What Do You Think About HBO's Top 10?

I think at the time Dempsey fought Brennan first time around, it was a fair enough fight on his run to the title. Albeit when they met as one of Dempsey's title defenses, like you say there were better he could have fought.

Thanks for letting me know about the Miske thing, honestly didn't know that :good Having said that, Dempsey also beat him beforehand prior to his title shot.

Fulton mixed in good class, I don't know enough about Sam Langford quite honestly, but having seen people discussing him on here, and knowing Fulton beat him as well as others, I would consider it a much better win than say Berbick or Tucker.

I don't condone the inactivity, but to me it almost seems as if inactivity was the "in-thing" amongst heavyweight champions of this particular time, not just attributable to Dempsey.

I'm not entirely sure why Dempsey-Greb did not happen, or Wills for that matter, but I look at what Dempsey did do, rather than what he didn't. On the whole, Brennan, Fulton, Miske, Willard, Carpentier, Firpo, Gibbons, Sharkey is solid. Sharkey for me especially is a vastly under-rated win, not sure if its the controversial nature of the ending or the fact people just don't like Sharkey, but I see that as Dempsey's most significant win.

If I were being critical of Mike's reign, I'd say he picked up on the smatterings of Holmes' average era. Berbick in two, Thomas in six, Tucker, these are good wins. Spinks is an overblown win though; he did beat a slower, fatter Holmes to become "the man", but it was hardly the most genuine of championship "torch-passing's". Tyson didn't necessarily avoid anybody to my knowledge, but then who was there to avoid?

 

Well it's certainly better than Bert Sugar's top ten, I agree with one and two and dig the inclusion of Holyfield but Dempsey, Johnson are way too high and Lewis is way too low. Holmes, Marciano, Frazier and Foreman although not in the order I'd have 'em is reasonable placement.

 

Well Seamus has pretty much put the Dempey point to rest and I don't think there's much I'd be able to add if I'm honest. One thing I will say for the argument of Tyson-Dempsey is that he did it at a much younger age and in more impressive fashion. He also fought everyone out there at the time, whilst looking virtually untouchable at the time. Dempsey loses a lot of credibility for his laughable inactivity at the time, where fighters often fought more than once a month.

On Marciano, like I said, I place a lot of my rankings on greatness and accomplishments and retiring undefeated at 49-0 is one of the greatest heavyweight achievements in the history of the sport. Also take into account that he fought the best available opposition (unless you want to be super critical). He offered rematches when his first fight performances where questionable (LaStarza, Charles, Walcott) and made sure he was the clear winner in the rematch and he's beat 4 hall of Famer's as well.

You can pick plenty of holes in Marciano's career, but not as many as most of the great heavyweights and it certainly depends how you feel about different eras.

 

Spot on with Marciano :good

He gets historically penalised because of the quality of his opposition, and fair enough, however these were great fighters and he fought and beat them all, usually twice and managed to ruin most of them in the process. I give Marciano a high ranking because he fought and beat everyone there was to fight and beat, gave those worhty of a rematch a rematch and beat them much worse than the first time around and managed to finish his career undefeated. There was literally nothing else left for a fighter in that position to do.

 

Although I disagree on the Marciano ranking, these are all fair points.

 

Rex Layne was is also a good win. He was 34-1 and being tipped as the next big HW after beating two linear HW champions. Marciano was a big underdog in the fight, but made a wreck out of Layne. Marciano will always make the top ten.

 

He appeared decent coming into the first bout but was proven to be lacking and somewhat undisciplined afterward. A decent victory, probably analogous to Jesse Ferguson.

Miske was a fantastic fighter at his best, but for this bout in particular he was gravely ill. He rebounded a bit afterward (as was the nature of Bright's disease) but he was very sick for this fight. It was a favor from Dempsey, a payday so that Miske could bail out his failed auto dealership and support his family. Still, Dempsey couldn't hold his punches and when Miske was clearly going down, continued to hit him, even with a cheap shot.

I think the Fulton - Tucker comparison is flattering to Fulton. Both highly touted, promising prospects who became prominent professionals. As a heavyweight performance, I would rate Tucker's defeat of Douglas over Fulton's defeat of a quickly sliding Langford. Tucker stayed in the picture quite a while after the Tyson fight. Fulton had some wins over the usual trailhorses but proved to be nowhere in the class of the top flight opponents he met, blasted out by Wills and the aforementioned, sick Miske. Meanwhile, Tucker beat McCalll and went the distance with a very dangerous Lewis.[/QUOTE]

38 year old Holmes was a better pelt than a 37 year old Willard who had not entered the ring for a few years, and who had never possessed 1/50th the science that Holmes had. Holmes is arguably a top-5, at worst top-10, all time great heavyweight. He went on to be a tough contender half a decade after his Tyson fight. Willard is somewhere in the top-50, tried a comeback similar to Holmes but came up short.

 

B, you are on target...Dempsey gets the " shaft" on ESB today so out of proportion to reality, BASED on social issues, rather than H2H against other heavyweights...Dempsey at his best BEAT everyone he faced from the time he hooked up with Jack Kearns in 1918 to 1923, when he chucked boxing
for La Doce Vita in Hollywood...Not for nothing was he polled the best heavyweight in the 1950s when Marciano was champion...He was a monster at his best and would have given ANYONE HELL in a ring...Would it have been nice if Dempsey and Wills eventually met ? YES. Would have it been nice if Dempsey hooked up with my idol Harry Greb ? Hell yes...But by most opinions of the day Dempsey would have been a prohibitive favorite to win.
So Dempsey was a helluva a fighter at his peak and with any heavyweight in history, Dempsey would be a handful to beat...cheers...
P.S. The Dempsey of the Tunney bouts after a 3 year layoff was akin to
Ray Robinson getting whomped by Tiger Jones in 1955 after his 3 year layoff...But Dempsey today is defined by that bout but Robinson is not.?

 

Oh, what a meanie ! :shock:

 

Well, he didn't fight them.

 

good call. I'd rate johnson first tho

 

I think Max Schmeling should probably be in there.

 

Bazza, don't be misled. After Billy miske was kod by Jack Dempsey in September, 1920, Miske's Bright's Disease was in remission and he won
NINETEEN of the last 20 bouts of his career, beating the likes of Bill Brennan, Jack Renault, Tommy Gibbons [1], Charley Weinert, Fred Fulton,
Willie Meehan,ko1...He was said to be in top form until after his last bout
when his disease took hold again...And give Dempsey his due as a great fighter who beat in his prime whoever he fought...Ray Robinson who I was fortunate to see ringside as a Welterweight COULD have tackled Charley Burley, Holman Williams, Cocoa Kid, members of "murderer's row" ,who were aeons better than Robinson's opponents, were he so inclined but
CHOSE NOT TO, because his braintrust George Gainsford, feared that trio
and never gave those guys a shot...But we don't hold this against Robbie,
when nominating him as the best welterweight based on his greatness
in the ring, and Demposey deserves his standings on HOW he would FARE against other heavyweights mano vs mano in a ring...