Freddie Steele or Jack Dempsey

I thought you asked who has the better argument to being the best in their divison, which is a different question.

Dempsey's argument as teh greatest heavyweight of all time, rests mostly on the opinion of contemporaries, his speed, power, ring savvy and general finishing ability. I think there is a small argument that he is the greatest heavyweight ever. I think he is one of probably only a dozen or so people who could make such an argument.

I am not sure how Freddie Steele, greatas he was makes a case that he was better than Monzon, Hagler, Fitzsimmons, Greb, Langford, Robinson and many other great middleweights. It is a stronger division, and he didnt really standout as much as Dempsey, i am happy for others to try to change my mind though, he was definitely a great and underated fighter (on this board).

 

I understand this, but the people making this argument at the time, would have thought it a simple argument on either count.

 

I am not arguing about having him at number 4. I think there is a case to be made for this (not that i necessarilly agree with this) i could certainly accept him above Robinson with the right arguments and assumptions. Unfortunately we still have two more to climb, even by your description. I am guessing Monzon is at least one and not sure who the other is (i am guessing Greb is the other?).

The champs you mentioned is a bit misleading, because really many were mostly only bit part champs who ruled the roost only because the real champion left the division and there was no consensus champion. They cannot really be considered more than top contenders.

Still, i guess we are saying that he has a good record, decent longevity and close to unbeatable, good power when at best, looks impressive on film. I will accept that arguably Fitz and Greb could be not ranked in a best ever due to lack of proper film, and you have already suggested he is better than Hagler (not that i see it) still, using the same criteria how does he jump Monzon, Toney, Jones Jr, Hopkins and Zale, off teh top of my head. Can you make a case that he is better than ALL of these figthers off that same criteria? i wouldnt have thought so, at least not a very good one.

With Dempsey, in contrast, many people who saw both Jack Johnson and Joe Louis made a case that Dempsey was the better fighter. Not just a couple, but probably hundreds or at least tens of thousands of people some who actually fought and/or were heavily involved with both. Some who say Dempsey and Ali live also considered Dempsey the better fighter. If you are better than those three guys, you have a case as the greatest fighter of all time. It is pretty clear cut.

I dont think Steele could say the same. He is definitely underated and better than most think. But i cant see how he would be considered the greatest middleweight ever.

 

Guess I'm crazy then.
" I remember when,I remember , I remember when I lost my mind"

:nutcase:nutcase

 

I have him above Louis!!!!
Head to head I think Dempsey takes Louis out and early!

More blasphemy: Jack Johnson .

Louis is my number 4!
Told you I was crazy.

 

Walker moving up or Flowers dying (however you view the lineage) hardly discredits the fighters of the era as if those two were a class above. Having two claims in the NYSAC and NBA hardly relegates them to being simply contenders. If that's the case then there is only a handful of legit Champions in the last 20 years with what 5, 6 titles in most division now.

Better than good. Whatever facet of resume you want to place the most weight on whether it's quality of opposition, dominance over that opposition, undefeated streaks, depth, consistency he ranks among the top in the divisions history and you're hard pressed to find more than 2 or 3 guys who the same can be said for in all categories like Freddie.

Most that rate high for dominance have poor opposition, great opposition average consistency, etc.

How many people have Toney, Jones, or Zale in their top 10 all time at middleweight? Not many. Jones and Toney's stints are way too short for anybody in their right mind to place them there unless they're going off H2H ability on their best night alone.

As you stated the eye test for H2H he's just as impressive which can't always be said for guys pre-WWII. On the list of boxers you named the only guy who is above him for athleticism and explosiveness is Jones and that goes along with top notch footwork, long range and inside fighting ability, great durability (which obviously faltered once the injury occurred) and is a virtual top 10 lock for hardest hitters all time at 160, certainly among the elite.

If you're going on all the criteria you describe, which i assume you are, i would be more interested to hear your argument for them being close to Steele.

-Toney and Roy way too shallow a resume

-Steele had an undefeated streak that lasted virtually the same total amount of middleweight fights Hopkins had in his entire career, did it in 1/4 the amount of time i.e. another superior form of 'consistency' ten fights a year is way tougher than 2 or 3 and did it against a level of competition that doesn't even make Hopkins worthy of being in the discussion.

- Zale's three wins over Hostak who Steele lost to looks good but considering Freddie's injury and retirement soon after not quite so much. A prime Apostoli and Abrams are excellent but aside from that his trilogy with Graziano barley even rates for me as Rocky belongs on a top 10 ATG list for the most carefully managed and ducktastic contenders in boxing history. Zale was post war old though so losing to him doesn't count against him for me.

The plethora of losses on his way to becoming Champion rates poorly as is coming back from the war years and fighting Graziano instead of Lamotta or Burley. Hostak, Apostoli, Graziano, Mamakos, Brown (who he also lost to when Ben was a 3 fight novice) are really his only names. As such his depth and consistency take serious hits and place him clearly below, different tier imo.

That said i really like Zale and without the war years taking away his prime i would have absolutely loved to see what his career could of looked like but that's not how ratings work. We go on what did take place.