Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[BXNGCNTRL]

Why is Larry Holmes your favourite?

[Bundana]

Those that watched both Marciano and Dempsey fight were universal that Dempsey was the far greater fighter.

Frazier’s lack of coordination between his left and right fists and his lack of right hand coordination and power would put him in a huge disadvantage vs ATG fighters. Both Marciano and Dempsey had two fisted ko power and excellence coordination between both fists.

We shouldn't read too much into this.

Dempsey and Marciano fought approx. 30 years apart. So those who saw both would have been young men during Dempsey's time... and veteran observers during Marciano's reign. So of course they favoured Dempsey.

[HOUDINI563]

You should read plenty into it. Their opinion is eye witness and it mirrors what you see when you watch both fighters in action. Dempsey was a fine combination of both boxer and puncher. Whereas Marciano was much more a slugger. Dempsey also had exceptional speed both foot and fist which Rocky lacked. The speed in which Dempsey landed rapid fire with short arm blows to head and body was remarkable and another ability Marciano lacked.

[Rusty Tromboni]

We shouldn't read too much into this.

Dempsey and Marciano fought approx. 30 years apart. So those who saw both would have been young men during Dempsey's time... and veteran observers during Marciano's reign. So of course they favoured Dempsey.

there's footage of both available to us today. If you can't see Dempsey's significant superiority you need to join Billeau Forumstalker's karate classes. The sport of men just ain't for you.

[Rusty Tromboni]

You're ranking them based on mythical matchups which is by far the worst way of ranking ATG's. I would have expected better from you.

It's all mythical.


Unless two fighters meet, you cannot know which is better. And sometimes several outings a necessary to real determine the better man.

Even then, that's only between them: Duran beating Leonard meant little when he fought Hearns, Hagler and Benitez; Barkely beating Hearns meant little when he fought Duran.


You can clearly see from film that Dempsey was faster, busier, had superior footwork, ridiculously better head-movent, and far superior punch selection.

It's kinda strange to even have to explain this. Unlike a Lewis or Holyfield, he was never stopped in his prime. Unlike Ali, he didn't need smelling salts to survive a Henry Cooper type.

The case for Dempsey is overwhelming.

[Bundana]

there's footage of both available to us today. If you can't see Dempsey's significant superiority you need to join Billeau Forumstalker's karate classes. The sport of men just ain't for you.

My post was not about who was better!

I'm merely trying to explain, how it's pretty much a given, that old-timers who saw both in action would back Dempsey - as they would have been young, impressionable men, when they watched him in the ring.


I would take the opinion of younger "historians", who never saw either in the flesh, but base their opinion on the footage available - over those who saw both men in the ring.

[Bundana]

You should read plenty into it. Their opinion is eye witness and it mirrors what you see when you watch both fighters in action. Dempsey was a fine combination of both boxer and puncher. Whereas Marciano was much more a slugger. Dempsey also had exceptional speed both foot and fist which Rocky lacked. The speed in which Dempsey landed rapid fire with short arm blows to head and body was remarkable and another ability Marciano lacked.

As I've just said in my previous post, people (be it reporters, trainers, fans or the boxers themselves), will almost invariably prefer the "good old days" (and the boxers) when they were young. Nothing wrong with that - it's simply human nature.

[QueensburyRules]

As I've just said in my previous post, people (be it reporters, trainers, fans or the boxers themselves), will almost invariably prefer the "good old days" (and the boxers) when they were young. Nothing wrong with that - it's simply human nature.

- -Something I identified on ye Olde AOL forum at the turn of the millennium.

[BKM-]

It's all mythical.


Unless two fighters meet, you cannot know which is better. And sometimes several outings a necessary to real determine the better man.

Even then, that's only between them: Duran beating Leonard meant little when he fought Hearns, Hagler and Benitez; Barkely beating Hearns meant little when he fought Duran.


You can clearly see from film that Dempsey was faster, busier, had superior footwork, ridiculously better head-movent, and far superior punch selection.

It's kinda strange to even have to explain this. Unlike a Lewis or Holyfield, he was never stopped in his prime. Unlike Ali, he didn't need smelling salts to survive a Henry Cooper type.

The case for Dempsey is overwhelming.

You're missing the point. Fantasy matchups are just that, fantasy.

Every single boxing historian ranks greats based on what they actually did, not based on what they might have done or could have done. Because one is mostly factual and the other is complete fantasy.

That's why unaccomplished boxers who beat ATG's at their bests are not ranked above them.

That's why I even have a highly respected boxer like Louis in my top 10, because let me tell you something he wouldn't even be in my top 20 if I ranked him based on head to head matchups.

I look at him and see a VERY beatable boxer, while an admirer of his sees a near unbeatable boxer. See the massive difference in perception? But if we stick to what Louis actually did in his career i.e. his resume, then we would both be much closer to our judgement of Louis' worth as an ATG.

As for Dempsey, he fought in a weak era(as did Marciano and Louis btw) and doesn't have an impressive resume. He fought two greats, one wasn't at his best(Willard) and the other beat him twice(Tunney).

[HOUDINI563]

Louis was the most technically accomplished heavyweight fighter ever to live. He could box like few others. He could punch like few others and his hand speed and combo punching were off the charts. Very very few heavyweights would beat him at his best no matter the era.

Regarding today’s generation looking at old films and coming to conclusions that’s pure crap. Very few know what they are looking at. There was a boxing writer who supposedly looked at old fight films and wrote a critique of Dempsey so off the mark it was over the top ridiculous. Just one load of pure unadulterated crap.