Sonny Liston vs Jack Dempsey

Fighters should be rated based on what they do in their own era. These arguments about Dempsey's era being weak seem silly.

 

Well, how about this: He never fought the best fighter of his era (not including himself), who was on top of it for damn near 10 years! He also never fought a few that were consistently ranked in the top, like Renault and Godfrey. He did nothing for a full 3 years. He defended the title only 6 times in 7 years. All of that has nothing to do with a weak era not, he was just a very lazy, weak champion in terms of what he did, and that is a fact.

Maybe he told that to the crowd because he knew they love you when you praise the most popular guy on the planet. But i doubt that Firpo's ambition was to NOT get a title shot when he nearly knocked out the champ.

The point is that they were there for years, and might have been there for longer if the rankings existed longer. It's not like they made a temporary visit in the top10.

Another light heavyweight. You're giving me more and more ammo for the abundunce of light heavies in that heavyweight division.

Who else?
[/quote]

You are switching from one point to another while that wasn't the question.

To answer your question, no, i have also seen other Tunney fights in which he looks equally impressive, so i'm not sweeping inferences. Same goes for others like Willard and Dempsey. Willard looked horrible at his peak against Johnson too. Of course, being out of shape, 37 year old and inactive for 3 years didn't make him any better.

Yeah, right. Only if Dempsey is in the top3.
Charles'/Moore's 15 best wins easily blow away Gibbons'/Carpentiers's.

Name me the last heavyweight fighter that lost to a middleweight when he was a heavyweight contender. Sharkey drew with Walker in the early 30's, did it ever happen after that when the heavyweight division got back on its feet?

Why was there no need? They were heavyweight unlike Gibbons, and unlike Gibbons they had been ranked in the top10 for several years. Considering Dempsey's avoidance of the #1 contender for 7 years, he sure as hell needed to fight them to make up for that should he be ranked top5!

Sigh. Marciano destroyed every heavyweight he fought. Fitz got knocked out several times and was saved by the referee other times. He couldn't get past unskilled Jeffries even with loaded gloves. Marciano never lost but fought greater opposition that Fitz. Who the hell can you rank Fitz higher??? I'm talking about heavyweight rankings, not pound for pound.

And Dempsey would never have ducked a fighter according to most. You never know what is really going on.

He barely lost and was very active. He was a mile more active than Dempsey, he was the rightful #1 for 9 years and Dempsey avoided him during all that time. I think we might need the Guinness book of record for this one, i doubt anyone will ever duck the #1 challenger for that long. Patterson gets a **** load of criticism for ducking Liston for a mere 2 years, and he eventually fought him. Dempsey did 9 years!!!!!

How can you justify a top5 or top3 ranking for that record holder?

They were there for several years, not just fluke top10 ranked.

For 9 years, and the others are definitley suspicious considering the time they spent in the top10. And i don't believe that crap of him trying to arrange a fight. I've read stories that Wills was given a guaranteed title shot if he came past a strong contender and won. Of course he did and never received his shot after it. Carpentier had no trouble fighting a black fighter (and the black man even getting the decision) nor had Burns. This color line is a very convenient ducking mehod. It is much better than the modern Riddick Bowe excuse "The money is not enough, so i'm fighting Fergusson next!".

 

You never know how reliable these things are.

Someone who is ranked in the top10 for three consecutive years, one of those in the top5, is now a "second rater"? You're really making yourself ridiculous here to suit your argument. Renault would probably have been in the top10 in 1923 as well if the ring rankings existed by then.

I'm growing weary on this.

You keep saying things that you KNOW aren't true but you add 'theoretical' or 'arguably' to make them true.
Let me make it clear for you:

-NO ONE ranks Gibbons or Carpentier as high as or even close to Charles or Moore. Saying that Gibbons 'only lost to hall of famers' doesn't change any of that. If i fought Foreman, Ali and Frazier and lost all of them i would be able to make the very same claim, so i'd be as good as Charles and Moore too?
-NO ONE with an objective mind ranks Fitz over Marciano
-Witherspoon wasn't KO'd by a middleweight
-Foreman wasn't knocked down by Peralta

So stop making up these things and other things that you know aren't true to suit your argument. It is very annoying!

Jones' natural weight was lightheavyweight. And he used steroids to climb up to 197lbs.

And needless to say, Ruiz isn't exactly highly regarded ever since.

Again this is twisting things to suit your argument. You know just as well as i do that Toney did not deserve a draw in that fight. Toney was one of the most popular fighters around here, and even still, almost everyone thought he'd lost that one.

p.s. Toney is a natural lightheavyweight as well. In his early 20's he was struggling all the time to make the SMW limit.

So even if i am kind to you and grant you these two examples, it happened twice in the last eighty years. Not exactly a good sign when something that rare happens to you. Not to mention they bulked up by modern methods (steroids) to be able to carry the weight better.

It's great that Dempsey fought Gibbons, i'm just saying that during that full three year vacation while disgracing the heavyweight championship, he should've given other contenders a shot as well.


By the way, what does it say about the "most ferious, hard hitting heavyweight champion" Dempsey when he can't hurt Gibbons over 15 rounds, but a natural lightheavyweight, not known for punching power, stops him in 12 while Gibbons was still winning fights?

You know very well that Wills was the best contender out there during that entire period. He lost little and fought nearly everyone, except for the guy avoiding him like the plague of course. Again you're twisting well-known facts to suit your argument. Are you seriously contending that Wills was not the top guy between 1917 and 1925 (outside of Dempsey) ?

No, he didn't. He fought a handful of top heavyweights. And lost to most of them. Marciano fought two hands full and knocked them all out.

Sigh. Okay, you win. Fitzsimmons was a greater heavyweight than Marciano. Barbados Joe Walcott was a better heavyweight than Fitzsimmons, though.

Again you are contradicting yourself to suit your argument. You just stated earlier that a loss or two didn't matter when you were established, when talking about Miske getting a shot.

It's not obvious at all and the anecdote i gave you should give you insight as well as the fact that other black fighters were able to fight white fighters, Dempsey being booed and giving "boxing a black eye" when he refused to fight the black former contender Jeanette, etc etc. I'm sure Kevin Smith can tell you more about it.

How so? Did Louis fought average fighters and started struggling or losing when he stepped up? Did Ali? Did either of them disgrace the heavyweight title by doing nothing for 3 years as a champ? By setting a record of avoiding the best fighter for 9 years? Louis and Ali gave rematches all the time, we all know what Dempsey did in a controversial, should-have-been-DQ-loss fight against Firpo.

 

:roll:

 

Not to mention the time Jack was floored in sparirng against a welterweight of the day (who couldn't even break the Top 10). :deal

 

Right uppercut it was. Great punch vs the bob and weaving swarmers.

:yep

 

Yep. This was the guy according to what I've 'heard'. :good


http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=170623&cat=boxer

 

LMGFAO!!! :rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl


But lets be honest, i read at least one newspaper report scored the draw vs "Black Demon" resoundingly for Banana Sam 4-2!!

 

Yep. Sam was the 'Charley Burley' of his day. Earnie Shavers even copied the uppercut of Sam, the 'Tennessee Terror', using it to great effect vs Norton and Ellis. Earnie 'told' me this himself. A primary source if there ever was one.

 

Well you do see him on the door, this can't be doubted!

 

I have met Shavers on the door.

 

Yup, yup, yup. I also have it in print from Ye Olde Fistic Almanack For Boys 1917.