BoxRec

This is an intereting era. Results have been taken pretty much straight off of Boxrec, so there is obviously room for some negotiation in the win loss column. Still just as a general observation, Dempseys competition more than stacks up to what Wills or anyone else did. I wont attempt to put them in order for a while, but just looking at the list, it seems that as a general observation, it would seem that (if anything) Wills competition might be a little overated.That might change on reflection though.

Tunney – W Dempsey, Heenan, Gibbons, Greb., Weinert & Others D Loughran
Dempsey – W Sharkey, Firpo, Gibbons, Carpentier, Brennan, Miske L Tunney
Heeney – W Madden, Risko, Delaney D Sharkey L Tunney, Bell, Scott, Uzcuden, & Others
Gibbons – W Jamieson, Carpentier, Meehan, Madden, Roper,D Miske, Greb L Tunney, Dempsey
Greb –W Loughlan, Jamieson, Gunboat, Walker, Rosenbloom, Renault, Wiggins, Rojas, Madden, Roper D Gibbons, Zulu kid, Norfolk L Flowers, Tunney,
Loughran - W Walker, Schaaf, Braddock, Stribling, McTigue, Carpentier, Risko D Jeff Smith, Tunney L Sharkey, Stribling, Stone, Delaney, Bogash, Viggi
Weinert – W Sharkey, Roper, Meehan, madden, Levinsky, Fitzsimmons, Rojas , Lester D Foley L Greb, Miske, Tunney, Firpo, Wills
Jack Sharkey – W Wills, Godfrey, Loughran, Scott, Stribling, Christner, Delaney, McTigue D Heeney, Risko Gorman, L Risko, Winert, Maloney, Rojas
Louis Firpo – W Gunboat, Willard, Brennan, D Weinart L Dempsey, Wills
Georges Carpentier – W Levinskey, Lewis, Beckett D Huffman L Dempsey, Siki, Gibbons, Tunney, Loughran
Bill Brennan – W Devere, Madden,Barten, Rice L Dempsey, Roper, Miske, Firpo, FJohnson
Billy Miske – W Renault, Meehan, Weinart, Roper, Fulton, Foley L Dempsey, Gibbons
Johnny Risko – W Fitzsimmons Berlanbach, Delaney, Uzcuden, Scott, Sharkey, Godfrey, Lester D Montgommery, L Burke, Rojas,enault, Stribling, Wiggins, Sharkey, Tunney, Delaney, Gates, McTigue, Loughran, Slattery, Heeney, Wright, Schaaf, Schmelling

Jack Delaney - W Flowers, Fitzsimmons, Roper, Risko, Rojas, McTigue, Rosenbloom, Renault, Montgomery D Loughran L Ratner, Fisher, Downey, Slattery, Berlanbach, Maloney, Risko, Uzcuden, Gorman, Heeney, Sharkey

Phil Scott – W Campolo, Van porat Heeney, Daniels L Risko, Hansen, Uzcuden,Daniels, Lloyd, Nash, Drake, Sale,
Paolino Uzcuden – W Christner, Renault, Hartwell, Rojas, Lester, Wills, Heeney, Hansen, Scott, L Schmelling, Godfrey, Risko,
Ted Jamieson – W Renault, Roper, D Langford L O Dowd, Delaney, Wiggins, Maha, Homer, Stribling, Gibbons, Fitzsimmons, Flowers, Greb, McCarthy
Bob Roper –W Rojas, Morris, Moran, Wiggins L Renault, Huffman, Gorman, Jeff Smith, Greb, Miske, Fulton, Burke, Madden & Others
Tiger Flowers –W Wiggins, Fitzsimmons, Greb, Bogash, Jamieson, Lawson D Rosenblom, L McTigue, Delaney, Flynn, Norfolk, Gans
Kid Norfolk – W JL Johnson, Blackburn, Clark, Tate, Flowers, D Anderson, McReary, Greb L Wills, Lawson, Gibbons, Johnson, Moody, Moore
Young Stribling – W Montgomery, Rosenbloom, Levinsky, Risko, Gorman, Rojas, Jamieson, McLaughlin, McTigue, D Loughran L Hunt, Sharkey, Berlanbach, Stone, & others
Ad Stone – W Stribling, L Weinert, DLoughran L ,Soloman, Marullo, McEwan, Schaaf, Fadil, Fowler, Galento
Harry Wills – W Thompson, Langford, Fulton, Tate, Gunboat, JL Johnson, McVEy, Jeanette, Norfolk, Firpo, Winert L Sharkey, Uzcuden
Pat Lester – W Weinert, F Johnson L Herman, Roper, Johnson, Risko, Uzcuden & Others
George Godfrey – W Fulton, Montgomery, Lawson, Uzcuden Hartwell, D Gains, Wiggins L Norfolk, Langford, Young Norfold, Thompson, Renault, Sharkey
Sam Langford - W Clark, Thompson, Wright, Godfrey, Flynn D Tate, Jamieson, L Simmons, Wills, Anderson
Lee Anderson – W Gunboat, Langford, Norfolk, Meehan,Siki L Flowers,Lawson, Stone, Miske, & Others
Bearcat Wright – W Fulton, Simmons, Hartwell, Risko, Johnson D Hartwell L Langford,
Big Boy Peterson – W Wright,Uzcuden L Stibling, Loughran, Gains, Hunt, Wiggins, Griffith & Others
Jack Johnson – W Lester, Thompson L Simmons, Hartwell Wright Lawson
Bob Lawson – W Hartwell, Wright, Simmons, Johnson, Norfolk D Risko, Cowler L Godfrey, Neuman, Berlanbach, Gorman, Flowers & others
Bill Hartwell – W Johsnon, Gains, Uzcuden L Simmons, Wright, Lawson, Campolo, Hunt & others
Fred Fulton – JL Johnson, Flynn, Gunboat, Moran, Morris, Roper, Meehan L Miske, Burke, F Johnson, Renault, Bearcat Wright, Godfrey & Others

ARE there any other fighers missing from the list of contenders? Remember, fighters are to be judged on who they actually beat, not what we think they could have done.

Perhaps you could consider the "Rochester Plasterer" himself, Fred Fulton. He was still pretty good in the early 1920s before declining by the mid-1920s. If nothing else, he deserves some points for a cool nickname.

A couple of minor points:
Godfrey needs to have a loss to Risko. (Risko got credit for beating Godfrey)
Also noticed that Loughran-Tunney is now considered a draw. (That is what Boxrec has it.) I have always seen that as a Newspaper win for Tunney. Boxrec used to have it as a newspaper win for Tunney as well.

A lot to consider when ranking these guys. Some of these fights were really between two light heavyweights or a heavyweight beating a light heavyweight.
Still interesting to see.

Ambling Alp wrote:Perhaps you could consider the "Rochester Plasterer" himself, Fred Fulton. He was still pretty good in the early 1920s before declining by the mid-1920s. If nothing else, he deserves some points for a cool nickname.

A couple of minor points:
Godfrey needs to have a loss to Risko. (Risko got credit for beating Godfrey)
Also noticed that Loughran-Tunney is now considered a draw. (That is what Boxrec has it.) I have always seen that as a Newspaper win for Tunney. Boxrec used to have it as a newspaper win for Tunney as well.

A lot to consider when ranking these guys. Some of these fights were really between two light heavyweights or a heavyweight beating a light heavyweight.
Still interesting to see.

I just edited to include Fulton. In the early part of the decade he was definitely doing well, before getting a bit long in the tooth. Though it is interesting that the good names he beat had also looked to have reached the end of their runs also.

I find a critical analysis of Wills opponents in this decade to be very surprising. He was obviously biding his time as the top contender, and did better work earlier in his career, but considering that most consider him the standout no 1 challenger for Dempsey and a blatant duck, you would think that he would standout over the likes of Greb and Tunney. His best win is probably Firpo. Outside of that, when he fought the best white challengers (for this decade), he was beaten (by Sharkey and Uzcuden). ANd dont forget that the Firpo fight was technically a ND draw with a fighter who Dempsey had just knocked out in a couple of rounds. I think that Dempsey's record for this record is quite a bit better than Wills. I will have to think about it, but i am not as yet totally convinced that he has better wins than Greb, Sharkey and maybe even Loughran. I would like to see if some Wills fans can change this initial perception on glancing at the records for this decade.

Boilermaker wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Perhaps you could consider the "Rochester Plasterer" himself, Fred Fulton. He was still pretty good in the early 1920s before declining by the mid-1920s. If nothing else, he deserves some points for a cool nickname.

A couple of minor points:
Godfrey needs to have a loss to Risko. (Risko got credit for beating Godfrey)
Also noticed that Loughran-Tunney is now considered a draw. (That is what Boxrec has it.) I have always seen that as a Newspaper win for Tunney. Boxrec used to have it as a newspaper win for Tunney as well.

A lot to consider when ranking these guys. Some of these fights were really between two light heavyweights or a heavyweight beating a light heavyweight.
Still interesting to see.

I just edited to include Fulton. In the early part of the decade he was definitely doing well, before getting a bit long in the tooth. Though it is interesting that the good names he beat had also looked to have reached the end of their runs also.

I find a critical analysis of Wills opponents in this decade to be very surprising. He was obviously biding his time as the top contender, and did better work earlier in his career, but considering that most consider him the standout no 1 challenger for Dempsey and a blatant duck, you would think that he would standout over the likes of Greb and Tunney. His best win is probably Firpo. Outside of that, when he fought the best white challengers (for this decade), he was beaten (by Sharkey and Uzcuden). ANd dont forget that the Firpo fight was technically a ND draw with a fighter who Dempsey had just knocked out in a couple of rounds. I think that Dempsey's record for this record is quite a bit better than Wills. I will have to think about it, but i am not as yet totally convinced that he has better wins than Greb, Sharkey and maybe even Loughran. I would like to see if some Wills fans can change this initial perception on glancing at the records for this decade.

No the Firpo fight was not a ND draw . . it was a decisive, one-sided ND W for Wills.
Fulton when Wills beat him was the clear #2 or #3 contender in the division.
His HW resume is def. better than Greb's, whose best HW victory was over a green Renault. You seem to be giving Greb overt credit for beating middles and light HWs before they moved up to HW (why is Walker even on this list? He didn't move up to HW until the 1930s . . ditto with Loughran)

And Ted Jamieson shouldn't be listed as a credit win for anyone . .

dempseyfire wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Perhaps you could consider the "Rochester Plasterer" himself, Fred Fulton. He was still pretty good in the early 1920s before declining by the mid-1920s. If nothing else, he deserves some points for a cool nickname.

A couple of minor points:
Godfrey needs to have a loss to Risko. (Risko got credit for beating Godfrey)
Also noticed that Loughran-Tunney is now considered a draw. (That is what Boxrec has it.) I have always seen that as a Newspaper win for Tunney. Boxrec used to have it as a newspaper win for Tunney as well.

A lot to consider when ranking these guys. Some of these fights were really between two light heavyweights or a heavyweight beating a light heavyweight.
Still interesting to see.

I just edited to include Fulton. In the early part of the decade he was definitely doing well, before getting a bit long in the tooth. Though it is interesting that the good names he beat had also looked to have reached the end of their runs also.

I find a critical analysis of Wills opponents in this decade to be very surprising. He was obviously biding his time as the top contender, and did better work earlier in his career, but considering that most consider him the standout no 1 challenger for Dempsey and a blatant duck, you would think that he would standout over the likes of Greb and Tunney. His best win is probably Firpo. Outside of that, when he fought the best white challengers (for this decade), he was beaten (by Sharkey and Uzcuden). ANd dont forget that the Firpo fight was technically a ND draw with a fighter who Dempsey had just knocked out in a couple of rounds. I think that Dempsey's record for this record is quite a bit better than Wills. I will have to think about it, but i am not as yet totally convinced that he has better wins than Greb, Sharkey and maybe even Loughran. I would like to see if some Wills fans can change this initial perception on glancing at the records for this decade.

No the Firpo fight was not a ND draw . . it was a decisive, one-sided ND W for Wills.
Fulton when Wills beat him was the clear #2 or #3 contender in the division.
His HW resume is def. better than Greb's, whose best HW victory was over a green Renault. You seem to be giving Greb overt credit for beating middles and light HWs before they moved up to HW (why is Walker even on this list? He didn't move up to HW until the 1930s . . ditto with Loughran)

And Ted Jamieson shouldn't be listed as a credit win for anyone . .

Firpo was a NO Decision fight, technically. Still a good result, but Firpo had been KOd early and decisively by Dempsey and many people do argue that he was really just a manufactured fighter.

Fulton is probably a fair point, though he never really beat any one of note, in the 1920s.

I listed Jamieson, because someone on this board was recently moaning about him being one of the better fighters of the time. I agree that his record doesnt stack up and i expect he will be rated near the bottom of the list.

Walker isnt on the list, just mentioned under notable wins, which he is, considering he would go on to beat several top heavyweights in the next decade. Loughran drew with Tunney and Carpentier who were both notable heavywieghts. He needs to be considered and shouldnt be left off just because he happened to weigh below the weight limit, imo. If we were to create a super cruiserweight at 290lbs, that wouldnt make Wlad's wins against opponents any less valuable, just because those opponents might go on to win at the 290 lb weight.

Boilermaker wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:Perhaps you could consider the "Rochester Plasterer" himself, Fred Fulton. He was still pretty good in the early 1920s before declining by the mid-1920s. If nothing else, he deserves some points for a cool nickname.

A couple of minor points:
Godfrey needs to have a loss to Risko. (Risko got credit for beating Godfrey)
Also noticed that Loughran-Tunney is now considered a draw. (That is what Boxrec has it.) I have always seen that as a Newspaper win for Tunney. Boxrec used to have it as a newspaper win for Tunney as well.

A lot to consider when ranking these guys. Some of these fights were really between two light heavyweights or a heavyweight beating a light heavyweight.
Still interesting to see.

I just edited to include Fulton. In the early part of the decade he was definitely doing well, before getting a bit long in the tooth. Though it is interesting that the good names he beat had also looked to have reached the end of their runs also.

I find a critical analysis of Wills opponents in this decade to be very surprising. He was obviously biding his time as the top contender, and did better work earlier in his career, but considering that most consider him the standout no 1 challenger for Dempsey and a blatant duck, you would think that he would standout over the likes of Greb and Tunney. His best win is probably Firpo. Outside of that, when he fought the best white challengers (for this decade), he was beaten (by Sharkey and Uzcuden). ANd dont forget that the Firpo fight was technically a ND draw with a fighter who Dempsey had just knocked out in a couple of rounds. I think that Dempsey's record for this record is quite a bit better than Wills. I will have to think about it, but i am not as yet totally convinced that he has better wins than Greb, Sharkey and maybe even Loughran. I would like to see if some Wills fans can change this initial perception on glancing at the records for this decade.

He needs to be considered and shouldnt be left off just because he happened to weigh below the weight limit, imo. If we were to create a super cruiserweight at 290lbs, that wouldnt make Wlad's wins against opponents any less valuable, just because those opponents might go on to win at the 290 lb weight.

We're not talking about any newly created divisions. Tunney and Carpentier were light HWs when Loughran fought them, and both fought most of their career at light HW. One reason why I consider Tunney among the top 3 light HWs of all-time but is more around #25 at HW. Spinks is an all-time great light HW but he may not even make my top 50 HWs . . .ranking a fighter in a certain weight class, you can't suddenly give them a bunch of extra bonus points b/c they were great in lower weight classes. That's like ranking Oscar Dela Hoya as a top 50 middleweight, which would be laughable.

I just edited to include Fulton. In the early part of the decade he was definitely doing well, before getting a bit long in the tooth. Though it is interesting that the good names he beat had also looked to have reached the end of their runs also.

I find a critical analysis of Wills opponents in this decade to be very surprising. He was obviously biding his time as the top contender, and did better work earlier in his career, but considering that most consider him the standout no 1 challenger for Dempsey and a blatant duck, you would think that he would standout over the likes of Greb and Tunney. His best win is probably Firpo. Outside of that, when he fought the best white challengers (for this decade), he was beaten (by Sharkey and Uzcuden). ANd dont forget that the Firpo fight was technically a ND draw with a fighter who Dempsey had just knocked out in a couple of rounds. I think that Dempsey's record for this record is quite a bit better than Wills. I will have to think about it, but i am not as yet totally convinced that he has better wins than Greb, Sharkey and maybe even Loughran. I would like to see if some Wills fans can change this initial perception on glancing at the records for this decade.[/quote]

He needs to be considered and shouldnt be left off just because he happened to weigh below the weight limit, imo. If we were to create a super cruiserweight at 290lbs, that wouldnt make Wlad's wins against opponents any less valuable, just because those opponents might go on to win at the 290 lb weight.[/quote]

We're not talking about any newly created divisions. Tunney and Carpentier were light HWs when Loughran fought them, and both fought most of their career at light HW. One reason why I consider Tunney among the top 3 light HWs of all-time but is more around #25 at HW. Spinks is an all-time great light HW but he may not even make my top 50 HWs . . .ranking a fighter in a certain weight class, you can't suddenly give them a bunch of extra bonus points b/c they were great in lower weight classes. That's like ranking Oscar Dela Hoya as a top 50 middleweight, which would be laughable.[/quote]

I understand what you are saying. But, the reality is that Tunney as a light heavyweight was capable of beating heavyweights. In fact, Light heavyweight Tunney did actually fight and beat heavyweights. If Carpentier was to have gone on and beat Dempsey, is it really fair to discard Loughran's results against Carpentier just because the fighters were underweight? It might be a different story if one fighter was forced to weightdrain down and his performance suffered because of it, but that isnt the case, as far as i know.

If Carpentier had beaten Dempsey , yes it would be fair to disregard Loughran's win over Carpentier (in terms of ranking him as a heavyweight)because they were not heavyweights. This is a crucial point that is skewing your rankings. If both guys are light heavyweights, you can't count it as a heavyweight fight.

You are doing a great job of bringing up key fights. Just concentrate on the heavyweight fights when rating heavyweights.

I tend to agree with Alp on this. Besides, if you don't exercise caution, you run the genuine risk of being issued another dreaded "laughing icon" from the honorable Judge G.I.

Three laughing icons from the judge, and your case is turned over to the local admistrators which on occasion have resulted in further disciplinary action.

BoxBuzz wrote:I tend to agree with Alp on this. Besides, if you don't exercise caution, you run the genuine risk of being issued another dreaded "laughing icon" from the honorable Judge G.I.

Three laughing icons from the judge, and your case is turned over to the local admistrators which on occasion have resulted in further disciplinary action.

I understand what you are both getting at, but pretty soon we are going to have to consider Tommy Burns vs Philladelphia Jack O Brien. A unification of the world heavyweight championship between two light heavyweights.

The other thing which will causes major issues with not ranking all wins, is that we just do not know many of the weights fights were fought at in this times. IT makes things very difficult, impossible infact to hand pick results. I think the best result is to put them in and let it be argued that results are invalid, if there are obvious reasons. Often weight can be a reason why a win should be discounted. But by the same token, sometimes the best fighters are not necessarilly heavyweights. More often than not, they are cruiserweights adn sometimes light heavyweights or lower can even make the list.

Based solely on who beat whom, these were the top ten at the end of 1920:

1.JACK DEMPSEY
2.HARRY WILLS
3.FRED FULTON
4.KID NORFOLK
5.GEO CARPENTIER
6.GENE TUNNEY
7.JACK JOHNSON
8.TOMMY GIBBONS
9.FRANK MORAN
10.HARRY GREB

Cap

Cap wrote:Based solely on who beat whom, these were the top ten at the end of 1920:

1.JACK DEMPSEY
2.HARRY WILLS
3.FRED FULTON
4.KID NORFOLK
5.GEO CARPENTIER
6.GENE TUNNEY
7.JACK JOHNSON
8.TOMMY GIBBONS
9.FRANK MORAN
10.HARRY GREB

Cap

Cap,
I really like the way you have broken down the top 10 to each year. When i get the time, i will have a good look at the rankings you have done.

In the meantime, from what you just posted, Jack Johnson at number 7 is very, very interesting. To think that by this late, arguably the greatest fighter ever was a top 10 fighter, yet was not reall in consideration for a world title shot. When you consider how someone like shannon briggs finds it so easy to get a world title shot today, or any other alphabet holder who strings a win or two together, it is astonishing. This really is like Tyson, or Holyfield going undefeated for years and years, being in the top 10 but not even being considered for a title shot. It is hard to believe to behonest, and if he is a true top 10 fighter by now, his second career must have been really underated.

You'll note that I never said that I ranked them this way. This is based on the painstaking work of the late historian Mike Paul.

Cap

Cap wrote:You'll note that I never said that I ranked them this way. This is based on the painstaking work of the late historian Mike Paul.

Cap

Didnt realise that. I thought you were doing some solid work there.

Does Mike have a criteria? Is this based on results, his own view of the situation, or is their an attempt to capture the public (at the time) persception of each of the fighters?

He sure has done an excellent job.

Sad to say Mike is gone now. If you do an internet search you'll likely find out a few things about him and you can always ask our resident members of the IBRO. Mike came up with a formula and a points system that he hoped would replace the ABC organizations. Part of it was recording who fought whom over the long stretch of history.

Cap