Sonny Liston vs Jack Dempsey

It's a good win, but i don't think Fulton along with Miske, Gibbons, Brennan and Willard are supposed to launch him into the top5, especially considering other factors. The fact that he took out Fulton is a great accomplishement but also reflects on how bad Fulton was. As you said, no other contender in history except for Ruiz (who wasn't ranked at that time, i think) got taken out that easily.

And yes, the fact that he was the top contender says a lot about the pathetic state of the heavyweight division back then.

 

Would you like them to bring Jeffries out of retirment for him to fight as well?

Langford and Jeanette had lost the torch some time ago.

 

EVERY contemporary source? That just sums up your kind of argument. Somebody could produce 6 fight reports, from the likes of The Times, NY Times, etc, concerning a bout that involved a brilliant boxing display from a certain fighter and you'd still say you weren't satified because you haven't read a review from the Leamington Spa Enquirer.

 

It is literaly years of work to understand a fighter like Bob Fitzsimmons or Sam Langford. Whateve viewpoint you start out with it wont be the one you finish up with.

And yes the Lemington Spa enquirer is part of the picture.

 

Ken Norton is. But Holmes didn't sit on the title for 3 years and did fight quite some good fighters. He also has greater longetivity as he showed against Mercer. Dempsey got dominated by Tunney and couldn't turn it around: he got dominated again in their rematch, save for one knockdown.
Holmes lost to Spinks competitively but showed it was due to conditioning and came back to beat Spinks, if not for bad judging. Holmes has beaten fighters far better than Spinks. Dempsey never beat anyone even of the class of Tunney.

It would've been, if not for other evidence, i.e. few challengers available for the title, the heavyweight division being flooded by lightheavyweights and even a middleweight (Greb) was considered to be a worthy hw contender.
That should tell you enough.

Well he's gonna have to do something, with his title reign there's no way he can be ranked top5.

 

What five heavyweights would you say definitely rank above him?

 

Yes i do.

Well, in assessing a fighters body of work, i think it's important how he acted as a champion. That's one of the reasons i rank Lewis over Holmes: Lewis beat a bit better opponents than Holmes, but got knocked out twice, so it's about even. But Lewis fought everyone available whereas Holmes didn't and didn't want some rematches, hence i give Lewis the edge.

Still though, if we go by merely comparing names on the resume, i think Holmes beat a better bunch than Dempsey did.

How so? I don't think there are many who ranks Spinks higher than Norton.
And i'm pretty sure that no one ranks any of Dempsey's opponents higher than Tunney. I've seen Tunney creep into the hw top15 and even the top10 several times. In my opinion that is unjustified, but no other Dempsey opponent has ever "been there".

Because there were so many!

Ali
Louis
Lewis
Marciano
Holmes

Others that i rank above him by a small margin: Foreman, Frazier, Tyson. Maybe Liston and Johnson.

 

"Your best friend is a guy named Frankie Fear"

Rocky Balboa stolen from Cus D'Amato.

 

Notice i said "championship behaviour", not "complete personality". If a fighter ducks challengers as a champion, in my eyes he loses points. If he beats up his wife, tough luck for her (unless she comes back), but i'm not ranking on that.

Don't you think a fighter should be rewarded for being a true champion and fighting the best challenges available, hence giving more meaning to the word "champion" ? Foreman was the linear champion in 1995-1997 but no one really considered him THE champion because he fought nobodies and the best guys were left out cold.

Feel free to start a thread about it. And i'm not saying that to get a consensus support, but to seperate the issues here - it would be a long post. Interesting nonetheless, both reigns left something to desire although Holmes at least was active.

I doubt it.

For one, Norton lost a close fight with a peak, in shape Holmes. Spinks lost a clear decision to a 35 year old, in shape Holmes. To be short, Spinks did worse against an old in shape Holmes than Norton did against a peak in shape Holmes. Norton's body of work at hw is much more extended than Spinks.

He would rank higher than them. Only Greb defeated him (perhaps twice), outside of that, he beat Carpentier, Gibbons and a few others. He was clearly a step higher than them. On top of that, he looks way more impressive on film. While i wouldn't rank him very highly at hw, perhaps top50, he would still be a level above the former mentioned fighters.

But many of them were in their mid/late 20's or even 30's. I just can't help but notice the abundance of lightheavyweights in the mix here. In a sense, Dempsey can't be blamed for fighting a few of them - they were better than most heavyweight counterparts after all. But that doesn't make his resume any stronger.
If there is only 1 heavyweight in the world and he is forced to fight middleweights and welterweight because there are no others, you can't blame him, but it doesn't make him very proven against skilled heavyweights, either.




In an era where people dont have an amateur career you would expect a lot of people to start out at light heavyweight. Tunney for example was a fully fledged cruiserweight when he fought Dempsey and so was Gibbons.

Even so it dose not necisarily follow that an era where a lot of people step up is a weak era.



Outside of Ali and Louis I could make a case for ranking him over any of them. A case for ranking Frazier or Foreman over him would be flimsy and would rest entirley on a single win.

For a fighter who fails to dominate an era to be ranked over a dominant champion he better have a prety darn good excuse.[/quote]

Dempsey didn't even dominate an era himself (because he ducked the #1 challenger for 5 years), so i don't think that statement makes sense.

Lewis, Holmes and Marciano all were more dominant, had longer reigns with the exception of Marciano and faced and beat better opposition.

Although it is not my personal opinion or preference - i can imagine people ranking Dempsey over Frazier, Foreman, Johnson et al. I think Frazier was much more dominant than Dempsey, as was Foreman but they had short reigns so i can understand Dempsey getting the edge.

But the names above (Lewis, Marciano and Holmes), under no circumstance do i think should Dempsey be ranked higher. Good night. :thumbsup

 

I must have made three long responses concerning Dempsey. Wrote some really nice stuff. made many a delete.

In a nutshell I will say that Dempsey had a very good 1918. I think he beat many good fighters from that year. A comparison for you concerning Fulton Chris, you won't agree with, but I think Lennox Lewis' win over Razor Ruddock comes to mind. Ruddock was KO'd more than a couple of times in and around the time he was destroyed by Lewis. Good win for Lennox, good one for Dempsey. Ruddock was KO'd four times (Jaco, Tyson, Lewis, Morrison). In a similar period.

Starting with Gunboat Smith I (which I think is the first Kearns promoted Dempsey fight) there was no real looking back. Maybe Kearns should have insisted on a 10 round Meehan fight, in which case, Dempsey takes out the four round fat boy.

Dempsey has a lot of wins over good and great era fighters in 1918.

The inactive time after the second G. Smith fight I understand, don't want to mess up your title shot, its the 14 months after Willard that I think in retrospect, is the time that Dempsey missed out on the first time. Here was, in my view, a destroyer, and they don't have him fight.

Had they pushed up Miske (a good win, I do not buy into the dead man walking theory) and Brennan, Dempsey would have done just as well if not better. Dempsey vs. Wills of course should have happened then. I do not think its out of the question that Dempsey beats Wills in 1920.

Imagine beating Wills, scoring a KO over Miske, and Brennan in one year. That would have been the way to go. and not a stretch.

1921
Carp was a money maker, Dempsey should have definitely stayed active against a couple of top ten guys here (Weinert? Madden?) those would not have been great wins, but kept him going.
1923
Dempsey has fought four rounds in three years, here, Gibbons is a good opponent. I would put Gibbons (and Miske and Brennan) against any Louis champ opponent for instance.
Firpo was another promoters dream fight. Dempsey knew what was in front of him and went out to destroy him. With good reason, Dempsey hadn't been in there with a stationary slower target since Willard. It created an exciting, but wild Dempsey. Still, you must like the fact that Firpo was sent to the canvas 11 times. As far as him being knocked out of the ring, he was being wild and he was caught. It still does look more like a push through 1920's ropes than anything to me, could be wrong on that.

Dempsey pops up, does damage, then they shelve him. Each time out he is worse. And a swarmers clock is always ticking, and even though Dempsey could box very well, he is a swarmer at heart.

From Brennan through Tunney, six years, Dempsey fights 18 rounds. (and if Rickard would have had his way, it would have been only six).

I think that Dempsey had EVERYTHING HE NEEDED TO BE A TOP THREE ATG had they not threw the breaks on his career so often.

I don't think that not fighting Sam Langford hurts him any. Fulton beat Langford, Dempsey beat Fulton.

A win over Wills, a couple of stay busy fights, maybe over guys who you handled easy as sparing partners (Renault and Godfrey) and Dempsey is home free.

You can still make a top five argument for him, its just much more difficult.

The main thing is that he so easily had within reach in my opinion. Instead having people around him that could have made him one of the best of the best, they made him into one of the richest of the rich.

I am sure that life was very good in 1924/5 Hollywood, hanging with celebraties and living the highlife, marrying actresses.

 

what ducking fighters or failing to fight apart from Wills who couldn't get a shot? He came back to fight the #1 guy in Tunney, then the #2 guy in Sharkey and then #1 Tunney again and this all after past his best. "Ducking fighters" as if u could name all these fighters