Sonny Listons opposition vs Jack Dempseys opposition

janitor · Jul 3, 2012

Nightcrawler said: ↑

a clear win is a clear win. liston didn't knock him out now and ingo's demoltion was more impressive sure, but it doesn't count too much against liston.
Click to expand...

Was it even a clear win?

You can find disenting voices at the time.

the strongest argument in my opinion is that liston cleaned out a decent era of heavyweights. dempsey did not.

Click to expand...

But he didn't clean it out.

He lost to Ali and he never fought Johansen.

It should also be noted that the period he dominated it over was prety short compared to the period over which Dempsey "missed certain contenders". You can hardly overlook the timescale.

Lets also be clear, that it was not the strongest era by any means.

i don't count ingo as a missed opportunity at all. i do count greb and willis highly against dempsey. and fulton's claim to fame was dominating a fat old BLIND langford. from what i've read he won from his jab, his size and langford's own form at the time, not anything specatular he brought to the table. if this is among dempsey's biggest wins, than the argument for liston strengthen's imo
Click to expand...

Fulton was certainly lucky to get Langford when he did, but lets not forgett that Langford was still beating the top contenders.

Also, you can't overlook the fact that Fulton held his position at the top of the division for a few years.

Apart from Patterson, who did Liston beat with similar credentials.
Click to expand...

janitor · Jul 3, 2012

SuzieQ49 said: ↑

Close? Liston won 9-10 rounds on any normal scorecard. I call that a WIDE clear cut decision. Machen also engaged Johansson, while he ran like a deer in headlights from Liston.
Click to expand...

So why couldn't he knock him out like Johansen did?

level peging with Patterson despite going 1-2 against him, twice being knocked out?

Click to expand...

All three of the fights were competitive.

Its not like Patterson proved himself to be in a different class, far from it.

He still got the clear W. Liston doesn't have one man on his resume whom he lost too in which johansson beat. Johansson has two losses by KO on his resume to a man who couldn't last one round with Sonny Liston.

Click to expand...

I agree that Liston was better than Johansen, but I still have to list this as a mjor fight that didn't happen.

How can I do otherwise?
Click to expand...

Nightcrawler · Jul 3, 2012

janitor said: ↑

Was it even a clear win?

You can find disenting voices at the time.

But he didn't clean it out.

He lost to Ali and he never fought Johansen.

It should also be noted that the period he dominated it over was prety short compared to the period over which Dempsey "missed certain contenders". You can hardly overlook the timescale.

Lets also be clear, that it was not the strongest era by any means.

Fulton was certainly lucky to get Langford when he did, but lets not forgett that Langford was still beating the top contenders.

Also, you can't overlook the fact that Fulton held his position at the top of the division for a few years.

Apart from Patterson, who did Liston beat with similar credentials.
Click to expand...

1)liston did not dominate the strongest, or longest, era. bang on

2)his era in this definition was pre-ali. ali's era began with beating liston. those are two humiliating loses surely but his prime was over and, barring ali, he beat every other viable contender

3)I'm more concerned with who fulton beat in his prime rather than #1 status. hasim rahman could become a number 1 contender today and it would mean ****. the wbc once ranked a deceased man. richard hall was a number 1 contender for roy jones. number 1 status is only as good as the men you beat to get there.

fulton was also beat by likely the 2 other best fighters he faced: miske and wills.
Click to expand...

janitor · Jul 3, 2012

Nightcrawler said: ↑

janitor said: ↑

1)liston did not dominate the strongest, or longest, era. bang on

2)his era in this definition was pre-ali. ali's era began with beating liston. those are two humiliating loses surely but his prime was over and, barring ali, he beat every other viable contender

Click to expand...

OK, so basicaly Liston is being assesed based on what he did over a 4 year period, while Dempsey is being assesed on what he did over a 10 year period.

If that is the case, then we would expect him to fail to meet more key contenders.

3)I'm more concerned with who fulton beat in his prime rather than #1 status. hasim rahman could become a number 1 contender today and it would mean ****. the wbc once ranked a deceased man. richard hall was a number 1 contender for roy jones. number 1 status is only as good as the men you beat to get there.

Click to expand...

Between beating Sam Langford and loosing to Harry Wills, you have a period of 3 years and 34 fights where Fulton is fighting top contenders, and is regarded by many as the top challenger.

You can't simply dismiss his run near the top, especialy if you are going to big up some fringe contenders on Sonny Listons resume to give it volume.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rock0052 · Jul 3, 2012

SuzieQ49 said: ↑

But he TWICE lost to a man whom Liston kayoed in 1 round 2 fights in a row? Hardly a big miss. Not to mention Johansson wouldn't have got in the ring with a Prime Liston even if you had given him a baseball bat
Click to expand...

Ingo probably would've laid down in the first after Sonny's friends talked to him, too.

"Prime Liston" - when the mob was doing him favors to get a good return on their investment.

"Shot Liston" - After Sonny couldn't get a license anywhere outside of an Alaskan ice cream shop, they cashed him out.

Hey, the mob made a brilliant decision using an intimidating looking dude who actually was a good fighter like Sonny as a front man. Not only did they make fat bank off off his rise and fall....but 50 years later people are convinced all his wins are on the level but only against Ali was there any influence :rofl

Nothing against Sonny himself, its a shame it turned out like it did for him. But damn, there's more delusion by his fans than by the fans of any modern fighter.

SuzieQ49 · Jul 3, 2012

OK, so basicaly Liston is being assesed based on what he did over a 4 year period, while Dempsey is being assesed on what he did over a 10 year period.

If that is the case, then we would expect him to fail to meet more key contenders.

Click to expand...

Even if you lower Dempsey's reign to a 4 year period, he still missed out on fighting Wills and Greb, two overwhelming challengers.

In fact, one could make a case Wills was the # 1 heavyweight period of the era, with Dempsey at number 2.

PowerPuncher · Jul 4, 2012

janitor said: ↑

1. Liston did not beat every top contender of his era because he lost to Clay and did not meet Johansen, so the gaps are not only on Dempseys side of the balance.

2. Fulton got his position as the number 1 challenger by beating Sam Langford, who Harry Wills was still having serious problems with, so it was emphaticaly not due to the colour line.

3. Given the fact that he held this status for a number of years, and was blatantly ducked by Willard, we have to give Dempsey some credit for going through him in 23 seconds.

4. At the time when Firpo beat a shot Willard, Wills had just split a series with Bib Bill Tate. This prompted a lot of people to view Firpo as the more logical challenger for Dempseys title.

5. I am not lambasting Williams, but I do think that it is hard to be sure how good he realy was.

6. The fighter from Dempseys era who I would compare Williams to is George Godfrey, the enigman of the era.

7. Brenan did prety much loose every round of every fight with Greb, but Miske arguably beat Greb in one fight of the series.

Either way, I am not disputing that Greb was better than both.

8. I just think that they have to be acknowledged as contenders.

9. You could argue that he was quite a big name to miss, whatever the circumstances.
Click to expand...

1. Liston started his clear out of the HW division when Clay was an amateur. You'd certainly be nit picking to say Liston has gaps in his resume

2. How many times had Wills beat Langford prior to Fulton doing so? Yes it was racial discrimination, otherwise Wills would have been number 1, Wills had won his last 3 bouts against Langford and had a much deeper resume than Fulton

3. Fulton is a very good win, similar to Lennox Lewis beating Michael Grant or Golota who were considered the best contenders at the time, but later the wins put in their proper context when those men were tested and failed against others

4. No one other than the Dempsey Propaganda machine and the Colour Line Advocates thought Firpo a more qualified defence than Wills or Greb for that matter. Firpo achieved little before or after Dempsey. Bill Tate himself achieved more than Firpo ever achieved, drawing with Wills and beating Langford. Wills had beaten Tate numerous times before that

5. We don't know how good Cleveland because he was avoided but his own prime clear defeats were Liston. He knocked out Ernie Terrell and drew with Machen. He looked very impressive on film and was 6'3, 80 inch reach, very quick hands, lots of power and a brutal left hook with a high KO percentage. If there was no Liston and he got his shot at Patterson he may well have done the same as Liston.

6. In terms of stature they have similarities, in terms of ability I'd rate Williams higher

7. The 1918 fight? There seems to be a better case Miske beat Dempsey himself than beat Greb. The version Dempsey KO'd was dominated by both Greb and Norfolk

8. Yes they were contenders, interesting Brennan did better than Gibbons, but that's another discussion

9. The circumstances were he ko'd in 1 round the man who twice ko'd Ingo while been avoided himself for years. I think you'd struggle with that argument
Click to expand...

McGrain · Jul 4, 2012

janitor said: ↑

Was it even a clear win?

You can find disenting voices at the time.
Click to expand...

?? who? Can you produce one? The fight is on film, giving Machen two rounds is generous.

PowerPuncher · Jul 4, 2012

janitor said: ↑

Between beating Sam Langford and loosing to Harry Wills, you have a period of 3 years and 34 fights where Fulton is fighting top contenders, and is regarded by many as the top challenger.
Click to expand...

Against who? The best?

Harry Wills? No
Jack Johnson? No
McVea? No
Jeanette? No

1 lone win over Langford at a very opportune time after many had beat Langford, including Bill Tate, who you seem to be insinuating wasn't highly rated, yet Fulton is 'deservedly number 1'

janitor said: ↑

Was it even a clear win?

You can find disenting voices at the time.
.
Click to expand...

'Dissenting voices' so you're calling Liston-Machen controversial now Seriously scraping the barrel of desperation now

janitor said: ↑

OK, so basicaly Liston is being assesed based on what he did over a 4 year period, while Dempsey is being assesed on what he did over a 10 year period.

If that is the case, then we would expect him to fail to meet more key contenders.
Click to expand...

There isn't 1 year on record Dempsey fought the best contenders bar the year he faced Tunney. And there are far more than 2 contenders that he missed. Strawman argument

EDIT - how did I miss this gem:

janitor said: ↑

All three of the fights were competitive.

Its not like Patterson proved himself to be in a different class, far from it.
Click to expand...

janitor · Jul 4, 2012

PowerPuncher said: ↑

Against who? The best?

Harry Wills? No
Jack Johnson? No
McVea? No
Jeanette? No

1 lone win over Langford at a very opportune time after many had beat Langford, including Bill Tate, who you seem to be insinuating wasn't highly rated, yet Fulton is 'deservedly number 1'

Click to expand...

For a start off he beat Langford twice not once, and Langford was about as good a scalp as you could have got at the time.

Johnson, McVea and Jeanette had prety much slipped out of the picture during Willards title reign, so it hardly matters whether he fought them or not.

In summary, Fulton fought Langford twice and Wills once without a title being on the line at any point, and was never given a title shot by Willard despite being viewed by the media as the top contender.

I would say he was more sinned against than sinned.

'Dissenting voices' so you're calling Liston-Machen controversial now Seriously scraping the barrel of desperation now

Click to expand...

There were ringsiders at the time who argued that Machen deserved the nod. Whatever your personal opinion (I have it clearly for Liston), it was not as good a performence as it could have been. Whatever the case, Johansen clearly did a much better job against the same opponent. Are you going to debate that?

There isn't 1 year on record Dempsey fought the best contenders bar the year he faced Tunney. And there are far more than 2 contenders that he missed. Strawman argument

Click to expand...

Highly debatable.

Fulton was certainly seen as the #1 contender when Dempsey fought him.

some people would have seen Firpo as the #1 contender when Dempsey fought him.

Sharkey was clearly the top contender apart from Dempsey himself, if not including.

Its all verry well trying to dismiss the respective periods over which they were dominant, but you can hardly overlook the difference. You are basicaly saying "cor look at that, why wasnt Dempsey as active/dominant over that ten year period as Liston was over that four year period".

You have to see the flaw in that argument.

EDIT - how did I miss this gem:
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Patterson was on a completely different level to Johansen?
Click to expand...

PowerPuncher · Jul 4, 2012

janitor said: ↑

1.For a start off he beat Langford twice not once, and Langford was about as good a scalp as you could have got at the time.

2. Johnson, McVea and Jeanette had prety much slipped out of the picture during Willards title reign, so it hardly matters whether he fought them or not.

3. In summary, Fulton fought Langford twice and Wills once without a title being on the line at any point, and was never given a title shot by Willard despite being viewed by the media as the top contender.

4. I would say he was more sinned against than sinned.

5. There were ringsiders at the time who argued that Machen deserved the nod. Whatever your personal opinion (I have it clearly for Liston), it was not as good a performence as it could have been. Whatever the case, Johansen clearly did a much better job against the same opponent. Are you going to debate that?

6. Highly debatable. Fulton was certainly seen as the #1 contender when Dempsey fought him.

7. some people would have seen Firpo as the #1 contender when Dempsey fought him.

8. Sharkey was clearly the top contender apart from Dempsey himself, if not including.

9. Its all verry well trying to dismiss the respective periods over which they were dominant, but you can hardly overlook the difference. You are basicaly saying "cor look at that, why wasnt Dempsey as active/dominant over that ten year period as Liston was over that four year period".

You have to see the flaw in that argument.

10. Are you saying that Patterson was on a completely different level to Johansen?
Click to expand...

1. This has been answered above, scroll up, Langford wasn't the best scalp at the time, the man who had beaten him 3 times on the trot in Wills was

2. They were better than the men he was fighting

3. In summary Wills had beat Langford and many other top contenders numerous time, he beat Langford 3 times on the trot. Fulton beats him once and leapfrogs Wills, no completely fair

4. It doesn't change the fact he was never a legit number 1 contender

5. I'd like to see a source, your stretching, no ones ever called that controversial on this forum

6. Fulton was probably seen as the number 1 white contender under the colour line, this wasn't a time of equal opportunities. Whether he was considered number 1 or not doesn't make him a better boxer. How highly do you rate Lennox Lewis's win over number 1 rated Michael Grant?

7. Scroll up, I've completely refuted Firpo as a legit contender already

8. By this stage, yes Dempsey was facing the best in that year, that's been acknowledged, Sharkey is his best win

9. Dempsey wasn't facing the best contenders for any of the years he fought bar 26-27, your using strawman arguments here.

10. Patterson knocked Johannsen out comprehensively twice after a shock defeat, in a way similar to Dempsey and Fireman Flynn or Lewis and Rahman. Yes there clearly is a level between them, both head to head and resume wise.

janitor · Jul 4, 2012

PowerPuncher said: ↑

1. This has been answered above, scroll up, Langford wasn't the best scalp at the time, the man who had beaten him 3 times on the trot in Wills was
Click to expand...

Langford had just regained the Coloured Heavyweight Title by beating Big Bill Tate. He subsequently lost a 6 round decision against Wills, but the Coloured Title did not change hands and both fighters were acused of holding back.

Therfore, when Fulton dominated Langford and stopped him, he was heralded as the coming man. This isn't trial by boxrec either. If the press at the time say that they thought Fulton was the top contender, then he was the top contender.

2. They were better than the men he was fighting
Click to expand...

No they wern't.

They were either washed up, in prison, or out of the title picture.

That is wy Fulton fought Langford instead of them.

3. In summary Wills had beat Langford and many other top contenders numerous time, he beat Langford 3 times on the trot. Fulton beats him once and leapfrogs Wills, no completely fair

Click to expand...

Do you think that the fact that Wills had just suffered a 2nd round TKO at the hands of Batling Jim Johnson, who Langford had just beaten might have hurt his claim?

4. It doesn't change the fact he was never a legit number 1 contender

Click to expand...

Based on the above, I would say he was.

Either way, its not down to what you think, its what people thought at the time.

5. I'd like to see a source, your stretching, no ones ever called that controversial on this forum
Click to expand...

I don't think it was particularly close, but I understand that it is possible to find such a thing as a person who had it for Machen.

6. Fulton was probably seen as the number 1 white contender under the colour line, this wasn't a time of equal opportunities. Whether he was considered number 1 or not doesn't make him a better boxer. How highly do you rate Lennox Lewis's win over number 1 rated Michael Grant?

Click to expand...

Ironic that you say so, given that his claim to be the No1 contender was based on beating Sam Langford.

From what I have seen, while the fight promotors of the period were biased againsr black fighters, the media's perception of who the top contender is at the time was not.

7. Scroll up, I've completely refuted Firpo as a legit contender already

Click to expand...

Only in your own imagination.

Wills had just had an embarasing split series against Tate (who was not highly regarded at the time), while Firpo had just knocked out Jess Willard.

Which of them do you imagine was riding high at the time?

Even if Wills somehow retained his No1 status, what would Firpo be, No2 at worst?

8. By this stage, yes Dempsey was facing the best in that year, that's been acknowledged, Sharkey is his best win

9. Dempsey wasn't facing the best contenders for any of the years he fought bar 26-27, your using strawman arguments here.

Click to expand...

You seem to be so blinded by the notion of Wills as the No1 challenger, that you completely overlook any mishap in his career.

Yes he had an impresive run, but he also had his ups and downs.

He didn't realy start to be perceived as this red hot contender until he beat Fred Fulton.

10. Patterson knocked Johannsen out comprehensively twice after a shock defeat, in a way similar to Dempsey and Fireman Flynn or Lewis and Rahman. Yes there clearly is a level between them, both head to head and resume wise.
Click to expand...

Its not like Patterson lost to Johansen then dominated him twice. All three of the fights were competitive, so I don't accept your analogy.
Click to expand...

janitor · Jul 4, 2012

Perceptions of Fulton Dempsey before the fight. The NY times describes it as "a fight between the two top contenders" to "establish who was boss".

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40611FA3F5A11738DDDA80A94DF405B888DF1D3

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...273,3031850&dq=fred+fulton+jack+dempsey&hl=en

Seamus · Jul 4, 2012

PowerPuncher said: ↑

1. Liston started his clear out of the HW division when Clay was an amateur. You'd certainly be nit picking to say Liston has gaps in his resume

2. How many times had Wills beat Langford prior to Fulton doing so? Yes it was racial discrimination, otherwise Wills would have been number 1, Wills had won his last 3 bouts against Langford and had a much deeper resume than Fulton

3. Fulton is a very good win, similar to Lennox Lewis beating Michael Grant or Golota who were considered the best contenders at the time, but later the wins put in their proper context when those men were tested and failed against others

4. No one other than the Dempsey Propaganda machine and the Colour Line Advocates thought Firpo a more qualified defence than Wills or Greb for that matter. Firpo achieved little before or after Dempsey. Bill Tate himself achieved more than Firpo ever achieved, drawing with Wills and beating Langford. Wills had beaten Tate numerous times before that

5. We don't know how good Cleveland because he was avoided but his own prime clear defeats were Liston. He knocked out Ernie Terrell and drew with Machen. He looked very impressive on film and was 6'3, 80 inch reach, very quick hands, lots of power and a brutal left hook with a high KO percentage. If there was no Liston and he got his shot at Patterson he may well have done the same as Liston.

6. In terms of stature they have similarities, in terms of ability I'd rate Williams higher

7. The 1918 fight? There seems to be a better case Miske beat Dempsey himself than beat Greb. The version Dempsey KO'd was dominated by both Greb and Norfolk

8. Yes they were contenders, interesting Brennan did better than Gibbons, but that's another discussion

9. The circumstances were he ko'd in 1 round the man who twice ko'd Ingo while been avoided himself for years. I think you'd struggle with that argument
Click to expand...

Agreed on all accounts.

janitor · Jul 4, 2012

PowerPuncher said: ↑

1. Liston started his clear out of the HW division when Clay was an amateur. You'd certainly be nit picking to say Liston has gaps in his resume

Click to expand...

Thats fine, if you are prepared to look at Listons resume as covering a period of four years and ignore everything he did or didn't do outside that period.

2. How many times had Wills beat Langford prior to Fulton doing so? Yes it was racial discrimination, otherwise Wills would have been number 1, Wills had won his last 3 bouts against Langford and had a much deeper resume than Fulton

Click to expand...

Wills had won a few against Langford and lost a couple, never realy dominated him. Fulton did dominate Langford, and Wills had an awkward loss at the time. Langford was the coloured heavyweight champion at the time.

Not everybody seems to have recognised Fulton as the #1 contender imidiately, but his win over Carl Morris seems to have solidified the perception.

Why is it necesary to resort to racial predudice as an explaination?

3. Fulton is a very good win, similar to Lennox Lewis beating Michael Grant or Golota who were considered the best contenders at the time, but later the wins put in their proper context when those men were tested and failed against others
Click to expand...

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. You have seen a similar body of opinion build up behind a contender, who subsequently gets brought down enough times.

4. No one other than the Dempsey Propaganda machine and the Colour Line Advocates thought Firpo a more qualified defence than Wills or Greb for that matter. Firpo achieved little before or after Dempsey.
Click to expand...

I can asure you that the hype behind Firpo was huge, and he was very highly rated. If Wills got his #1 status by beating the previous #1 contender (Fulton), then why is it hard to imagine that a win over the former champion (Willard) would have shot Firpo up the rankings?

Whats more Firpo was drawing huge gates at a time while Dempsey was drwing disapointing ones.

Bill Tate himself achieved more than Firpo ever achieved, drawing with Wills and beating Langford. Wills had beaten Tate numerous times before that
Click to expand...

It seems incredible that Tate was not more highly regarded at the time, but he dosn't seem to have been highly regarded.

5. We don't know how good Cleveland because he was avoided but his own prime clear defeats were Liston. He knocked out Ernie Terrell and drew with Machen. He looked very impressive on film and was 6'3, 80 inch reach, very quick hands, lots of power and a brutal left hook with a high KO percentage. If there was no Liston and he got his shot at Patterson he may well have done the same as Liston.

6. In terms of stature they have similarities, in terms of ability I'd rate Williams higher

Click to expand...

My point stands.

The guy is still an enigma.

7. The 1918 fight? There seems to be a better case Miske beat Dempsey himself than beat Greb. The version Dempsey KO'd was dominated by both Greb and Norfolk
Click to expand...

My point is that Miske was not a punch bag for Greb like Brennan was. Miske was basicaly competitive with everybody until be became sick.

8. Yes they were contenders, interesting Brennan did better than Gibbons, but that's another discussion
Click to expand...

I have often wonderd at this myself.

9. The circumstances were he ko'd in 1 round the man who twice ko'd Ingo while been avoided himself for years. I think you'd struggle with that argument
Click to expand...

I don't blame either Liston or Johansen for the fact that they never fought, but even in a period of dominance as short and dense as Liston's, key fights don't happen.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

Sonny Listons opposition vs Jack Dempseys opposition

janitor VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

Nightcrawler Boxing Addict Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

Rock0052 Loyal Member Full Member

SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Sonny Listons opposition vs Jack Dempseys opposition

janitor VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

Nightcrawler Boxing Addict Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

Rock0052 Loyal Member Full Member

SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member