As I would expect, your list is reasonable, and thanks for the records. I would have one question. Considering that Harry Wills has more victories over your top 50 than anyone, do you think you might be rating him too low? He seems a strong candidate for the top 15 or perhaps even top 10. Also, could you explain your rating of Dempsey over Jeffries, Johnson, and Liston. There have been so many recent negative threads about Dempsey that I would like to hear your positive spin.
Because the Heavyweight list was done in 2004; the Pound for pound one in 2007; I did put that disclaimer down.
Pound for pound yes; Carpentier was alleged to of won French pro titles in all of the classic eight. He won European titles from Lightweight up; World titles from Middleweight up and The Light Heavyweight Championship of the World; he was without peer in Europe for perhaps 10 years and competed with everyone worldwide with the exceptions of the absolute finest Heavies.
NOTE: I don't know why the above frowny face is in the corner over my post and am uncertain of how to get rid of it. It isn't meant as a reflection on your post. Well, of course numerical records must be taken along with anecdotal data at all times, and even if I were to do a somewhat deeper statistical analysis, I'm not sure he'd come out quite so favorably. That is, if we were to take the first list, which was done more subjectively, and use it as a "seeding" list for a second one, which would count win-loss records against other fighters on the list balanced with where on the list they were ranked, I don't think Wills would look quite so impressive anymore, because all of his wins were over opponents ranked outside the top 20, whereas guys like Ali, Louis, Marciano, Foreman, Frazier, Holyfield, etc. beat people who were "seeded" inside the top 20 and even top 15. And anecdotally, I think Wills really has a pretty padded record here, because, as I say, all of his wins are over sub-top-20 guys, and in addition, the vast majority are against them when they were significantly past their best. Wills was 5-4-1 in his first 10 fights against Langford, McVey and Jeanette- he was going essentially even-up against them when they were prime or a little bit on the decline- and then he had a 13-0-1 run in the later teens through 20s against long past-prime versions of them who he kept beating down long past the point of monotony. Yes, a large clique of members on this forum seems to have become practically rabid in its relentless, vitriolic attack on Dempsey's legacy. For starters, let's have a look at the positives: First, Dempsey's run in 1918-1919 is, in my opinion, one of the single best streaks ever. It was arguably even more dominant and impressive than what a peak Mike Tyson did. The sheer consistency, brutality and dominance with which he was demolishing quality fighter after quality fighter in that period, all culminating in the Willard match, was truly something to behold. Smith, Brennan, Fulton, Levinsky, Morris, Willard- he just rolled right over these guys, one after another after another, usually in a single round and in the kind of fashion where it barely seems he lost a second of the entire fight. Miske ran him close, but Dempsey had the edge, and wiped him out as champion. Imagine if someone came around right now and blasted out Valuev, Toney, Liakhovich, Ibragimov and Wlad, all in the first few rounds and without even looking like they could touch him, and all within a year-and-a-half. It wouldn't be long before that guy would be cropping up on all-time lists. Second, although his run as champion is the source of great controversy and is full of terrible holes, the fact is that it does consist of five consecutive quality wins over legitimate name opponents. Miske, Brennan, Carpentier, Gibbons, Firpo- that is not a bad line-up, and Dempsey beat all five, with four knockouts and one lopsided decision. And third, although it was, of course, his own fault he had been inactive for over three years, what Dempsey was able to do in his comeback really still has a lot on the positive side insofar as it reflects on him as a fighter and adds to his legacy. As a considerably deteriorated fighter who had fought only once in the last four years, he still managed to knock out Sharkey, a man I consider a top 25 all-time heavyweight who was in his prime and who was on a hot streak and having one of his best performances, and then in his next outing, he came within a whisker of doing the same to Tunney, who is one of my top 20, even arguably being robbed. The fact that he was still that good- good enough to take out the two men who were probably the best heavyweights in the world and top 25 of all time- while old, rusty beyond compare and significantly deteriorated says a lot about just how good Dempsey was in his prime. I do think there is plenty of merit in a lot of the attacks which are frequently forwarded to discredit Dempsey. However, I believe that, by and large, many other champions who are- at least at the moment, thanks to the virtual mob mentality that seems to have stirred up in the anti-Dempsey faction- less heavily-scrutinized can be just as validly criticized in some of the same areas, or in other ones. Ultimately, I consider Dempsey one of the top five of all time in a head-to-head sense, but only at the fringes of the top 10 in terms of his accomplishments and career in the ring, and thus, since my list is meant to be more or less a balance of those two things, he fits fairly neatly into my #7 spot.
Top Ten Heavy's 10. Jim Corbett 9. Bob Fitzsimmons 8. Larry Holmes 7. Rocky Marciano 6. Gene Tunney 5. Muhammad Ali 4. Jim Jefferies 3. Jack Johnson 2. Joe Louis 1. Jack Dempsey Top Ten P4P 10. Kid McCoy 9. Willie Pep 8. Philadelphia Jack O'Brien 7. Jack Dempsey 6. Henry Armstrong 5. Harry Greb 4. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey 3. Sam Langford 2. Sugar Ray Robinson 1. Bob Fitzsimmons
Who do you reckon will be the new USA President elect at the end of the year......... Nixon or Kennedy?