Wills was the best challenger for something like 5 years. In the entire history of boxing, only Jack Johnson did a better job of avoiding a challenger. Patterson gets a **** load of criticism for avoiding Liston for 2 years and he still fought him! Same with Bowe and his job on Lewis, and in both cases rightfully so. But it seems like Dempsey gets a free pass for one of the worst cases of avoiding a challenger in history, every weight class included. Maybe Dempsey wanted to fight him, maybe he didn't. But in the end the best challenger for 5 years is NOT on his resume, instead many weak fighters are. Not many people at all know that, most know that Dempsey is a legend, first million dollar gate, brutal fight with Willard etc. They don't know the circumstances and details behind the legend. And yes, he was past his best against Tunney. But my point is that he never proved himself against a really good fighter. He struggled badly with Sharkey (who i am not that impressed by), and yes i realise that he was not at his best against him either, but this is an awfully short prime we're talking about. He struggled against a wild unskilled fighter in Firpo, too. Or was he past his best for that one as well? Failed to put away a lightheavyweight, etc etc.
Who has the better resume? Dempsey has a better legacy by a mile, but that was not the question. I think Dempsey has a better resume right now, but if Clazaghe can beat Hopkins, and retire un-defeated, he might end up with the better resume. Clazaghe needs to fight the big names now, not the 2nd or 3rd ranked guy at 168.
Yeah. The question invites a knee-jerk reaction for just this reason (legacy) but in fact I think there is very little in it.
What constitutes a weak era? Overall, Dempsey's W record is very nice. Levinsky, Carpentier, and Gibbons - three tip top Light Heavyweights, a division many HW's have preyed on, were all dominated. Criticize the weights, but have a run through history and you'll see that's a unique package for Light heavies' that were accustomed to tackling Heavies'. Fulton, Brennan, Miske, Willard, Firpo and Sharkey make up a more than solid list for Dempsey's 'Heavy' opponents. Calzaghe's long reign is special, but for a combination of quality and quantity, he falls behind Dempsey at this point. Joe has really added to his pedigree in the last two years, finally landing his defining fights, but Dempsey's career was always built off defining fights and performances.
“ failed to put away a light-heavyweight” Again one has too look into this a bit more deeply. Dempsey did not lose to Gibbons. Dempsey was never on the verge of losing to Tommy and Dempsey won 12 out of 15 rounds, winning a clear cut decision. Dempsey was coming straight from two-year layoff and while he was in his physical prime, he wasn’t quiet at his “peak” Infact he was fading a bit though still in his prime. Newspaper reports of the time agree that this was starting to fade a bit. Dempsey’s fight with Gibbons, if anything, shows skill- that he could out box a good boxer. You don’t always have to knock an opponent out. It was to Gibbons advantage that he was 175 pounds, this along with his speed, skill and Dempsey being a bit rusty helped him survive. Look at Louis vs Conn or Marciano vs Charles 1 if you are talking about “struggling” with light-heavies. There was nothing wrong with the fight- if anything Dempsey showed that despite not being in the best of form and under such heat he could throw so many punches and did throughout the fight. He showed that he was more then just a one dimensional brawler, he had the skill to outbox a good boxer.
I don't think a light heavyweight should go 15 rounds with a devastating heavyweight champion like Dempsey. I mean, Spinks went 91 seconds with Tyson. And Spinks was much better than Gibbons. Foster was destroyed by Frazier. Marciano knocked out Charles and Moore. Conn did well but was still knocked out twice by Louis. Charles did beat up an old Louis, but at least that was competitive, contrary to Dempsey-Tunney. And Louis was 35, Dempsey was 30; Louis was fighting much more often as well. But ok, this was just a minor point i made, i see you choose the ignore all the other ones.
But u chose to ignore that he was coming straight off a two year layoff. Did you see how intimidated Spinks was of Tyson? I mean he didn’t even want to be there. Marciano ko’d Charles in a second attempt, not the first. And unlike Gibbons, Charles was dropped more often. As for the Tunney fights, I have argued several times and am not bothered to anymore. What I will say is though they are not a true test of his ability. Plus he tried his best in the rematch knocking him down and nearly out.. I don’t want to go in the Long count thing but what I will say is that he tried his best and that’s what any great is supposed to. People forget that Tunney was a great fighter in his own right and the best in the world when he met Dempsey. Basically I don’t see Tunney beating him at his best- simple as that. Read my pos t on the last page concerning Willard and the find me names of five respected historians from the time who claimed Willard was an all time top 10 great? And who says Dempsey gets a pass for not fighting Wills? Most people all over the internet blame the entire thing on Dempsey and on some forums it got ugly with repeaed racist accusations on Dempsey. Now why does Wills get a pass for reportedly turning down matches vs Gibbons and Tunney?
Spinks always looked a little bit weird before fights. And so what if he was? It was done by Tyson, so it should be credited to him. And that was Charles dropped more often is probably because he fought perhaps the best opposition of all 175'ers in history - Gibbons' record was mostly padded and is nothing in comparison. If you are not bothered anymore then just don't type the 4 sentences after that, cause it would trigger me to reply again. I'm just saying Dempsey gets a ton of credit for this win, even if Willard was no more than a name. The sheer brutality seems to evalate Dempsey a whole lot. Why do you mean Wills gets a free pass? He is not the one ranked in top10's, let alone top5's. If you have Dempsey any higher than 7, then i would find it pretty weird if you know that he avoided the best fighter for 5 years or so. How can you rate a champion so high when he showed no championships manner whatsoever? Never mind not giving a rematch to Firpo.