Of course you are right. But for our purposes surely the biggest difference between Calzaghe and Dempsey here is that Calzaghe fought and beat one of the best fighters in the history of his young division, Dempsey did not? Just for the record, you see Dempsey's resume as superior? To what degree?
Charles had been a lightheavy years earlier, but by 1954 he was about the same size as Dempsey, not about the same size as Gibbons. Gibbons was a shade under 5' 10" and 175 lbs. Charles was 6" and 185. In this era of giant heavyweights, one could dismiss both as small, but Charles was a heavyweight by the standards of the era while Gibbons was a lightheavyweight. That said, you are right that Dempsey proved he could outpoint a boxer.
Gibbons did however face better hitters then the likes of Lloyd Marshall who dropped him .[/quote]as far as Wills is concerned, yes he was a great contender, yes he deserved a shot. However all i am saying is it has become a myth that it was the white guys who always ducked the coloured fighters and the Coloured fighters never refused any matches with white fighters. Not meaning to be racist here at all, but Wills colour was the sole reason- atleast in my opinion- that he never got a shot. Wills did however was offered to fight Tunney (and his management turned it down) but even after that he couldn't have gotten a shot. Again i have never seen anyone criticise him or his management for that. Instead it is poor Tunney who is often accused of "ducking" Wills whereas it is completely untrue (not by you though) Wills was an excellent contender, and his resume is better then Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey and Tunney. However pre 1950 the debate on who was the best heavyweight was between Jeffries, Johnson, Louis and Dempsey (keeping in mind that old timers looked at head to head more so then anything) and Wills was always considered a shade below these fighters despite having a better resume. Racism? Not really since there were historians, respected historians, who were picking Louis to beat Dempsey as early as 1937, and some picked Johnson to beat Dempsey to. But very few gave Wills much of a chance. I am not saying that it an excuse for Dempsey not being able to meet him cause it's not, i am just saying that Harry's abilities are being exxagerated here. Great contender but likely a shade below Johnson,Dempsey or Louis. As far as Willard is there, some people might give him alot of credit but most claim as if it was his own fault that Willard was champ. Nat Fleischer described Willard as crude with no real fighting desire. Even the old timers called Willard crude (i've read reports in which Willard was described as crude and highly criticised after the Moran defense). No old time historians, no matter how ridiculous their opinions might have been, claimed Willard was a top 10 all time heavy. Not Nat, rose, Arcel or anybody else. to win the title you have to face whoever is infront of you. And other heavyweights who fought worse fighters in title fights then Dempsey and struggled more are not as criticised (L spinks, Wepner and Roper were far more unworthy thenWillard was)
IMO Dempsey has a better resume, taking into account the time period differential. I'm a believer that fighters have gotten better as the game evolved, but that doesn't change the fact that Calzaghe has only beaten a handful of fighters that are "good" by modern standards. No - Bika and Manfredo Jr. don't count (though Bika might, in the future) His demolition of Lacy is not impressive to me. RJJ trashed tomato cans for ten years and people constantly rag on his CV - at least Jones Jr. finished his cans. Carrying your opponent for the distance makes for an impressive show (see Ali/Terrel), but not an impressive win. Eubanks was a good win, but he was quite old and unimpressive in the fight. Kessler is Joe's "best" win to date, but only time will tell how good Kessler really is/was.
I do believe Chris is offline. That little red thing. I also believe he will certainly answer your post.
