For my 5,000th post : My Pound-for-Pound Top 50 Fighters of All-Time..

P, methinks you should be pointing your finger at yourself,instead of me.
1-I said from 1917 after the Flynn controversial loss in Feb.1917 to Sept,1923 Dempsey beat everyone that he FACED. Did I not post that ?
Why bring up the Tunney fights after a THREE year layoff in 1926,when Dempsey was a shell of himself...? Was not Ali a shell of himself against a Spinks, Holmes, Berbick,also ? This is the shot Dempsey after 1923...
2-Who the hell is "a morbidly obese ex flyweight ? Willie Meehan,in 1917 in FOUR ROUND BOUTS? If so ,how many great fighters were behind after 4 rounds, but won over the 10-15 round bout ? Almost EVERYONE...
3- You bring up again this BULL**** about color lines that Dempsey ducked in his championship days 1919 to 1923.. Well the only BLACK VIABLE contender Dempsey did NOT FIGHT [though they signed] was
Harry Wills. Yes I said the ONLY viable man of colour was Harry Wills.
Johnson, Jeannette, McVey, Langford were either old or retired by then,
but you have to keep on tainting Dempsey as avoiding many black
contenders that would have drawed a crowd by then...Just Wills P, just Harry Wills...
4-So P,no matter how you slice it your bias against Jack Dempsey is apparent, and you and other posters are lined up against great boxing men as Damon Runyon, Grantland Rice, Hype Igoe, Mickey Walker, Sam Langford, Max Schmeling, Jack Sharkey, Ray Arcel,and about 150 or so boxing writers who SAW Jack Dempsey fight at ringside,Knew about Harry Wills, and Harry Greb affairs, and by a vast majority,STILL called him the best heavyweight they had ever SEEN, and somehow I believe their opinion carries a little more weight than yours do,80 years after the fact...Cheers....

 

Is it less Moronic that you would put Charles ahead of Louis then? How does a slow punching bag beat Louis? By being 6' 8 and weighing 250lbs?

 

Solid post burt.

Infact under a different referee jack would have beaten everyone he faced whilst overturning every defeat by knockout.

A very great man non the less.

However it has to be appreciated that times and criteria change. Considering resume, legacy and h2h does jack really surpass louis, ali, rocky, johnson and holmes? I'm not so sure.

If your criteria is who is the greatest 189 pound boxer ever, then yes jack might well win. But varying on criteria jack could also lose.

 

luf, I am not implying that jack Dempsey's resume exceeded all of the fighters you cite above. Not at all. I am convinced that Ali's resume wasmost impressive because ,because of time of his birth and his opponents births ,they all converged at the same time. Does this necessarily mean that H2H Ali truly would have beaten a Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey or my man Joe Louis,one against the other. ? Hell no. Ali in my mind's eye would have been soundly beaten by the young Brown Bomber Joe Louis ,of that I am convinced. I also believe that Dempsey at his best
was better than the swarming left-hooker Joe Frazier,who I saw whip Ali in the FOTC, in 1971. Dempsey at his best with his bob and weave style,
would have nullified Ali's jab, and Dempsey could hit hard with his left-hook and right cross. He was a panther at his best. Of course, we shall never know luf, but for many of today's posters to DENY the greatness of the prime Jack Dempsey,as seen by great boxing minds who SAW him ringside, and disregard these eyewitnesses altogether is what get's my ire up...Cheers luf...

 

Well that's the nail on the head burt. People aren't as interested now in who would beat who. We're more interested in who did beat who which is why most lists are now resume based rather than h2h based.

 

I agree with both sides really, h2h should have an impact but not a great one. I give about a third.

For example you'd struggle thinking of anyone that would, ten out ten, beat jones between 160-175 but that doesn't mean he's the greatest at that span.

Vitali is a guy I find it hard to imagine 99% of boxers being successful against but that doesn't mean he's the goat.

If ranking where like this I could just decide noone beats pac at welter therefore he's the greatest welter of all time.

 

Certainly not, otherwise the top 20 or would just be the top 20 heavyweights.

 

Whilst I disagree with the reasoning I feel louis more than holds his own as a true elite great.

The most dominant champion in boxing's long glorious history.

I have charles at number 8 or 7 I think, louis is up at number 5.

I think as far a fighting machines go, him and robinson are as close to perfect as we've ever seen. Resume wise he cleaned house over 12 years bar 1 or 2 names he holds indirect victories over. Legacy wise he is the greatest champion we've ever had.

That being said I find the heavyweight division fascinating so I do far more reading on them then any other.

But I stand by it, not because in a ring joe louis would beat most fighters in people's p4p lists but because on the criteria of resume, legacy and h2h he scores very highly imo.

 

luf,a very astute answer :good

 

Thank you :good