier"

And the relevance one way or another to Tunney?

That brings up Gibbons who was 34 and in my judgment clearly the best of these three. He had lost to Dempsey in 1923. He lost to Tunney in 1925. In between he had 10 fights and won them all, including impressive wins over Carpentier, Jack Bloomfield, and Kid Norfolk. Gibbons had shown no evidence of going back going into his fight with Tunney. Using that defeat to dismiss him is using Tunney against Tunney. No one else was defeating Gibbons. He retired after this defeat as his chance of getting another title bout was gone.

The above is also true of dismissing the Dempsey victories. A prime Sharkey couldn't beat Dempsey in 1927 while Tunney did.

 

We have to agree to disagree. I don't see beating the same light-heavyweights at basically the same weight being credited to one and not the other at heavyweight. Either neither gets credit or both do.

Just my take.

How I look at it? If let's say Carmen Basilio beats a guy with both at 147, that is a welterweight scalp. If let's say Joey Giardello beats the same man who now weighs 157, that is a middleweight scalp. If Giardello beats this guy but he is still only at 147, Giardello is beating up a welterweight. I don't see it adding a lot to his middleweight resume. Basilio's victory would be the more impressive.

I grant you have a technical argument.

 

Both do get credit. Credit in the weight division the fight was contested at and p4p.

Btw, I think Tunney is a substantially greater p4p fighter than Dempsey based on their entire career.

In your example, Basillo would get more credit p4p, I agree. The win wouldnt count towards his MW resume though, would it?