Which layoff was more devasting for one's particular legacy?

May I offer you the following challenge then?

After winning the title, who would you have liked to see him defend it against, and at what pace, when applying modern sensibilities to the ranks of contention during his reign? Just how good could his reign have possibly been, if he'd successfully defended against all worthy contenders from late 1919 to say, 1926 or 1927?

Everybody agrees that Harry Wills should have gotten a shot. Should Tommy Gibbons likewise have received a chance three years earlier than he did after dominating Greb in May 1920? [Ending Harry's 1918-1920 streak.] Tommy believed he could have beaten Jack in 1920, and Gene Tunney indicated he agreed with this possibility.

While it's easy to criticize Jack's moribund reign, the list of contenders for the title during that period also needs to be addressed. Wills was older and slower than Dempsey. Langford picked Jack to beat Harry if they'd squared off for the title during the 1920s. To me, it's really Willard who deserves the most stick for not defending against Wills, because that's when Harry peaked, and who he had the best shot at dethroning.

Getting away from the revisionism and knowing what we would have known at the time prior to those bouts, Miske was officially 28-1-2, Brennan 38-5-3, Carpentier 81-10-5, Tommy was 47-2-1, and Firpo was 25-2-0. [Admittedly, I'm lazily boxWRECKing this, too unmotivated at the moment to dig out my old Ring Record Book.] Strictly in numerical terms, 219-20-11 is a respectable combined record for six different unsuccessful challengers to share. [To compare, Jack Johnson's eight different failed challengers were 255-36-40. Philadelphia Jack O'Brien accounted for 93 of those wins, the Carpentier of Li' Artha's tenure.]

How good could Dempsey's reign have been? Langford, McVey and Jeannette were much well past their due date by then, and George Godfrey was getting hammered by Jack in sparring. How much credit does Dempsey get for beating the smaller Greb today? About as much as for Miske and Carpentier, I'd wager. He got to Willard by crushing the outstanding white contender of the era in Fulton. No way Fred gets a title shot rematch after that.

Personally, I don't see Jack getting much historical mileage out of defeating an older, larger, slower target like Wills. While both Harrys, large and small, merited opportunities, these were win-wins for those contenders, and lose-lose scenarios for Dempsey.

Do frequent successful defenses for Jack result in a 1920s "Bum of the Month Club" designation for failed challengers, or does he get enhanced credit for repelling a tough block of contenders? How much legacy potential existed for his reign? Was there simply a very low ceiling on how good Dempsey's reign potentially could have been?

Fabricate what you would consider to have been an ideal reign for Dempsey. Suspending disbelief, who would he have needed to defeat, who was available in the way of potential title challenge opposition at the time, to satisfy your requirements for legacy adequacy?

 

Dempsey's inactivity hurt the division and Dempsey was a fighter ... he definitely should have fought Wills and Greb. He could have defended against Kid Norfolk. He certainly could have fought 37 year old Sam Langford in 1920 or so considering his legend is based on defeating 37 year old Jess Willard but Kearns would never let that happen either ..That's a few ... if he stayed active he might not ever have lost to Tunney in Phili ...

 

There's a possibility defending against Wills in 1925 would have helped him immensely at Sesquicentennial Stadium. Dempsey certainly made it clear he believed Firpo would have defeated him without Shelby restoring him to competition readiness.

Does Jeff Smith rate as a suitable "keep busy" defense for Jack? Undefeated through 1923, almost all of 1924 [until Tunney got him in December], and a pretty steady winner through much of Dempsey's reign. Is he the best white non-champion not to get a shot during Jack's reign? [This is a seriously overlooked question, since the color line would not have been an obstacle here.]

Langford would have been charitable by 1920, but Ali certainly made amends for Patterson by giving long overdue contenders like Folley and Big Cat title shots. Perhaps McVey and Jeannette could have received similar send offs, notwithstanding the climate of the times.

Norfolk in late 1919, or throughout 1920, is a completely plausible challenger for Jack, anytime before May 1921. His dominance of Jeff Clark definitely does make him the more suitable of those two at that stage.

 

If we are talking strictly in the layoff, as in comparing the fight before to the fight(s) after, then does anyone really think Tyson lost THAT much ability? We aren't talking mid to late 80s Tyson, we are talking "just lost to Douglas" Tyson and then Tyson vs Bruno guy.

 

Jeffries was matched vs Lang post 1905, but opted to stay retired. But I agree, the lay off hurt him the most. Fitzsimmons, who sat ringside in Reno said Jeffries wasn't a quarter of the fighter he used to be when he returned to fight Johnson in 1910.

 

He could have fought Wills from 1920 to 25 ...

Langford at 37 was still a nasty match up for Dempsey as Sam was still beating at least as good men as Dempsey was and he was stil a brutal puncher ... I'm not saying he wins ( althought I do favor him in his prime big time ) but it was at least as interesting a match up as Miske or Brennan .. and again, Greb ..

 

i like this topic. i'll say ali was affected the most because we could have seen more of him at this peak but it hardly was devastating for his legacy.

 

The Tyson that fought Ruddock was much better than the Tyson that fought Holyfield

He had much more desire, will to win, and was in much better shape, physically and mentally. he wasnt what he once was (in the 80s) but he was leagues above the tyson of 96 who was huffing and puffing after 4 rounds and looking to the ref for help as early as the 3rd or 4th round.

Tyson lost his fighting guts somewhere in prison

 

Looking at the available contenders between 1967 and 1970, who besides 1969-early 1970 Frazier would have even been capable of pushing him in a title challenge?

There were a number of guys who might have taken him the championship distance, but does anybody aside from a post Bonavena II Frazier even compete with Muhammad at that stage?

Sure, Ali's abilities may have been peaking at this point, but how many would have been good enough to really bring it out of him? He wouldn't have had the HW competition a peak SRR had at WW with the likes of Gavilan and Tommy Bell.

 

One could even add John L and Corbett to the list imo.

 

yeah, i agree with everything you say here but i think it would have been nice to have a few other classic performances to look at to see ali at his peak. who knows, if he fought during this time, the rest of his career probably plays out much differently.

 

Probably Jack Dempsey's, he didn't respect the championship.

 

Hard to say about Dempsey. If he'd stayed active and not faced Greb and, especially, Wills it wouldn't have made much of a difference. If he had faced them and won, but still lost to Tunney... Hard to say. It would help him to have beaten those two, but perhaps hurt him a bit to lose to Tunney without inactivity as an excuse. If he'd beaten all three, there would be no disputing that he dominated his era and that would enhance his legacy. Perhaps put him in top 5, top 3.

Louis would probably have extended his reign in number of fights (but shortened it in number of years). That would have made his record even more remarkable, and strengthened his claim as GOAT.

Ali would probably have racked up a reign similar to Louis in longevity and number of defenses, but without legendary nights such as Zaire and Manilla. He'd probably be on par with Louis in most people's estimation, while today he's probably slightly ahead.

Tyson would have faced Holyfield. And then quite possibly Bowe and Lewis. Had he beaten all three together with a number of other contenders he'd rank top 5, top 3 today. Maybe higher. Had he lost to those three (more likely imo) many would still say that he was ****ed post Rooney anyway and that mythical Mega Tyson with Rooney would've swept them, so he wouldn't lose too much in the eyes of many. Still, a loss to Holy in 1991 would probably be a bit hurtful to his legacy for most. Probably more hurtful than the losses when their more declined selves actually met.

Vitaly would probably have racked up quite a reign for himself and that would have helped his legacy. The only piece missing would be his brother's scalp.