Sonny Liston vs Jack Dempsey

It can be interesting to look at which modern fighters the old timers rate later in life.

One fighter that all the crew from Dempseys era seemed to rate highly in ATG termswas Mike Tyson.

What is interesting is that he was rated highly even by the defensive fighters of that period (which is rare for a puncher), and a lot of these guys did not have a verry high opinion of the fighters of the 80s and 90s as a whole.

 

Now it's getting interesting. Obviously we are talking about 5 or more fighters. So what fighters were these and what exactly did some of them quote about Tyson? Should be great reading.

 

For a start Max Schmeling, Jack Sharkey and Archie Moore all ranked Tyson right up there with the best heavyweights of all time.

 

Some were respectable choices, some were not. Choosing not to grant Firpo a rematch was not respectable at all. Doing **** all for 3 years was not respectable. Being so inactive in general was not respectable.
Not giving Wills a shot, who was a top contender for an enormous time, was not respectable. Not giving Jack Renault a shot, who was a top contender for years, was not respectable. Godfrey too. Now i don't expect him to have fought everybody, nearly no one did except for Louis and Ali. But i think those are an aweful lot of misses for a top5 heavyweight.

Well, that is your opinion. In my opinion, championship behaviour (in terms of choosing opponents) certainly counts and is where Ali, Louis, Marciano and Lewis are head and shoulders above the rest.

He still beat them. Gibbons great depth? He beat a big string of nobodies, went 1-1 with Miske and lost to most of the rest. Miske may rank higher indeed. I think he is the best opponent Dempsey beat as a champion.

I've watched the Carpentier fight and Tunney looks fine to me there. Fast on his feet, quick combinations, sets it up with the jab - modern style ahead of his time.

Which is an interesting sidenote, but no more than that. Boxers say so many things, that doesn't make them true. Foreman said he was afraid of Frazier and wanted no part of Norton. Look what happened there.

Levinsky, Carpentier, Tunney, Gibbons - all lightheavyweights. That is a lot.

And you can say "well, Greb was only one weight class below them", but how does that wash when they're heavyweight contenders? No matter how great Greb is. If Foreman lost to Monzon, or Witherspoon lost to Hagler, do you think anyone would still considering them liable threats to the heavyweight champion?? Tell me honestly! Because i wouldn't and i think most would. There's a reason Hagler and Monzon didn't step up in weightclass - to much talent in the higher divisions.

In the end he didn't fight them, therefore he didn't dominate the era. I think we can agree on this; let's leave in the middle for the moment whether it was ducking or not.

Stop pulling that "theoretically better" crap on me. It's not true, you know it, i know it. Theoretically Fitzsimmons is better than Marciano, theoretically i'm the heavyweight champion of the world, big deal. You know those are not true so don't make them up to suit your argument.

Fact is, Wills was the number one contender for 5 years and Dempsey didn't fight him. I mean, even those racist ****s of that time ranked him higher than his white counterparts! That should tell you something.

Wills would've been the icing on the cake?

Lewis beating an aging Tyson in 2002 is icing on the cake. Ali beating Lyle and Shavers is icing on the cake. Wills would've been the single best win, by far, on his resume. A resume-builder. By no means icing on his cake. That's like saying Tyson is the icing on Holyfield's cake. Wrong, he was his best win.

You may have a case there. Holmes wasn't eager to meet top contenders post 83, but before that he was. Plus he has longitivity and number of defenses to claim, contrary to Dempsey.

 

Did barely anyone not tho? Blind Freddy could see he was special and he was consensus top 15 in a very short time. Ok, so what else?

 

I agree with the comparison. However, the key difference here is that Lewis has several names like this on his resume, while Fulton is one of the three names that stick on Dempsey's resume.

Maybe, maybe not. Fact is he never did on five 4-round attempts.

This, again is speculation though. We can't rank Dempsey on imaginairy beating Wills whom he avoided for years.

And i think it IS a stretch. The Wills fight could've gone both ways.
Holmes beating Witherspoon in a rematch, knocking out Norton in a rematch, beating Dokes and Coetzee, being well conditioned for the first Spinks fight and winning that one is no more of a stretch than what you stated, either. Based on that, Holmes would be a lock for the top3. But he didn't do it! And neither did Dempsey, so let's stick with what happened.

It was exciting, yes. But Firpo deserved a rematch due to the controversy.
Jack Renault deserved a shot. Wills still deserved a shot.

For the top3 he should've have blatantly avoided the #1 contender Wills for 5 years, dito with Jack Renault who was the top contender for years, George Godfrey. These were all big heavyweights, Dempsey opted to go for light heavyweights instead with the exception of Firpo who had no idea how to box. He didn't do all of that, hence he doesn't deserve to be in the top3 or top5 in my opinion.

Langford also beat Fulton if i remember correct. I agree that not fighting Langford (or Jeanette) is not such a black mark itself, but it is the whole picture i'm talking about.

Again, none of that ever happened as much as i'd like it to have.

As for handling sparring partners easily, that means absolutely nothing. Sparring stories are always the biggest loads of bragging **** because there is no verification. One guy claims he knocked the other out, the other claimed he never was down, the trainer said that there was a slip. Next case the trainer claimed there was a knockout but the public called it a slip, etc etc. This stuff means **** all and are NO excuse whatsoever to duck them. If he was handling them so easy then why did he want no part of them in the ring? These stories are probably coming from the same people who wrote that Willard was in magnificant shape, etc.

It's great for him that he enjoyed the highlife, same with Johnson and his tendency to fight and humiliate white figthers. But neither of those did any good for their historic standing as boxers.

 

I am talking relative to other all time greats.

Ali did not get such acolades so quickly from this crowd.

 

Here are the rankings for the last two years of Dempseys reign and the first two years that rankings existed. As you can see Wills was only ranked in the No 1 spot for two years. You will also note that Tommy Gibbons was the No2 contender even after Dempsey fought him.

Jack Renault was a lowly #6 and George Godfrey was languishing at 8# beneath Luis Firpo. Neither of these guys made their breakthrough untill Dempsey was out of the way.

1924

1. Jack Dempsey, Champion
   [*]
   This content is protected
2. This content is protected
3. Charley Weinert
4. Quintin Romero Rojas
5. This content is protected
6. Luis Angel Firpo
7. This content is protected
8. Jim Maloney
9. Erminio Spalla

1925

1. Jack Dempsey, Champion
2. This content is protected
3. This content is protected
4. This content is protected
5. Bud Gorman
6. This content is protected
7. Jack Sharkey
8. Bob Fitzsimmons
9. Paolino Uzcudun
10. Jim Maloney
11. Harry Persson
12. King Solomon
13. Johnny Risko
14. Ray Neuman
15. Jim Keeley

1926

1. This content is protected
   This content is protected
2. This content is protected
3. This content is protected
4. Jim Maloney
5. Paolino Uzcudun
6. This content is protected
7. This content is protected
8. Harry Persson
9. Knute Hansen
10. Johnny Risko
11. Sully Montgomery
12. Sandy Seifert
13. Jack DeMave
14. Monte Munn
15. Arthur De Kuh

 

Because he was a brash talking big noter, not exactly conducive to garnering praise from the conservative era, no? Tyson had also shown little weakeness pre title where as Ali had his moments. Tyson was a quasar by comparison.

It's really that easy. Do we have anymore comments and names? I was expecting much more. I'll assume Moore was a defensive specialist, you said defensive "fighters" so there must be others.

 

To be honest I am getting quite tired of arguing with you about this side issue.

If it is a matter of any great interest to you then start a thread on it.

 

Arguing? Who's arguing, i'm just asking for you to verify what you claimed. Or do you simply not have the goods to back up your statements, again? Getting quite tired of that one too

atsch

 

Common sense. He nearly knocked out Dempsey. Anyone loves a title shot. Rademacher took one without a single pro fight. Spinks had 7.

They were highly ranked contenders for years.

Other than Miske, whom he also lost to, you still haven't given me an other good name.

Round 15, the only round i have seen of this fight.

Yeah well, if that is your claim that Tunney wouldn't have better than him, a mere statement which may well have been made to make himself more popular, then it is a very weak claim.

Yes, but Charles and Moore are on a completely different level than Carpentier and Gibbons. Tunney isn't, but then again, he beat the crap out of Dempsey twice whereas Marciano knocked them out hard.

Maybe, maybe not. We know that no other heavyweights post-30's lost to a middleweight so this is definitely a huge black mark on a heavyweight contender no matter of this middleweights greatness.

I referred to Wills, Renault and Godfrey. Hence "them" and hence no dominance.

No, it is not. By no comparison is Fitz better than Marciano.

Well, Fleischer wasn't really a racist, but most people around were, so i wouldn't be suprised.

Wills was the best contender from 1916 to 1925. Now that i think about it, i should've said 9 years, not 5.

Wills was the best contender around from 1916 (not including Dempsey). Do you refuse this?
Renault was in the top10 for three years as was Godfrey and if there were earlier rankings, they may well have in there back then, too. The list of Dempsey ducked fighters grows as one does more research instead of getting off on him having brutal fights with Willard and Firpo and throwing him in the top5 as many seem to do.