Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[them_apples]

He was the first to be an absolutely huge money maker. The point is, he paved the way for all that followed. In his day he was bigger than Babe Ruth.

you forgot that he fought during the 1920's, so that makes him overrated!

seriously though, thats the only reason he makes boxing historians list, because he's an old timer like them, and was exciting.

[Hawkins]

you forgot that he fought during the 1920's, so that makes him overrated!

seriously though, thats the only reason he makes boxing historians list, because he's an old timer like them, and was exciting.

Explain to me the rationale of him being overrated because he fought in the 20's? Without the old fighters to pave the way the sport wouldn't have reached the heights it has.

Sure they are lacking in some of the areas as far as technical ability and training but thats only because the advancements of the aforementioned. You can't dismiss him on that fact alone. You have to put his abilities and accomplishments in context.

The fact is Jack Dempsey is one of the best ever. Top 5 in most people's eyes.

[Hawkins]

I guess he was Extremly Similar to Mike Tyson. Both were extremley agressive and well conditioned athletes. Both brought Boxing alive in their repected times. Both brought in big money..tyson much much more. But considering his time Dempsey brought in a hell of alot. Tyson was the most recognisable sportsman during his prime..mayb even celeb. - You see this alone cant put him on the list especially seen as others have achieved more

You mean Mike Tyson was similar to him.

Jack Dempsey was the pioneer. The very first exciting brawler who gave the crowd nothing but excitement.

[The Iron Man]

Yet..this is what confuses me. Tyson was Technicaly Better than Dempsey.. achieved more. Yet Tyson is missing from around 40% of peoples lists

[Hawkins]

Yet..this is what confuses me. Tyson was Technicaly Better than Dempsey.. achieved more. Yet Tyson is missing from around 40% of peoples lists

You have to compare them in context. Tyson came around in age that had many more advancements than Dempsey had. Training, nutrition, medical..all of that had advancement to a degree not thought possible.

However when you compare these guys in context, it's all relatively easy to discern.

[The Iron Man]

I dont see why that makes a difference. The people tyson fought also had those advantages! If anything recognistion may have been harder for tyson. There was no single belt, he single handedly had to combine them!

[Hawkins]

I dont see why that makes a difference. The people tyson fought also had those advantages! If anything recognistion may have been harder for tyson. There was no single belt, he single handedly had to combine them!

Take Tyson out of this era and place him in Dempsey's time or vice versa, take Dempsey out of his time period and place him in this day and age. They are very similar.

[them_apples]

Yet..this is what confuses me. Tyson was Technically Better than Dempsey.. achieved more. Yet Tyson is missing from around 40% of peoples lists

I totally agree with this statement, but people can be ignorant sometimes.

Tyson as quicker, hit harder and became undisputed at the age of 20..thats a record on its own. Not to mention most of the people he fought were bigger than him.

[Hawkins]

I totally agree with this statement, but people can be ignorant sometimes.

Tyson as quicker, hit harder and became undisputed at the age of 20..thats a record on its own. Not to mention most of the people he fought were bigger than him.

You guys are totally missing the concept of comparing someone within the context of the time they fought.

[The Iron Man]

ok. Please Explain your way of doing that then