Better resume: Floyd Mayweather Jr or Jack Dempsey?

[Marchegiano]

Current champion is foreign born so of course most all his bouts are against European opponents. Look at Schmeling record.

Dempsey as heavyweight champion defeated the European champion as well as the best from SA. You inferred past champions were less so because they did not fight opponents from other parts of the world. Not so.

Ali fought the top opponents from Europe, Canada and SA.

Nothing new here.

Far less is the point there bud. Yeah, Fury fights domestics if you call Europe domestic. That's like calling Burns American though. You're only doing that to make believe the old pond wasn't small not because it's not ridiculous. It doesn't even apply to Floyd. Which is where this started. I'm just pointing out the current HW champion and the one prior, the two that overlap Floyd the most, reflect Floyd's level of globalism, not Dempsey's once fought two foreign dudes.



The majority of Fury's fights are against people who are not from the UK.


The majority of Max Schmeling's competition are German like him.


next line of bs?

[HOUDINI563]

No. The US was the center of the boxing world in decades past. Certainly the Dempsey era where international bouts were much more difficult to arrange.

As champion Dempsey fought the leading European and SA challengers. You made no mention of these bouts. Why?

Ali fought the best from Canada, SA and Europe. Yet you did not mention these bouts. Why?

To somehow infer that the lumbering oaf is somehow superior to prior champions because he fights many different nationalities is BS. Nationality has nothing to do with the quality of opponent.

Only 22 of Schmeling 71 bouts were vs German opponents. Max fought a who’s who of fighters from all over Europe. Why? He was European!

[billeau2]

Why don't you recognize Jem Mace?

I would have had I known of him, now I do, thanks for the education.

How many straight Queensberry rules did John L actually fight? One, two more than Mace?

Actually most of them, his championship fights were bare knuckle, the rest of this fights 30 were gloved and MQB. But that's irreverent, I'm still with you!

OOOOOhhhhhh, but, I mustn't re-categorize theses "champions" because in their time they were considered what we call them today.

Yrs that is exactly the point we are dis*****g. Stop doing that.


Oh but champion, that's one to be judged outside it's time. World however, mustn't re-considered from what was considered the world in the 1870s/80s

No, it is because the man was called 'champion' by his contemporaries and you should respect that. That's the arrogance I complain of.


How is it you take issue with me personally not feeling like less than global infrastructure means less than global champions

Because you are discrediting past men's achievements based on contemporary standards. It is a historical foo-pah!

BUT take no issue with well respected historians re-categorizing history for reasons unknown and perpetuating that re-classification from their respected seat?

Sure I do, and they are not considered 'respected' historians when they do that, just popular magazine writers and forum posers.

But it is all OK . . . there will be payback; your grand children will smirk at, and demean all your achievements as well, and then the past will have gotten even with you!

P.S. Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore the boldface remark above, I didn't understand it.

This is an interesting debate... I would sum it up, only so it makes sense to me... History does not consider what is comprable. The world was a lot smaller back then... Things were sanctified in a different fashion.

It kind of works both ways. Im not going to go into a litany of the differences and the benefits to each era, but I would agree with March in so far as what we consider comprable has to be looked at with more circumspection.

[billeau2]

I would actually argue that the world of Boxing was more diverse in the past. Countries like France and Argentina contributed greatly even from the early days of modern Boxing. And you'd see guys like Schmeling* coming out of diverse nations. And while it's accepted that the Anglophone world likes Boxing, you were actually getting a number of great fighters from Australia, Canada, the British Isles in the first decades of the sport; clearly not the case today.

*Probably, if WWII hadn't happened, we would have seen a greater contribution directly from Europe, not only from European immigrants and their children. But about half of those post-WWII fighters from Europe saw their careers restricted to the Amateur ranks, thanks to Communism.

Boxing generally followed the Irish, as it was really their sport. As Irish in American cities moved up, ***s and Italians filled the gyms. After WWII Boxing could have died, but some trainers took a chance on Black fighters (plenty didn't, and just shuttered shop). Thanks to that, Boxing survived. As the world gets smaller, naturally, there's been a proliferation, but almost only to Central America and East Asia. Obviously, the demise of Communism has seen a resurgence in a truly global boxing scene, but that's rather recent, and counter-current to how things had been proceeding for decades up to and including when Floyd was active.

Good points Rusty. Boxing was more international and smaller in many ways. But the talent pool was far less dilluted, if we want to compare. The best and fastest boxed back then... Also some countries had very strong combatives... brazil had a wrestling tradition in those times that was far superior to what we have today...

[billeau2]

For the most part, that's damn fair. I am good about becoming what it is I mean to push against and mostly you've pointed out that's all I've done....well, in my protest or defense anyway that's all I've done.

However, I do struggle to see globalization as a standard rather than a matter-of-fact state of infrastructure and growth.

Am I to pretend Olympians are interdimensional champions whose lureals go beyond life into heaven because the ancients did?

How about their depiction of "world" ?

At a certain point truth is lost. Dempsey, no matter what old standard you use or what feelings you have, simply did not fight the world. He fought white americans. That's the truth. To use some standard from the past to minimize the magnitude of difference in infrastructure between 1920 and 2020 is kinda.....childish, which is a term I hate to use toward you because you're not childish, but, I dunno how else to say it without adding more insult by talking to you like a child so I just tell you direct like.


Boxing simply is bigger. Denying that to preserve the respect of characters seems childish.


Think about what I'm saying, surely I am burying more than my favorite Marciano by saying this. Everyone before the 90s had someone excluded who is not today. Like everyone else here, that's the vast majority of figures I respect the most. I can't do a 90s or newer top ten ATG list, it'd suck, but, I can't likewise claim the 50s had the infrastructure or inclusion of the 90s.

..sucks for Marciano who took on all challengers, all races, all nationals, no problem, not even a story about Marciano maybe might have ducked maybe, nadda, the dude fought anyone put in front of him. It sucks for him they're all Americans because boxing was Ameri-centric at the time. However, just because I like the guy, he fought the world of his time, and there's no evidence he ever shied away from any damn fool does not mean Marciano or even the 1950s as a whole was much of a global fighter or global sport.

World champion, fought 6 times against international opposition. Not much World in that Champion. I can say " but he fought everyone though" or "But that was the world then though" I don't care because that sounds more like an excuse than a negating factor.

If the Khanate had captured the entire Old World, all asia, africa, and europe, and bragged about the global domination of the Khanate would we today say they controlled the planet or they believed they did because they did not know about America? Obviously the latter right? No one pretends the Old World is the Whole World because we found the New World......so why should I pretend like White America, or Mixed Race America, equals all continents man lives on?

Dempsey and Marciano, Ali, everyone, Holmes even, all of them, smaller world, it's not a standard, it's just a fact.

Well... as stated I agree when you raise the issue to suggest incompatability. But there are many other issues that work both ways. If we suggest inferior/superior it really needs to be qualified.

The talent pool for boxing has been diluted considerably. IMO its a good reason why women's boxing gained a foothold. And we still see in women's combatives a large laguna in skills. As international as it is, we can see a housewife KO'ed in 7 seconds against another woman.

In the old days, the world was smaller but more skills, empirical skills had to be part of being what was called a champ. On the other hand, we now have inclusion of many more fighters... which is better? I don't know. I only know that it speaks to one of the points you make: the eras are incompatable historically.

This is why film is such a great way to suss out the fine details. IMO.

[billeau2]

Well... as stated I agree when you raise the issue to suggest incompatability. But there are many other issues that work both ways. If we suggest inferior/superior it really needs to be qualified.

The talent pool for boxing has been diluted considerably. IMO its a good reason why women's boxing gained a foothold. And we still see in women's combatives a large laguna in skills. As international as it is, we can see a housewife KO'ed in 7 seconds against another woman.

In the old days, the world was smaller but more skills, empirical skills had to be part of being what was called a champ. On the other hand, we now have inclusion of many more fighters... which is better? I don't know. I only know that it speaks to one of the points you make: the eras are incompatable historically.

This is why film is such a great way to suss out the fine details. IMO.

Honestly March... I don't know why you don't fall back on the position of incompatability, as opposed to some notion of better, or worse. It makes perfect sense to me, not trying to tell you what to post but I must ask: Do you think boxing itself was better, or worse?

[Marchegiano]

Honestly March... I don't know why you don't fall back on the position of incompatability, as opposed to some notion of better, or worse. It makes perfect sense to me, not trying to tell you what to post but I must ask: Do you think boxing itself was better, or worse?

Well, I didn't feel like I was claiming better or worse to be honest. I did point out it's dumb to compare fighters of different eras in the first place which is why I'm comparing eras more than the fighters and showing y'all something you may not have considered. Also, no comparison should be taken too seriously

Here:

With times being so different it's sometimes difficult to compare guys so highly respected and far removed from one another. Then you throw the weight divisional differences in there and it's so many apples vs oranges its really just an exercise for fun...not to be too invested in.

Kind of makes everyone who cried about it just a baby.


So here's the thing, I knew Dini and Rusty would cry about it and I was interested in Willie's perspective, maybe he just handles me better, but, what I didn't anticipate was the unilateral refusal to acknowledge what's plain and clear and right there on their records.

It's like if someone said Jack Dempsey cause he has more KOs than Floyd fought and then someone else tried to explain those KOs right there on those records away with some time base bull****ting.

Um, no.

It's just unfair to the past not untrue, stop being cry babies.

We have better cars too y'all and my PC kicks the **** out the PC I had when I was 10. It's just the truth. Better/worse are strong terms. My best PC was my Amiga 500 cause that ***** is a rock, she still runs, no problems. My most powerful PC is the on I sit at presently, duh.

There's no reason to try to warp history or pretend like eras that were far from global were global just because fighters today have is easier in some ways.

When bragging about how often oldens used to fight, no one points out in defense of modern fighters it's much more difficult to line up so many fights in the same amount of time. Guys with a team can do it, but, you're comparing walk-on fighters to guys with teams. Modern walk-ons don't even exist in pro boxing. It's just unfair to the present, not untrue. SRR still fought a ton more than Floyd or anyone nowish really.

So I mean, yeah, I got distracted by that. Everyone trying to tell me no it were just as global cause a frenchman and and argentine....c'mon.


If I told y'all the NBA and NYSAC were much more important than the IBU in the 1920s it'd be condescending because everyone knows that, but, let's pretend anyway huh? Cause, why? Old standards? Houdini thinks two men equates to every continent?

Everyone know boxing was less global just like everyone knows boxing is much slower and more professional now. Not untrue, just unfair to the other era.

So I think at a certain point in defending the truth I came off as a better/worse kinda huy but that's not the objective...clearly, read my quote.


I was expecting less focus on time and little more on weight. It's not time nor infrastructure that explains why Dempsey never fought an asian and Floyd did. That'd be division.

Another not untrue just unfair.

Sure, Jack didn't have the option of fighting a p4p great pinoy....for a few reasons. A frenchmen and an argentine don't make him a man who has fought an asian, duh.

So, in the end, I am, I reckon you musta missed/skipped it.

[QueensburyRules]

Just to continue with the theme of the month.

We seem to have come to the conclusion that Jack Sharkey was the best fighter Dempsey beat.

Did Floyd have any wins against a more impressive fighter than Sharkey?

- -U ain't We.

Sharkey KOs JoyBoys entire record, thats how that works with heavies.

[ShoulderRoll]

- -U ain't We.

Sharkey KOs JoyBoys entire record, thats how that works with heavies.

I'm not sure Sharkey could KO Canelo. Despite having a weight advantage over him.

[billeau2]

Well, I didn't feel like I was claiming better or worse to be honest. I did point out it's dumb to compare fighters of different eras in the first place which is why I'm comparing eras more than the fighters and showing y'all something you may not have considered. Also, no comparison should be taken too seriously

Here:




Kind of makes everyone who cried about it just a baby.


So here's the thing, I knew Dini and Rusty would cry about it and I was interested in Willie's perspective, maybe he just handles me better, but, what I didn't anticipate was the unilateral refusal to acknowledge what's plain and clear and right there on their records.

It's like if someone said Jack Dempsey cause he has more KOs than Floyd fought and then someone else tried to explain those KOs right there on those records away with some time base bull****ting.

Um, no.

It's just unfair to the past not untrue, stop being cry babies.

We have better cars too y'all and my PC kicks the **** out the PC I had when I was 10. It's just the truth. Better/worse are strong terms. My best PC was my Amiga 500 cause that ***** is a rock, she still runs, no problems. My most powerful PC is the on I sit at presently, duh.

There's no reason to try to warp history or pretend like eras that were far from global were global just because fighters today have is easier in some ways.

When bragging about how often oldens used to fight, no one points out in defense of modern fighters it's much more difficult to line up so many fights in the same amount of time. Guys with a team can do it, but, you're comparing walk-on fighters to guys with teams. Modern walk-ons don't even exist in pro boxing. It's just unfair to the present, not untrue. SRR still fought a ton more than Floyd or anyone nowish really.

So I mean, yeah, I got distracted by that. Everyone trying to tell me no it were just as global cause a frenchman and and argentine....c'mon.


If I told y'all the NBA and NYSAC were much more important than the IBU in the 1920s it'd be condescending because everyone knows that, but, let's pretend anyway huh? Cause, why? Old standards? Houdini thinks two men equates to every continent?

Everyone know boxing was less global just like everyone knows boxing is much slower and more professional now. Not untrue, just unfair to the other era.

So I think at a certain point in defending the truth I came off as a better/worse kinda huy but that's not the objective...clearly, read my quote.


I was expecting less focus on time and little more on weight. It's not time nor infrastructure that explains why Dempsey never fought an asian and Floyd did. That'd be division.

Another not untrue just unfair.

Sure, Jack didn't have the option of fighting a p4p great pinoy....for a few reasons. A frenchmen and an argentine don't make him a man who has fought an asian, duh.

So, in the end, I am, I reckon you musta missed/skipped it.

I get your point. To be honest I just did not want you to think I was putting words in your mouth regarding the idea that "incomprable" does not equate to "better" or "worse." But you basically claim that you were not making this claim, so that puts us on the same page.

Regarding some of your other comments I think it is complicated. You say "such a comparison should not be taken seriously" not exactly how I would describe it but I am in agreement.

The problem for me comes in when people generalize... Yes the best computer in 1988 could be spectacular and not compare, and certainly in some sports there is a similar issue at work. Boxing is different IMO because it is a hybrid of combat and sport. I often point out that the original fighting style changed dramatically. Less about combat more about changes specific to the ring, equipment, etc. Boxing changed quite a bit, but I resist trying to qualify the changes beyond specific empirical, physical actions that can be viewed and analyzed.

Historically the world was so different...it meant something different to even consider what was global. Some countries did have a global system. Brazil was way ahead of its time... It had wrestling traditions of all stripes, and the world's best competing in "Catch Can" "Lycenshire", "Roman/Greco" "Ju Jutsu" and anything goes (Vale Tudo), but Brazil was the exception and has to be viewed on her own merits.

O don't see a disagreement. Again, wanted to make sure I was not speaking for your intended meaning when I pointed out what I did. You will notice that I gave no indication that I believed any comments to the contrary. I compare physical actions, skills, things that can be seen.