Best Sub-200lb HW Champ...

Who was it? Submit your nomination.

I go with Dempsey, followed narrowly by Tunney. Charles is my vote for most under-rated.

 

Charles would beat both of them bad head-to-head, as would Marciano

 

Disagree strenuously.

Is that your pick for the poll though, CDogg? Charles or Marciano?

 

Marciano and it's not even close.

 

Id say Marciano had advantages over Dempsey in chin, endurance, and arguably heart and one-shot power. Everything else Dempsey clearly is his superior, and career-wise he had greater longevity and faced FAR superior opposition.

Im not sure Id favour Marciano over a fresher Charles, really (say, 48-51).

 

Where is Herbie Hide? ::

I'd go with Marciano

 

Which two Dempsey BEATEN opponents were collectively better than Walcott and Charles?

 

When talking about quality of opposition, only wins are relevant.

 

None, quite arguably - but the level of opposition across the board pretty decisively favours Dempsey.

Throw in Moore and you just named the only three Marciano rivals whod rate above a C.

 

Thats just silly. So no credit to Marquez's career for ANY of the Pacquiao fights? If Mayweather fought Martinez to an SD loss tomorrow, that wouldnt enhance his legacy?

 

Ok..I'd agree with CLOSE/controversial losses.

But clear losses are irrelevant when using Quality of opposition to enhance a fighters credentials.

For example should Bob Foster be called a great heavyweight on account of him fighting both Ali and Frazier? I mean that's serious quality of opposition right there.

Oba Carr a great Welterweight for being beaten by De La Hoya and Trinidad?

You see my point?

 

How is this a mythical matchup by the way?

I think Charles might have done best against the best of 200 lbs champs, though even he wouldn't have done very well

 

I more than see your point, I agree --- and the thing is, in Dempseys case, he doesnt really have any career-enhancing defeats. The only GREAT fighter to beat him did so very handily, to the point where I dont credit Dempsey for those losses.

However I do think he quite clearly beat a higher standard of foe than Marciano.

 

Fair question. I started out making this a tournament between the mentioned fighters, before it took its final shape. At least mythical match-ups could clearly be discussed in the framework of the thread.

 

Not sure about that. Dempsey had some good Ws, Sharkey probably being the best of them (although the victory has to be with an asterisk), but I think Charles, Walcott, Moore, Louis and Vingo might compare positively to Willard, Firpo, Gibbons, Brennan etc.

 

Walcott, Charles and Louis were at the end of the line, though. Vingo was a fair win. Only Moore, the best victory of Marcianos career, rates as a REALLY good win.

 

If you can't see that the late 40s and 50s >>>> the 20s in every technical facet of the game then you should just retire your eyes.

Joe Louis fought at around 200 at his best, sometimes a couple lb over sometimes a couple under. I think he groups here, fairly.

If he doesn't count then the early-heavyweight Ezzard Charles who beat Louis & Walcott the first 2 times is our man.

 

Louis, and also Frazier, just missed the cut. They were at their best between 200-210, but also from an interest standpoint, if I included Louis, this would be no debate at all.

I wouldnt call Charles the best under 200, but as a HW champ, the guy is WAY under-valued. He doesnt get a fraction of the attention Walcott does, for instance, which does not stand to reason at all.

 

Fair point.

 

is that so?

 

Even if fighters of the 20s were as good as the 50s (which they just aren't) I don't think that'd be true.

 

Hmmm...I wonder where this is going??? I don't agree with that line of thought. To me, fighting the best available option on a regular basis is more valid than cherry picking for extended periods of time.

 

agREED.

 

Add one more, place them in order and then match 1 against 8, 2 against 7 and so on...

 

agreed

Every guy Charles defended against annihlates the likes of Luis Firpo, Billy Miske and Bill Brennan

And just forget about the brutality Rocky Marciano subjects those guys to

 

Marciano, Charles, Walcott and Patterson would hammer the bejesus out of every guy Dempsey faced, including Tunney

Sharkey and Schmeling have more of a prayer against that quartet and even they are likely catching beatings (I'd give Schmeling the puncher's chance against Patterson)

 

btw, ranking Charles above Marciano at Heavyweight is just wrong. JUST WRONG. No justification for it whatsoever.

 

Charles is infinitely greater overall, but purely as heavyweights, I think you'd have to rate Rocky over him and Jersey Joe

 

I was just saying the best HW version of Charles mayve been favourite over Marciano, which doesnt necessarily mean hes greater in ranking.

 

To be fair, Sly did recant on that position.