Here is mine 1. Joe Louis 2. Muhammad Ali 3. Sonny Liston 4. Lennox Lewis 5. Rocky Marciano 6. Mike Tyson 7. Larry Holmes 8. Jack Johnson 9. George Foreman 10. Joe Frazier Our lists are very similiar, and we have all of the same 10 names in our lists
Good lists (both of you). Here is mind. Different than you guys. 1. Joe Louis 2. Muhammad Ali 3. Jack Dempsey 3. Jack Johnson 4. Rocky Marciano 6. Larry Holmes 7. Evander Holyfield 8. George Foreman 9. Gene Tunney 10. Joe Frazier I tend to weigh accomplishments in the ring, how they were judged by standards of their time, mythical head-to-head match-up in my head and how fighters and boxing writers tended to rank them just after their time. I also probably rank biasedly by personal preferene. Really, their 15 or so guys you cold rank anywhere after Louis and Ali IMO. Also, I only rank the champions even if they were not allowed to fight for stupid reasions as this is my top ten heavyweight champions list. Guys like Harry Wills and Sam Langford are on my best never to get to fight for the title list. Thanks for your thoughts/opinions.
There's a lot of diverging opinions on exactly how good Wills was from his contemporaries. Some (like Nat Fleischer) say he was genuinely great, while others say he was mostly overhyped and not in the class of Dempsey. All agree, however, that he was the leading contender for Dempsey's title and deserved a shot at it. Here's what James P. Dawson wrote after Wills was trounced by Sharkey: "At the ringside and out among the vast throng people marveled at this taming of the Brown Panther, who last night was nothing more than a lamb. They pondered more over the question of Dempsey's delinquence and wondered just why the recently deposed heavyweight king never fought Wills for the title. "None who saw last night's battle can doubt that Dempsey would have annhilated Wills four years ago, three years ago, two years ago, or a year ago. It is to be regretted that Dempsey never got the chance, because now it will always be a source of argument this question of whether Dempsey or Wills was the better man." Incidentally, Wills supposedly made a shitload of money milking his reputation as "the man Dempsey wouldn't fight." If indeed it's true that he couldn't have beaten Dempsey, ironically enough, it probably was better for him that the fight didn't happen.
Dempsey has the edge over Liston in both critera you listed here. What were Liston's top wins? Patterson, Machen, Foley... is that better than the fighters you listed for Dempsey? 4 of the 5 fighters you listed for Dempsey are HOFers, Patterson is the only HOFer that Liston beat. As for Dempsey having a "horrible" title reign, Liston's was an absolute disgrace, and he never did jack to redeem himself afterward, whereas Dempsey came back to beat Sharkey.
And anyway heart is a massive element that neither Liston or Tyson really had. they just couldnt come back.
Wills was verry astute financialy. Sort of like the Larry holmes of his era in this respect. He was the only black fighter of the prewar era who kept his money and died financialy secure. In a final twist of fate Dempsey lost all his money in the Wall Street crash and Wills didnt. Whoever would have won the battle Wills won the war.
I think you're exaggerating a bit. Sure, they're not on the level of a Frazier or Louis, but at the same time, Tyson gave it all against Douglas and nearly scored knockout when he was way down on the cards. It wasn't until years after that when he had lost his passion for boxing that his motivation went down the drain. Liston has a bigger black mark on his resume, but he did show in certain fights at his peak that he could go in there when the going gets tough. Williams hit him with a shitload of punches in the first round of their first fight, and the second of their second.
Well like I said 3-5 is interchangable. It's hard to really seperate Holmes, Tyson, and Lewis in my opinion, whoever takes the 3rd spot is basically the man who I watched fight most recently I weigh head to head highly, and Tyson is only second to Ali in head to head imo so that gives him a big boost. Resume wise he doesn't have that of an Ali but his dominance at the top puts him pretty high up there and he beat solid fighters.
Are you kidding? Machen and Folley were much more modernly developed boxers than the 1920s limited boxers. Both Folley and Machen were some of the most polished slick contenders we have ever seen come out of the heavyweight division. They both had better boxing skills in there little pinky finger than Willard, Firpo, and Fulton had combined in there whole bodies. Honestly Tommy Gibbons does not impresse me all that much on film, neither does bill brennan. There styles were too primitive. Machen and Folley would have outboxed these guys pretty handily. Big Cat Williams was much faster, more powerful, and stronger than the farmboys like old willard that dempsey took on. Fulton with his glass jaw would have got his chin cleaned by a Williams left hook. Williams would have flattened little guys like carpentier gibbons levinskey. Again, by the late 1950s boxing was much more modernly developed in boxing technique than in the 1920s. 1920s fighters fought with there hands by there waist and chin sticking out. You do that against a cleveland williams, you get knocked out. Same with Nino Valdez. I cant see how Willard, Firpo, Brennan, Fulton would have gotten away from Nino's Jab. They did not pocesss top Jabs back in the early 1920s like Valdez had. Floyd Patterson is better than anyone Jack Dempsey beat. If anyone can't see that from film, then I dont know what to say. Patterson skill, combination punching, handspeed far outweight anything dempseys victims have.
Sonny Liston fought the best BLACK heavyweights of his era, unlike Jack Dempsey. Liston NEVER ever ducked anyone and fought and beat the BEST of his era, while Dempsey did not and ducked out of some big matches.
Liston had a short reign because he defended his title against the man who is generally regarded as the best ever, and was a horrible style matchup for him. What other fighters would of had a long reign with a 1964 Ali/Clay as the top contender? None. Dempseys title reign was a disgrace and he took entire years off while not fighting the CLEAR number one contender for the entire duration of it, in comparison. If Liston avoided Ali he would of had a nice reign as well, although I think it was only a matter of time before his lack of training caught up with him. Listons wins over Patterson, Machen, Folley, Williams, and then take your pick of Harris, DeJohn, Valdes, combined with the manner that he destroyed these men is superior to anything Dempseys resume imo. Willard was 37, out of shape, and coming off of a long lay off. Most contenders throughout history would of beaten that version of Willard, although the manner in which Jack did it was impressive. Sharkey was beating the tar out of Dempsey before he was low blowed and then knocked out. Props to Dempsey for not hesitating and getting the W, but it wasn't a convincing KO or anything. I actually like Dempsey, by the way. I just find his resume leaving much to be desired when compared to guys in the top ten.
