Where do you rank Jack Dempsey??

[Bad_Intentions]

vote. and discuss.

[jonesjrp4p1]

p4p all time or hw.....im guessing you mean p4p

[jonesjrp4p1]

was this a public poll because if it was how do you find out the voters......i want to know who voted for him out of the top 100

[Ramon Rojo]

Based on achievement i rank him in top 10.

Based on who he can beat head to head he´s not even in my top 50.

Which one are we voting here?

[Bad_Intentions]

was this a public poll because if it was how do you find out the voters......i want to know who voted for him out of the top 100homicidal hank.

[fightking12]

I rank him in 18 of all time

[Zakman]

I rank him # 3. IMO, the GOAT debate should really be a three way affair. Dempsey is horribly underrated today. Until the guys who actually saw him fight started dying off, he was generally thought to have been greater than Louis. I'm not saying he was, but he was closer than people seem to think today.

Dempsey didn't just beat his opponents, he beat them up. People can downgrade his opposition all they want, but Dempsey didn't just beat the guys he fought, he destroyed them. That sort of dominance has to count for something - and like I said, it used to count for a great deal until the guys that followed his career passed away.

[Sonny's jab]

Based on achievement i rank him in top 10.

Based on who he can beat head to head he´s not even in my top 50.


I actually hold the reverse of this view of Dempsey.

I think he rates higher on who he can beat. Taken at his absolute peak I think he has a chance of beating any fighter that ever lived.

On his actual achievements ie. factor in the quality of opposition he actually beat and his amount of meaningful wins in his prime, I'd rate him lower, but still in the top 15, and probably top 10.

[janitor]

There are a few heavyweights that I would not give any human being who had ever boxed much better than even odds against. Dempsey is one of them. As an ofensive fighter and infighter he is without peer at heavyweight.

[janitor]

Willard was a big farmboy. Hardly a fair fight (Johnson obviously took a dive).

I am as big a suporter of Jack Johnson's resume as you will find on this site but I can asure you that he did not take a dive against Willard.

Don't doubt for a second that the knockout was legitimate.

[PowerPuncher]

Around 11 or 12 - my HW list is on my other PC

Reasons for him not making the top10

1. Never beat a top30 ranked HW of all time

2. Weak overall comp

3. Never faced the best HWs of his era Wills, Langford, Godfrey, McVea, Jeanette, Jack Johnson, Harry Greb

4. Wills fought in the same ts Dempsey and has a better resume than Dempsey fighting much better competition.

5. Very innactive as champion

6. Losses to Tunney and in his days as a contender hurt him.

The following have far better wins in defining fights: Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Wills, Langford, Tyson, Holmes, Louis, Schmelling, Marciano, Walcott, Charles, Lennox Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe, Liston, Tunney, Jack Johnson.

[janitor]

The following have far better wins in defining fights: Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Wills, Langford, Tyson, Holmes, Louis, Schmelling, Marciano, Walcott, Charles, Lennox Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe, Liston, Tunney, Jack Johnson.

Or is a little of what Dempsey acomplished getting lost in translation?

[McGrain]

Johnson is one of the fighters I know a little bit about; I'm quite happy he didn't take a dive.

I have Dempsey at #12. This is based primarily on how I see him going head to head and what i've seen him do on film. He'd be a handful for anyone, though I see the top guys beating him 2/3.

If Dempsey had Greb, Wills and maybe McVey (?) on his resume then i'd have to re-think things. Those would be some scalps.

I know i'm in the minority, but I also think he should have entertained Johnson.

[McGrain]

5. Very innactive as champion.

This winds me up too. Wasn't he the most inactive champ?

At least Willard assembled a mad travelling circus type affair. Dempsey just fannied about.

[Minotauro]

I have him at around 9-10 on my greatest heavyweights.

[Rattler]

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Lewis
4. Johnson
5. Holmes
6. Marciano
7. Dempsey

[McGrain]

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Lewis
4. Johnson
5. Holmes
6. Marciano
7. Dempsey

You've accidentaly put Marciano at 6.

[Rattler]

This winds me up too. Wasn't he the most inactive champ?

At least Willard assembled a mad travelling circus type affair. Dempsey just fannied about.

It wasn't uncommon for the HW champ in those days to sit on the title and lighten his fight schedule.

You gotta remember, the HW Champion in those days, was an incredibly prestigious accomplishment and you could make a lot of money doing Vaudeville, endorsements and fighting exhibitions. It was smarter financially, not to fight and risk losing the belt.

Lose the belt and you lose your money maker - at a time when, for a guy like Dempsey, there wasn't any other choice to make real money. What's he gonna do, go back to Colorado and smash rocks?

[McGrain]

It wasn't uncommon for the HW champ in those days to sit on the title and lighten his fight schedule.


Of course - but was he the most inactive? I mean, was he the laziest champion even in relative terms.

[Rattler]

Of course - but was he the most inactive? I mean, was he the laziest champion even in relative terms.

Maybe, but he was easily the most popular HW champion of that time, too. Dempsey was like the Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan of his day - a flat out rock star before the phrase had been coined. He didn't just make a good payday from his HW reign, he became incredibly rich for the time.

[McGrain]

Maybe, but he was easily the most popular HW champion of that time, too. Dempsey was like the Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan of his day - a flat out rock star before the phrase had been coined. He didn't just make a good payday from his HW reign, he became incredibly rich for the time.

Disgarding for just a second the relative merits and sacrifice required, Jordan and Woods have earned their millions and adoration in a way that Dempsey never did as champ. Those guys are/were always at it.

Of course, golf isn't a sport but you see what I mean?

[janitor]

At least Willard assembled a mad travelling circus type affair. Dempsey just fannied about.

He also made some of the worst films of all time.

This should count against his legacy.

[janitor]

At least Willard assembled a mad travelling circus type affair. Dempsey just fannied about.

He also made some of the worst films of all time.

This should count against his legacy.

[Rattler]

Disgarding for just a second the relative merits and sacrifice required, Jordan and Woods have earned their millions and adoration in a way that Dempsey never did as champ. Those guys are/were always at it.

Of course, golf isn't a sport but you see what I mean?

It's not the same, McGrain.

Woods and Jordan work within the framework of organized leagues. It's not like Woods can say, "Yeah, I'll play the Masters but let's move it to July.". If he's not there when they host it, then he ain't playing it. Same for Jordan. The games went on, whether he was there or not.

Boxing is boxing.

I'm not excusing Dempsey - but I am pointing out that relative to that time and era, where opportunity for boxers (who were crawling out the of the academic woodwork) was slim outside their sport (and even within their sport), Dempsey's inactivity is understandable. Jess Willard did pretty good for himself until Jack annihilated him. After that.... what? Look at Jack Johnson... Jeffries... outside of boxing as the champ or against the champ, their chance of making a good livelihood comparative to boxing success, was highly limited.

Dempsey (and fighters that followed him) paid attention to that.

[McGrain]

It's not the same, McGrain.

Of course, you can apply relativism if you want, but is is the same. I wouldn't expect Dempsey to box every week. But I would expect him to box much more that he did.


I'm not excusing Dempsey - but I am pointing out that relative to that time and era, where opportunity for boxers (who were crawling out the of the academic woodwork) was slim outside their sport (and even within their sport), Dempsey's inactivity is understandable.

In the sense that I understand it - but as you've said understanding doesn't equal excusing. Powerpuncher's post refered to the impact on Dempsey's legacy caused by his inactivity - I agree that there is one. I bet you do too.

[Rattler]

Of course, you can apply relativism if you want, but is is the same. I wouldn't expect Dempsey to box every week. But I would expect him to box much more that he did.

No, it's not. The truth is, Dempsey chose to fight infrequently - in part because of the financial opportunities that being the champ offered; in part because of the unwillingness to fight blacks.

Do you think Harry Greb would've fought as often, if he was making money per fight like Dempsey was? No, he wouldn't have - because he didn't NEED to. Dempsey didn't either. It was his choice, yes - but compared to EVERY other fighter at smaller weights or being a HW who wasn't the champion (and being the top contender isn't going to make you instantly rich), Dempsey didn't need to box. With one fight, he'd make as much in a year as 99.99% of all other fighters could make fighting 20 times in the same time period.

In the sense that I understand it - but as you've said understanding doesn't equal excusing. Powerpuncher's post refered to the impact on Dempsey's legacy caused by his inactivity - I agree that there is one. I bet you do too.

There is an impact. It would be foolish not to take that into account - but if I'm only going to rank fighters by accomplishment, then why bother bringing the likes of Wills and Langford up? They didn't win the title. End of story. But it's not.... and I think Dempsey did enough prior to winning the title and after winning the title to be high up the rankings.

When personal evaluation of how I think Dempsey would do against his fellow rankees comes into play, he ends up 7th on my list.

[McGrain]

No, it's not. The truth is, Dempsey chose to fight infrequently - in part because of the financial opportunities that being the champ offered; in part because of the unwillingness to fight blacks.

He could have fought white men of course. Greb would have been an interesting customer.

As for the other thing, all i'm really saying is that Dempsey's wealth and popularity came to him DESPITE of what he did as a boxing champion rather than BECAUSE of, in a way that is probably not possible for the other two sportsmen you mentioned.

Do you think Harry Greb would've fought as often, if he was making money per fight like Dempsey was? No, he wouldn't have - because he didn't NEED to.

Then you must explain why De La Hoya, Bernard Hopkins, Max Schmeling, Jeffries and Willard made fights when rolling in clover. Though I agree that Greb's MAD schedule was financially motivated, there is clearly middle ground for rich fighters.


It would be foolish not to take that into account - but if I'm only going to rank fighters by accomplishment, then why bother bringing the likes of Wills and Langford up? They didn't win the title. End of story.

It ain't the end of the story bro. There are other achievments besides winning the linear heavyweight title. Like winning the more closely contested frequently defended Coloured Heavyweight Title. Or taking out great and accomplished fighters.


When personal evaluation of how I think Dempsey would do against his fellow rankees comes into play, he ends up 7th on my list.

Not unreasonable, but I don't have him that high.

[Bad_Intentions]

I am as big a suporter of Jack Johnson's resume as you will find on this site but I can asure you that he did not take a dive against Willard.

Don't doubt for a second that the knockout was legitimate.:good :good

ps - janitor you have to upload your avataar again. theirs a red x

[Jack Dempsey]

He's in my top ten, I have no idea why anyone would says he's somewhere between 75-100, that is ludicrous

The man was a flame of pure fire who tore through the division like a whirlwind, destroyed the incumbant champ like no-one had done before or since, rose from the hobo camps to being one of the greatest HW champs of all time and the biggest draw in boxing history. 5 count 'em, 5 Million dollar gates!

[McGrain]

He's in my top ten, I have no idea why anyone would says he's somewhere between 75-100, that is ludicrous!

It certainly is a freakish thing to do.

[Rattler]

He could have fought white men of course. Greb would have been an interesting customer.

Who? Who would've been worth the effort financially? Greb, great as he was, was undersized and wouldn't have made Dempsey a lot of money for the risk. We've established that the "coin" heavily influenced Dempsey's career. Greb is a HUGE risk, for a fight where Dempsey would be heavily expected to win anyways.

As for the other thing, all i'm really saying is that Dempsey's wealth and popularity came to him DESPITE of what he did as a boxing champion rather than BECAUSE of, in a way that is probably not possible for the other two sportsmen you mentioned.

Tiger Woods had a $50 million dollar endorsement deal with Nike before he won his first Grand Slam. LeBron had a $90 million dollar shoe deal before he ever played a professional game. The difference between then and now, and how much success an athlete could have is monumental.

If you weren't HW champ, forget making a lot of money in boxing - especially if you weren't a HW to begin with. Without that HW title, you better believe Dempsey's financial opportunity is severly affected. It's not like he could go out and get a commercial deal for Hanes underwear after his career was over. Holding the belt equaled money; not having held it or being expected to hold it. Not in those days.

Then you must explain why De La Hoya, Bernard Hopkins, Max Schmeling, Jeffries and Willard made fights when rolling in clover. Though I agree that Greb's MAD schedule was financially motivated, there is clearly middle ground for rich fighters.

De La Hoya has fought 11 times in the last 7 years. Not even an average of two fights per year, which is near average nowadays. Why? Because he could sit and wait for the next big payday to show.

All these guys have something in common with Dempsey - once they started making money, they fought less frequently. That's why you aim for the titles - the money, and the freedom to fight when you want, not at the whim of keeping yourself noticed to garner a title fight. Dempsey is an aggrevated version of that, but it's the same thing.

It ain't the end of the story bro.

That's why I said, "But it's not..."

There are other achievments besides winning the linear heavyweight title. Like winning the more closely contested frequently defended Coloured Heavyweight Title. Or taking out great and accomplished fighters.

Of course. But ranking these guys, is subjective in every way. We know Wills and Langford were great, but how great? We can't really be sure. It's not their fault they didn't get the chance to fight Dempsey, but who's to say that Dempsey doesn't just dispatch of them easily and make the argument moot? It's possible.

I rank Wills 13th and Langford 15th - because of what they did regarding the colored title. But, I favor Dempsey's style to beat them. So I rank him higher.

Not unreasonable, but I don't have him that high.

Of course.

[Jack Dempsey]

It certainly is a freakish thing to do.

I understand some people do not rate him, but that sort of placing is an insult

[McGrain]

Greb, great as he was, was undersized and wouldn't have made Dempsey a lot of money for the risk

But since when is it ok to duck a guy who could beat you because the money isn't right (never mind because of their colour, though I know there were cirumstances)? Why would we ever say, "Ali didn't fight Frazier, there wasn't enough cash, so it's OK"? And even if something like this did happen, who would Ali be fighting instead? Because he'd be fighting somebody.

If a fighter becomes a victim of his times and suffers because of it, I have sympathy, but he still has to suffer. Dempsey shared an era with arguably two of the best ever in Greb and Wills and failed to fight them and also failed to fight someone else instead. I personally cannot excuse him for this failure because there was money to be made in the movies - as a fighter. As a man, I excuse him, but not as a fighter.



Tiger Woods had a $50 million dollar endorsement deal with Nike before he won his first Grand Slam

I am absolutley certain to the tune of 100% that that deal would contain provisos regarding his activity as a golfer. He's expected to earn that crust.


If you weren't HW champ, forget making a lot of money in boxing - especially if you weren't a HW to begin with. Without that HW title, you better believe Dempsey's financial opportunity is severly affected.

Fair enough. But he still has to take the hit as far as legacy goes.

De La Hoya has fought 11 times in the last 7 years. Not even an average of two fights per year, which is near average nowadays. Why?

Because he is semi-retired and because he is fighting at the absolute pinicale of the sport. 11 in 7 is only slightly below average, as you've stated. And he doesn't need the money. There is no way Oscar is boxing for the cash.


I rank Wills 13th and Langford 15th - because of what they did regarding the colored title. But, I favor Dempsey's style to beat them.

Actually so do I, though my limited knowledge makes Dempsey only a slight favourite in the Wills fight. But as you've said it's pure speculation because the fight never took place. Load most of the blame onto society - Dempsey takes a small portion. Wills is totally blameless. In situations like this one I always ere on the side of the wronged man, it's not subjective but there it is. Wills deserved his shot and the champ didn't give him one. Probably he was taking singing lessons.

It's a pleasure discussing this stuff with you.

[Bad_Intentions]

I understand some people do not rate him, but that sort of placing is an insulti know, it's pretty sad :-(

[McGrain]

I understand some people do not rate him, but that sort of placing is an insult


It's actually fairly reasonable to dismiss someone who places Dempsey in the bottom half of the top 100 as a boxing expert. It could be said to betray a lack of knowledge or bias which is so endemic that every word that man offered up for consideration could be dismissed out of hand.

[Bad_Intentions]

atleast mcgrain's opinion of placing dempsey in the top 15 it's better than not placing him in the top 100.

dempsey was the babe ruth of boxing, he even became more famous than baberuth in the 1920's.

[Rattler]

But since when is it ok to duck a guy who could beat you because the money isn't right (never mind because of their colour, though I know there were cirumstances)? Why would we ever say, "Ali didn't fight Frazier, there wasn't enough cash, so it's OK"? And even if something like this did happen, who would Ali be fighting instead? Because he'd be fighting somebody.

I'm not saying it's okay - I'm just saying that some people value money, others value legacy and competetive virtue and some value both. I think that once Dempsey tasted the good life, it affected in what direction his career went.

If a fighter becomes a victim of his times and suffers because of it, I have sympathy, but he still has to suffer. Dempsey shared an era with arguably two of the best ever in Greb and Wills and failed to fight them and also failed to fight someone else instead. I personally cannot excuse him for this failure because there was money to be made in the movies - as a fighter. As a man, I excuse him, but not as a fighter.

I place a great deal of value on head-to-head with these rankings. So, I'm going to rank Dempsey high. So, while I do agree he must be "punished" for how his career went following his obtaining the title, it's not as marked as it would be for you or somebody else.

Holyfield fought EVERYBODY, but he also lost a lot of those fights - whereas Dempsey didn't do the fighting, but only lost to Tunney and Miske once he became the established fighter we think of him as. Does Holy get more credit for taking the fights and losing than Dempsey for not taking them at all?

I am absolutley certain to the tune of 100% that that deal would contain provisos regarding his activity as a golfer. He's expected to earn that crust.

I would defer to you on that, but the point is the opportunity was there for him to earn it. Nobody was gonna pay a million dollars to Dempsey if he became world champ. The money offers only came once he won it and for as long as he kept it.

Fair enough. But he still has to take the hit as far as legacy goes.

Absolutely - but then we're back in the waters of subjectivity and personal inclination.

Because he is semi-retired and because he is fighting at the absolute pinicale of the sport. 11 in 7 is only slightly below average, as you've stated. And he doesn't need the money. There is no way Oscar is boxing for the cash.

Then why even worry about negotiating money matters? Take $5 million a fight, no matter what. It's an assload of money. And why do it on Pay-Per-View.... isn't a legacy enhanced if people can see you perform at a high level? There's no doubt legacy and competetiveness plays an important part for De La Hoya, but for a guy who doesn't need the cash, he sure makes an effort to optimize his ability to get every last penny he can get.

Actually so do I, though my limited knowledge makes Dempsey only a slight favourite in the Wills fight. But as you've said it's pure speculation because the fight never took place. Load most of the blame onto society - Dempsey takes a small portion. Wills is totally blameless. In situations like this one I always ere on the side of the wronged man, it's not subjective but there it is. Wills deserved his shot and the champ didn't give him one. Probably he was taking singing lessons.

I can't fault you for sympathizing with Wills plight; I'm only attempting to give an understanding to why Dempsey chose the things he did do... or didn't. It's just not enough for me to overlook how good, in a pure boxing sense, Dempsey was.

It's a pleasure discussing this stuff with you.

:good Mine too.

[McGrain]

I'm not saying it's okay - I'm just saying that some people value money, others value legacy and competetive virtue and some value both. I think that once Dempsey tasted the good life, it affected in what direction his career went.

Our loss I guess!



I place a great deal of value on head-to-head with these rankings. So, I'm going to rank Dempsey high. So, while I do agree he must be "punished" for how his career went following his obtaining the title, it's not as marked as it would be for you or somebody else.

...actually head to head is the most important aspect for me too. I do factor in other stuff. Truth be told Dempsey's inactivaty as champ is just a personal gripe of mine. In all of heavyweight history would there have been more combined quality in the ring in any other fight if Dempsey had stepped in with Wills? Only Ali-Frazier comes close I think.

[qoute]Does Holy get more credit for taking the fights and losing than Dempsey for not taking them at all?[/quote]

This is actually an interesting one. Another way to ask the question: can Hollyfield look great losing tough fights to all time top 30 fighters than Dempsey can beating men who are not in his class?



Then why even worry about negotiating money matters? Take $5 million a fight, no matter what. It's an assload of money. And why do it on Pay-Per-View.... isn't a legacy enhanced if people can see you perform at a high level? There's no doubt legacy and competetiveness plays an important part for De La Hoya, but for a guy who doesn't need the cash, he sure makes an effort to optimize his ability to get every last penny he can get.

Very fair point. I would say that De La Hoya wanted to be every bit as succesful as a promoter as he was as a fighter, if not more so. He'd want to do the best business possible, that is just in him, and business success tends to be measured in terms of money in the bank. All kidding aside, he may lack your vision in this matter! Put it this way, I think he'd do things differently in 20 years time, looking back.

Got to split now, family commitment.:twisted:

[PowerPuncher]

There is an impact. It would be foolish not to take that into account - but if I'm only going to rank fighters by accomplishment, then why bother bringing the likes of Wills and Langford up? They didn't win the title. End of story. But it's not.... and I think Dempsey did enough prior to winning the title and after winning the title to be high up the rankings.
.

Accomplishments are not simply titles but more importantly beating great fighters. Wills and Langford would have both been champs if given equal opportunities.

Who are Dempseys wins that rank him so high? He simply hasn't beaten great fighters and didn't face the best of his time

Dempsey looks great on film and was very skillfull, head to head he probably ranks higher. But because he didn't face the best even this is hard to be sure of

[Rattler]

Our loss I guess!

Definitely.

...actually head to head is the most important aspect for me too. I do factor in other stuff. Truth be told Dempsey's inactivaty as champ is just a personal gripe of mine. In all of heavyweight history would there have been more combined quality in the ring in any other fight if Dempsey had stepped in with Wills? Only Ali-Frazier comes close I think.

While I'm bothered by the "what-if's" that Dempsey created for himself and his legacy, I'm reminded that this guy lived an extremely meager existence for a large part of his early life. I can only surmise, having never been there myself, that being that poor has a huge affect on how you view the world and what you value most. We can't forget that these guys are human, in a brutal sport where most fighters never reach enough success to live comfortably, at least. That's why a Joe Louis can do what he did and still end up a greeter at a casino in Las Vegas.

This is actually an interesting one. Another way to ask the question: can Hollyfield look great losing tough fights to all time top 30 fighters than Dempsey can beating men who are not in his class?

I give Holyfield credit for losing tough to Bowe and Lewis; as I do for Dempsey, being out of shape and doing what he did against Tunney in the rematch - against a tough stylistic matchup. A loss is a loss, but there's good and bad losses. Holyfield's got some doozy "good losses", which helps him.

While not deserving as much, Dempsey still gets credit for the manner in which he won as champion. Look at Hagler; he beat Duran, without great difficulty, but he was supposed to demolish him and he didn't, so it gets held against him. But beating Duran, under any circumstance, is an accomplishment because he's that damn good.

Brennan, Gibbons, Carpentier and Miske are not Wills, but they aren't meat. Dempsey was supposed to trump them and he did. There's something to be said for doing what you're supposed to do.

Very fair point. I would say that De La Hoya wanted to be every bit as succesful as a promoter as he was as a fighter, if not more so. He'd want to do the best business possible, that is just in him, and business success tends to be measured in terms of money in the bank. All kidding aside, he may lack your vision in this matter! Put it this way, I think he'd do things differently in 20 years time, looking back.

I think De La Hoya will be sufficiently satisfied 20 years from now; he's too smart to not realize exactly what he does and how it's measured in all ways.

Got to split now, family commitment.:twisted:

Family always comes first.:good

[janitor]

Who are Dempseys wins that rank him so high? He simply hasn't beaten great fighters and didn't face the best of his time


Just because sombody dosn't fight the best available challenger dosn't mean that their resume is necisarily worse than that of sombody who did.

Dempsey beat a prety deep body of opposition.

[Sonny's jab]

Holyfield fought EVERYBODY, but he also lost a lot of those fights - whereas Dempsey didn't do the fighting, but only lost to Tunney and Miske once he became the established fighter we think of him as.

15 years into Holyfield's career, and at the age of 37 (past his best, methinks) the only people to beat Holyfield were Bowe, Moorer and Lewis.
That's not "a lot" of losses.

Moorer was the weakest name of the three, but he was an undefeated southpaw, and the fight was VERY CLOSE.

Lennox Lewis was a great fighter.

Riddick Bowe was a real quality young strong undefeated fighter. You'd be hard-pressed to find many challengers as good as a 1992 Bowe who were defeated by any of the great champions.

Bowe was still young and undefeated in 1993 when Holyfield outboxed him.

Holyfield was competitive in both his losing efforts with Bowe, and certainly in the 2nd fight with Lewis. The Moorer loss was razor-close.

Holyfield was good enough to beat Bowe and Moorer while they were still top-level contenders/champions.

These are the facts.


Does Holy get more credit for taking the fights and losing than Dempsey for not taking them at all?


Well, I ask myself : would I rate Holyfield higher if he had failed to face Bowe, and Lewis and had just racked up a string of wins over lesser fighters ?
Answer : No, I'd rate him lower.

Therefore, Holyfield gets more credit.

[janitor]

Well, I ask myself : would I rate Holyfield higher if he had failed to face Bowe, and Lewis and had just racked up a string of wins over lesser fighters ?
Answer : No, I'd rate him lower.

Therefore, Holyfield gets more credit.

Dempsey might not have faced his Lennox Lewis but he anihilated his Michael Moorer.

[Rattler]

Accomplishments are not simply titles but more importantly beating great fighters. Wills and Langford would have both been champs if given equal opportunities.

Probably.

Who are Dempseys wins that rank him so high? He simply hasn't beaten great fighters and didn't face the best of his time.

I believe that Fulton, Brennan and Miske all would've been the HW champion if Dempsey wasn't in their way. Were they "great" in the sense that Wills, Langford or Dempsey are? No. But they were very good. Of the white HW's, they were the best.

Dempsey looks great on film and was very skillfull, head to head he probably ranks higher. But because he didn't face the best even this is hard to be sure of

Yes, it is. But we can assume, which is the lynchpin of all these rankings, and I assume in favor of Dempsey.

I don't disregard anyone else for thinking otherwise.

But it does make for good debate.:good

[Rattler]

So, by your definition, HH... the HW division is now better than it's ever been?

I mean, if it "gets better over time" and all that.

[Rattler]

Except for Gibbons, who made him look ordinary, he beat nobody of any merit whatsoever.

The Sharkey victory was complete bullshit. Sharkey was hardly a great fighter, and Dempsey had to foul to win.

He lost twice to the best light heavyweight of his day in Gene Tunney.

He's simply not a great heavyweight.

This is a classic case of myth of reality. People like the story of the Manassa Mauler so much they become delusional about his ability to compete among modern heavyweights.

So.... Dempsey gets owned by Shannon Briggs then, right?

[janitor]

Definitely. Briggs would destroy Dempsey.

You don't seriously believe otherwise, do you? Seriously?

I don't want to apear delusional but what exactly dose Briggs have that might cause Dempsey any serious trouble?

[janitor]

[quote=Homicidal Hank]You look at the 10 best heavyweights for every decade of gloved boxing. Can Dempsey fit anywhere in there? For most decades, the answer is no.

In which decades exactly would Dempsey not be in the top 10?

I am curious to know.

[janitor]

I made an historical observation. Over the past 100 years the heavyweight division has improved.

What improvments have their been since Dempsey's day exactly?

[Sonny's jab]

Dempsey might not have faced his Lennox Lewis but he anihilated his Michael Moorer.

Who are you refering to ?

[Jack]

What improvments have their been since Dempsey's day exactly?"Improvements"? None. However, there have been a lot of big changes. Boxing in Dempsey's era was suited for that era, just like the modern day style is suited for the modern era. You simply cannot deny there is a massive contrast in styles. And it's ridiculous to think boxers could make the transition with ease.

I don't want to apear delusional but what exactly dose Briggs have that might cause Dempsey any serious trouble?A lot more power than anyone who knocked Dempsey down? He was hurt against Gene Tunney. A man who wasn't a heavy hitter. If he could knock Dempsey down, think about what Shannon Briggs would do. He could kill him and that's not an exaggeration either.



On achievements, probably about 12. Head to head with the rules of his era, 2-3. Head to head in the modern era, anything from 20-30.

[dmt]

HH, u simply are the most biased poster on the forum. No use arguing with someone who claims Dempsey is at the bottom of the top 100.

[PowerPuncher]

Dempsey might not have faced his Lennox Lewis but he anihilated his Michael Moorer.

Michael Moorer = Tunney

[dmt]

Definitely. Briggs would destroy Dempsey.

You don't seriously believe otherwise, do you? Seriously?:nut :nut :nut :nut coming from a guy who thinks of Roy Jones as an atg heavy, of course u can't expect more

[My dinner with Conteh]

HH, u simply are the most biased poster on the forum. No use arguing with someone who claims Dempsey is at the bottom of the top 100.


I still had to laugh regardless. :D

[dmt]

Michael Moorer = TunneyNo Tunney is way better then Moorer. Moorer more comparable to Gibbons

[janitor]

[quote=Jack]"Improvements"? None. However, there have been a lot of big changes. Boxing in Dempsey's era was suited for that era, just like the modern day style is suited for the modern era. You simply cannot deny there is a massive contrast in styles. And it's ridiculous to think boxers could make the transition with ease.


If we are ranking the greatest fighters over the past 100 years then surely the fighters should be ranked acording to how efective they were under the rule set of their own time.

If you grade them on how they would fair under the curent rule set then you are efectively taking a rule set from a random point in time and biasing the results in favour of fighters from that time.

A lot more power than anyone who knocked Dempsey down? He was hurt against Gene Tunney. A man who wasn't a heavy hitter. If he could knock Dempsey down, think about what Shannon Briggs would do.

Briggs has pleanty of power but not much else. So did Jess Willard and Carl Moriss and look what good it did them.

The reason that Tunney knocked Dempsey down while they did not was because he had superb boxing technique and could tag Dempsey with shots he did not see coming.

Virtualy every heavyweight champion has been droped by sombody with much less power than Briggs and it has not got him verry far.

[janitor]

Who are you refering to ?

Michael Moorer = Tunney

Let's say for the sake of argument that Michael Moorer is equal to Battling Levinski, Georges Carpinter or Tommy Gibbons.

[joe33]

Any one who says dempseys not a top 75 all time great,should leave the board and go back to there beer,FFS i cant believe the shit i read sometimes on here,mostly its a great place to find things out,from guys who know more about boxing then anyone,but seriously at other times its sad as hell.
He was a legend then,and was treated like one,we are seriouly failing to think on this rightly so,go back to his day and say he was shit,and you would get probaly killed and rightly so.
Also its a pity he never took on the black boxers,but its funny how people knick HIM and his record,but are more then willying to say the black guys were great and could have won,how the hell do you know this?

[janitor]

That's ridiculous. Moorer would beat both Tunney and Gibbons easily.

How do you know?

[janitor]

It's easy to name 25 heavyweights who were better than Dempsey: Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, George Foreman, Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe, Evander Holyfield, Vitali Klitschko, Michael Spinks, Ken Norton, Ron Lyle, Earnie Shavers, James Douglas, Tim Witherspoon, Tony Tucker, Floyd Patterson, Earnie Terrell, Joe Louis, Cleveland Williams, Zora Folley, Ezzard Charles, Rocky Marciano, Eddie Machen, Jersey Joe Walcott, Jack Johnson, and Gene Tunney. (Actually, I think that's more than 25....)

Now justify why they are all better.

Clearly some of them have inferior resume's.

[Jack]

If we are ranking the greatest fighters over the past 100 years then surely the fighters should be ranked acording to how efective they were under the rule set of their own time. I agree. However, in head to head match-ups, you can't use that argument. It has to be judge on how you think the fight would go.

I personally have two seperatetop 10 lists. One for the modern and another the classic era. This means that people like Roy Jones or Winky Wright come nowhere in one list, whilst Bob Fitzsimmons scrapes the top 80.
If you grade them on how they would fair under the curent rule set then you are efectively taking a rule set from a random point in time and biasing the results in favour of fighters from that time. Well, yeah. I would even it out and say that if it's under classic rules, the modern boxer has a disadvantage. In head to head match-ups, rules have got to e taken into account though.
Briggs has pleanty of power but not much else. So did Jess Willard and Carl Moriss and look what good it did them. Neither as much as Briggs though. A Willard knocked Dempsey down, whereas I wouldn't say Morris came close to being as powerful as Briggs.
The reason that Tunney knocked Dempsey down while they did not was because he had superb boxing technique and could tag Dempsey with shots he did not see coming.Fair enough. Just out of interest, what other cases do you apply this to? Lewis/McCall, Lewis/Rahman, amongst others, I presume?
Virtualy every heavyweight champion has been droped by sombody with much less power than Briggs and it has not got him verry far.Briggs' record isn't bad. Considering he has asthma, which granted, isn't an excuse, he has had a good career. Heavyweight champion, beaten some good fights and has had a good run recently.

[joe33]

You my friend are round the bend guys like tubbs and rahman were better then dempsey,what a silly thing to say.

[PowerPuncher]

No Tunney is way better then Moorer. Moorer more comparable to Gibbons

Moorer and Tunney are different but on the same level. Moorer was bigger, faster and hit harder. Tunney had better defense, technique and timing. Both were skilled boxers

A fight between the 2 would be a toss up.

[OLD FOGEY]

He also made some of the worst films of all time.

This should count against his legacy.

True. Nothing like Jack Roper in "The Quiet Man" making his mark
on film history.

[jhar26]

We know Wills and Langford were great, but how great? We can't really be sure. It's not their fault they didn't get the chance to fight Dempsey, but who's to say that Dempsey doesn't just dispatch of them easily and make the argument moot? It's possible.

Sure, but the reverse is also possible. Who knows? And since it's Dempsey (or Tex Rickard) who was unwilling to fight the best blacks of his era and not the other way around, those fights not happening are Dempsey's fault and can't be held against Wills and Langford.

[joe33]

Maybe they were not as good as people think then,maybe they were looked at and insted of dempsey being scared like ive read loads of times,he felt they had nothing and thus did not fight them,what footage is there of them?,how would you all rate them,and being honest,do you think they would have beat a prime dempsey?

[Luigi1985]

It was the closest to my answer, which is somewhere between 100 and 75... maybe.

I make no bones about it: I am unimpressed with Dempsey. Firpo couldn't fight worth a shit, and Dempsey hardly looked brilliant against him. Willard was a big farmboy. Hardly a fair fight (Johnson obviously took a dive). Gibbons had Dempsey tied up in knots. Carpentier - in a sin of a mismatch - staggered Dempsey. Dempsey lost huge to the best fighter he ever fought - Gene Tunney - and Gene was a light heavyweight who was mugged by Harry Greb (twice, it appears). Dempsey had to foul his way to the rematch with Tunney. Oh, and he was sparked in a single round by Fireman Jim Flynn.

The heavyweight division was sad sack of talent back then. Dempsey was the best they had for a while - the best of about as big a bunch of non-scientists as there likely ever was. Tunney would have been slaughted in the 1960s heavyweight division. Dempsey was good as a toughman, but to count him among the elite of the division is to way overrated him.


I would have been surprised if you put a white man in your Top 100... :lol:


(except Duran)

[groove]

Dempsey at his peak was deadly. He was past it in the Tunney fights. He was quick and had excellent punches. His left hook was great. He would get inside and demolish a lot of fighters. Read his scientific boxing book. He was an intelligent fighter. The best white Heavy of all time in my eyes.

[OLD FOGEY]

Here's another 25 + fighters who were better than Jack Dempsey: Jerry Quarry, Gerry Cooney, Tony Tubbs, Greg Page, Jimmy Ellis, George Chuvalo, Pinklon Thomas, Nino Valdes, Tommy Farr, Trevor Berbick, Frank Bruno, Archie Moore, Ray Mercer, Michael Moorer, Shannon Briggs, Roy Jones Jr., James Toney, Hasim Rahman, Wlad Klitschko, Michael Dokes, Ingemar Johnanson, David Tua, Gerrie Coetzee, Sam Peter, Tommy Morrison, Andrew Golota

You forgot Lamar Clark.

[Luigi1985]

Here's another 25 + fighters who were better than Jack Dempsey: Jerry Quarry, Gerry Cooney, Tony Tubbs, Greg Page, Jimmy Ellis, George Chuvalo, Pinklon Thomas, Nino Valdes, Tommy Farr, Trevor Berbick, Frank Bruno, Archie Moore, Ray Mercer, Michael Moorer, Shannon Briggs, Roy Jones Jr., James Toney, Hasim Rahman, Wlad Klitschko, Michael Dokes, Ingemar Johnanson, David Tua, Gerrie Coetzee, Sam Peter, Tommy Morrison, Andrew Golota


:rofl


Moorer? Everyone who knows me here knows that Moorer is one of my favourite fighters, but, c´mon, don´t be ridiculous, Dempsey beat better fighters and would be much better head-to-head. Toney, what did this fighter beside trash talking? At HW not much. Cooney, the overrated hyped up white hope, Jones Jr., a man with 1 HW fight, Golota, another "Could have, should have, would have, etc." but didn´t, Dokes, a coke addict with a best win over Weaver, etc., I could go on, you showed once again that you´re the most biased poster here on ESB...

[Bad_Intentions]

luigi is that greb in ur avataar?

[Luigi1985]

luigi is that greb in ur avataar?


No, it´s Mario Bosisio, pretty good fighter, here, look:


Mario Bosisio ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[jhar26]

Maybe they were not as good as people think then,maybe they were looked at and insted of dempsey being scared like ive read loads of times,he felt they had nothing and thus did not fight them,what footage is there of them?,how would you all rate them,and being honest,do you think they would have beat a prime dempsey?
Jack Dempsey was offered a fight with Sam Langford a few years before Jack won the heavyweight title.....'I think Sam Langford was the greatest fighter we ever had',' said Dempsey in 1970. When Langford's name was mentionned he turned him down flat. 'Not me! Goodbye!' he said. 'He was a great fighter and I didn't have the experience to fight a man like that. Even at my best I don't know whether I could have licked him or not.'

Dempsey was willing to fight Wills, and in 1922 he signed to do so, but Tex Rickard kept finding ways of avoiding the fight. Once, Dempsey's lawyers even paid Wills $50.000 in compensation. I'm not saying that Dempsey himself was perse unwilling to fight these guys when he had the title, but it's clear that he didn't consider the result of a possible fight with either of these guys a foregone conclusion and the people around him clearly considered fighting these guys too big of a risk.

[janitor]

Here's another 25 + fighters who were better than Jack Dempsey: Jerry Quarry, Gerry Cooney, Tony Tubbs, Greg Page, Jimmy Ellis, George Chuvalo, Pinklon Thomas, Nino Valdes, Tommy Farr, Trevor Berbick, Frank Bruno, Archie Moore, Ray Mercer, Michael Moorer, Shannon Briggs, Roy Jones Jr., James Toney, Hasim Rahman, Wlad Klitschko, Michael Dokes, Ingemar Johnanson, David Tua, Gerrie Coetzee, Sam Peter, Tommy Morrison, Andrew Golota

With all due respect I could name a thousand fighters and say that they were better than Jack Dempsey but justifying it would be another matter.

So how exactly are they better than Dempsey?

Obviously not in terms of resume because most of them were foot notes in their respective eras.

So the only way that they could even theoreticaly be better than Dempsey is head to head. Of course head to head rankings suffer from the weakness that they are entirely speculative.

Lets face it we can't all be right on these fantasy match ups.

[janitor]

[quote=Jack]I agree. However, in head to head match-ups, you can't use that argument. It has to be judge on how you think the fight would go.


For head to head match ups I tend to use a compromise rule set eg split the difference between the two era's.


Fair enough. Just out of interest, what other cases do you apply this to? Lewis/McCall, Lewis/Rahman, amongst others, I presume?


To be honest I think most one punch knockouts ocur due to sombody getting clocked with something they don't see coming. Even fighters with questionable chins can somtimes take a bomb if the see it coming and brace themsef.

[Bad_Intentions]

No, it´s Mario Bosisio, pretty good fighter, here, look:


Mario Bosisio ([Only registered and activated users can see links])great record. :good

[OLD FOGEY]

With all due respect I could name a thousand fighters and say that they were better than Jack Dempsey but justifying it would be another matter.

So how exactly are they better than Dempsey?

Obviously not in terms of resume because most of them were foot notes in their respective eras.

So the only way that they could even theoreticaly be better than Dempsey is head to head. Of course head to head rankings suffer from the weakness that they are entirely speculative.

Lets face it we can't all be right on these fantasy match ups.

This post really hits the nail on the head.

[PowerPuncher]

I believe that Fulton, Brennan and Miske all would've been the HW champion if Dempsey wasn't in their way. Were they "great" in the sense that Wills, Langford or Dempsey are? No. But they were very good. Of the white HW's, they were the best.


Greb and Tunney may argue with that

Greb has an amazing resume, was P4P no1, beat Gibbons numerous times (including a year before he met Dempsey) who came close with Dempsey and of course went 50-50 with Tunney in there serious. He also beat Miske and Meehan. He beat every LHW worth talking about. He also gave Dempsey problems in sparring.

[Bummy Davis]

I got Dempsey at top 5, he was amazing in his day,the first high speed swarmer/slugger, who could hurt you with either hand, HARD as steel when he fought Willard but in the days of the first million dollar gate it was hard to stay active and fit once on top. Even an older Dempsey was still a tough and as mean as a LION when he KO'd Jack Sharkey. DEMPSEY was the first Modern Heavyweight Champion

[Rattler]

Greb and Tunney may argue with that

Greb has an amazing resume, was P4P no1, beat Gibbons numerous times (including a year before he met Dempsey) who came close with Dempsey and of course went 50-50 with Tunney in there serious. He also beat Miske and Meehan. He beat every LHW worth talking about. He also gave Dempsey problems in sparring.

Greb fought HW's, but wasn't a HW per se, thus my not including him. Tunney, to a lesser effect, is the same. That's the reason I excluded them.

[PowerPuncher]

With all due respect I could name a thousand fighters and say that they were better than Jack Dempsey but justifying it would be another matter.

So how exactly are they better than Dempsey?

Obviously not in terms of resume because most of them were foot notes in their respective eras.

So the only way that they could even theoreticaly be better than Dempsey is head to head. Of course head to head rankings suffer from the weakness that they are entirely speculative.

Lets face it we can't all be right on these fantasy match ups.

If Wills was white and Dempsey was black, Dempsey would have been the footnote.

If Holyfield never faced Bowe, Lennox Lewis, Moorer his reign would have looked more impressive than Dempseys. He did fight the top contenders where as Dempsey did not

[PowerPuncher]

Greb fought HW's, but wasn't a HW per se, thus my not including him. Tunney, to a lesser effect, is the same. That's the reason I excluded them.

Dempsey fought allot of LHWs outside of Greb though, it was very common in these times for LHWs and MWs to fight HWs, as can be seen from Dempsey/Johnsons comp. greb did call out Dempsey an awful lot but was ignored

[OLD FOGEY]

If Wills was white and Dempsey was black, Dempsey would have been the footnote.

If Holyfield never faced Bowe, Lennox Lewis, Moorer his reign would have looked more impressive than Dempseys. He did fight the top contenders where as Dempsey did not

I would point out myself that the issue of whether a fighter met the
top contenders is not quite the same as simply dismissing him on the
basis of your judgement on how he would fare in a head-to-head
matchup.

[Luigi1985]

great record. :good


Yeah, a very good and unknown fighter... :good

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher]If Wills was white and Dempsey was black, Dempsey would have been the footnote.


If Dempsey had been black he might have had an even better resume. He would not have fought for the title but he would have torn the heavyweight division apart trying to force a title shot as Sam Langford and Harry Wills did.


If Holyfield never faced Bowe, Lennox Lewis, Moorer his reign would have looked more impressive than Dempseys. He did fight the top contenders where as Dempsey did not


If Holyfield had beaten Bowe and Moorer first time round they would be minor figures of the era. It is ironic that the fighters who dominate their oponents the most suffer in terms of legacy as a result.

[Bad_Intentions]

Yeah, a very good and unknown fighter... :goodany footage of him?

[Luigi1985]

any footage of him?


His fights against Rene DeVos and Marcel Thil are on tape, but I haven´t them.

[Marciano Frazier]

1. Never beat a top30 ranked HW of all time
Jack Sharkey is in my top 30, and Willard is borderline.

3. Never faced the best HWs of his era Wills, Langford, Godfrey, McVea, Jeanette, Jack Johnson, Harry Greb
This is very unfair. Langford, McVea, Jeanette, and Johnson were all completely washed up by the time Dempsey was on top, and Godfrey was extremely green. You can hardly reasonably expect him to fight them. And Dempsey himself was willing to fight Wills- he states in his autobiography that fighting Wills was "fine with me" and actually signed a contract to do so- but the powers that were didn't want a potential repeat of the Johnson-Jeffries debacle.


4. Wills fought in the same ts Dempsey and has a better resume than Dempsey fighting much better competition.
Wills came up earlier than Dempsey did, when Langford, McVea and Jeanette were still viable opponents, although past their primes. In the 1918-1923 time period, Dempsey easily beat the better opposition in more dominant fashion.

6. Losses to Tunney and in his days as a contender hurt him.
His first two recorded losses came when he was very, very green, the third was while he was still a hobo and was likely a dive, the fourth was a disputed four-round decision, and the last two were while he was well over-the-hill against an all-time great opponent.

[UpWithEvil]

If Holyfield never faced Bowe, Lennox Lewis, Moorer his reign would have looked more impressive than Dempseys.

If Holyfield didn't make a hobby out of guzzling horse steroids by the feedbag-full, he'd never have been allowed to fight Bowe or Lewis. He could have fought Moorer as a lightheavyweight, though.

[PowerPuncher]

1. Jack Sharkey is in my top 30, and Willard is borderline.

2. This is very unfair. Langford, McVea, Jeanette, and Johnson were all completely washed up by the time Dempsey was on top, and Godfrey was extremely green. You can hardly reasonably expect him to fight them. And Dempsey himself was willing to fight Wills- he states in his autobiography that fighting Wills was "fine with me" and actually signed a contract to do so- but the powers that were didn't want a potential repeat of the Johnson-Jeffries debacle.

3. Wills came up earlier than Dempsey did, when Langford, McVea and Jeanette were still viable opponents, although past their primes. In the 1918-1923 time period, Dempsey easily beat the better opposition in more dominant fashion.

4. His first two recorded losses came when he was very, very green, the third was while he was still a hobo and was likely a dive, the fourth was a disputed four-round decision, and the last two were while he was well over-the-hill against an all-time great opponent.

1. There are too many good HWs for Sharkey to be top30 - just outside. Willard is around top60 as 1 of the worst champions in history, he simply got lucky against Johnson and had all the cards stacked in his favour.

2. Wills, Johnson, Greb, Langford, Mcvey, Jeannette, Godfrey were all better than the opposition Dempsey chose to fight. Some were past prime but Johnson despite been past prime was still top3 in the world.

Dempsey was willing to fight Wills was he? Just like Bowe was willing to fight Lennox Lewis - it didn't happen and hurts both legacies accordingly.

3. Wills came up before Dempsey and stayed at the top for as long as Dempsey. Its fair to argue Wills was no1 in the world and not Dempsey for the period. Wills beat far better comp than Dempsey this much is obvious comparing their resumes

4. Everyone has excuses for losses, the early losses are fine, the later 1s - Meehan and Flyn and Tunney all hurt his standing.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
1. If Dempsey had been black he might have had an even better resume. He would not have fought for the title but he would have torn the heavyweight division apart trying to force a title shot as Sam Langford and Harry Wills did.

2. If Holyfield had beaten Bowe and Moorer first time round they would be minor figures of the era. It is ironic that the fighters who dominate their oponents the most suffer in terms of legacy as a result.

1. Yes if Dempsey was black he may have had a better resume BUT HE DOESN'T.

IF DEMPSEY WAS BLACK HE WOULD NEVER BEEN A CHAMP AND WOULD HAVE BEEN RANKED BEHIND THE WHITE WILLS WHO WOULD'VE BEEN CHAMP.

Automatically putting Dempsey above Wills is based on 1 criteria. RACE!!!!!!!

We can only judge fighters on what they achieve in the ring

2. Dempsey never beat anyone who looked as good as Bowe or Moorer on film. They weren't better opponents because Holyfield lost to them, they were good because they proved to be excellent fighters. The likes of Ruiz and Toney who Holyfield also lost too do not rate as high at HW.

Don't act like Dempseys never lost. He lost to Tunney, Flyn and Meehan. We know these last 2 opponents aren't very good. Tunney rightfully gets props for beating Dempsey

[PowerPuncher]

I would point out myself that the issue of whether a fighter met the
top contenders is not quite the same as simply dismissing him on the
basis of your judgement on how he would fare in a head-to-head
matchup.

We can only judge an opponents likelyhood of beating other greats head to heads after seeing how they perform against the very best. This is something we haven't seen Dempsey face outside of Tunney - who isn't really a great HW himself.

Relatively speaking Anyone can look like Mike Tyson on a punch bag

[Marciano Frazier]

1. There are too many good HWs for Sharkey to be top30 - just outside. Willard is around top60 as 1 of the worst champions in history, he simply got lucky against Johnson and had all the cards stacked in his favour.
I disagree. List 30 heavyweights better than Sharkey and Willard(and I can go into length about why I disagree with your opinion of Willard when I have more time).

2. Wills, Johnson, Greb, Langford, Mcvey, Jeannette, Godfrey were all better than the opposition Dempsey chose to fight.
Only Wills was better at that time.

Some were past prime but Johnson despite been past prime was still top3 in the world.
On what basis??? Johnson hadn't beaten a top 50 heavyweight in the last six years.

Dempsey was willing to fight Wills was he? Just like Bowe was willing to fight Lennox Lewis - it didn't happen and hurts both legacies accordingly.

4. Everyone has excuses for losses, the early losses are fine, the later 1s - Meehan and Flyn and Tunney all hurt his standing.
Yes, but given the circumstances, are not all three of these defeats extremely understandable? It isn't as though all the other champions didn't lose fights as well(aside from Marciano).

[OLD FOGEY]

We can only judge an opponents likelyhood of beating other greats head to heads after seeing how they perform against the very best. This is something we haven't seen Dempsey face outside of Tunney - who isn't really a great HW himself.

Relatively speaking Anyone can look like Mike Tyson on a punch bag

I was really responding to another poster who rated Dempsey below almost everyone apparently on a head-to-head, "fantasy" basis. Your
arguements, whether I agree with any given one or not, are on a
different and much higher plane.

By the way, I am enjoying your debate with Janitor and Marciano-Frazier.

[OLD FOGEY]

I disagree. List 30 heavyweights better than Sharkey and Willard(and I can go into length about why I disagree with your opinion of Willard when I have more time).


Only Wills was better at that time.


On what basis??? Johnson hadn't beaten a top 50 heavyweight in the last six years.

Dempsey was willing to fight Wills was he? Just like Bowe was willing to fight Lennox Lewis - it didn't happen and hurts both legacies accordingly.


Yes, but given the circumstances, are not all three of these defeats extremely understandable? It isn't as though all the other champions didn't lose fights as well(aside from Marciano).

I am intrigued. Why do you consider Willard top 30, or near to, top
30?

[robert ungurean]

Dempsey = Possably the greatest heavyweight ever.
In my top 10 p4p.

[UpWithEvil]

He lost to Tunney, Flyn and Meehan. We know these last 2 opponents aren't very good.

Meehan also beat Sam Langford, who just minutes ago you were lauding as one of "the best HWs of his era".

[janitor]

1. There are too many good HWs for Sharkey to be top30 - just outside. Willard is around top60 as 1 of the worst champions in history, he simply got lucky against Johnson and had all the cards stacked in his favour.


Although Jack Sharkey was inconsistent he actualy has an incredible resume when you take a closer look. Ranked by the number of world class fighters he defeated he is one of the top 10 heavyweights of all time. His resume has far more depth to it than Tunney's and is close to that of Harry Wills. A top 30 slot for him is fine by me and he could easily be ranked higher than Tunney.

I personaly do not rate Willard verry highly for the same reasons as yourself.

One fighter on Dempsey's resume who I do rate just outside my top 30 is Billy Miske. If he had not become seriously ill at a young age he might have posed a verry serious challenge to Dempsey for the title.

A good case can be made for ranking Fred Fulton among the top 50 heavyweights of all time. Willard avoided him for years. Gunboat Smith is also a top 50 candidate.

Tommy Gibbons is a top 15 light heavyweight of all time in my opinion and Battling Levinsky is a top 30 light heavyweight. These are noteworthy wins.

[McGrain]

What a quality thread this has turned out to be...i left it seven hours ago and it was just a baby...

Anyway, we're all agreed, just outside the top 10, right?

:D

[joe33]

3 or 4 for me.

[Bad_Intentions]

hmm, janitor and i have selected top 5. great minds think alike. :rofl

[McGrain]

I don't agree. He didn't do a damn thing to deserve anything close to top 10 status.

You're that guy that's mean to be Hank. Is it true?

Where do you rate him?

[robert ungurean]

I am curious. What did he do to deserve top 10 status? Who did he beat?
To me he is the greatest attacking machine I ever saw.

[OLD FOGEY]

I rank him # 3. IMO, the GOAT debate should really be a three way affair. Dempsey is horribly underrated today. Until the guys who actually saw him fight started dying off, he was generally thought to have been greater than Louis. I'm not saying he was, but he was closer than people seem to think today.

Dempsey didn't just beat his opponents, he beat them up. People can downgrade his opposition all they want, but Dempsey didn't just beat the guys he fought, he destroyed them. That sort of dominance has to count for something - and like I said, it used to count for a great deal until the guys that followed his career passed away.

I have heard this arguement often about those who saw him fight dying
off and then his rating dropping, but I don't understand it. We have
all seen him fight. His fights with Willard, Brennan, Carpentier, Gibbons,
Firpo, Sharkey, and both fights with Tunney are on film. He certainly
didn't "destroy" Tunney, nor Gibbons, and he was behind Sharkey before he pulled the fight out. He struggled with Brennan. This is good, but hardly awesome. The same can be said about the level of
his opposition and his total record.

[rekcutnevets]

For me it is hard to put Dempsey in my top 15. The main reason for this is because he never fought Harry Wills, his long time #1 contender. Fighting his number one contender was more important here, than in most other eras. During this time, you had the best white heavyweight in the world and the best black heavyweight in the world. The only way to know who the best heavyweight was to have them fight. Since the fight didn't take place, we'll never know.

I know this fight not occuring may not have been entirely Demsey's fault. I am not punishing him by not ranking him higher, I just can't reward him with a higher ranking.

[Guido]

He's in my top5 'cause he changed the way modern champions were perceived -- he was a-list as a champion, lived like a mad bastard, and was the biggest draw for boxing ever. He was as hard as a coffin nail, and destroyed men (what did Tunney do after "beating" Jack? all credit to him for fighting Harry Greb).

[Zakman]

I have heard this arguement often about those who saw him fight dying
off and then his rating dropping, but I don't understand it. We have
all seen him fight.

Yes, we have. But watching film years after the fact, or even reading about the era, doesn't give you the same contextual understanding of BEING THERE.

I run into this all the time talking about fighters from the 70s, 80s and 90s with younger fans who were either too young or not even born yet. They may have watched the films, read the books, looked at the records, but they don't have the sort of appreciation that can ONLY be gained by having lived through an era.

I'm not saying that we should take the word of those sources as gospel - of course, it should be supplemented by one's own analysis, research, and observation. But it is an important element to consider that those who lived through Dempsey era and really experienced what the "Dempsey phenomenon" was all about frequently rated him the greatest ever, and above Louis, whose era they had also lived through.

[prime]

I have Dempsey at Number 4, all time.

a) He was fundamentally very sound in his style, a slugger with boxing skills, coming in and out quickly on a proper stance, looking for the opening, ducking away, having excellent power in both hands and in all the punches; he was not a mere crude brawler at all.

b) He had excellent stamina.

c) He had a very solid chin.

d) He could go strong for the distance for a lopsided decision over a defensive-minded foe (Gibbons) or blast out a slugger toe-to-toe (Firpo).

e) A prime Dempsey had no weaknesses, but rather was a very strong, stable opponent who aggressively sought victory from the outset with dynamite in both hands. In brief contrast, Frazier was clearly too dependent on the left hook, Foreman was clearly troubled by defensive opponents, Louis clearly had a shakier chin. Dempsey was a complete, explosive package.

[OLD FOGEY]

Yes, we have. But watching film years after the fact, or even reading about the era, doesn't give you the same contextual understanding of BEING THERE.

I run into this all the time talking about fighters from the 70s, 80s and 90s with younger fans who were either too young or not even born yet. They may have watched the films, read the books, looked at the records, but they don't have the sort of appreciation that can ONLY be gained by having lived through an era.

I'm not saying that we should take the word of those sources as gospel - of course, it should be supplemented by one's own analysis, research, and observation. But it is an important element to consider that those who lived through Dempsey era and really experienced what the "Dempsey phenomenon" was all about frequently rated him the greatest ever, and above Louis, whose era they had also lived through.

I have no scientific basis other than my memories from the fifties,
but I think those old enough to have seen them both more often than
not rated Jack Johnson over Dempsey. Dempsey was generally rated
over Louis. Having "lived through an era" might create bias and
nostalgia as well as measured judgements.

[Marciano Frazier]

I am intrigued. Why do you consider Willard top 30, or near to, top
30?
I think Willard's rare combination of impressive size(6'6 and 235 pounds, big even by today's standards), good power(had a dangerous right uppercut that knocked out Johnson and killed Bull Young), excellent durability(stood up to a great deal of punishment without ever going down up to and through his title-winning effort against Johnson and two fights as champion), and great stamina(fought 26 rounds in extremely hot temperatures while suffering a great deal of punishment and still knocked Johnson out) make him a very formidable opponent for most champions through history. Although he had some ugly performances and a pretty spotty record, he did amass a pretty solid resume, and his early shortcomings are more understandable and his accomplishments more impressive in light of the fact that he didn't start boxing until he was in his late 20s.
When Willard's win over Johnson is brought into a discussion, the emphasis is usually placed on Johnson's age and deteriorating skills, the intense heat, and/or the claim that the five was a fix. To the third item on that list, I think we can both agree in the negative(that Johnson did not take adive against Willard). The first two are the ones I'm most interested in discussing.
It is true that Johnson was past his prime when he fought Willard, but how much so? In truth, Johnson hadn't lost a fight in nearly 10 years at this time, and wouldn't lose again for over 10 years afterwards. To phrase that very dramatically, then, this was Johnson's only loss in a period of over 20 years! He was back the following year after the Willard fight with a string of wins, and even four years later, in 1919, knocked out solid gatekeeper Tom Cowler in the 15th round(NOTE: here I am slightly amending my earlier statement that while Dempsey was champion, Johnson hadn't beaten a top 50 heavyweight in six years- Cowler was a top 50 heavyweight). Even nearly a decade later, in his late 40s, Johnson was good enough to dominantly beat another solid gatekeeper in Homer Smith, amidst wins over various obscure journeymen and clubfighters. Again, none of this is meant to insicate that I think Johnson was still an elite-level fighter in 1919 or later, or that Johnson was still in his prime when he fought Willard. It is, however, evidence that Johnson was still a very, very good fighter when Willard beat him in 1915, probably good enough to beat most any other heavyweight in the world. Remember that Johnson, with his outstanding technique and understanding of boxing tactics and defense was the sort of fighter who often remains successful into old age.
Now, again, the fact that the fight was staged in such intense heat is often used as an excuse for Johnson's losing and making Willard's win less meaningful, but I see it a different way- the fact that he waded through round after round of punishment from an old-but-still-extremely-capable Johnson, persisting with dogged determination before finally catching up with him and flattening him is extremely impressive, and the fact that he did all this in 100+ degree heat makes it all the more remarkable. A very big, strong man with a pretty good punch who can take that much punishment and has that kind of stamina will, at his best, present a daunting task for just about anyone.

[janitor]

I don't agree. He didn't do a damn thing to deserve anything close to top 10 status.

If a heavyweight legitimately dominates an era then he has a solid claim to a top 12 spot and a virtualy irrefutible claim to a top 20 spot.

The only way that you can rank him outside this zone is by producing a list that is grossley skewed in favour of some era's over others.

The same goes for Harry Wills who many criticise Dempsey for not fighting. Even without having fought one another they are both cast iron top 20 candidates.

[Dr Z]

It was the closest to my answer, which is somewhere between 100 and 75... maybe.

I make no bones about it: I am unimpressed with Dempsey. Firpo couldn't fight worth a shit, and Dempsey hardly looked brilliant against him. Willard was a big farmboy. Hardly a fair fight (Johnson obviously took a dive). Gibbons had Dempsey tied up in knots. Carpentier - in a sin of a mismatch - staggered Dempsey. Dempsey lost huge to the best fighter he ever fought - Gene Tunney - and Gene was a light heavyweight who was mugged by Harry Greb (twice, it appears). Dempsey had to foul his way to the rematch with Tunney. Oh, and he was sparked in a single round by Fireman Jim Flynn.

The heavyweight division was sad sack of talent back then. Dempsey was the best they had for a while - the best of about as big a bunch of non-scientists as there likely ever was. Tunney would have been slaughted in the 1960s heavyweight division. Dempsey was good as a toughman, but to count him among the elite of the division is to way overrated him.

Homicidal Hank,

Dempsey's hand speed, aggression, movement skills, and power in both hands should rate extremely high.

Even if you think Willard or Fripo couldn't fight, they were durable, big and tough. Each man had heart. Look how quickly Dempsey hurt them. This would translate into any era. A puncher with speed and power is dangerous in ANY era. Unlike other punchers, Dempsey had decent stamina, and a solid enough chin.

Dempsey's tale of the tape is not that bad. He has some room to fill out without getting fat. I do think he could be 210 pounds if he was fighting today, and Dempsey would certainly be one of the champions today.

If you want to be objective you will see that Frazier, Ali, and Foreman struggled as much as Dempsey did. I believe Dempsey was a top 10 head to head talent. In terms of a legacy few did more for boxing than Dempsey.

[McGrain]

Imagine for a second that Dempsey fought Greb, Wills, and say, McVey, beating each of them and looking superior doing it. Would there be a resonable case for putting him at no.1 all time?

[Dr Z]

Imagine for a second that Dempsey fought Greb, Wills, and say, McVey, beating each of them and looking superior doing it. Would there be a resonable case for putting him at no.1 all time?

I think Dempsey would need to beat Tunney and Johnson in additon to the guys you mentioned to be the #1 all time guy.

[McGrain]

I think Dempsey would need to beat Tunney and Johnson in additon to the guys you mentioned to be the #1 all time guy.


I like the Johnson shout. I've always felt Dempsey should have entertained Johnson, though most other people seem to feel in was not neccesary.

[janitor]

Imagine for a second that Dempsey fought Greb, Wills, and say, McVey, beating each of them and looking superior doing it. Would there be a resonable case for putting him at no.1 all time?

Beating Wills would have been a big plus on his resume as would beating Greb.

Forgett Johnson, McVea and Langford. They were rocking chair relics at this point.

There are other fighters that might have made good aditions such as Kid Norfolk.

At the end of the day Dempseys reign fell short of it's promise because of his inactivity over the last three years. If he had been an active champion over this period his skills would not have deteriorated and he might have beaten Tunney, and some subsequent champions.

[McGrain]

Beating
Forgett Johnson, McVea and Langford. They were rocking chair relics at this point.

Wasn't McVea still in with Wills around 1920? I forget, but I thought they had a NC during Dempsey's reign. What were the circumstances of this fighte if McVea was done?

If he had been an active champion over this period his skills would not have deteriorated and he might have beaten Tunney

I've often felt this.

[janitor]

[quote=McGrain]Wasn't McVea still in with Wills around 1920? I forget, but I thought they had a NC during Dempsey's reign. What were the circumstances of this fighte if McVea was done?

The bout was stopped beby the referre because neither fighter was trying and their purses were witheld. I think McVea was done by this point though he would have made a good challenger for Willard.

[McGrain]

[quote]

The bout was stopped beby the referre because neither fighter was trying and their purses were witheld.

I bet there is a beaut of a story behind this one.

[janitor]

[quote=janitor]

I bet there is a beaut of a story behind this one.

Could well be.

It was not uncommon at this time for top contenders to hold bout's where they wen't easy on one another to make some cash on the side without damaging themselves for a crucial upcoming fight.

At this stage Wills was at the top of the tree and McVea was on the way down so perhaps Wills did it to give McVea an easy pay day.

[Rattler]

I think Willard's rare combination of impressive size(6'6 and 235 pounds, big even by today's standards), good power(had a dangerous right uppercut that knocked out Johnson and killed Bull Young), excellent durability(stood up to a great deal of punishment without ever going down up to and through his title-winning effort against Johnson and two fights as champion), and great stamina(fought 26 rounds in extremely hot temperatures while suffering a great deal of punishment and still knocked Johnson out) make him a very formidable opponent for most champions through history. Although he had some ugly performances and a pretty spotty record, he did amass a pretty solid resume, and his early shortcomings are more understandable and his accomplishments more impressive in light of the fact that he didn't start boxing until he was in his late 20s.

If he fights a prime Johnson, he loses. He was big, strong and had a good punch - but his skill level wasn't high. If he had to box, he was in trouble - plus, being big was his defense, which doesn't bode well against champions who can work their offense against size or solid defense.

When Willard's win over Johnson is brought into a discussion, the emphasis is usually placed on Johnson's age and deteriorating skills, the intense heat, and/or the claim that the five was a fix. To the third item on that list, I think we can both agree in the negative(that Johnson did not take adive against Willard). The first two are the ones I'm most interested in discussing.
It is true that Johnson was past his prime when he fought Willard, but how much so? In truth, Johnson hadn't lost a fight in nearly 10 years at this time, and wouldn't lose again for over 10 years afterwards. To phrase that very dramatically, then, this was Johnson's only loss in a period of over 20 years! He was back the following year after the Willard fight with a string of wins, and even four years later, in 1919, knocked out solid gatekeeper Tom Cowler in the 15th round(NOTE: here I am slightly amending my earlier statement that while Dempsey was champion, Johnson hadn't beaten a top 50 heavyweight in six years- Cowler was a top 50 heavyweight). Even nearly a decade later, in his late 40s, Johnson was good enough to dominantly beat another solid gatekeeper in Homer Smith, amidst wins over various obscure journeymen and clubfighters. Again, none of this is meant to insicate that I think Johnson was still an elite-level fighter in 1919 or later, or that Johnson was still in his prime when he fought Willard. It is, however, evidence that Johnson was still a very, very good fighter when Willard beat him in 1915, probably good enough to beat most any other heavyweight in the world. Remember that Johnson, with his outstanding technique and understanding of boxing tactics and defense was the sort of fighter who often remains successful into old age.

Willard won that fight because Johnson didn't have the punch anymore to hurt him enough - not because Willard made a tough fight out of it. It wasn't until Johnson started getting affected by the heat, that Willard was able to start laying in the bodypunches that ultimately won the fight. A trim Johnson easly sails into the middle of the fight, with plenty left to give - and having been more capable of administering more damaging punishment over the preceding rounds.

Willard won because Johnson couldn't keep up, IMO.

Now, again, the fact that the fight was staged in such intense heat is often used as an excuse for Johnson's losing and making Willard's win less meaningful, but I see it a different way- the fact that he waded through round after round of punishment from an old-but-still-extremely-capable Johnson, persisting with dogged determination before finally catching up with him and flattening him is extremely impressive, and the fact that he did all this in 100+ degree heat makes it all the more remarkable. A very big, strong man with a pretty good punch who can take that much punishment and has that kind of stamina will, at his best, present a daunting task for just about anyone.

I think the fact that Johnson, the shape he was in, was able to go into the 20th round well in control of the fight is much more impressive than anything Willard did. Willard had only fought for four years up to that point, so compared to Johnson, he was a newborn.

It only helped that Johnson was on the run, unable to settle into a familiar regimen that had allowed him to become the champion. He had a hard time finding fights and resorted to wrestling matches to stay in shape. While Willard was living a relatively normal lifestyle, Johnson was all over Europe and dealing with all kinds of issues that affected his ability to ply his trade or prepare for it.

In short, Willard won because Johnson got old, out of shape and was fighting in less than ideal conditions - kinda like Jeffries against Johnson. Everything was in teh cards for Johnson to lose - and he still outfought Willard for most of the fight, because Willard simply wasn't that great. Just a big bull who could punch a bit - the last thing Johnson needed at that time.

[Holmes' Jab]

1. Joe Louis
2. Larry Holmes
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Lennox Lewis
6. Joe Frazier
7. Jack Dempsey
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Mike Tyson
10. Sonny Liston

[Dempsey1238]

Johnson needed to have a Dempsey type of punch to ko Willard. Rember, before Dempsey, Willard was never down or stop. Sure a prime Johnson may out point Willard, but I dont think he knock him out. Willard was pretty tought. Also in a 45 round fight, prime or not, a in shape Willard will always give Johnson problems imo. Willard just gets stronger the longer the bout when. Johnson also put on a good showing in that fight. But Willard used his jab, size and stalling to wear Johnson down and out. Willard would be no easy walk though for a prime Johnson.

[Bad_Intentions]

10 pages in only 2 days? :rofl :rofl

[Rattler]

Yer welcome.

[Bad_Intentions]

homicidal hank, do you dislike dempsey as a boxer so much??

[janitor]

Dempsey is definitely not a top 10 head-to-head talent. All the names I listed would be beat him head-to-head. I am convinced of that.

Again it comes down to the asumption that decent fighters from one era would beat great fighters feom another era.

What if that asumption is dramaticaly wrong?

So far you have given us no justification other than asking us to take your word for it.

[Bad_Intentions]

Dempsey is definitely not a top 10 head-to-head talent. All the names I listed would be beat him head-to-head. I am convinced of that. Dempsey is extremely overrated.oh well.

everybody is entitled to their own opinion.:roll:

[janitor]

See, what I don't do is mythologize fighters and make them better than they were.

But you are the worst ofender on this site in this respect.

You build up the fighters of the 70s to the point that even contenders from that period would beat great fighters from other period. All the effort you put into tearing down the legacies of Dempsey, Louis and Marciano is just colateral damage from your desire to elevate the 70s crew into something they were not.

[McGrain]

I
See, what I don't do is mythologize fighters and make them better than they were. It is not realistic to believe that Dempsey is an elite fighter in later eras. He simply wasn't that good. You can see it on the film.

What people do here (and elsewhere) is get caught up in hero worship and transform a brawler like Dempsey into a wrecking machine that transcends generations. That's fantasy, Bad Intentions.


I don't worship Dempsey. I find him quite objectionable. But I give him a really good chance against most top drawer heavyweights. He was a horrible fighter all offense and slipping.

Sometimes I do worry about the stock I put in him after having seen so little, and I think there's a reasomable point to be made about overestamating what is written but I feel I know enough about boxing to make a reasonable jusdgement and I rate him. And I'm unbiased.

[OLD FOGEY]

But you are the worst ofender on this site in this respect.

You build up the fighters of the 70s to the point that even contenders from that period would beat great fighters from other period. All the effort you put into tearing down the legacies of Dempsey, Louis and Marciano is just colateral damage from your desire to elevate the 70s crew into something they were not.

"Perhaps that is why I am able to be so objective about him." --Homicidal Hank

Never buy a used car from anyone named Honest John. Never eat at
a restaurant named Mom's. And never believe a word from anyone
who calls himself objective.

[PowerPuncher]

I disagree. List 30 heavyweights better than Sharkey and Willard(and I can go into length about why I disagree with your opinion of Willard when I have more time).).

47 fighters who make a very good argument to be above Sharkey (I wouldn't put them all above Sharkey) or having a good (in no particular order):

Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Holmes, Mariciano, Charles, Walcott, Louis, Lennox LEwis, Oliver McCall, Holyfield, Tyson, Buster Douglas, Liston, Tunney, Dempsey, Schmelling, Sullivan, Wills, Langford, Jack Johnson, Patterson, M Spinks, Max Baer, Sullivan, Bowe, Johanssen, Buster Douglas, Wlad Klit, Vitali Klit, Ibeauchi, David Tua, Billy Conn, Jeffries, Corbett, Jeanette, Mcvey, Rahman, Bruno, Ruiz, Byrd, Quarry, Young, Fitzssimmons, Shavers

[janitor]

"Perhaps that is why I am able to be so objective about him." --Homicidal Hank

Never buy a used car from anyone named Honest John. Never eat at
a restaurant named Mom's. And never believe a word from anyone
who calls himself objective.

Beutifull.

[janitor]

Here are some who should definitely NOT be above Sharkey at heavyweight.


Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Holmes, Mariciano, Charles, Walcott, Louis, Lennox LEwis, Oliver McCall, Holyfield, Tyson, Buster Douglas, Liston, Tunney, Dempsey, Schmelling, Sullivan, Wills, Langford, Jack Johnson, Patterson, M Spinks, Max Baer, Sullivan, Bowe, Johanssen, Buster Douglas, Wlad Klit (Yet), Vitali Klit, Ibeauchi, David Tua, Billy Conn, Jeffries, Corbett, Jeanette, Mcvey, Rahman, Bruno, Ruiz, Byrd, Quarry, Young, Fitzssimmons, Shavers

[PowerPuncher]

I was really responding to another poster who rated Dempsey below almost everyone apparently on a head-to-head, "fantasy" basis. Your
arguements, whether I agree with any given one or not, are on a
different and much higher plane.

By the way, I am enjoying your debate with Janitor and Marciano-Frazier.

Thanks and Fair enough - not sure why anyone responds too Pepping It/Revolver or whatever hes called today. I don't read his posts.

I think Dempsey comes out highish in head2heads but may have problems with boxers (ali/holmes/Johnson) and physical beasts (foreman/tyson)

[janitor]

[quote=Homicidal Hank]I base my opinion of the 1970s on the same criteria as I base my opinion on any other era.

What exactly are these criteria?

That A beats B because you say so?

I would love to hear a detailed breakdown of how you established that 50 fighters from diferent eras would beat Dempsey.


I don't need to build up Ali. He was the three-time world champion with 19 title defenses and victories over Liston, Patterson, Frazier, Foreman, Lyle, Shavers, Young, Williams, etc.


Ali needs lttle building up, but you do seem to need to tear down his main rivals for the No1 spot.

You hate them precisely because they offer an alternative name to put in place of your idol.

[McGrain]

[quote]

You hate them precisely because they offer an alternative name to put in place of your idol.


You made that sound quite sweet. Did you mean to?

[guilalah]

Basically, I rank Louis and Ali as top-6 alltime heavyweights.

I rank Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Marciano, Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis as top-16 alltime heavyweights.

I rank Sullivan, Jackson, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Langford and Charles as top-26 alltime heavyweights.

These days that's about as specific as I get.

[ChrisPontius]

I think Willard's rare combination of impressive size(6'6 and 235 pounds, big even by today's standards), good power(had a dangerous right uppercut that knocked out Johnson and killed Bull Young), excellent durability(stood up to a great deal of punishment without ever going down up to and through his title-winning effort against Johnson and two fights as champion), and great stamina(fought 26 rounds in extremely hot temperatures while suffering a great deal of punishment and still knocked Johnson out) make him a very formidable opponent for most champions through history. Although he had some ugly performances and a pretty spotty record, he did amass a pretty solid resume, and his early shortcomings are more understandable and his accomplishments more impressive in light of the fact that he didn't start boxing until he was in his late 20s.
When Willard's win over Johnson is brought into a discussion, the emphasis is usually placed on Johnson's age and deteriorating skills, the intense heat, and/or the claim that the five was a fix. To the third item on that list, I think we can both agree in the negative(that Johnson did not take adive against Willard). The first two are the ones I'm most interested in discussing.
It is true that Johnson was past his prime when he fought Willard, but how much so? In truth, Johnson hadn't lost a fight in nearly 10 years at this time, and wouldn't lose again for over 10 years afterwards. To phrase that very dramatically, then, this was Johnson's only loss in a period of over 20 years! He was back the following year after the Willard fight with a string of wins, and even four years later, in 1919, knocked out solid gatekeeper Tom Cowler in the 15th round(NOTE: here I am slightly amending my earlier statement that while Dempsey was champion, Johnson hadn't beaten a top 50 heavyweight in six years- Cowler was a top 50 heavyweight). Even nearly a decade later, in his late 40s, Johnson was good enough to dominantly beat another solid gatekeeper in Homer Smith, amidst wins over various obscure journeymen and clubfighters. Again, none of this is meant to insicate that I think Johnson was still an elite-level fighter in 1919 or later, or that Johnson was still in his prime when he fought Willard. It is, however, evidence that Johnson was still a very, very good fighter when Willard beat him in 1915, probably good enough to beat most any other heavyweight in the world. Remember that Johnson, with his outstanding technique and understanding of boxing tactics and defense was the sort of fighter who often remains successful into old age.
Now, again, the fact that the fight was staged in such intense heat is often used as an excuse for Johnson's losing and making Willard's win less meaningful, but I see it a different way- the fact that he waded through round after round of punishment from an old-but-still-extremely-capable Johnson, persisting with dogged determination before finally catching up with him and flattening him is extremely impressive, and the fact that he did all this in 100+ degree heat makes it all the more remarkable. A very big, strong man with a pretty good punch who can take that much punishment and has that kind of stamina will, at his best, present a daunting task for just about anyone.

I respectfully disagree


i)
No matter how you twist it, Johnson being undefeated for 10 years before and after the Willard fight, he was old. Old and fat. 37 years and 225 pounds, whereas his prime weight was somewhat over 200 pounds.

Would you say that Larry Holmes was not old because he was undefeated for 10 years before he fought Michael Spinks? Johnson didn't fight anyone of note after the Willard fight.

This is Revolver type of spinning facts to support your argument and you know it.

ii)
Small point, but it was not an uppercut that took Johnson out, i remember it being a straight right hand

iii) Johnson was easily outboxing Willard for the first 15, 20 rounds. Out of 8 rounds, he managed to lose 6 to Firpo. He was being outboxed by Firpo, who is one of the worst and sloppiest looking fighters i've ever seen on film.
Film of Willard only confirms this view; his skills are horrible. He does not use his size well (which is easy when you're fighting cruiserweights and lightheavies 90% of the time), just stands there like a heavy bag when he's being hit, does not impress in technique, balance, footwork or speed.
Yes, he takes a good punch, but that alone doesn't account for shit. Chuvalo and Cobb take a great punch too, but that doesn't mean they should be ranked highly.
Outside of a young Morris (who i am not too impressed with) and an old fat Johnson, he barely beat anyone of note. The best fighter he faced up to Johnson was Smith who beat him.

iv)
This has nothing to do with Johnson, but against Dempsey, Willard was 37 and somewhat overweight himself. I think this win is way overrated for Dempsey.

v)
As a champion, Willard was HORRIBLE. He made one title defense against Frank Moran who is not world beater, after one year of inactivity. Then he sits on the title for three years untill he finally makes another defense, against Dempsey, which he loses.

vi)
His style was perfectly suited for boxing the way it was back then, but let's be realistic here; there is no way that he beats Johnson in 15 rounds. And i'm not talking about a prime Johnson now, but a 37 year old fat Johnson.
Head to head under 15 rounds his ability is very, very poor.

vii)
The fact that he needed 26 rounds to break Johnson down doesn't speak that well for his power or ability to get his punches in either. You say he has a great uppercut, well why didn't he break an old Johnson down with it earlier? Johnson is known to clinch, wrestle and throw uppercuts often so there was plenty of oppurtunity for it.


Although i'm not gonna bother going through an entire list, but i doubt i'd rate him in the top50. There have been so many greater fighters with a lot more ability and achievements.

[PowerPuncher]

Here are some who should definitely NOT be above Sharkey at heavyweight.

Even if I took those 15 out he'd still be only at 32, but I wouldn't take all those 15 out - some are very close calls though.

I knew some would be controversal, partly because Sharkeys best win is against a very old past prime Wills and a controversal decision against Schmelling, but lets look:

Oliver McCall, - Larry Holmes (maybe as prime as the Wills Sharkey beat?) Prime Lennox Lewis

Buster Douglas - Prime Undefeated Tyson, McCall, Berbick, Williams

M Spinks - Holmes - by itself is HUGE and Cooney and some great LHWs.

Johanssen - Unbeaten Pattersons a huge win

Wlad Klit (Yet) - pretty dominant with excellent names on his resume, already surpassed Sharkey by some measure

Vitali Klit - very dominant, impressive record, impressive losing effort against Lennox, missing big names

Ibeauchi - dominant and 2 GREAT WINS, no one beat Tua and Byrd the way Ike beat the,. head to head a match for anyone, a complete beast, beautiful technique, frankly he murders Sharkey albeit full of steroids

David Tua - complete destructive streak, definately makes my top40, 1 of the biggest punchers in history, destructive wins over some excellent contenders - Ruiz, Moorer, Maskeev, Rahman and so on

Billy Conn - sublime skill, excellent losing effort against my no2 of all time - Louis

Rahman - underated resume - Lennox Lewis, Toney (robbed), Tua (robbed), Sanders, Berbick and fighting Holyfield/Ruiz/Maskeev

Bruno - hurt Tyson and Lennox giving both problems, very dominant and destructive, beat McCall, Bugner, Tills, Coetzee, Coetzer, Williams

Ruiz - yes we hate him but beating Holyfield twice, Golotta, Johnson look good on paper and 50-50s with Valuev/Changeev can't be ignored

Byrd - boring but Holyfield, Tua, Vitali, Golotta, Williamson, McCline - very good resume

Quarry - mac foster, shavers, lyle, great fight with frazier

Shavers - good performances against Ali/Holmes and devasting wins against Norton, Young

[janitor]

[quote=Homicidal Hank]I don't tear anybody down. I provide an honest assessment of each fighter's abilities.


I find it curious that your honest assesment focuses exclusively on a small number of fighters and is ovewhelmingly negaive and interspersed with sneering remarks.

If you wan't me to beleive that objectivity leads you to spend most of your spare time spewing diatribe against a certain half dozen fighters then you must think my head buttons up at the back.

Watch Dempsey against Tunney, Sharkey, and Gibbons. These are the three best opponents he faced.

It is highly debatable that these are the three best oponents he faced and if they were it hardly matters because he was clearly past his best when he fought Tunney and Sharkey.

Acording to you Larry Holes is the best oponent Muhamad Ali faced.

What dose it say about him that the best oponent he faced dominated him?

Both Tunney and Gibbons were beaten by middleweight Harry Greb. In fact, Greb beat the shit out of Tunney.

As was every noteworthy light heavyweight of the period.

Or watch Dempsey against Firpo. Firpo was a horrible fighter. That fight, which is billed as some sort of terrific match, is truthfully garbage. It's a bunch of toughmen swinging wildly. Everybody is falling down. Dempsey is clumsy throughout, at one point falling

Obviously the detail of the fight was lost on you.

If you took the trouble to study the fight in slow motion you would see that in the entire fight Dempsey only threw one punch that traveled more than 24 inches that being the one that closed the fight. No other heavyweight in history has ever thrown as high a ratio of compact punches over the course of a fight.

This is not a toughman swinging wildly it is the pinacle of infighting briliance.

If you can watch film of the man and fail to see how he doesn't stand a chance against, say, Michael Spinks, then you don't have a clue about boxing.

It seems that you have watched film of him and failed to see virtualy anything.


Gene Tunney twice whipped him and you don't believe Michael Sprinks would? :nut


Let me see.

Michael Spinks had a grand total of three legitimate wins at heavyweight and only one was against a ranked oponent.

No. I don't think he would beat the version of Dempsey that Tunney faced leat alone a prime version.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher]Even if I took those 15 out he'd still be only at 32, but I wouldn't take all those 15 out - some are very close calls though.

I knew some would be controversal, partly because Sharkeys best win is against a very old past prime Wills and a controversal decision against Schmelling, but lets look:


The think about Sharkey is that his record is much more impresive when you take a second look.

OLD FOGEY made some posts a while back where he ranked heavyweights in terms of their number of wins over ranked and world class fighters.

There were a few surprises and one of them was that Sharkey came in at No7 if I recall corectly.

He should be ranked over people like Doulas and McCall with one huge win in an otherwise ordinary career. Also over people who were never realy the man like Byrd and Ruiz.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
The think about Sharkey is that his record is much more impresive when you take a second look.

OLD FOGEY made some posts a while back where he ranked heavyweights in terms of their number of wins over ranked and world class fighters.

There were a few surprises and one of them was that Sharkey came in at No7 if I recall corectly.

He should be ranked over people like Doulas and McCall with one huge win in an otherwise ordinary career. Also over people who were never realy the man like Byrd and Ruiz.

Sharkey was a top contender but always fell short against the best and his best wins aren't as great when looked at closely. Wills was an old 36yo and shot so beating him is a bit like Toney beating Holyfield, Godfrey was a weaker coloured champion, Carnera was very limited and the Schmelling win was very controversal

I think McCall and Douglas are very underated. I also think Ruiz and Byrd will look a little better after 20 years.

I don't have too much of a problem people rating Sharkey above the forementioned fighters but theres not too much in it.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher]
Sharkey was a top contender but always fell short against the best and his best wins aren't as great when looked at closely.


A harsh assesment.

Wills was an old 36yo and shot so beating him is a bit like Toney beating Holyfield,

Wills might have been 36 but he had been the No1 contender for seven years since the Ring rankings comenced. The New York State Athletic Commision were still trying to force Dempsey to fight Wills when he lost the title to Tunney.

A better analogy would be Michael Spinks beating Larry Holmes. A young contender beating a faded great who was still the man to beat.

Godfrey was a weaker coloured champion,

Depend's who you ask.

Godfrey is a bit of an enigma. Verry highly regarded by contemporary fighters but sufferd from bad managment so he fell short of his potential.

Honest to god there are boxing historians today who rank Godfrey as a top 20 heavyweight of all time.

Carnera was very limited

I happen to think that Carnera was one of the better fighters of the period. He made a prety clean sweep of the top contenders of the era.


and the Schmelling win was very controversal


Fair call.


I think McCall and Douglas are very underated. I also think Ruiz and Byrd will look a little better after 20 years.


I tend to agree.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]


A harsh assesment.



1. Wills might have been 36 but he had been the No1 contender for seven years since the Ring rankings comenced. The New York State Athletic Commision were still trying to force Dempsey to fight Wills when he lost the title to Tunney.

2. A better analogy would be Michael Spinks beating Larry Holmes. A young contender beating a faded great who was still the man to beat.



3. Depend's who you ask.

Godfrey is a bit of an enigma. Verry highly regarded by contemporary fighters but sufferd from bad managment so he fell short of his potential.

Honest to god there are boxing historians today who rank Godfrey as a top 20 heavyweight of all time.


4. I happen to think that Carnera was one of the better fighters of the period. He made a prety clean sweep of the top contenders of the era.

Fair call.

I tend to agree.

I possibly am being overly harsh on Sharkey

1. What you have to remember about Wills was he was fighting top10 contenders none stop since 1913. So although he may have only been number 1 contender for 7 years he was fighting the best of the division for 13years!!!

2. How far past prime was Wills at 36 after constantly fighting the best for 13 years? Surely very hard to measure as we can't see Wills fight

3. This is interesting, I'm sure it was a good win, but Godfrey seems inconsitant. Maybe he was the Zab Judah or Golota of his day - all the talent but none of the fortitude in the biggest fights.

4. Yes Carnera was a good contender but certainly isn't going down as an ATG

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher]
2. How far past prime was Wills at 36 after constantly fighting the best for 13 years? Surely very hard to measure as we can't see Wills fight


It is hard to say exactly what condition Wills was in when he fought Sharkey.

He was coming off wins over good contenders like Luis Firpo, Charlie Weinert and Flyoyd Johnson but then in his next fight he was beaten up by Paulino Uzcdun.

All we can say for sure is that farther time caught up with him somwhere between his previous fight and his next fight.


3. This is interesting, I'm sure it was a good win, but Godfrey seems inconsitant. Maybe he was the Zab Judah or Golota of his day - all the talent but none of the fortitude in the biggest fights.


The analogy with Golotta is good. Godfrey was prone to get frustrated and loose by DQ. He also wore the handcuffs a lot which makes it hard to judge how much he really lost.

Sufice it to say that his managment were not the most admirable human beings and did not represent his interests well either financialy or in terms of getting him a title shot.

[JimmyShimmy]

Every year a new breed of clowns, recently exposed to a bit of Dempsey/Willard, come along and harp on about 'poo title reign' 'no skill' and a big load of nothin'.

Understand this...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Dempsey owned.

You wanna talk about competition?

Before Dempsey became champ he starched Fred Fulton who many thought was the real champ as he had Willard running from him.

Fulton was very similar to Wladimir today - top boxer, crunching power, height n' reach, dodgy chin. The difference is in the top competition Fulton had beat before Dempsey ate him.

Billy Miske would have very probably had a reign as champ had Dempsey not edged him out in two close fights prior to the title. Miske was shit hot - quick, slick and tough. One of the best ever HW contenders. He gave Dempsey all kinds of problems because he was that good.

Billy Brennan - now I've seen him in his fights with Dempsey, and Firpo later and he could box. He could box and punch real hard. Very fit and very tough - another top contender Dempsey twice delt with.

Tommy Gibbons - oh no a LH! Ok a LH, but this LH routinely delt with HW's. Gibbons was awesome with his cross-armed defence and loved his slippery left hook off the feint. Check that record! They're owner to an ugly fight where Dempsey used his weight to win the fight, but there is some top inside action and you need skill to beat Gibbons so convincingly - as he said himself; "Don't let anyone tell you that Jack can't box".

Jack Sharkey in his prime! Controversy? Don't care. Dempsey won. That's a beauty of a win.

Dempsey is the shizel and if you think differently you must secretly like golf more than boxing. Yep.

Dempsey brought that burning attitude, that cropped hair, that offensive arsenal, the slick movements and sportsmanship. He mastered the style that Tyson would later use, albiet a flawed version, but you saw how magnetic it is.

Don't even doubt him because William Harrison Dempsey will rise from the grave, line-up all the current HW's, and let go a left hook with such force that it'd make sure everyone of their jaws would melt. Yes, melt!

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Don't look at him straight in the eyes!

[janitor]

Dempsey is the shizel and if you think differently you must secretly like golf more than boxing. Yep.


This is an eminently fair observation.

[Sonny's jab]

Every year a new breed of clowns, recently exposed to a bit of Dempsey/Willard, come along and harp on about 'poo title reign' 'no skill' and a big load of nothin'.

Understand this...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Dempsey owned.

You wanna talk about competition?

Before Dempsey became champ he starched Fred Fulton who many thought was the real champ as he had Willard running from him.

Fulton was very similar to Wladimir today - top boxer, crunching power, height n' reach, dodgy chin. The difference is in the top competition Fulton had beat before Dempsey ate him.

Billy Miske would have very probably had a reign as champ had Dempsey not edged him out in two close fights prior to the title. Miske was shit hot - quick, slick and tough. One of the best ever HW contenders. He gave Dempsey all kinds of problems because he was that good.

Billy Brennan - now I've seen him in his fights with Dempsey, and Firpo later and he could box. He could box and punch real hard. Very fit and very tough - another top contender Dempsey twice delt with.

Tommy Gibbons - oh no a LH! Ok a LH, but this LH routinely delt with HW's. Gibbons was awesome with his cross-armed defence and loved his slippery left hook off the feint. Check that record! They're owner to an ugly fight where Dempsey used his weight to win the fight, but there is some top inside action and you need skill to beat Gibbons so convincingly - as he said himself; "Don't let anyone tell you that Jack can't box".

Jack Sharkey in his prime! Controversy? Don't care. Dempsey won. That's a beauty of a win.

Dempsey is the shizel and if you think differently you must secretly like golf more than boxing. Yep.

Dempsey brought that burning attitude, that cropped hair, that offensive arsenal, the slick movements and sportsmanship. He mastered the style that Tyson would later use, albiet a flawed version, but you saw how magnetic it is.

Don't even doubt him because William Harrison Dempsey will rise from the grave, line-up all the current HW's, and let go a left hook with such force that it'd make sure everyone of their jaws would melt. Yes, melt!

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Don't look at him straight in the eyes!


Classic post.

:good

[pugilist_boyd]

Dempsey Is One Of The Many Oldtimers That(in His Prime) Could Have Stuck With Any Of Todays Or Yesterdays Heavy,s Jim Jeffries In His Prime Could Have Demolished Johnson And Most If Not All Of Todays Heavys In My Op.

[McGrain]

Jimmy Shimmy: nice post. Don't agree with some of it, but nice post.

[JIm Broughton]

If you insist on rating a fighter/champion based solely on the quality of his opposition while he was champion then I'm afraid that Dempsey does'nt rate that high. But then neither does Johnson, Louis, Liston, Patterson, Marciano or Holmes for that matter. It seems that the best criteria for rating a champion is how he would have fared against the other top champions while they were in thier respective primes. Based on this criteria I have Dempsey in the top ten. The Dempsey that destroyed Willard and Firpo would have been a handful for any great champion past or present. That Jack was a killer. Fast, furious and powerful and as tough as they come. A dangerous two fisted bomber who kept coming. I've always felt that Dempsey would have been the one fighter from the "old days" who stood the best chance of giving Ali a hard time of it based on his bob and weave style and vicious left hook/right hand combos. Before Jack, boxing was sort of a stiff, constipated science. Jack sped things up a bit if you catch my drift. So yes I put Jack in my top ten based on these factors. Not on quality of opposition.

[McGrain]

This isn't true. First, in the lighterweight divisions, boxers were already fighting like Dempsey and beyond. Second, Jack Johnson wasn't stiff and constipated. Neither was Sam Langford.


Show me your top ten HW's Hank. I have Jeffries, Louis and Johnson in mine, and I bet you don't, so I'd be curios to see it how you fill in the gaps.

[UpWithEvil]

Any outstanding light heavyweight with scientific skills would outpoint Dempsey.

Take THAT Tommy Gibbons!

[UpWithEvil]

Perfesser Clownshoes, you could at least make an attempt not to recycle the exact same material over and over again.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
"Lookit me! Me and my numerous screen name sock puppets!"

[dmt]

Amazing Tyson gets beaten by Holyfield at 30 who was actually 4 years older, yet Dempsey can't be forgiven for losing to Tunney when he was 31 who was two years younger. A classic example of HH'S Bias.

Hagler was 32 when he fought blown up welter Leonard and a former lightweight Duran went the distance with him

[Marciano Frazier]

Prior to facing Fireman Jim Flynn, Dempsey fights nobodies, draws with five of them, and losses to one Jack Downey, probably the only fighter not making his pro debut with a winning record (although his draws outnumber his wins and losses). That accounts for 34 of Jack's fights.
A. Draws were frequently pre-arranged in that era, or there would be an agreement that the fight would be ruled a draw if there was no knockout, and in many regions, fights were called draws whenever they were at all close. There is virtually no fighter from that era, no matter how great, who doesn't have his share of draws on his record from making the rounds on his way up- Harry Greb, Jack Johnson, Sam Langford, every one of them has multiple draws against journeymen on his record. It just isn't meaningful and shouldn't be used as a criticism of a fighter from this era.
B. Dempsey only had one loss to Downey, and he later knocked Downey out in two rounds.
C. Downey certainly wasn't the only opponent with a winning record Dempsey faced in this time period- in fact, off a quick scan off boxrec, he beat opponents with records listed 23-6-8, 7-4-1, 2-0, etc.
D. Boxrec is extremely incomplete, especially on fighters from pre-1960, which its own editors will frankly tell you if you ask. Your scanning down boxrec and assuming its records to be accurate in listing literally dozens of fighters as being 0-0, 0-0-1 and the like is very unreasonable. For the most part, the 0-0 guys are just fighters only known from their fights with Dempsey, who quite likely had dozens of other fights against each other and other ham-and-egg level journeymen.

Then Dempsey steps up against Flynn, a man who loses almost as many fights as he wins, and draws again as many times. Flynn knocks Dempsey out in the first round with a single punch. Ouch! Stepping up isn't fun!

Dempsey draws with Al Norton, loses to Meehan, draws with Norton, defeats Meehan, draws with Meehan, draws with Meehan again.... Meehan is 5'9" and will lose 28 fights against 63 wins and 36 draws, and suffer six knockouts in his career. Gunboat Smith was knocked out more than a dozen times, and lost 27 against 53 wins. Carl Morris - knocked out a lot (even beaten by Willard!). Dempsey didn't dominate these fighters.
E. Dempsey was a hobo sleeping on park benches at this time and could hardly be reasonably expected to perform at anywhere near his full potential.
F. The Flynn fight was quite likely a fix.
G. Notice that a prime Dempsey, after he had hooked up with Kearns and gotten the chance at fair nutrition and preparation for his fights, annihilated all of these guys, aside from Meehan, who had his number in four-round fights(and even then, Dempsey had Meehan down in their last fight, which many fel he won). Many great champions probably would have lost some against guys with awkward styles in four-round fights; imagine if Frazier had to fight Mathis or Tyson had to fight Tillis in four-rounders.


Brennan was okay. Miske appears to be a good fighter. Fred Fulton.... eh. Dempsey loses again to Meehan (why isn't Meehan in the top 10 heavyweights?). Then there's the light heavyweight Levinsky.

Pretty do-nothing resume. I can imagine Dempsey looked like Mike Tyson against all those crappy no names/no records. But when he fought men with experience, he was ordinary.
I like how you're so fast to bring it up when a pre-prime Dempsey struggles with anyone, but skirt around Brennan, Fulton and the like in order to avoid acknowledging that they were quality fighters and a prime Dempsey crushed them.

What did he do as champion? He beat up an inept Jess Willard, a fight which is special because (a) it's on film and (b) it appeals to the sadist in fight fans. I personally don't like watching lambs led to slaughter, no matter how big and ugly he is.
Willard was 6'6, 240 pounds, had killed a man in the ring, and had never been knocked down, and Dempsey knocked him down seven times in the first round and broke several bones- this is a strong indication of genuine top-notch punching power.

He gets Miske and Brennen - been there, done that. Crooked and sick promoters feed Dempsey a little scrawny man named Georges Carpentier.
It's "crooked" and "slick" to have Dempsey fight the light heavyweight champion of the world? I wonder, do you think it was "crooked" for promoters to put Ali in with Foster or Holmes with Spinks?

Another light heavyweight, a man named Gibbons, ties Dempsey in knots.
Gibbons was an ex-light heavyweight, but it is just not reasonable to pretend as though that automatically precludes him from being a quality heavyweight. He had never been stopped in over 80 pro fights, he had beaten multiple Hall-of-Famers and had gotten the better of heavyweight contenders like Billy Miske, who you yourself acknowledged above to have been a good fighter. Gibbons hardly "tied Dempsey in knots," but rather he boxed just well enough to keep from being overwhelmed, and Dempsey won over 10 of the 15 rounds.

[dmt]

First off, when did I forgive Tyson for losing to Holyfield? You can't accuse me of bias using a position I've never taken. Try that again, DMT.

Secondly, Hagler was nearly 35 years old when he faced Leonard, not 32. It has been established that Hagler lies about his age.

Third, Tyson and Holyfield are leagues above Dempsey and Tunney, so even if I had taken that position, I don't know what in hell it would mean.
No hagler was officially 32. That’s the truth
And he wasn’t old when blown up Duran went the distance with him so if he can be forgiven for failing to ko Duran then same goes for Dempsey vs Gibbons

Secondly Holyfield was 4 years older then Tyson. Tunney himself said his peak was the Heeney fight so any claims that he was past it is a joke. Dempsey was over the hill, had not fought in 3 years, had only five fights in the last six years, he was finished.

[joe33]

Duran is in the top five best fighters of all time. Duran came back after the Hagler fight and won the middleweight title from the man who sparked Hearns in three rounds! Gibbons is a name on Tunney and Dempsey's record. It's a meaningless comparison.

Dempsey was not over the hill, DMT. 31 is young for a heavyweight. He was EXPOSED.

Its quite clear HH that your quite mad in the head.

[dmt]

Its quite clear HH that your quite mad in the head.right:good

A prime Dempsey beats Tunney regardless of what the overly baiased poster says. Dempsey ws OVER THE HILL. Ray Arcel agrees as does Nat Fleischer and countless other historians and fans and even Dempseys harshest critics

Remind be again Roy Jones an atg heavy :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :rofl :rofl :rofl

Foster over Louis :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Holmes' Jab]

Dempsey is the shizel and if you think differently you must secretly like golf more than boxing.

Hey! I happen to love both sports. :twisted:

I do agree though, Dempsey was a fearsome specimen and deservedly should be ranked amongst the Top 10 greatest at HW .... :yep

[janitor]

[quote=Homicidal Hank]Jack Dempsey was only 31 years old when he faced Gene Tunney the first time. He was 28 when he faced Gibbons. He was 32 when he faced Sharkey and Tunney the second time. Gibbons was 35 when he faced Dempsey! Gene Tunney was only two years younger than Dempsey! He was young for a heavyweight.


Mike Tyson was even younger when he lost to James Douglas and Evander Hollyfield. He was younger than Hollyfield and Lewis when they beat him.

Dose this mean that we should make no alowence for his condition and asume that he would have performed the same way against them at any stage in his career?


Any outstanding light heavyweight with scientific skills would outpoint Dempsey.


Then Batling Levinsky, Georges Carpinter and Tommy Gibbons should have outpointed him.


Muhammad Ali was going on 39 when he faced Larry Holmes, and in his career he had faced outstanding competition - and hard punchers: Liston, Williams, Folley, Quarry, Frazier, Foreman, Lyle, Shavers, Norton. Ali was old in ring years. And he has Parkinsons!!


The fact is that he still lost tho the best fighter he ever faced.

It is grosley hypocritical to make alowences for Ali being past his prime but none for Dempsey.


Dempsey never faced any fighters of the caliber of the fighters mentioned above that are victims on Ali's resume.


In your rather obviously biased opinion.


If these eleven heavyweights were on a desert island - Ali, Liston, Williams, Folley, Quarry, Frazier, Foreman, Lyle, Shavers, Norton, Dempsey - and the worst of the lot had to be killed off to make an even ten, Dempsey would be dead.


If they were on a desert island and they killed each other off with no reffere to intervene untill one was left then beleive me it would be Dempsey.

Seriously though.

I would be verry interested to hear you justify the idea that Williams, Quarry, Norton, Lyle or Shavers were better than Dempsey.

You clearly can't make a sensible case based on resume.

[McGrain]

If these eleven heavyweights were on a desert island - Ali, Liston, Williams, Folley, Quarry, Frazier, Foreman, Lyle, Shavers, Norton, Dempsey - and the worst of the lot had to be killed off to make an even ten, Dempsey would be dead.


Quality banter!

Dead wrong though I think. They'd possiblly make Dempsey their king with Foreman as a sort of right hand man figure.

I'd bet on Ali being the one to go unless he can carve out a spot as court jester, then I think it would be Quarry.

Drop you top ten on us Hank, it would be good to see.

[janitor]

[quote=Homicidal Hank]So? If he were so great he should have plowed through the opposition - unless his opposition was top notch. But his oppostion was not. Still all those draws. That is a very important fact of his record - he did not overwhelm decent opposition. Not the mark of greatness.


If Muhamad Ali had been thrown straight into the profesional ranks with no amateur experience then I can asure you that his early record would look less than stelar.


Records such as 7-4-1 and 2-0. Damn that's impressive. :lol:


If you don't know that records of that period are predominantly incomplete then you are verry much out of your depth on this site.


"Dempsey was a hobo sleeping on park benches at this time and could hardly be reasonably expected to perform at anywhere near his full potential."

I knew this was coming. Like Walcott the starving ethiopian, we have Dempsey, the hobo sleeping on park benches.


But he was.

That is incontrovertible historical fact.

I am sorry if it hurts your agenda.

The bottomline is that Dempsey's resume is anything but extraordinary. It is not the record of an all-time great.

This coming from a man who tries to build Gerry Cooney, (who never beat a ranked contender in his entire career) up into a great fighter to make Holmes look good. Tries to make fighters like Earnie Shavers and Cleavland Williams into world beaters.

Is there any limit to your hypocrisy?

[janitor]

[quote=Homicidal Hank]Duran is in the top five best fighters of all time. Duran came back after the Hagler fight and won the middleweight title from the man who sparked Hearns in three rounds!

Duran was a fighter whose prime weight was lightweight and had a come forward style. Hagler being taken the distence by Duran is like Dempsey being taken the distence by a fighter whose best fighting weight was middleweight.


Gibbons is a name on Tunney and Dempsey's record. It's a meaningless comparison.

Dempsey was not over the hill, DMT. 31 is young for a heavyweight. He was EXPOSED.


You are saying that a champion who beat the No2 ranked contender decisively was exposed?

What dose that make Larry Holmes when he lost his title to Michael Spinks. A man who should go out into the woods with a revolver and blow his brains out?

[Luigi1985]

Duran is in the top five best fighters of all time. Duran came back after the Hagler fight and won the middleweight title from the man who sparked Hearns in three rounds! Gibbons is a name on Tunney and Dempsey's record. It's a meaningless comparison.

Dempsey was not over the hill, DMT. 31 is young for a heavyweight. He was EXPOSED.



Here you show once again that you have zero knowledge about boxing, especially practice-wise. You can´t define when a prime starts and when it ends. Tyson for example was with 31 shot, washed up when we compare him with the 86- Tyson. Fighters like Walcott entered in their prime when they got older, kind of these fighters are like vine, the older they are, the better they are (like some women too)...

[janitor]

Ray Arcel, worked with 18 world champions including Barney Ross, Tony Zale, Ezzard Charles, Roberto Duran, and Larry Holmes. Quite a span of time and talent there. He also sparred with Benny Leonard.
Arcel said that he considered Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey to be the three greatest heavyweights in history and that he could not put a cigarette paper between them.


This is what he had to say about Dempsey-

"The thing about his weakneses is. Well, he didn't have any".

Some people would have us beleive that romanticism alone led him to rate a fighter who he really knew was only a glorified streetfighter over all but two subsequent champions including the likes of Larry Holmes.

[UpWithEvil]

Ray Arcel, worked with 18 world champions including Barney Ross, Tony Zale, Ezzard Charles, Roberto Duran, and Larry Holmes. Quite a span of time and talent there. He also sparred with Benny Leonard.

I generally don't give too much weight to the opinions of old-time boxing scribes; even Nat Fleisher opinion doesn't have any great effect on my own thinking regarding the abilities of fighters from that era.

But Ray Arcel, a trainer of elite fighters since Woodrow Wilson was President all the way up through the reigns of Roberto Duran and Larry Holmes - his opinion means a great deal to me. He has a degree of intimate familiarity with the greatest fighters of the sport that is unrivaled. Ignore his analysis at your own risk.

[Bad_Intentions]

Mike Tyson was even younger when he lost to James Douglas and Evander Hollyfield. He was younger than Hollyfield and Lewis when they beat him.
yea, lewis was a year older than him. pretty disapointing :-(

[Butterfly^Soul]

All-time heavyweight ranks
-I have him around three or four

All-time P4P
-Definetly top twenty

[prime]

In law there is something called stare decisis, which means a judge ordinarily respects past judicial principles and decisions; he does not jump on the bench and begin to question all prior rulings to suit his taste.

Today we tend to underestimate opinions not blogged or shouted out by a TV talking head. If past generations revered fighters like Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis, we should not simply disregard this as corny hero worship, thus placing ourselves as smug judges of millions of human beings who were once as alive and kicking as we are now. Past boxing greats were recognized for very solid reasons, by fans and experts of the time alike. I suggest greater respect for opinions past and we can thus avoid a lot of going around in circles, attempting to rewrite history (“Carnera was a great fighter!”)

Jack Dempsey should never be considered a bum, because he will never be one. He was the greatest fighter of his generation. When comparing eras, let’s not forget that more recent stars have had much more to build on than early greats; I know late bloomer Lennox Lewis for instance learned a lot from Muhammad Ali, and Ali himself learned from Jack Johnson. Today’s athletes have so many advantages of all kinds in training; early greats had very little; in fact, many were innovators, the originals. But can you imagine taking away the heritage of the past from later performers? They could not be who they are. Dempsey is still Dempsey without Tyson. Tyson could not be who he was without Dempsey.

On the other hand, it is a tribute to past boxing greats that they can still compare favorably to more modern greats. I still think Ali beats Lewis and Dempsey takes Bowe. I think Rocky Marciano is a bit overrated, but I will never consider him anything but the great champion he was.

[pugilist_boyd]

definet top 5 in his prime he could hav estood with any heavy of yesterday or today

[OLD FOGEY]

In law there is something called stare decisis, which means a judge ordinarily respects past judicial principles and decisions; he does not jump on the bench and begin to question all prior rulings to suit his taste.

Today we tend to underestimate opinions not blogged or shouted out by a TV talking head. If past generations revered fighters like Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis, we should not simply disregard this as corny hero worship, thus placing ourselves as smug judges of millions of human beings who were once as alive and kicking as we are now. Past boxing greats were recognized for very solid reasons, by fans and experts of the time alike. I suggest greater respect for opinions past and we can thus avoid a lot of going around in circles, attempting to rewrite history (“Carnera was a great fighter!”)

Jack Dempsey should never be considered a bum, because he will never be one. He was the greatest fighter of his generation. When comparing eras, let’s not forget that more recent stars have had much more to build on than early greats; I know late bloomer Lennox Lewis for instance learned a lot from Muhammad Ali, and Ali himself learned from Jack Johnson. Today’s athletes have so many advantages of all kinds in training; early greats had very little; in fact, many were innovators, the originals. But can you imagine taking away the heritage of the past from later performers? They could not be who they are. Dempsey is still Dempsey without Tyson. Tyson could not be who he was without Dempsey.

On the other hand, it is a tribute to past boxing greats that they can still compare favorably to more modern greats. I still think Ali beats Lewis and Dempsey takes Bowe. I think Rocky Marciano is a bit overrated, but I will never consider him anything but the great champion he was.

While I generally agree with this post, you state that Dempsey "was
the greatest fighter of his generation." While I think most of his own
generation would have agreed, there were vocal dissenters, such as
Ted Carroll, and their criticisms remain pertinent today:
1. Dempsey did not fight Wills, the top contender of his era. As Wills
actually defeated the tougher opposition, how can anyone then or now
be certain Dempsey was the better fighter.
2. Dempsey lost to Tunney, probably the best fighter he fought, badly.
Dempsey probably was past his best, but how much is an issue in
dispute, as he was only 31 and two years older than Tunney. This is
the evaluation of James P Dawson, the boxing writer for the New York
Times, following the Tunney fight in 1926:
"In defeat, Dempsey was revealed as an overrated fighter, a man
who was good, but never great. It sounds uncharitable in view of his
courageous stand to say he had nothing but heart, but that verdict
must be uttered.
. . . Dempsey won the title from a cumbersome hulk in Willard, he beat
a broken man in Miske, and a comparative middleweight in
Carpentier; he couldn't do a thing with a brainy fighter like Gibbons;
he battered an unschooled floundering giant in Firpo, and fell when he
first faced real opposition from a man who was determined and unafraid
and who could fight as well as box."

[joe33]

Every year a new breed of clowns, recently exposed to a bit of Dempsey/Willard, come along and harp on about 'poo title reign' 'no skill' and a big load of nothin'.

Understand this...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Dempsey owned.

You wanna talk about competition?

Before Dempsey became champ he starched Fred Fulton who many thought was the real champ as he had Willard running from him.

Fulton was very similar to Wladimir today - top boxer, crunching power, height n' reach, dodgy chin. The difference is in the top competition Fulton had beat before Dempsey ate him.

Billy Miske would have very probably had a reign as champ had Dempsey not edged him out in two close fights prior to the title. Miske was shit hot - quick, slick and tough. One of the best ever HW contenders. He gave Dempsey all kinds of problems because he was that good.

Billy Brennan - now I've seen him in his fights with Dempsey, and Firpo later and he could box. He could box and punch real hard. Very fit and very tough - another top contender Dempsey twice delt with.

Tommy Gibbons - oh no a LH! Ok a LH, but this LH routinely delt with HW's. Gibbons was awesome with his cross-armed defence and loved his slippery left hook off the feint. Check that record! They're owner to an ugly fight where Dempsey used his weight to win the fight, but there is some top inside action and you need skill to beat Gibbons so convincingly - as he said himself; "Don't let anyone tell you that Jack can't box".

Jack Sharkey in his prime! Controversy? Don't care. Dempsey won. That's a beauty of a win.

Dempsey is the shizel and if you think differently you must secretly like golf more than boxing. Yep.

Dempsey brought that burning attitude, that cropped hair, that offensive arsenal, the slick movements and sportsmanship. He mastered the style that Tyson would later use, albiet a flawed version, but you saw how magnetic it is.

Don't even doubt him because William Harrison Dempsey will rise from the grave, line-up all the current HW's, and let go a left hook with such force that it'd make sure everyone of their jaws would melt. Yes, melt!

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Don't look at him straight in the eyes!

Thats so true mate,any one who knocks dempsey as badly as HH,is either nuts,or jealous as hell that people still love a guy who fought decades ago,id give jack a chance against any heavyweight who ever lived to be honest.

[joe33]

Jack Dempsey was only 31 years old when he faced Gene Tunney the first time. He was 28 when he faced Gibbons. He was 32 when he faced Sharkey and Tunney the second time. Gibbons was 35 when he faced Dempsey! Gene Tunney was only two years younger than Dempsey! It's ridiculous to rationalize his poor showing to the three best opponents he faced with this claptrap about "past his prime." Give me a break. He was young for a heavyweight.

The truth is that Gene tunney EXPOSED Jack Dempsey. He would have beaten Dempsey every time they met because Tunney was a scientific boxer, whereas Dempsey was a banger. Any outstanding light heavyweight with scientific skills would outpoint Dempsey.

Muhammad Ali was going on 39 when he faced Larry Holmes, and in his career he had faced outstanding competition - and hard punchers: Liston, Williams, Folley, Quarry, Frazier, Foreman, Lyle, Shavers, Norton. Ali was old in ring years. And he has Parkinsons!!

That you think there is an analog in all this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you just don't get it. Dempsey wasn't 38 when Tunney beat him. Dempsey never faced any fighters of the caliber of the fighters mentioned above that are victims on Ali's resume.

If these eleven heavyweights were on a desert island - Ali, Liston, Williams, Folley, Quarry, Frazier, Foreman, Lyle, Shavers, Norton, Dempsey - and the worst of the lot had to be killed off to make an even ten, Dempsey would be dead.


Yeah mate sure,jack lived in the worst time in american history,he did not know where his next frigging meal was coming,he walked into bars in some of the roughest places in america and took on any one just to eat,get serious he was a street fighting killing machine,you are a right knob jockey.
He would kill most of those soft as shit guys you just mentioned.:patsch

[dmt]

1. Dempsey did not fight Wills, the top contender of his era. As Wills
actually defeated the tougher opposition, how can anyone then or now
be certain Dempsey was the better fighter. And how can anyone be so sure of Wills being greater given that most historians who actually saw them did not rate Wills in the top 10 and there's no film of Wills Either. Plus Wills beat tougher fighters then any pre Louis CHAMP.


2. Dempsey lost to Tunney, probably the best fighter he fought, badly.
Dempsey probably was past his best, but how much is an issue in
dispute, as he was only 31 and two years older than Tunney. .

That's not the only point. The second fight, when Dempsey was in good shape, he dropped Tunney and won 3 of the rounds. Thw two years argument does not work because Tunney was coming off his very best wins whereas Dempsey was coming from a three years layoff in poor shape.



This is
the evaluation of James P Dawson, the boxing writer for the New York
Times, following the Tunney fight in 1926:
"In defeat, Dempsey was revealed as an overrated fighter, a man
who was good, but never great. It sounds uncharitable in view of his
courageous stand to say he had nothing but heart, but that verdict
must be uttered.
. . . Dempsey won the title from a cumbersome hulk in Willard, he beat
a broken man in Miske, and a comparative middleweight in
Carpentier; he couldn't do a thing with a brainy fighter like Gibbons;
he battered an unschooled floundering giant in Firpo, and fell when he
first faced real opposition from a man who was determined and unafraid
and who could fight as well as box."This is nonsense. This writer fails to mention that Dempsey was past it when he met Tunney not to mention Tunney was an outstanding fighter himself. 95 percent of the writers in Dempsey's day would disagree with this

Amazing how Dempsey gets criticsed for failing to ko Gibbons even though he won most rounds, yet Jack Johnson gets a pass for fighting to a newspaper draw with middle weight O'Brien. Or Jeffries's draw with over the hill light-heavy Choynski.

[dmt]

You mean a middleweight like Harry Greb? Because that's what would have happened had Dempsey and Greb fought. The only problem with the analog is that Greb likely would have licked Dempsey, where Duran could only go the distance with Hagler. This is because Dempsey and Hagler are not comparable. Hagler transcends time. Dempsey doesn't.



Not sure what the first sentence means to say, but Michael Spinks is the greatest light heavyweight who ever lived and he beat an aging all-time great heavyweight in Holmes. It was a close fight. And in the rematch Holmes actually won! Dempsey lost to Tunney twice. Tunney even dropped Dempsey (bet you don't remember that). Neither fight was particularly close. So that's a poor analogy, janitor.

In any case, Michael Spinks would have made Dempsey look worse than Tunney did. Dempsey isn't in that league.

When I watch Dempsey and Firpo I see skills that aren't even at the level of the UFC, especially from Firpo. Dempsey falls down in the opening seconds of the fight and hits the deck twice - or, more accurately, hits the deck once and is knocked plum out of the ring on another occasion. How am I supposed to go along with the insanity of ranking Dempsey in the top 25 when this is what I see? In the end I have to be true to myself.:nut :nut :nut :nut :nut

[OLD FOGEY]

And how can anyone be so sure of Wills being greater given that most historians who actually saw them did not rate Wills in the top 10 and there's no film of Wills Either. Plus Wills beat tougher fighters then any pre Louis CHAMP.



That's not the only point. The second fight, when Dempsey was in good shape, he dropped Tunney and won 3 of the rounds. Thw two years argument does not work because Tunney was coming off his very best wins whereas Dempsey was coming from a three years layoff in poor shape.


This is nonsense. This writer fails to mention that Dempsey was past it when he met Tunney not to mention Tunney was an outstanding fighter himself. 95 percent of the writers in Dempsey's day would disagree with this

Amazing how Dempsey gets criticsed for failing to ko Gibbons even though he won most rounds, yet Jack Johnson gets a pass for fighting to a newspaper draw with middle weight O'Brien. Or Jeffries's draw with over the hill light-heavy Choynski.

1. Many say Dempsey was "the greatest fighter of his generation."
Few say Wills was. Carroll was a dissenter, and one of the few black
sportwriters of that era to write for a mainstream white publication.
There were other dissenters. Jack Gibbons, for example.
2. Dawson was one of the top boxing writers of that generation. I
think his opinion is certainly interesting and of value.
3. I agree that Dawson was too harsh concerning Gibbons. On the
other hand, he could have mentioned the second Brennan fight. Off
his record, Brennan was a good but hardly outstanding challenger who
still managed to give Dempsey all he could handle for twelve rounds.

Bottom line--Jeffries,Johnson, Louis, Marciano, and Ali were clearly
the best heavyweight for a few years at their peaks. It is not so
clear with Dempsey because of Wills and this certainly clouds the
issue of whether he was "the greatest fighter of his generation."

[joe33]

So Dempsey was alone in this? All his opponents were well-fed and well-trained? Only Dempsey was the destitute hobo eating insects and dirt?
I have no idea about some of the others,but dempsey was yes,whats so hard to understand here.

[dmt]

1. Many say Dempsey was "the greatest fighter of his generation."
Few say Wills was. Carroll was a dissenter, and one of the few black
sportwriters of that era to write for a mainstream white publication.
There were other dissenters. Jack Gibbons, for example.
2. Dawson was one of the top boxing writers of that generation. I
think his opinion is certainly interesting and of value.
3. I agree that Dawson was too harsh concerning Gibbons. On the
other hand, he could have mentioned the second Brennan fight. Off
his record, Brennan was a good but hardly outstanding challenger who
still managed to give Dempsey all he could handle for twelve rounds.

Bottom line--Jeffries,Johnson, Louis, Marciano, and Ali were clearly
the best heavyweight for a few years at their peaks. It is not so
clear with Dempsey because of Wills and this certainly clouds the
issue of whether he was "the greatest fighter of his generation."Benny Leonrard was the greatest fighter of that generaion p4p IMO

[joe33]

This is my kind of sportswriter. He's telling it like it is. He is dead on the money. Good for Dawson for not falling for the hero worship.

Dempsey = overrated, good for his day but never great.
HH = never good in his day,an twisted with hate beyond anything ive ever seen on here,you lost everybody when you said he was not in the top 75 haha,you must be some right clown.

[joe33]

How come HH is ok to say willis as great,while dempseys not?,he may have not been as good as anyone says,there fuck all proof,dempsey would have killed the bum.

[OLD FOGEY]

Benny Leonrard was the greatest fighter of that generaion p4p IMO

Or Greb. But I think the phrase "greatest fighter of his generation"
was in this case referring to greatest heavyweight fighter and therefore
the man who could lick any other man in the world.

[OLD FOGEY]

So Dempsey was alone in this? All his opponents were well-fed and well-trained? Only Dempsey was the destitute hobo eating insects and dirt?

I always enjoy a grasshopper myself.

[joe33]

I always enjoy a grasshopper myself.

:D

[prime]

a. The tragedy of racial discrimination against the great early black fighters places them in an honorable-mention class all their own, but in terms of achievements, Jack Dempsey was the greatest fighter of his generation. And I still think he would blast out Wills. Babe Ruth’s accomplishments are not nullified by the existence of the Negro Leagues.

b. Thanks for the Carroll and Dawson critiques. No fighter ever has been unanimously praised. And yet I have to take an opinion that says Dempsey could do nothing against Gibbons with a little salt. I have the film and Dempsey won clearly, punching aggressively over 15 rounds, with Gibbons in survival mode.

[janitor]

[quote=Homicidal Hank]You mean a middleweight like Harry Greb? Because that's what would have happened had Dempsey and Greb fought. The only problem with the analog is that Greb likely would have licked Dempsey, where Duran could only go the distance with Hagler.

With all due respect we can only guess what would have hapened if Dempsey yhad fought Greb.

We know what hapened when Hagler fought Duran.

See the difference?


This is because Dempsey and Hagler are not comparable. Hagler transcends time. Dempsey doesn't.


Dempsey was probably the best known sports figure of his generation. If that dose not transcend time then I don't know what dose.

Not sure what the first sentence means to say, but Michael Spinks is the greatest light heavyweight who ever lived and he beat an aging all-time great heavyweight in Holmes. It was a close fight.

So Holmes lost his title to a light heavyweight just like Dempsey and just like Dempsey he lost the rematch albeit under controvertial circumstances in both cases.


In any case, Michael Spinks would have made Dempsey look worse than Tunney did. Dempsey isn't in that league.


For all you know Dempsey might have done to Spinks what Mike Tyson did.

Lets face it tyson is the closest thing Spinks egver faced to Dempsey.

When I watch Dempsey and Firpo I see skills that aren't even at the level of the UFC, especially from Firpo. Dempsey falls down in the opening seconds of the fight and hits the deck twice - or, more accurately, hits the deck once and is knocked plum out of the ring on another occasion.

As I have said before.

This is the best display of infighting ability that any heavyweight has ever shown on film. If you can't see that or don't want to see it then I won't argue with you.

Historians like Michael Hunnicut have studied the fight in slow motion, frame by frame and punch by punch to evaluate the skills on display. Their conclusions are verry difernt to yours.

To be honest you seem to be hiding behind the lack of clarity of the film to further your agenda.

[janitor]

So Dempsey was alone in this? All his opponents were well-fed and well-trained? Only Dempsey was the destitute hobo eating insects and dirt?

No of course he was not alone in this.

The point is that when everybody is starting at this level the gap between guys starting out on their careers and those who have established themselves with a manager and training camp is magnified a hundred fold.

Of course your primary motivation seems to be to use the circumstances of these fighters early careers as a tool to tear down their legacies.

[UpWithEvil]

When I watch Dempsey and Firpo I see skills that aren't even at the level of the UFC

Prime Randy Couture d. Prime Mike Tyson, R1, 2:00

[janitor]

Ray Arcel's verdict on how Dempsey would have fared against subsequent champions.

“Dempsey would have absolutely beaten any fighter who came after him – without a doubt. I know all about Joe Louis and how he knocked guys’ teeth out. I have every respect for Joe – I rate him number two. But Dempsey would have killed Louis, George Foreman, any of those guys. What Jack had was God-given – you can’t develop the kind of talent he had.

Marciano? Same result. Dempsey would have murdered Rocky. I tell you, Jack would have chased everyone out of the ring. I trained Max Baer a couple of times and often got asked how good that booming right of his was and whether it was as good as anything Dempsey had. Are you kidding? It wasn’t even close.

Mike Tyson might have got through a round with Dempsey, maybe two. People always asked me what Jack’s weaknesses were. That’s the point – he didn’t have any.”

[janitor]

Mike Hunnicut's verdict based on extensive frame by frame analysis of footage of Dempsey-

“When you watch the films of Joe Louis and zoom in, it’s incredible to behold what Joe could do – fantastic.

But a real close-up view of Dempsey in real time has an almost surreal quality to it – his incredible animal-like moves and co-ordination, his terrific punch and all-round toughness. It absolutely floors the viewer. These are the qualities that the Lou Stillmans and the Ray Arcels were referring to.

Dempsey’s footwork, his overall boxing ability and his reflexes were genuinely exceptional. You can’t conveniently group that man with anyone else.”

[UpWithEvil]

Of course your primary motivation seems to be to use the circumstances of these fighters early careers as a tool to tear down their legacies.

Nah, his primary motivation is trolling. Trolling under a handful of different screen names.

[dmt]

Nah, his primary motivation is trolling. Trolling under a handful of different screen names.:lol: :good

[janitor]

Nah, his primary motivation is trolling. Trolling under a handful of different screen names.

Ha ha ha

Why don't we all make a handfull of aliases who agree with us and make sycophantic observations about our posts.

Just to preserve the corect ratio between troll and sensible person and create a level playing field.

I could be-

janitor, janiter, janitah and janetor

[PowerPuncher]

Ray Arcel's verdict on how Dempsey would have fared against subsequent champions.

“Dempsey would have absolutely beaten any fighter who came after him – without a doubt. I know all about Joe Louis and how he knocked guys’ teeth out. I have every respect for Joe – I rate him number two. But Dempsey would have killed Louis, George Foreman, any of those guys. What Jack had was God-given – you can’t develop the kind of talent he had.

Marciano? Same result. Dempsey would have murdered Rocky. I tell you, Jack would have chased everyone out of the ring. I trained Max Baer a couple of times and often got asked how good that booming right of his was and whether it was as good as anything Dempsey had. Are you kidding? It wasn’t even close.

Mike Tyson might have got through a round with Dempsey, maybe two. People always asked me what Jack’s weaknesses were. That’s the point – he didn’t have any.”

Just because Arcel says something doesn't make it so. Frankly Arcel sounds dillusional or maybe hes just caught a dose of Dempsey hero worship. He makes it seem like Dempsey walks through Louis, Tyson, Foreman, Marciano easily. He didn't even walk through none boxing weight lifter Firpo without tasting the canvas. He didn't have an easy time with light heavyweights not on these guys level.

Dempseys skills are mighty impressive on film. But he has clear weaknesses, such as being open to counters when he leaps in, leaving himself open and against the likes of Louis/Tyson/Foreman spells disaster.

[OLD FOGEY]

Just because Arcel says something doesn't make it so. Frankly Arcel sounds dillusional or maybe hes just caught a dose of Dempsey hero worship. He makes it seem like Dempsey walks through Louis, Tyson, Foreman, Marciano easily. He didn't even walk through none boxing weight lifter Firpo without tasting the canvas. He didn't have an easy time with light heavyweights not on these guys level.

Dempseys skills are mighty impressive on film. But he has clear weaknesses, such as being open to counters when he leaps in, leaving himself open and against the likes of Louis/Tyson/Foreman spells disaster.

Arcel was a close lifelong friend of Dempsey. I think these quotes come
from a HBO video made when Dempsey was well into his eighties and
had suffered several strokes. What would one expect a friend to say?

I agree with the gist of the last paragraph. Dempsey is impressive on
film but also shows weaknesses. It is not obvious he would be too
much for later great champions to handle.

[dmt]

all fighters have weaknesses , not just Dempsey.

[janitor]

Just because Arcel says something doesn't make it so. Frankly Arcel sounds dillusional or maybe hes just caught a dose of Dempsey hero worship.

You are right. Just because Arcel say's it dosn't make it so.

However-

He has worked with champions from Benny Leonard to Roberto Duran and is about as informed an observer at you can get.

I am not suggesting that you accept what he says as being litteraly corect, but consider that Dempsey must have been good enough to make what he says plausible to sombody who had seen both him and Robeto Duran in action.

There is no way that you are going to convince yourself that Ricky Hatton is better than Roberto Duran however delusional you are.

[janitor]

This is like saying, "For all you know we could be living on the back of a giant turtle."

Not really.

There is a clear prescedent of a fighter with a similar style doing it.

[janitor]

One would think you already do this, given the group think in this forum.

I don't need to.

I can defend my position by reasoned argument and I don't want to work in a forum where everybodys views are a carbon copy of my own.

[PowerPuncher]

You are right. Just because Arcel say's it dosn't make it so.

However-

He has worked with champions from Benny Leonard to Roberto Duran and is about as informed an observer at you can get.

I am not suggesting that you accept what he says as being litteraly corect, but consider that Dempsey must have been good enough to make what he says plausible to sombody who had seen both him and Robeto Duran in action.

There is no way that you are going to convince yourself that Ricky Hatton is better than Roberto Duran however delusional you are.

This is true, but Hattons a B Class fighter, Durans A Class, Hatton can be a 154lb (fight night) physical beast though and is much bigger than Duran - so maybe Hatton would give Duran some problems.

BTW EVER SEEN ANGELO DUNDEES TOP FIGHTERS LIST - It isn't too great and he has of course worked with the best. We all have biases and I suggest Arcel is biased in Dempseys favour. Not that Dempsey wasn't a fantastic fighter.

[janitor]

BTW EVER SEEN ANGELO DUNDEES TOP FIGHTERS LIST - It isn't too great and he has of course worked with the best. We all have biases and I suggest Arcel is biased in Dempseys favour. Not that Dempsey wasn't a fantastic fighter.

Our lists are all verry similar because we are confined to using the same sources eg records and film.

Sombody like Dundee who has worked with the fighters can get the kind of insights we never can so he might be able to identify a fighter who was better head to head than his record or film suggests.

He will certainly have biases and errors. Dont acept what he says as gospell but equaly don't dismiss it as worthless.

Just because you don't agree with his rankings dosn't mean you can't learn from them.

[UpWithEvil]

One would think you already do this, given the group think in this forum.

But these are all individuals, not sock puppets. Yes, yes, you can agree with yourself, support yourself in various guises, and pat yourself on the back. Good lad.

[dmt]

Dempsey would beat the crap out of Spinks

[dmt]

i am amazed by someone who thinks Spinks is an atg heavy. Realistically Dempsey would beat the crap out of Spinks as would Louis and Marciano, too by the way. A man who wins a gift decision over an old 36 yr old Holmes can NEVER beat Dempsey, Louis or Marciano. I don't care if u belive Holmes is better then those guys but certainly not an old Holmes who at that time was ducking the likes Of Thomas. Spiks does not stand a chance realistically.

[dmt]

i bet HH voted for "outside the top 100" :lol: :lol: :rofl

[dmt]

so from the poll u can see that about 60 percent of the voters have him in the top 10 and about 24 further percent have him in the top 15 which is reasonable. The rest idiots voted below that. Still only three losers voted outside the top 100 which is a shame

[dmt]

yes but it shows how Michael struggled with an over the hill Holmes in his heavyweight prime dude. Think about it a bit more

[UpWithEvil]

DMT, Spinks was a 6'3" 200+ pounder with an Olympic Gold medal,

Watch out Pete Rademacher!

[janitor]

Both Marciano and Louis are vastly overrated. The evidence simply does not support a position holding that they beat Spinks.

The evidence is that they both dominated an era while Spinks only had a handfull of fights at heavyweight.

[OLD FOGEY]

Both Marciano and Louis are vastly overrated. The evidence simply does not support a position holding that they beat Spinks.

No evidence at all supports that they would beat Spinks and no evidence
at all supports that Spinks would beat them.

One might as well debate whether Julius Caesar would have been a
good pianist.

What we do know, as Janitor pointed out in a previous post, is that
Louis and Marciano dominated an era at heavyweight, and Spinks did
not. This is all history can tell us.

[janitor]

[quote=Homicidal Hank]They dominated crappy eras.

How do you establish that these era's were weak?

The pool of talent in both was far bigger than at any time in the postwar era. Dempsey dominated the era when the number of men boxing profesionaly was at its absolute pinacle.

How fighters from diferent era's would compare head to head is anybodys guess.

Spinks' victories over Larry Holmes and Gerry Cooney transcend Dempsey, Marciano, and Louis' opposition.

Forgive me if I don't thisnk that wins over a faded champion and a fighter who never beat a ranked contender eclipse 25 title defences.

[OLD FOGEY]

The fact of odds making shoots down your argument, Old Fogey. Nobody who makes predictions in fights believes his predictions are not based on the evidence.

There is zero difference between predicting the outcome of a fight between Spinks and Holmes on the one hand and a fight between Spinks and Dempsey on the other. Zero. Based on the evidence, I believe Spinks would easily defeat Dempsey.

What were the odds on Holmes and Spinks? As Spinks won, I assume
he was favored, by your logic.

Lincoln is judged by most historians as a success as president because
he dealt relatively successfully with the challenges of the Civil War.
Herbert Hoover is judged a failure because he failed to meet the
challenges of the Great Depression. It does not follow that Lincoln
could have handled the Depression better than Hoover, or that Hoover
would have necessarily failed if he had been president during the Civil
War. No historian can honestly say. What a historian can say is that
Lincoln was more successful in his day than Hoover was in his.

[janitor]

[quote=Homicidal Hank]The fact of odds making shoots down your argument, Old Fogey. Nobody who makes predictions in fights believes his predictions are not based on the evidence.


But everybody's predictions are hit and miss.


There is zero difference between predicting the outcome of a fight between Spinks and Holmes on the one hand and a fight between Spinks and Dempsey on the other. Zero. Based on the evidence, I believe Spinks would easily defeat Dempsey.


If anybody could predict the outcome of boxing matches with a 50% sucess rate they would not have to work for a living.

[OLD FOGEY]

The fact of odds making shoots down your argument, Old Fogey. Nobody who makes predictions in fights believes his predictions are not based on the evidence.

There is zero difference between predicting the outcome of a fight between Spinks and Holmes on the one hand and a fight between Spinks and Dempsey on the other. Zero. Based on the evidence, I believe Spinks would easily defeat Dempsey.

This post does answer one question which arises now and then on this
forum--who was better, Johnson or Jeffries?
It is clearly Jeffries as he was the 10-7 favorite in their fight and the
odds were set by the evidence, as you say.

[UpWithEvil]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
"Don't treat your guesses the same as mine. It's insulting."

[OLD FOGEY]

Can you think of a more irrelevant example? I can't. At least you win the "World's Worst Analogy" prize.


Interesting. No rebuttal. One can always tell when an analogy strikes
home.

It also allowed you to duck the question about Spinks and Holmes.

[OLD FOGEY]

This does not at all follow from my argument. Nobody says odds makers are never wrong. What you claim is there is no basis to judge. That is utterly false. You should take a break and regroup.

And you should learn that the prosecuting and defense lawyers do not
also sit on the jury.

The fact is these two fighters were contempories and the odds were
still way off. Now think how much more difficult it is when two fighters
are generations apart, fighting under different rules and with different
gloves, living in vastly different social settings with different medical
care, nutrition, etc.

[janitor]

[quote=Homicidal Hank]This is completely false. There are, for example, many more boxers today than in Dempsey's time. The fact is that the sport was nowhere near its highpoint during Dempsey's time, either in numbers or talent. The division was primitive then. Today it's worldwide.


In the USA the number of boxing clubs operating, and the number of boxing matches staged peaked.

FACT.

In fact, when Brennan was offered up as a challenger, most boxing authorities blasted the idea because Brennan was considered a completely illegitimate choice.

The fact that a champion chooses a weak challenger dose not reflect the weakness of the era. In fact it implies that better challengers were available.

In other words, there were no suitable heavyweight challenges so they wanted an elimination bout with a light heavyweight instead.

Like Spinks?

There are guesses and then there are educated guesses. Don't treat your guesses the same as mine. It's insulting.

Ouch!!!

[UpWithEvil]

Interesting. No rebuttal.

Actually he's getting the pie right now.

[janitor]

[quote=Homicidal Hank]
Complete bullshit. There are people who call it right most of the time and there are people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.


Like I say.

If your predictions were even 50% correct you would not have to work for a living.

[OLD FOGEY]

I have no control over the poor judgment of other people, Old Fogey. I am almost always right in my predictions. That's clearly good enough for me.

Almost aways? I've have never ever been wrong myself and I think
I am much older than you.

The people who set odds though have often been wrong, indicating
I guess human frailities which you are scarcely subject to, and I
not at all.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote=janitor]

My predictions are almost always right, but I believe gambling is morally wrong, so I keep my day job.

Can you give us betting tips as we arent quite as moral :D

[OLD FOGEY]

Fascinating. You drew the completely wrong conclusion (again).

Still nothing about Spinks and Holmes.

[janitor]

[quote=janitor]

My predictions are almost always right, but I believe gambling is morally wrong, so I keep my day job.

If your predictions are nearly always right then predict the outcomes of the next 10 major fights.

If you do so more or less corectly then you will gain more credibility for your claim that you know how a bout between fighters from seperate era's would go.

[OLD FOGEY]

[quote=janitor]

My predictions are almost always right, but I believe gambling is morally wrong, so I keep my day job.

Turning your back on probably millions of dollars, and money that would basically come out of the hide of the Mafia, and all because gambling is morally wrong. I'm impressed.

[Marciano Frazier]

[quote=Homicidal Hank]

If your predictions are nearly always right then predict the outcomes of the next 10 major fights.

If you do so more or less corectly then you will gain more credibility for your claim that you know how a bout between fighters from seperate era's would go.
I was about to suggest this as well. And I mean it- H.H.'s opinions about past-era fighters have generally struck me as being strange, unlikely, and probably very inaccurate, but there is no way to objectively prove that he's wrong, so I must still keep an open mind. If he were to post, in advance, predictions of the outcomes of the next few fights between top 10 fighters in any given weight classes, and his predictions were virtually all right, I would be far more compelled to take his opinions of past fighters seriously.

[Marciano Frazier]

The next time a fight comes along that interests me in which I know a lot about the fighters and feel confident in making a prediction I will make a prediction. How about Hatton-Castillo?

[janitor]

I never gamble. I don't believe in it. The fact that the mafia may be involved is even more reason not to be involved in it.

Fleecing the bookmakers out of their money would not be imoral. In fact it would be a public service.

So what are you waiting for?

[dmt]

Willard kayoed Johnson, it is so clear with the film. Double standard from Hank

[dmt]

Ok Hank. 99 percent of the forum who rates Dempsey within the top 20 is wrong, u r right. All Hail Homocidal Hank

[Guido]

Well then fillet me for putting Jack as my #3 heavy of all time -- he revolutionized modern fighting, was the biggest draw in boxing history, destroyed and dominated fighters for years (although I see many of you take issue, or flat-out deny this), and his only real loss came years after his best fights -- even then he beat Tunney in the rematch.

Jack means more to boxing than any fighter before him, and only Ali and Louis mean more to the game since he retired. #3 alltime.

[OLD FOGEY]

It must be frustrating for janitor and Old Fogey to see so many threads pairing this fighter from this generation with that fighter from that generation. I am wondering why they even participate in such discussions. If there is zero basis for predicting the outcomes of proposed matches, as they claim, then they have no basis for arguing one way or the other. It seems they would be much happier, then, just hanging out in threads that talk about matters other than proposed matches.

As for me, I will continue to talk about the relative merits of participants in proposed matches in the same way I talk about contemporary matches between top fighters in the sport. It's fun to match, say, Tyson and Dempsey, and then talk about how Tyson would blow Dempsey out in the first round. It's easy to talk about that since we all saw Tyson bomb out a man in the first round who was bigger, strong, faster, better, and more accomplished than Dempsey.

The title of this thread is:

"Where do you rank Jack Dempsey??"

I see nothing about fantasy fights in that title. You can rate if you desire on fantasies,
and I have the right to question the validity of such rankings, and the validity of the
criteria.

[McGrain]

Peak Dempsey has a chance v anyone, ever.

I peronally make many favourite ahead of him, but to write him of in any given match (aside from possibly Ali) is a stupid thing to do.

[janitor]

[quote=Homicidal Hank]It must be frustrating for janitor and Old Fogey to see so many threads pairing this fighter from this generation with that fighter from that generation. I am wondering why they even participate in such discussions. If there is zero basis for predicting the outcomes of proposed matches, as they claim, then they have no basis for arguing one way or the other.

I don't mind venturing an opinion on a fantasy match up but I recognize that it is only that.

Fantasy match ups are a bit of light fun, nothing more.

[janitor]

I know it's convenient for you to believe that, but everybody who has studied the fight knows the true story.

I am a huge fan of Jack Johnson.

I rate him as the third best heavyweight of all time.

I have actively argued for the quality of his opposition more than any other poster on this site as everybody will testify.

But there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that Willard knocked him out legitimately.

[janitor]

Could have fooled me. You get awfully worked up about it. I mean, if it's just for fun, why jump on me?

I don't like people being disrespectfull towards great fighters and I don't like people who are motivated more by dislike of fighter A than respect for fighter B.

[janitor]

Then you are willfully ignoring all the evidence.

I would like to beleive that Johnson did not loose to Willard but I know in my heart that it is not true.

[janitor]

[quote=Homicidal Hank]My judgments are not motivated by dislike for any fighter, even fighters I dislike. My opinion of Dempsey has zero to do with my feelings towards Dempsey.

Then why all the snide remarks?

You are at best a kid sitting behind a computer who has never boxed and probably never even been hit making sneering remarks about guys who get their brains smashed against the inside of their skulls for a living.

This is the reality of the situation.

[UpWithEvil]

It was because Johnson laid down.

Laying down being, of course, a common side-effect of eating big right hands.

Why don't you do an in-depth analysis of the fight footage and upload it to Youtube? Be part of the solution for once.

[UpWithEvil]

You are at best a kid sitting behind a computer who has never boxed

Don't be so dismissive. He's at least three kids.

[janitor]

Johnson did lose to Willard, but it wasn't because Willard knocked Johnson out. It was because Johnson laid down. It's not the first time a fighter laid down, janitor.

Even Johnsons staunchest admirers acknowledge that he was KOd legitimately.

The only people who beleive otherwise are either people who havn't looked into the matter or conspiracy theorists.

[JimmyShimmy]

I am of the opinion that Johnson was knocked down but figured he may as well stay down 'cause he wasn't going to win.

[janitor]

You seem to be incredibly out-of-touch on many subjects.

If you think Johnson dived then present the case.

I would be interested.

[janitor]

What snide remarks?

Jesus these guys suck.

He was a joke.

All this from a person who would probably break down and cry if he had to step into the ring with any profesional fighter.

[Duodenum]

Jesus these guys suck.

He was a joke.

All this from a person who would probably break down and cry if he had to step into the ring with any profesional fighter.I suspected McCall was typing those posts! (Now we all know!)

[OLD FOGEY]

You seem to be incredibly out-of-touch on many subjects.

Geoffrey C. Ward's biography of Johnson, "Unforgivable Blackness"
backs up Janitor. Why is he out of touch? I think that not only
Ward, but most sources, think this fight was on the level. The
idea that it was fixed faded fast once the film surfaced back in
the 1960's and people saw the effort Johnson put into knocking
out Willard.
Critics might consider Willard just a big lummox, but having worked
in the fields with temps in the 90 to 100 range, I can't imagine how
difficult it would be to wrestle around a 230 lb man, even if he is
only a lummox, for 26 rounds. It is no surprise to me that Johnson
ran out of gas.

[mr. magoo]

I rank Dempsey rather low. He had only 6 title defenses in 7 years, and failed to defend against #1 black contender Harry Wills. Dempsey is not worthy of a top slot in my opinion..

[joe33]

Geoffrey C. Ward's biography of Johnson, "Unforgivable Blackness"
backs up Janitor. Why is he out of touch? I think that not only
Ward, but most sources, think this fight was on the level. The
idea that it was fixed faded fast once the film surfaced back in
the 1960's and people saw the effort Johnson put into knocking
out Willard.
Critics might consider Willard just a big lummox, but having worked
in the fields with temps in the 90 to 100 range, I can't imagine how
difficult it would be to wrestle around a 230 lb man, even if he is
only a lummox, for 26 rounds. It is no surprise to me that Johnson
ran out of gas.

Thats so true mate,willard was a huge strong man,and i dont think the johnson fight was fixed myself,he just gassed out and then got koed,willard was pretty decent at times,its just when he took on dempsey,he took on a vicious killer that day,also the bet his manager had made to win in one round,made him even more determined to finish him,i give willard huge respect to go to round 4 or what ever he got to,after that first round beating he took.