Who has the second greatest quality of wins in heavyweight history?

That's a bloody good set of names to have on one's resume.

 

For me it's Ali followed by Lewis.

 

Max Baer
Max Schmeling
Joe Walcott
Billy Conn
John Henry Lewis
Jack Sharkey
Jim Bivins
Primo Carnera (I know that one is controversial)

And that doesn't even touch the contenders, but just the champs he beat.

 

Holyfield. Tyson, Bowe, Foreman, Moorer, Rahman, Ruiz, Mercer, Holmes, Dokes, Douglas, Tillis.

 

2nd for me is Lewis, with Tyson and Dempsey fairly close.

Louis was a great fighter without a great resume. Best wins Baer, Conn, Schmeling and Braddock, Walcott II.

 

Louis has better wins than Dempsey ...

 

The ghost of Tony Galento will pay you a visit tonight and tell you how he would flatten everyone Usyk beat plus Usyk himself

 

1985 Spinks would beat 45 year old Holmes

 

I don’t agree. Dempsey beat Flynn, Levinsky, Fulton, Miske, Willard, Brennan 2x, Carpentier, Gibbons, Firpo, prime Sharkey and a long count loss to Tunney.

Baer and Braddock were highly overrated. Louis got a gift in first Walcott fight.

 

It's all opinions at the end of the day but a couple of things ...

Dempsey was allowed to stand over a fighter - no neutral corner so subsequent knock downs don't look anywhere near as good as the beating that Louis put on Schmelling or M. Baer.

A prime Sharkey was beaten with the aid of an egregious foul if I recall and Firpo is likely of a similar level to Galento, strong, tough, crude. Willard is a glorified strongman whose timing was perfect - in a 15 rounder, which prime HW greats does he trouble? He is a lineal titlist only in fact, not in greatness.

Carpentier was not of Conn or Walcott's level as a HW IMO.

Dempsey beat some names, but they were mostly crude or a symptom of a time where a significant number of the best skilled fighters that competed at HW often weren't bonafide HWs - Louis beat some names, many styles, drew no colour lines and proved himself as a champion time and time again. Dempsey has one of the most disappointing reigns of the immortal greats IMO.

 

The same could be said of Dempsey’s opponents who knocked him down, they pounced on him immediately. No neutral corner.

I’ve watched the video many times, Dempsey did not foul Sharkey. Sharkey was a known cry baby always complaining, he was looking for help from ref because Dempsey’s body punches were wearing him down. That punch was on the belt line.

Dempsey beat one of the greatest LHW of all time in Gibbons, who was better than Conn or Lewis. His long count loss to Tunney should have been a KO win for him, and Tunney was better than anyone Louis ever beat.

Arcel saw them all, he said Dempsey was the better fighter of the two. Would have beaten Louis. Langford considered Dempsey best HW ever.

 

I genuinely struggle to see the relevance to what I said - their being allowed to pounce on Dempsey doesn't detract from the point that Dempsey's destruction of Willard is overrated and doesn't compare to Louis' destruction of Schmelling for me.

Louis was not allowed to pounce on a groggy, disorientated fighter who was not afforded the privilege of regaining a semblance of composure under a disengaged count and the few seconds provided by a referee asking if you wish to continue and then a fighter having to move from a neutral corner/position to re-engage. Despite having this luxury, and frankly, it's an ugly luxury and makes for a different sport in many ways, Dempsey didn't finish a calibre of chin with the severity or artistry of what Louis did to Schmelling or M. Baer IMO.

Maybe - could be like Usyk Vs Dubois I, where I felt that it's borderline legal but don't care enough to argue with those who say it wasn't. It's not a hill that I care about or am willing to die for by any means.

Either way, the KO is matched and bettered by several examples that Louis produced.

Mike Tyson beat Spinks ... Ali and Frazier beat Foster ... Jack Johnson beat Langford. Genuinely, who cares?

What was Loughran saying as a genuine HW fighter? Would any of the ATGs lose to him when all the chips are on the table?

Meh, Tunney was looking at the referee - he would've been able to rise had the count been faster. The way that Tunney handled Dempsey after the count is everything that I need to know. By the way, it's a joke that Dempsey was allowed a 10 round title fight in the first place - should've been 15 - add in the colour line that Dempsey enjoyed, I don't consider his latter career anywhere near reflective of his ability. A little bit AJish if you will?

End of the day, there's no set time for the 10 count; some refs give exactly 10 secs, most refs give between 10 - 12 secs, it's the job of the fighter to take advantage. I am not going to indulge shoulda, woulda coulda - if Tyson wasn't Tokyo drifting into bedrooms and nose candy, would he have been able to take advantage of the quick count? Would he have had the ability to turn the tide and defeat Douglas or was he already getting handled with aplomb? Shoulda, woulda, coulda is not how boxing or real life works tho.

If Tunney is better than anyone that Louis ever beat (was he even a great HW fighter?) then what does this mean for Jack Johnson who beat Sam Langford who was greater than Tunney and has a much greater sample of HW accomplishment?

Dempsey was the more explosive, instinctive fighter. Louis, at his best, was more consistent, carried more raw power and was just more inevitable.

With all due respect to Arcel and Langford - so what? I'm not gonna divorce my opinion from the eye test.

I'm not one that believes that newer is better but I certainly don't see how Dempsey's wins compare with Louis' and I certainly don't put as much stock in his beating naturally smaller fighters as you seemingly do.

I mean, there are many elite trainers and sprinters from the 80s that will say that Carl Lewis was a better runner than Usain - yeah, technically, he is, but Usain was faster. Similarly, Dempsey might be the better fighter of the two but Louis actually proved it in the ring by flexing his prowess more consistently and with arguably better brutality. Compare them as champions and look at how long it took for Louis to lose a genuine ability to be competitive and then look at what Jack did when he had the belt - his defence record is a mockery in many ways.