Jack Dempsey as an All Time Heavy?

[Elroy1]

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.

Your a young bloke aren't you?

Anybody would think your a hundred years old by this post. You proote fighters you know FA about except what you've read in a text book.

[LacedUp]

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.

Langford could never be regarded as the goat at heavyweight. And he wasn't ducked by Johnson and Dempsey. Especially the latter - he was done when Dempsey was champion and blind on one eye. Dempsey would have murdered him and that's why langfords guys rejected the fight.

I'll ask again, where is Harry Wills on your list? The guy proved he was decisively better than Langford at heavyweight.

[LacedUp]

Your a young bloke aren't you?

Anybody would think your a hundred years old by this post. You proote fighters you know FA about except what you've read in a text book.

If I'm a bloke? Elroy, I'd like to remind you that this is the history section. Boxing HISTORY is discussed here. If you would prefer to dish out insults and discuss Wladimir Klitschko - just take it to NSB. This is a serious forum.

Yes I've read countless books on boxing, which in turn gives me a platform to form an opinion that's not just based on a quick read on Wikipedia.

[Weltschmerz]

Langford could never be regarded as the goat at heavyweight. And he wasn't ducked by Johnson and Dempsey. Especially the latter - he was done when Dempsey was champion and blind on one eye. Dempsey would have murdered him and that's why langfords guys rejected the fight.

I'll ask again, where is Harry Wills on your list? The guy proved he was decisively better than Langford at heavyweight.

Except that Dempsey avoided black fighters in general, and in particular Sam Langford - this is a historical fact.

You need proof yeah? It is right here on boxingscene.

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=432428

[LacedUp]

Except that Dempsey avoided black fighters in general, and in particular Sam Langford - this is a historical fact.

You need proof yeah? It is right here on boxingscene.

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=432428

Oh god, please just take that wikipedia mumbo jumbo somewhere else.

The comment he made towards Langford was based on their proposed bout in 1916 when Dempsey was a fresh faced kid. Not when he was a champion, during which time he would have pummelled the half blind Langford who was barely allowed in the ring against anyone, let alone Dempsey, by his managers.

I'm going to ask one more time, what makes Langford a greater heavyweight than Harry Wills?

[Weltschmerz]

Oh god, please just take that wikipedia mumbo jumbo somewhere else.

The comment he made towards Langford was based on their proposed bout in 1916 when Dempsey was a fresh faced kid. Not when he was a champion, during which time he would have pummelled Langford.

I'm going to ask one more time, what makes Langford a greater heavyweight than Harry Wills?

The fact that he was a greater fighter, and that he was cheated of the chance of becoming heavyweight champion, by Jack Johnson.

[LacedUp]

The fact that he was a greater fighter, and that he was cheated of the chance of becoming heavyweight champion, by Jack Johnson.

How was he a greater fighter than someone he ha 14 or so losses to?

That might be true, but circumstances dictated that, and he had lost every round of their bout when they first met in 1906 or whenever it was.

[Weltschmerz]

How was he a greater fighter than someone he ha 14 or so losses to?

That might be true, but circumstances dictated that, and he had lost every round of their bout when they first met in 1906 or whenever it was.

You are claiming Harry a greater fighter than Langford?

You must be kidding yourself.

[LacedUp]

You are claiming Harry a greater fighter than Langford?

You must be kidding yourself.

At heavyweight yes, and anyone with a sense of mind would agree.

I know you don't know much else than what you get from Wikipedia/boxrec but how on earth can you be a better fighter at a weight you lost 14 times to another man against only 2 wins?

You must be kidding yourself.