Is Dempsey/Willard the Most Overrated Victory Ever?

More like because they had far more success and longevity at the world class level, whereas Liston made an absolute disgrace of himself by quitting and throwing away his title only about a year or so after becoming champ.

If Liston was a good enough fighter to have held the title for as long as Ali ultimately did in his first reign and defend it against the same sort of opposition, I think he would've "transcended" the sport the same as Dempsey and Tyson did.

 

You can speculate that if you want, but your initial question was whether the acclaim Dempsey gets for beating Willard and others could be justified purely in boxing terms. The answer to that is yes.

 

with all due respect to Liston, maybe his thrashing patterson doesnt quite deserve to have quite the same impact as dempsey against willard because we are talking about a big man thrashing a small one
.but it was one of the FEW HW title-winning victories I had in mind when i mentioned that those that can be compared to Dempsey-willard are very rare indeed.
a large part of Tysons appeal to the wider public in the 1980s was probably due to him being seen as the smaller guy too. the tenacious pitpull.
likewise the size of lennox lewis probably contributed to him being less appealing even when he came out guns blazing

 

Not only that, but a champion with a proven great chin as opposed to a proven fragile champion who had already been quickly KO'd once before in defense of his title, along with numerous other KDs.

 

Indeed, I'd say he either quit or "dogged it" in almost every fight he lost - BUT he'd already achieved enough to "transcend" the sport before he lost even the first time.

By contrast, Liston quit right when he was considered on the cusp of achieving all the sorts of things that Dempsey had, and Tyson later would, achieve.

 

yes the initial question is about "in pure boxing terms". and in those terms i think dempsey v willard is remarkable and significant victory. its rare for a HW champion to lose the title in such vicious and one-sided way. rare to this day.
in those terms which other fights compare ? I'd put Liston against patterson right in there, and i put foreman v frazier, tyson v berbick or spinks, and maybe Baer v Carnera

the other thing just an aside. about why Tyson and Dempsey might have caught the public imagination in a way Liston did not.

patterson v Willard would be an interesting fight. Not sure who i'd favor in that one

 

the public who bought the Firpo fight went away very happy customers.
the carpentier one wasn't bad either.

 

"Misfits"? :huh

Every fighter he defended against was rated one of the leading contenders of his era. 4 out of his 6 winning title fights came against fighters currently in the HOF (and his two title fight losses were to a HOFer as well). Firpo had legitimately earned his title shot by winning a tourney against other legit contenders.

If anything, your efforts to downplay or criticize Dempsey's opponents are what's not "in boxing terms."

 

Great point.

There's nothing in boxing terms that makes Firpo a "farce" as a challenger. He earned his title shot legitimately, and put up a memorable fight once he got the shot.