1. There are too many good HWs for Sharkey to be top30 - just outside. Willard is around top60 as 1 of the worst champions in history, he simply got lucky against Johnson and had all the cards stacked in his favour. 2. Wills, Johnson, Greb, Langford, Mcvey, Jeannette, Godfrey were all better than the opposition Dempsey chose to fight. Some were past prime but Johnson despite been past prime was still top3 in the world. Dempsey was willing to fight Wills was he? Just like Bowe was willing to fight Lennox Lewis - it didn't happen and hurts both legacies accordingly. 3. Wills came up before Dempsey and stayed at the top for as long as Dempsey. Its fair to argue Wills was no1 in the world and not Dempsey for the period. Wills beat far better comp than Dempsey this much is obvious comparing their resumes 4. Everyone has excuses for losses, the early losses are fine, the later 1s - Meehan and Flyn and Tunney all hurt his standing.
We can only judge an opponents likelyhood of beating other greats head to heads after seeing how they perform against the very best. This is something we haven't seen Dempsey face outside of Tunney - who isn't really a great HW himself. Relatively speaking Anyone can look like Mike Tyson on a punch bag
I disagree. List 30 heavyweights better than Sharkey and Willard(and I can go into length about why I disagree with your opinion of Willard when I have more time). Only Wills was better at that time. On what basis??? Johnson hadn't beaten a top 50 heavyweight in the last six years. Dempsey was willing to fight Wills was he? Just like Bowe was willing to fight Lennox Lewis - it didn't happen and hurts both legacies accordingly. Yes, but given the circumstances, are not all three of these defeats extremely understandable? It isn't as though all the other champions didn't lose fights as well(aside from Marciano).
I was really responding to another poster who rated Dempsey below almost everyone apparently on a head-to-head, "fantasy" basis. Your arguements, whether I agree with any given one or not, are on a different and much higher plane. By the way, I am enjoying your debate with Janitor and Marciano-Frazier.
Meehan also beat Sam Langford, who just minutes ago you were lauding as one of "the best HWs of his era".
Although Jack Sharkey was inconsistent he actualy has an incredible resume when you take a closer look. Ranked by the number of world class fighters he defeated he is one of the top 10 heavyweights of all time. His resume has far more depth to it than Tunney's and is close to that of Harry Wills. A top 30 slot for him is fine by me and he could easily be ranked higher than Tunney. I personaly do not rate Willard verry highly for the same reasons as yourself. One fighter on Dempsey's resume who I do rate just outside my top 30 is Billy Miske. If he had not become seriously ill at a young age he might have posed a verry serious challenge to Dempsey for the title. A good case can be made for ranking Fred Fulton among the top 50 heavyweights of all time. Willard avoided him for years. Gunboat Smith is also a top 50 candidate. Tommy Gibbons is a top 15 light heavyweight of all time in my opinion and Battling Levinsky is a top 30 light heavyweight. These are noteworthy wins.
What a quality thread this has turned out to be...i left it seven hours ago and it was just a baby... Anyway, we're all agreed, just outside the top 10, right?
I have heard this arguement often about those who saw him fight dying off and then his rating dropping, but I don't understand it. We have all seen him fight. His fights with Willard, Brennan, Carpentier, Gibbons, Firpo, Sharkey, and both fights with Tunney are on film. He certainly didn't "destroy" Tunney, nor Gibbons, and he was behind Sharkey before he pulled the fight out. He struggled with Brennan. This is good, but hardly awesome. The same can be said about the level of his opposition and his total record.