Bernard Hopkins Vs Sonny Liston

[Kid McCoy]

you can't compare Dempsey with sugar ray Robinson, Robinson went some 90-0 and was actually beating legit contenders.

Dempsey went on a streak of 32-0 with 28 KOs en route to winning the title, against legit contenders.

I very much doubt the guy with the 6-23-4 record who Robinson beat during his winning streak was a legit contender. If you're going to trash Dempsey based on nothing but Boxrec, I don't see why SRR should get a pass.

[TheGreatA]

A lot of boxers fought "bums" even while they were champions in between title defenses.

Pernell Whitaker whose record is certainly not padded up by any means (and who only ever had about 45 fights) fought a couple of soft opponents just to prepare for his bigger fights, for example Jim Flores (0-3), Antonio Carter (4-7), Davey Montana (15-8), Martin Galvan (7-16), Benjie Marquez (17-8), Jerry Smith (12-13), Ben Baez (7-4)...

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php...0555&cat=boxer

The 5 nobodies that Dempsey fought during the span of a month were just for warm up to get him prepared for the big fight against Jess Willard. Before that he had KO'd Fred Fulton in one round, Carl Morris in 1, Battling Levinsky in 3, Gunboat Smith in 2, Bill Brennan in 6 and had won a newspaper decision over Billy Miske, and all of them were top contenders of the era.

[Kid McCoy]

A lot of boxers fought "bums" even while they were champions in between title defenses.

And I don't have a problem with that. Nobody should be expected to face murderers' row every week, but given the nature of boxing even tune-ups against supposed no-hopers have an element of risk. Tune-ups in between the major fights also helped keep them sharp and active, kept the money rolling in, and gave their fans a chance to see them in action.

[res]

My point was, you can't say Tyson lost to all the greats of his era, when his era was the 80's. He started fighting when he was what, 19? Holyfield wasn't even a heavyweight. Lewis was still in the Olympics(or contending) Tyson lost to the next generation, just like Holmes did.

uhh, Holyfield was pro as a heavyweight in 88, Your saying three years after Tyson went pro his era was over? If we are going to use when fighters go pro as the ruler, Larry went pro in 73'. So according to this calculus his era must have ended in 76'. Lewis went pro in 90', just 5 years after Tyson.

Listen Dempsey is the man, this comparison is crazy.

[them_apples]

uhh, Holyfield was pro as a heavyweight in 88, Your saying three years after Tyson went pro his era was over? If we are going to use when fighters go pro as the ruler, Larry went pro in 73'. So according to this calculus his era must have ended in 76'. Lewis went pro in 90', just 5 years after Tyson.

Listen Dempsey is the man, this comparison is crazy.

Dempsey fought 6 guys with 0 wins leading up to the Willard fight.


Tyson lost to Holyfield, one of the greatest HW's of all time, Foreman lost to Ali, does that mean he's trash?

You give Dempsey a pass for losing to a guy with 30 losses in the first round, Tyson gets the pass for losing to Douglas.

[Terry A]

Sonny Liston KO's Bernard Hopkins.

May Sonny R.I.P.

[res]

Dempsey fought 6 guys with 0 wins leading up to the Willard fight.


Tyson lost to Holyfield, one of the greatest HW's of all time, Foreman lost to Ali, does that mean he's trash?

You give Dempsey a pass for losing to a guy with 30 losses in the first round, Tyson gets the pass for losing to Douglas.

Tyson is great because he was beaten by Evander Holyfield?

Alot of people were beaten by Evander Holyfield, that dosen't make them greats.

I didn't mention Douglas, my focus was never Tyson's losses, my focus were his wins.

The reason I brought up Lewis, Holyfield, Rid**** Bowe etc was to mention that he never beat them. It isn't really important whether or not he didn't beat them because he never met them in the ring, or he didn't beat them because he lost to them.

[them_apples]

Tyson is great because he was beaten by Evander Holyfield?

Alot of people were beaten by Evander Holyfield, that dosen't make them greats.

I didn't mention Douglas, my focus was never Tyson's losses, my focus were his wins.

The reason I brought up Lewis, Holyfield, Rid**** Bowe etc was to mention that he never beat them. It isn't really important whether or not he didn't beat them because he never met them in the ring, or he didn't beat them because he lost to them.

that's ******, he fought both Lewis and holy. He was shot to pieces against Lewis.

Dempsey lost to guys that Weren't the best of his era, and he lost to Tunney, who was.

Might I ask who was the best in his era? Gunboat Smiths and Jess Willards are pretty poor fighters for being the "best of an era" any greats such as Louis, Ali, Foreman etc would have destroyed them in mere rounds.

[res]

that's ******, he fought both Lewis and holy. He was shot to pieces against Lewis.

Dempsey lost to guys that Weren't the best of his era, and he lost to Tunney, who was.

Might I ask who was the best in his era? Gunboat Smiths and Jess Willards are pretty poor fighters for being the "best of an era" any greats such as Louis, Ali, Foreman etc would have destroyed them in mere rounds.

Beat! beat ! beat! it is who you beat in your era that makes you great. i'm not saying that anymore.



Sharkey, Firpo, Carpentier, and yes Smiths (who took out the hall of famer Sam Langford).

Yes Tunney was one of the best of his time but he made his rep as the guy that beat Dempsey; are you talking about Tunney's wins over top guys like Gibbon who Dempsey also beat?

It seems like your beef is not with Dempsey but with the older era of Boxing.

[them_apples]

Beat! beat ! beat! it is who you beat in your era that makes you great. i'm not saying that anymore.



Sharkey, Firpo, Carpentier, and yes Smiths (who took out the hall of famer Sam Langford).

Yes Tunney was one of the best of his time but he made his rep as the guy that beat Dempsey; are you talking about Tunney's wins over top guys like Gibbon who Dempsey also beat?

It seems like your beef is not with Dempsey but with the older era of Boxing.

no my beef is with Dempsey.

I see what you are saying.

I don't agree with you that all that matters is who you beat. How would you gage how good an opponent is.

you can say Dempsey beat the best of his era, but the best of his era each had dozens of losses under their belts. So really what you are saying is, you are just assuming they are great because everyone thought they were. All of those so called amazing fighters he beat had lost brutally at some point or another.

I wish people would stop saying I hate a certain era. Because i don't. I have favourite fighters in every era. It seems like there are these overly defensive posters who by coincidence always route for the older fighter. When the older fighter isn't picked they automatically think "young blood poster who is wrong".

You must ignore my posts about fighters that I do like, who usually fought 40 years before I was even born.