Jack Dempsey as an All Time Heavy?

[billeau2]

Well your comment is simply refuted by actual evidence.

But again, you are skirting the question.

I asked are they better wins of Dempsey than what they had? And all of you have failed to answer?

It doesn't matter how many of you there are, truth is truth. Are they?

Someone please tell me that Dempsey's win over Gunboat Smith was more ATG worth than Wladimir's victory over Ibragimov. I want to hear it from a crazy persons mouth b4 I draw any conclusions

Any rate, you can make a different thread and explain to me WHY the most current era would be weak if you like

Im talking about your assertions sonny! Not the truth and what the hell do you know about gunboat smith? You make assertions then ask us to clena up your mess? back your own assertions up, there is no evidence whatsoever about what you speak of as "better" or "worse"...anymore than there is any proof that supplements in a healthy human being improve performance. Your response to these assertions is: "The evidence is self evident" well it isn't its in fact WRONG sonny!
CLEAN THAT MESS UP that exists where your brain should be

[Weltschmerz]

I've never placed much stock in "ATG" but I'll give it a quick go, based on accomplishments against the criteria across the ages.

1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Vitali Klitschko
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Larry Holmes
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Mike Tyson
7. George Foreman
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Joe Louis

Just off the top of my head.

I just can't find a top 10 place for Dempsey in terms of ATG by edging out any of these guys. Even H2H aside, which this list isn't even based on, I still can't justify his achievements against his own eras criteria as being greater than what the above achieved.

But this is a personal assessment, as your saying.

I would say excellent list, except I would interchange Joe Louis with Jack Dempsey.

[joeandthebums]

based on accomplishments against the criteria across the ages.

1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Vitali Klitschko
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Larry Holmes
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Mike Tyson
7. George Foreman
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Joe Louis

I would say excellent list, except I would interchange Joe Louis with Jack Dempsey.

[Weltschmerz]

Here is my take on the all time heavy list. Based on resume and skill,

1. Vladimir Klitschko
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Larry Holmes
5. Sam Langford
6. Jack Johnson
7. Evander Holyfield
8. George Foreman
9. Gene Tunney
10. Jack Dempsey

[LacedUp]

I've never placed much stock in "ATG" but I'll give it a quick go, based on accomplishments against the criteria across the ages.

1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Vitali Klitschko
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Larry Holmes
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Mike Tyson
7. George Foreman
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Joe Louis

Just off the top of my head.

I just can't find a top 10 place for Dempsey in terms of ATG by edging out any of these guys. Even H2H aside, which this list isn't even based on, I still can't justify his achievements against his own eras criteria as being greater than what the above achieved.

But this is a personal assessment, as your saying.

Elroy Is trolling again I see.

[greeh]

Here is my take on the all time heavy list. Based on resume and skill,

1. Vladimir Klitschko
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Larry Holmes
5. Sam Langford
6. Jack Johnson
7. Evander Holyfield
8. George Foreman
9. Gene Tunney
10. Jack Dempsey

How do you justify Langford and Tunney above Louis?

[Weltschmerz]

How do you justify Langford and Tunney above Louis?

Louis was nothing sensational.

[LacedUp]

Louis was nothing sensational.

Except that he was and demonstrated so for a period of 11 years straight. Even on his worst nights, he still managed to knock the other guy out, which is more than you can say for Sam Langford, for example, at heavyweight.

There's simply no logical base to have Langford and Tunney so high up the list, none at all - but I'd like to hear your reasoning? The rest are acceptable in terms of being in the top 10, but not in the position you have them in.

Why is Harry Wills not there? To me, and many others, he's regarded as the best heavyweight never to win a title. He fought Langford something like 17-18 times and won like 13-14 of them. Surely, he should be regarded as a better fighter than Langford? He also has Sam McVea, Jim Johnson & Joe Jeanette on his resume - the same guys that are making up Sam Langford's resume at heavyweight.

You can base it on whatever you want, but it's highly illogical and it seems like you have just mixed 7-8 guys together and added a few historic ones to make you seem more knowledgable. In fact, it just makes you lose credibility.

[greeh]

Louis was nothing sensational.

I didn’t ask whether he was sensational or not.

Let me rephrase it and ask you again; what is it that makes Tunney and Langford better heavyweights than Joe Louis?

[Weltschmerz]

Langford is possibly the GOAT, I do not see why he should not be regarded highly at HW where he in fact did compete. He was clearly ducked by Dempsey and Jack Johnson, too.