Heavyweight Champ with Worst Opponents?

[Butch Coolidge]

Who is the heavyweight champ whose opponents had the lowest combined winning percentage?

[McGrain]

Best guess, Max Baer.

[SuzieQ49]

vitali klitschko

[jimmie]

Larry Holmes oppostion was downright disgraceful.

[Hank]

Larry Holmes oppostion was downright disgraceful.

Him, and Ali had some bad ones--Richard Dunn, Coopman, Evengelista, Spinks, and Wepner.

[dmt]

no, Holmes fought some v good fighters while champ

[mattdonnellon]

You didnt say championship opponents so i'm assuming all fights. So i go Braddock with Walcott as my backup.

[fists of fury]

My guess is someone like Floyd Patterson. Very protected champ.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Patterson, Dempsey (while title holders). Both very shrewdly managed.

[Holmes' Jab]

Patterson, Dempsey (while title holders). Both very shrewdly managed.

I agree to an extent, more so with Dempsey (who was without doubt the more unactive Champ).

I definitely believe that Patterson was the more 'willing' of the two regarding wanting to fight the other top men. It was more a case of D'Amatos "lowrisk policy" having the final say which hamstrung Patterson in his early career rather than Patterson himself being the one who actively did all the avoiding. He eventually overruled D'Amato's decision making and in his mid-late career consistently fought a better class of opponent. (''The title is not worth anything if the best fighters can't have a shot at it" ''Liston deserves a shot.")


Some of Foremans pre-title years were permeated by it's fair share of tomato can type opponents.

[dmt]

neither Dempsey or Patterson had that bad comp when champ. When Patterson was champ, he gave shots to Jahannson, and Dempsey had Miske, Gibbons, and Brennan who were all legit contenders. Fripo was crude but his power and toughness alone made him a tough contender and while Carpeinter was 15lbs lighter, he was nonetheless worthy of a title shot.

Funny but no one's mentioned Jack Johnson here

[dmt]

funny but the question is lowest winning percentage. I bet none of the guys who ever challenged Dempsey and fought him for the title had a lower percentage of 50 percent when they were given title shots. Unlike many bums who recieved title shots later on

[Sonny's jab]

No way of knowing the combined winning % of most the champs' opponents.
Records are incomplete.
We almost certainly haven't got records of all Jack Dempsey or Jeresy Joe Walcott fights, let alone complete records of their opponents !

[DamonD]

So we're talking just winning percentages, the pure numbers, not the more debatable level of quality of opponents? Since you can have a 20-0 guy that hasn't really fought anyone of note, compared to a 30-4 guy that could be much more experienced at a top level and more dangerous because of it...

[Mendoza]

Who is the heavyweight champ whose opponents had the lowest combined winning percentage?

Intersting question.

[mattdonnellon]

I'm pretty sure Johansson is the only champ who never fought an opponent win a negative win/lost record.

[ChrisPontius]

So we're talking just winning percentages, the pure numbers, not the more debatable level of quality of opponents? Since you can have a 20-0 guy that hasn't really fought anyone of note, compared to a 30-4 guy that could be much more experienced at a top level and more dangerous because of it...

Right. A guy like Vitali Klitschko will end up really high if you compare them all despite not having that good competition, whereas a guy like Foreman will end really low. He fought some very good opponents, but one Ali, one Norton and two Frazier's are not going to make much impact when there are 65 bums opposed to it.

Unless we're only talking about championship fights of course.

[mattdonnellon]

The stats would need to be at the time of the fight I suppose...

[DamonD]

Even if we're only talking about championship fights, it can be skewed...not only for quality of wins but, for example, should only wins at heavyweight be counted?

Tony Tucker was not as good a fighter as Spinks but all of his wins came at heavyweight, so should that count for more as a credible heavyweight contender?

I think determining the answer to this question is possible, but not based on the stats alone. I don't think a win-loss percentage is the answer here.

[JohnThomas1]

Not sure statistically but Dempsey fought some easy pickings.

[Woddy]

Jack Johnson had the worst comptition. Utter crap. I'm surprised that his reign wasn't reduced to fighting flyweights.

[janitor]

Not sure statistically but Dempsey fought some easy pickings.

Who?

All his title opponents were legit challengers in his era.

[Woddy]

Who?

All his title opponents were legit challengers in his era.

Miske was not a legitimate challenge. He was coming off a string of bad fights, and Dempsey gave him a title shot out of shear sympathy for his illness and bad financial situation.

[janitor]

Jack Johnson had the worst comptition. Utter crap.

Certainly the criticism is more valid than that of Dempseys title opposition but again you have to look at what each challenger meant at the time.

Al Kaufman was the most highly regarded of the white challengers when Johnson fought him and Ketchel although a middleweight was inflated by the press to the point where he was unbeatable.

In short there were a good few soft touches but none of them happened in a vaccum. There was a reason why each oponent was chosen.

[janitor]

Miske was not a legitimate challenge. He was coming off a string of bad fights, and Dempsey gave him a title shot out of shear sympathy for his illness and bad financial situation.

Miske was certainly seen as a legitimate challenger at the time. He had given Dempsey two close fights before he won the title so there was public demand for Dempsey to fight him.

[Woddy]

Miske was certainly seen as a legitimate challenger at the time. He had given Dempsey two close fights before he won the title so there was public demand for Dempsey to fight him.

The public was easily deceived in those days.

[janitor]

The public was easily deceived in those days.

It is no diferent today.

More people wanted to see Lennox Lewis fight Michael Grant than wanted to see him fight Chris Byrd. In hindsight the latter would have been a better legacy fight.

There will always be public momentum for certain matchups that will jnot look logical on boxrec in 100 years.

[Woddy]

It is no diferent today.

More people wanted to see Lennox Lewis fight Michael Grant than wanted to see him fight Chris Byrd. In hindsight the latter would have been a better legacy fight.

There will always be public momentum for certain matchups that will jnot look logical on boxrec in 100 years.

I think you're right, except Michael Grant was undefeated and coming off some good wins going in against Lewis.

[JohnThomas1]

It is no diferent today.

More people wanted to see Lennox Lewis fight Michael Grant than wanted to see him fight Chris Byrd. In hindsight the latter would have been a better legacy fight.

There will always be public momentum for certain matchups that will jnot look logical on boxrec in 100 years.

What had Byrd done tho?

[Sonny's jab]

When he was champion Dempsey fought some decent challengers.

He fought some has-beens on the way up, but some tough quality fighters among them.

[dmt]

Miske was not a legitimate challenge. He was coming off a string of bad fights, and Dempsey gave him a title shot out of shear sympathy for his illness and bad financial situation.Miske had a little bit a losing streak when he fought Dempsey (although the Greb decision in an nd fight was controversial) but his losses were generally to elite fighter). He had a massive streak afterwards beating excellent contenders.

here, read this article on Miske:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[dmt]

What had Byrd done tho?who do you see a better fighter though: Grant or Byrd? In all honesty Byrd would rate as an all time top 50 heavyweight and Grant wouldn't. What is a better legacy fight for Lewis?

[DamonD]

It is no diferent today.

More people wanted to see Lennox Lewis fight Michael Grant than wanted to see him fight Chris Byrd. In hindsight the latter would have been a better legacy fight.

There will always be public momentum for certain matchups that will jnot look logical on boxrec in 100 years.
I agree, but the example you provided is mixing up the timeline a bit.

At that point in time, Byrd had just gotten clobbered in 5 by Ibeabuchi. Combined with his crowd-unfriendly style, there was no clamour for him to fight Lewis in 2000. The surprise result against Vitali (shortly before Lewis-Grant) might've raised his profile but no-one in the States at the time gave a damn about either Vitali or the WBO belt, and Byrd then went and got belted around for 12 rounds by Wlad in his next fight anyway. Now, Byrd in 2002 or 3, that's a stronger case.

The more apt comparison for that first title defence for Lewis is between Grant to Ruiz. And surely that can only be in Grant's favour, given that Ruiz's profile consisted of the infamous nineteen-second fight against Tua and not much else.

Hindsight is 20/20, but there's no accounting for that...

[dmt]

When he was champion Dempsey fought some decent challengers.

He fought some has-beens on the way up, but some tough quality fighters among them.None of Dempsey's opponents were the quality of Roper or Wepner for example. The public wasn't going to pay money for fighters with poor records or who were not capable

For example Carpeinter was the heavyweight champion of Europe, so he deserved a shot. And while he was 18 or so lbs lighter, other heavyweight champs fought fighters much lighter then themselves. Gibbons was ranked among the top 10. Miske had a large number of wins over top contenders, even if he was coming off a few losses. Fripo, while crude, was powerful and tough, and good enough for a title shot. And Brennan, who was considered a notch below the likes of Miske etc, looks very good on film. None of these guys were unworthy of title shots. Then later Dempsey fought Tunney who was the #1 guy. None of these were "soft" or "easy" pickings.

[JohnThomas1]

who do you see a better fighter though: Grant or Byrd? In all honesty Byrd would rate as an all time top 50 heavyweight and Grant wouldn't. What is a better legacy fight for Lewis?

Why should Lewis have fought Byrd over Grant tho? What's doing that Lewis should have fought Byrd instead of Grant at that time?

How do you know Grant wouldn't have done better things if not for being axed by Lewis?

[dmt]

Why should Lewis have fought Byrd over Grant tho? What's doing that Lewis should have fought Byrd instead of Grant at that time?

How do you know Grant wouldn't have done better things if not for being axed by Lewis?look i am not arguing that Lewis "ducked" Byrd or anything, and i do think he would have won over Byrd comfortable. And i, like others, was not even sure at the time who to consider a better fighter. All i am saying is that the public can sometimes be wrong . The comment from the poster that the public were decieved or wrong only in those times isn't wxactyly true

[JohnThomas1]

look i am not arguing that Lewis "ducked" Byrd or anything, and i do think he would have won over Byrd comfortable. And i, like others, was not even sure at the time who to consider a better fighter. All i am saying is that the public can sometimes be wrong . The comment from the poster that the public were decieved or wrong only in those times isn't wxactyly true

To be honest i don't think your point is in context or extent. Lewis fought that many names and top fighters of his era it's not funny. The only top guy he didn't fight was Bowe, who refused to fight him at one time. As for Byrd, he's little loss on the Lewis resume. You can't fight every single guy, tho Lewis came close. His resume vs Dempsey's isn't even close.

[DamonD]

I can see what Dmt means though, and if anything the hype today for fighters can particularly lead to a false impression amongst the casual audience. A highlight reel of big knockouts will always look great, even if the victims are in reality much less impressive.

It's just that comparing Grant vs Byrd for that period in time was a bad example, no offense intended! It just wasn't a good time for Byrd, it wasn't until the wins against Tua and Holyfield that Byrd got that credibility back.

The tricky thing for any trainer is - when does a promising but untested fighter make that step up? It has to happen at some point, you have to see if they sink or swim, so when do you do it?

[mr. magoo]

To be honest i don't think your point is in context or extent. Lewis fought that many names and top fighters of his era it's not funny. The only top guy he didn't fight was Bowe, who refused to fight him at one time. As for Byrd, he's little loss on the Lewis resume. You can't fight every single guy, tho Lewis came close. His resume vs Dempsey's isn't even close.

Totally.

Dempsey was a good champion, and I don't want to turn this into another jack bashing session, but there's no getting around the fact that Lennox beat way more ranked opponents, defended his title more times and was far more active. I don't care how anyone tries to refute this, I will never be convinced that Dempsey's legacy even remotely close to Lewis's. I've heard people try to package this in so many different ways, " Jack had more first round knockouts than anyone", Jack was the greatest puncher of all time" " jack would have been a nightmare for anyone head to head".

The fact is, I really don't care. We've all been through this going on what now? Two three weeks and counting? We've talked about his competition, his defenses, the fact that he sat on the title for 3 years and didn't fight Harry Wills. Pardon my French, but what the fuck more is there to talk about? This guy was good, but he simply did not have the reign or legacy that Lewis had.

[dmt]

To be honest i don't think your point is in context or extent. Lewis fought that many names and top fighters of his era it's not funny. The only top guy he didn't fight was Bowe, who refused to fight him at one time. As for Byrd, he's little loss on the Lewis resume. You can't fight every single guy, tho Lewis came close. His resume vs Dempsey's isn't even close.i did not even claim that. All i said was the public is not always right. God does everything have to turn into a anti Dempsey session :-( :-(

[JohnThomas1]

I can see what Dmt means though, and if anything the hype today for fighters can particularly lead to a false impression amongst the casual audience. A highlight reel of big knockouts will always look great, even if the victims are in reality much less impressive.

It's just that comparing Grant vs Byrd for that period in time was a bad example, no offense intended! It just wasn't a good time for Byrd, it wasn't until the wins against Tua and Holyfield that Byrd got that credibility back.


After which Lewis only had one more career fight. Lewis had also soundly beaten both Tua and Holyfield prior to Byrd as well.

Beating Byrd at the time would have meant little, and if Lewis ravaged him he may not have did what he did later anyway if you follow. Perhaps this was the case with Grant, we will never know.

[mr. magoo]

I for one have had enough of this debating about Dempsey. I'm seriously thinking about taking a few weeks off from the forum and coming back after the new year, when you guys have picked another topic to beat the livin' shit out of.

[JohnThomas1]

i did not even claim that. All i said was the public is not always right. God does everything have to turn into a anti Dempsey session :-( :-(

You're oversensitive (regarding Dempsey for some reason) and take it to heart too much. It's a forum for goodness sakes. It takes all opinions to form a consensus and guys like Chris, myself and Dinner happen to think Dempsey is overrated, certainly resume wise.

[JohnThomas1]

Totally.

Dempsey was a good champion, and I don't want to turn this into another jack bashing session, but there's no getting around the fact that Lennox beat way more ranked opponents, defended his title more times and was far more active. I don't care how anyone tries to refute this, I will never be convinced that Dempsey's legacy even remotely close to Lewis's. I've heard people try to package this in so many different ways, " Jack had more first round knockouts than anyone", Jack was the greatest puncher of all time" " jack would have been a nightmare for anyone head to head".

The fact is, I really don't care. We've all been through this going on what now? Two three weeks and counting? We've talked about his competition, his defenses, the fact that he sat on the title for 3 years and didn't fight Harry Wills. Pardon my French, but what the fuck more is there to talk about? This guy was good, but he simply did not have the reign or legacy that Lewis had.

And that's it in a nutshell mate.

[JohnThomas1]

I for one have had enough of this debating about Dempsey. I'm seriously thinking about taking a few weeks off from the forum and coming back after the new year, when you guys have picked another topic to beat the livin' shit out of.

Just ignore the topics, simple mate. There's myriads of threads not pertaining to Dempsey.

[DamonD]

With Lewis-Byrd or Ruiz, it can work both ways...if Lewis had refused to fight Tua in November 2000 and given him the IBF title, could Tua have managed to get himself a two or three year title run with the same opponents as Byrd? Pretty possible.

[mr. magoo]

I have nothing against Jack Dempsey and I don't want to offend anyone here, but over the past 3 weeks this guy has become drastically overrated on this forum.

I appologize for my bluntness, but that's how I feel.

[dmt]

You're oversensitive (regarding Dempsey for some reason) and take it to heart too much. It's a forum for goodness sakes. It takes all opinions to form a consensus and guys like Chris, myself and Dinner happen to think Dempsey is overrated, certainly resume wise.But when i said the public can be decieved, i was not even starting a debate on who has the better resume between the two. All i said was the public can sometimes be decieved and i really don';t see what's who over sensitive about that

[JohnThomas1]

But when i said the public can be decieved, i was not even starting a debate on who has the better resume between the two. All i said was the public can sometimes be decieved and i really don';t see what's who over sensitive about that

Well back to topic, maybe Woddy was talking of the point that a guy who won just one of his previous 5 fights (over a guy 3-1-3-2) was considered by the public a deserving challenger. Dempsey had beaten Miske in their previous encounter. Under this criteria where was Meehans rematch?

[dmt]

Well back to topic, maybe Woddy was talking of the point that a guy who won just one of his previous 5 fights (over a guy 3-1-3-2) was considered by the public a deserving challenger. Dempsey had beaten Miske in their previous encounter. Under this criteria where was Meehans rematch?Did Meehan ask for a rematch? Miske did and he got it

[OLD FOGEY]

Did Meehan ask for a rematch? Miske did and he got it

If you check the New York Times archive, there was talk of a Meehan match to take place in early 1920. It was to be in Newark over 8 rounds or in Reno over 25 rounds! Meehan was supposedly in favor of the 25 round distance.

[dmt]

If you check the New York Times archive, there was talk of a Meehan match to take place in early 1920. It was to be in Newark over 8 rounds or in Reno over 25 rounds! Meehan was supposedly in favor of the 25 round distance.i see, although that seems odd given that he never wanted to fight Dempsey in anything longer then 4 rounds

[OLD FOGEY]

i see, although that seems odd given that he never wanted to fight Dempsey in anything longer then 4 rounds

Yeah, there is something fishy about the 25 round talk from Meehan. I don't know if with his paunch he could stay standing for 25 rounds if he were in the ring alone.

[dmt]

Yeah, there is something fishy about the 25 round talk from Meehan. I don't know if with his paunch he could stay standing for 25 rounds if he were in the ring alone.:lol: :good

[enquirer]

I suggest we let 'amsterdam' arbitrate in the matter of dempseys position among the atgs at heavy...:rasta :D

[dmt]

I suggest we let 'amsterdam' arbitrate in the matter of dempseys position among the atgs at heavy...:rasta :D:lol:
given that he thinks Barrera would ko saddler in 2 rounds, it would be interesting :lol: :good

[enquirer]

But today he has admitted tommy hearns at 147 (ie all the way back to 1980!) would beat the 2007 world champ paul williams by ko,in the first round no less.....
Maybe tis the season to be jolly?
ps; when is the cut off point from the primitive era to the current 'supernatural' one? :D :lol:

[Sonny's jab]

I dunno about this stuff about Dempsey being "over-rated" on this forum over the last 3 weeks, I havent been here all that much.But I will say I have ALWAYS rated him very highly.
I put him in the same category as Ali, Louis etc.

All this crap people are coming out with about Dempsey having a weak legacy and facing crappy contenders isn't really being backed up.
Gibbons, Brennan, Miske, Carpentier and Firpo had very respectable records.

Sure, Harry Wills - who he should have fought - was better, and yes Dempsey was inactive. I dont dispute that. He was criticized in his own time on both counts. Fairly.

Someone here claims Dempsey fought nowhere near the number of "ranked contenders" as did Lennox Lewis.
That's silly, since they didn't have RANKINGS until The Ring magazine started them in 1924 or 1925 !

The anti-Dempseys will say anything to discredit him. Sadly, I think they believe every word of it. Proper attention to history is needed, not just selectively picking on a few details, and distorting them if need be. That's bad form, IMO.

[mr. magoo]

Frankly, I think too many people get overly emotional everytime anyone has made an attempt to disect and analyze Jack Dempsey's career. They often mistake valid crticisms as " bashing", or whatever term fits the bill. The criticisms that have been made regarding Dempsey are perfectly valid ones, and nor do they reflect ingnorance on the part of the one who makes them. Facts are facts, even if they don't always depict someone in the best light. Ratings or no ratings. Lewis fought a larger volume of world class opponents than Dempsey did. This is not obsurd. Dempsey's defending his title against a man like Billy Miske who had only won maybe 3 out of his previous 7 fights and gave him such a shot out of pure charity, is where the real obsurdity comes into play. If Lewis, Holmes, Tyson, or Klitscko had given a shot to a guy who had such credentials and was suffering from an illness as well, we'd never here the end of it from Dempsey supporters, who are the same people who make comments like " Lewis was knocked out by a limited fighter named McCall, therefore he couldn't possibly beat an all time great. " or " Tyson was beaten by Douglas, imagine what Louis or Dempsey would do to him ".
And of course my all time favorite " Holmes padded his record with pretenders, never unified, never gave ramatches, never fought Greg fucking Page".

I am a boxing fan from all different angles. I like classical fighters, contemporary fighters, current fights, old fights, etc. Since joining this forum however, I have encountered many of posters and engaged in many debates that had the tendency to take a fighter whom I traditionally loved and made me a hater. Contrary to what many think, the die hard classical advocates have vastly surpassed the contemporary supporters in their idiocy. I have heard some of the worst hypocritical arguments, half truths, falacies, falshoods, and oversimplifications in just the past few months. I publicly called one poster on it, basically saying that he was full of shit, and he put me on his ignore list for being honest. He did both of us a favor as far as I'm concerned. This is an adult forum. If you can't back up your claims without telling lies or providing proof, then you're going to get criticized for it.

......Plain and simple........

[Sonny's jab]

Frankly, I think too many people get overly emotional everytime anyone has made an attempt to disect and analyze Jack Dempsey's career. They often mistake valid crticisms as " bashing", or whatever term fits the bill. The criticisms that have been made regarding Dempsey are perfectly valid ones, and nor do they reflect ingnorance on the part of the one who makes them. Facts are facts, even if they don't always depict someone in the best light. Ratings or no ratings. Lewis fought a larger volume of world class opponents than Dempsey did. This is not obsurd. Dempsey's defending his title against a man like Billy Miske who had only won maybe 3 out of his previous 7 fights and gave him such a shot out of pure charity, is where the real obsurdity comes into play. If Lewis, Holmes, Tyson, or Klitscko had given a shot to a guy who had such credentials and was suffering from an illness as well, we'd never here the end of it from Dempsey supporters, who are the same people who make comments like " Lewis was knocked out by a limited fighter named McCall, therefore he couldn't possibly beat an all time great. " or " Tyson was beaten by Douglas, imagine what Louis or Dempsey would do to him ".
And of course my all time favorite " Holmes padded his record with pretenders, never unified, never gave ramatches, never fought Greg fucking Page".

I am a boxing fan from all different angles. I like classical fighters, contemporary fighters, current fights, old fights, etc. Since joining this forum however, I have encountered many of posters and engaged in many debates that had the tendency to take a fighter whom I traditionally loved and made me a hater. Contrary to what many think, the die hard classical advocates have vastly surpassed the contemporary supporters in their idiocy. I have heard some of the worst hypocritical arguments, half truths, falacies, falshoods, and oversimplifications in just the past few months. I publicly called one poster on it, basically saying that he was full of shit, and he put me on his ignore list for being honest. He did both of us a favor as far as I'm concerned. This is an adult forum. If you can't back up your claims without telling lies or providing proof, then you're going to get criticized for it.

......Plain and simple........

Well, I advocate a proper historical investigation too, and I'm not one to get emotional.

If there are seriously people without any anti-Dempsey agenda saying that Jack Dempsey faced the worst opposition of all the heavyweight champions, then we can debate that. Or not.

I admit I may be mistaken about what I interpret as "Dempsey bashing".

Still, I am covinced that some people here are vastly UNDER-RATING Dempsey. And I reckon Dempsey belongs in the highest category of greatness.

I dont think Billy Miske's credentials were as bad has you portray. He was a legit contender but no one is building him up as a mighty challenge, he was a respectable opponent.Dempsey dispatched him impressively. It's not like Miske had been losing to unknowns, his spotty record leading up to the fight was mostly draws and a couple of points losses among other top contenders. None of them were knocking Miske out.

To make a comparison, George Chuvalo challenged a PEAK Muhammad Ali coming straight off a loss to a largely forgotten Italian fighter, and he went the full 15. I dont look back and say it was a worthless win for Ali, I dont ignore the positives in Ali's performance or make out that Chuvalo was worse than all the evidence would point to.

The legend of Miske already being near to his death bed needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. A glance at his subsequent record suggests he had plenty of strength and vitality left in him.

I never hear anyone ranting about how a peaking Lennox Lewis fought Tommy Morrison shortly before Tommy was diagnosed with HIV.
I heard that guy Mavrovic never fought again due to serious illness.Lewis isn't admonished for it. Such arguments would be rightly condemned as absurd.

But Dempsey gets called up for this "dying man" Miske legend even though Miske fought again and performed very well afterwards.

[ChrisPontius]

Thing is, Chuvalo and Mavrovic weren't legacy-makers for Ali and Lewis. Miske is one of the few best names on Dempsey's resume, that's why he's in the spotlight.

[mr. magoo]

Well, I advocate a proper historical investigation too, and I'm not one to get emotional.

If there are seriously people without any anti-Dempsey agenda saying that Jack Dempsey faced the worst opposition of all the heavyweight champions, then we can debate that. Or not.

I admit I may be mistaken about what I interpret as "Dempsey bashing".

Still, I am covinced that some people here are vastly UNDER-RATING Dempsey. And I reckon Dempsey belongs in the highest category of greatness.

I dont think Billy Miske's credentials were as bad has you portray. He was a legit contender but no one is building him up as a mighty challenge, he was a respectable opponent.Dempsey dispatched him impressively. It's not like Miske had been losing to unknowns, his spotty record leading up to the fight was mostly draws and a couple of points losses among other top contenders. None of them were knocking Miske out.

To make a comparison, George Chuvalo challenged a PEAK Muhammad Ali coming straight off a loss to a largely forgotten Italian fighter, and he went the full 15. I dont look back and say it was a worthless win for Ali, I dont ignore the positives in Ali's performance or make out that Chuvalo was worse than all the evidence would point to.

The legend of Miske already being near to his death bed needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. A glance at his subsequent record suggests he had plenty of strength and vitality left in him.

I never hear anyone ranting about how a peaking Lennox Lewis fought Tommy Morrison shortly before Tommy was diagnosed with HIV.
I heard that guy Mavrovic never fought again due to serious illness.Lewis isn't admonished for it. Such arguments would be rightly condemned as absurd.

But Dempsey gets called up for this "dying man" Miske legend even though Miske fought again and performed very well afterwards.

On the Billy Miske thing, I don't think too many people are claiming that he was on his death bed per say. I happen to think that he was still capable of fighting, but probably not in ideal health. Some time ago a poster who's name I forgot, claimed to have met Miske's daughter in his travels. She apparently told him that Miske was certainly ill for that fight. This is obviously all heresay, and for all I know could be utter crap, but is it? Nevertheless, Miske was coming off a pretty bad patch of performances, and his most recent win was over a 3-13 tomato can. I want to clearify that I don't hold it against anyone for fighting a few average or mediocre opponents, as most champions have surely met their fair share. I will say however, that when you only fight 6 times in 7 years, your performances better at least be of the highest quality. I don't think I'd criticize Dempsey for his inactivity so much, if he at least fought better challengers like Wills and Godfrey for example.

That said, I agree with you that he does tend to get underrated by some.

[janitor]

[quote=JohnThomas1]As for Byrd, he's little loss on the Lewis resume. You can't fight every single guy, tho Lewis came close.

I can tell you right now for nothing that people looking at records 50 years from now will damn Lewis for not fighting Byrd and Ruiz. The fact that he droped belts not to fight them will be seen as a virtual admision that he ducked them by some.

They will also be highly critical of some of his choices of title oponents.

What glitters like gold today will look drab in the eyes of history just as has hapened to Dempseys legacy in the eyes of many on this forum.


His resume vs Dempsey's isn't even close.


Not even close to what?

Look at Lewis's paper record with then same critical eye that you cast on Dempseys and it will disintegrate. It only seems so impresive by comparison because you lived through it.

[JohnThomas1]

Did Meehan ask for a rematch? Miske did and he got it

Of course he did.

[JohnThomas1]

[quote]

I can tell you right now for nothing that people looking at records 50 years from now will damn Lewis for not fighting Byrd and Ruiz. The fact that he droped belts not to fight them will be seen as a virtual admision that he ducked them by some.

They will also be highly critical of some of his choices of title oponents.

What glitters like gold today will look drab in the eyes of history just as has hapened to Dempseys legacy in the eyes of many on this forum.


Wrong, much more complete and consistent historical records are kept nowadays and your scenario will not ring true. There are so many conflicting accounts of fights and happenings from back in Jack's era and prior one doesn't know whether they are coming or going.

Not even close to what?

Look at Lewis's paper record with then same critical eye that you cast on Dempseys and it will disintegrate. It only seems so impresive by comparison because you lived through it.

It's impressive full stop. He fought the best of his day, black, white or brindle. He also beat every fighter he ever fought.

[JohnThomas1]

I dunno about this stuff about Dempsey being "over-rated" on this forum over the last 3 weeks, I havent been here all that much.But I will say I have ALWAYS rated him very highly.
I put him in the same category as Ali, Louis etc.

All this crap people are coming out with about Dempsey having a weak legacy and facing crappy contenders isn't really being backed up.
Gibbons, Brennan, Miske, Carpentier and Firpo had very respectable records.

Sure, Harry Wills - who he should have fought - was better, and yes Dempsey was inactive. I dont dispute that. He was criticized in his own time on both counts. Fairly.

Someone here claims Dempsey fought nowhere near the number of "ranked contenders" as did Lennox Lewis.
That's silly, since they didn't have RANKINGS until The Ring magazine started them in 1924 or 1925 !

The anti-Dempseys will say anything to discredit him. Sadly, I think they believe every word of it. Proper attention to history is needed, not just selectively picking on a few details, and distorting them if need be. That's bad form, IMO.

Actually Chris came up with a series of cracking posts on the subject. He took on every question and post and really showed some class and knowledge.

I for one had always taken it for granted that Dempsey was top 10 and had a sterling resume etc. It wasn't until i actually sat down and read the lengthy debate between Chris and others that i realised i may have been a bit blind to the real facts. He certainly opened up my eyes and IMO walked away with the topic.

[rekcutnevets]

Riddick Bowe. I rate Bowe higher than some like to accept, but his defenses against Jesse and Michael are bad.

Not what the OP had in mind, but those are bad defenses.

[dmt]

I for one had always taken it for granted that Dempsey was top 10 and had a sterling resume etc. It wasn't until i actually sat down and read the lengthy debate between Chris and others that i realised i may have been a bit blind to the real facts. He certainly opened up my eyes and IMO walked away with the topic.but i don't recall u ever having him in ur top 10 in the first placeso i really don't see how much ur opinion has changed

[Sonny's jab]

Actually Chris came up with a series of cracking posts on the subject. He took on every question and post and really showed some class and knowledge.

I for one had always taken it for granted that Dempsey was top 10 and had a sterling resume etc. It wasn't until i actually sat down and read the lengthy debate between Chris and others that i realised i may have been a bit blind to the real facts. He certainly opened up my eyes and IMO walked away with the topic.

Fair enough, I haven't read all the posts.
Some of the stuff I read from Chris P on the recent "Jack Dempsey sparring footage Bill Tate" the read was kind of lame, IN MY OPINION that is.

Quotes like "Dempsey was scared to death of black fighters" and technically vague claims about ONLY Gene Tunney among Dempsey's opponents possessing "modern gloved skills" are weak in my opinion.
On other subjects Chris P is a good postor. On Dempsey he's far too dismissive IN MY OPINION.

Tossing away the testimony of a generation of 'experts', fighters and trainers is very unwise. Reading too much in to the paper record is unwise too. Making sweeping claims about the historical development of boxing skills is beyond the remit of any postor here I reckon, we run into situations where a "clever" postor here is contradicting a Ray Arcel or Teddy Hayes over a fighter they can barely see on film, whereas Arcel and Hayes (and countless others) lived and breathed in the era, trained or studied the fighters in detail, were central in the world of boxing skills before, during and after the era in question, and basically knew the subject much much better.

In light of all this, the internet forum postor of 2007 is doomed to amateurish revisionism rather than any earth-shattering rediscovery.

I dont really care where others rate Dempsey, personally I rate him among the highest order. And I can defend my position.

[Sonny's jab]

Thing is, Chuvalo and Mavrovic weren't legacy-makers for Ali and Lewis. Miske is one of the few best names on Dempsey's resume, that's why he's in the spotlight.

I think Chuvalo - and all the other Ali title wins in the 60s (incl. the brilliant win over the "sick or injured" Clevland Williams) count heavily in his legacy as a fighter.

Dempsey destroyed Miske in the title fight, and he destroyed several other fighters, including the world's champion, during his prime. Many were breath-taking destructions.

If I add up all his most notable wins, and consider the WAY in which he won those major wins, and look at his style and ability on film, I dont see many fighters EVER who are in the same class as him.

[JohnThomas1]

but i don't recall u ever having him in ur top 10 in the first placeso i really don't see how much ur opinion has changed

If you recall correctly the few times i have looked at a Heavyweight top 10 i have always, ALWAYS made it Post Dempsey as i admitted i didn't know quite enough about him to make a fair judgement. Well Chris has now made it that i do, and when i do a be all and end all Heavyweight list i can go from Dempsey's era on.

[dmt]

If you recall correctly the few times i have looked at a Heavyweight top 10 i have always, ALWAYS made it Post Dempsey as i admitted i didn't know quite enough about him to make a fair judgement. Well Chris has now made it that i do, and when i do a be all and end all Heavyweight list i can go from Dempsey's era on.well in fairness you have looked at his opinions- some of which are legit, and others just somewhat unfair criticisms. Anyway it's your opinion and that's fine

[JohnThomas1]

well in fairness you have looked at his opinions- some of which are legit, and others just somewhat unfair criticisms. Anyway it's your opinion and that's fine

I've summed up his full debate vs others and looked at boxrec and done a few readings as things went on. A bit of footage to etc.

[ChrisPontius]

I think Chuvalo - and all the other Ali title wins in the 60s (incl. the brilliant win over the "sick or injured" Clevland Williams) count heavily in his legacy as a fighter.

Dempsey destroyed Miske in the title fight, and he destroyed several other fighters, including the world's champion, during his prime. Many were breath-taking destructions.

If I add up all his most notable wins, and consider the WAY in which he won those major wins, and look at his style and ability on film, I dont see many fighters EVER who are in the same class as him.

So where do you rate Mike Tyson?

[Sonny's jab]

So where do you rate Mike Tyson?

Tyson has to be rated highly.