Jack Dempsey vs Joe Louis

[PhillyPhan69]

This is not designed to be a hypothetical H2H match-up (although if you want to includ your analysis that is fine!), rather about thier all time rankings...I was reading an article: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

in this article the author states that dempsey was rated above Louis, in 1950...years later louis has surpassed him inequivaclly. Most ESBers have him 1-2 (although conseus seems to be 2) with just about all giving him a top 5 ranking...dempsey however is not always listed among the top 10 and it seems rarely among the top 5...What has happened since this time to vault louis over dempsey??? Was is racially biased for a white champion, or some other reason...I am not critiquing anyones rankings as I have louis ranked above dempsey as well, just trying to find out WHY, Louis has surpassed him when analysts of their day ranked Dempsey ahead of him? Any thoughts... Who should be ranked higher and why did a panel of 75 reporters in 1950 have dempsey ranked higher than Louis while a panel of 5 rated Louis Higher at the turn of the century???

[mcvey]

This is not designed to be a hypothetical H2H match-up (although if you want to includ your analysis that is fine!), rather about thier all time rankings...I was reading an article: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

in this article the author states that dempsey was rated above Louis, in 1950...years later louis has surpassed him inequivaclly. Most ESBers have him 1-2 (although conseus seems to be 2) with just about all giving him a top 5 ranking...dempsey however is not always listed among the top 10 and it seems rarely among the top 5...What has happened since this time to vault louis over dempsey??? Was is racially biased for a white champion, or some other reason...I am not critiquing anyones rankings as I have louis ranked above dempsey as well, just trying to find out WHY, Louis has surpassed him when analysts of their day ranked Dempsey ahead of him? Any thoughts... Who should be ranked higher and why did a panel of 75 reporters in 1950 have dempsey ranked higher than Louis while a panel of 5 rated Louis Higher at the turn of the century???
Fans of Dempsey died ,when he was champ marciano was called a crude version of Dempsey ,now he,s often rated above him,as your fan base goes to that big Square Garden in the sky ,your atg rating takes a hit.

[PhillyPhan69]

Fans of Dempsey died ,when he was champ marciano was called a crude version of Dempsey ,now he,s often rated above him,as your fan base goes to that big Square Garden in the sky ,your atg rating takes a hit.

Yes, but this would be like reading an article in 2050 that rates larry Holmes #4 and Ali #6...both are retired and have been...what is the reasoning of elevating one of the other when no action has actuall taken place during that time?

[Lampley]

All you have to do is read some of that era's newspaper accounts to see that Louis wasn't going to get a fair shake from the white reporters. Johnson, either.

[OLD FOGEY]

Yes, but this would be like reading an article in 2050 that rates larry Holmes #4 and Ali #6...both are retired and have been...what is the reasoning of elevating one of the other when no action has actuall taken place during that time?

Do you really think this would happen? I doubt it myself. Ali's resume is too strong.
Louis overtook Dempsey because his resume was so much stronger. You say that when Dempsey's contemporaries began to die off he began to slip, but Louis' contemporaries have mostly died off also and he has not slipped. The same with Marciano. Their records buoy their ratings. In the long run, the record of what a fighter accomplished endures. I think the bias was in the polls that put Dempsey ahead to begin with. He was an extremely charismatic fighter who was overrated by his own generation. Other generations give him a more studied evaluation and rate him lower accordingly.

[Vanboxingfan]

I think this is a very valid question, one I've often thought about myself. Perhaps not having watched either of the fight the modern boxing historians focus more on actual accomplishments, where as the one's who say both of them fight, may have focused more on a h2h outcome. That's my best guess anyway. Another guess is that the panel in the 1950's may have been all white and biased against blacks, while the current panels are more racially mixed. Perhaps it's a blend of the two.

[ChrisPontius]

It has nothing to do with the men who saw Dempsey dying. It has everything to do with the fact that Dempsey was overrated because back then, almost no one really saw him except for exhibitions and story telling. He was popular. He was white. He scored knockouts. He did a ton of work that made him popular post-retirement. His record can't hold a candle to Louis' or Marciano's. Never has and never will. But he was not ranked based on that.

[janitor]

It has nothing to do with the men who saw Dempsey dying. It has everything to do with the fact that Dempsey was overrated because back then, almost no one really saw him except for exhibitions and story telling.

With all due respect men like Fleischer Arcel did see him. Men like Sharkey and Schmeling shared a ring with both him and Louis. You cannot simply dismis the views of these men as the passing down of legends.

Men from that era who did not see him fight in person might know that they and all their mates expected Fred Fulton to be the next champion going into his title eliminator fight with Dempsey while you would just reel off his record on boxrec.

You have to take acount of contemporary opinion on some level.

[Lampley]

With all due respect men like Fleischer Arcel did see him. Men like Sharkey and Schmeling shared a ring with both him and Louis. You cannot simply dismis the views of these men as the passing down of legends.

Men from that era who did not see him fight in person might know that they and all their mates expected Fred Fulton to be the next champion going into his title eliminator fight with Dempsey while you would just reel off his record on boxrec.

You have to take acount of contemporary opinion on some level.

Right, but you also have to factor in the mainstream bias against black athletes at that time. There's no question that prejudice was a major factor.

America held its nose and cheered for Louis against Schmeling, but propping him above an icon such as Dempsey? No way. Not then.

[ChrisPontius]

With all due respect men like Fleischer Arcel did see him. Men like Sharkey and Schmeling shared a ring with both him and Louis. You cannot simply dismis the views of these men as the passing down of legends.

Men from that era who did not see him fight in person might know that they and all their mates expected Fred Fulton to be the next champion going into his title eliminator fight with Dempsey while you would just reel off his record on boxrec.

You have to take acount of contemporary opinion on some level.

You won't hear any of them speak of the record-setting duck job (that still stands 80 years later today) of Harry Wills. Did they even know or did they not want to let their idol down? What Sharkey says doesn't have much value to me. Of course he's gonna praise him, he got knocked out by him. Praising a popular person always makes yourself more popular. Which is exactly why Foreman calls a local prospect the next unified champ every year.


Fleischer was a biased writer with a retarded, blinded view on boxing. I don't value his opinion unless he's comparing someone from the 1900's to the 1910's.



And yeah, they "saw" Dempsey. For about a few hours or so, in fights, spread over years. Judgement upon that is totally unreliable. Memory of such a short event (especially when you're in your 20's or older) are being modified, partially lost or otherwise changed by the mind to make them more acceptable. This is natural human behaviour as phychological research has shown. Cus D'Amato himself commented on how he held a fighter from the 20's in really high regard, but was de-illusionised when he saw the actual film again, many decades later. Apparantly he remembered the guts and courage, but was surprised by the technical deficianies of the fighter of which he didn't recall anything.

[Sonny's jab]

I think Joe Louis's stock has risen since 1950 because it has sunk in that 25 consecutive title defences is a remarkable display of greatness. Most people tend to find it easier to assess a fighter after he's been retired for a few years.

I dont know why Dempsey's stock has fallen. I still think he's in the same category of greatness as Louis.
Most people talking about the weakness of his resume haven't got a great knowledge of the era.

[OLD FOGEY]

I think Joe Louis's stock has risen since 1950 because it has sunk in that 25 consecutive title defences is a remarkable display of greatness. Most people tend to find it easier to assess a fighter after he's been retired for a few years.

I dont know why Dempsey's stock has fallen. I still think he's in the same category of greatness as Louis.
Most people talking about the weakness of his resume haven't got a great knowledge of the era.

I don't know if Dempsey's stock has fallen that much. The AP end of the century poll rated him fourth, behind only Ali, Louis, and Marciano.

[JohnThomas1]

I think Joe Louis's stock has risen since 1950 because it has sunk in that 25 consecutive title defences is a remarkable display of greatness. Most people tend to find it easier to assess a fighter after he's been retired for a few years.

I dont know why Dempsey's stock has fallen. I still think he's in the same category of greatness as Louis.
Most people talking about the weakness of his resume haven't got a great knowledge of the era.

Yes, how could people think Dempsey's 6 title defenses and 4 year dominance of the division (minus Wills of course) isn't at least as good if not better than Louis' mere 11 year reign and 25 defenses?

:patsch

[Sonny's jab]

Yes, how could people think Dempsey's 6 title defenses and 4 year dominance of the division (minus Wills of course) isn't at least as good if not better than Louis' mere 11 year reign and 25 defenses?

:patsch

Obviously Louis beats Dempsey measured on the bare facts of reign length/title defences.

But Dempsey beats Liston on the same criteria, and I didn't see Dempsey mentioned in your all-time list (whereas Sonny was).
Obviously the bare facts of reign and title defences dont suffice entirely.

[JohnThomas1]

Obviously Louis beats Dempsey measured on the bare facts of reign length/title defences.


So where does he make up the difference to be "in the same category of greatness of Louis"? He certainly didn't beat anyone fantastic like an Ali did to gain ground that way.

But Dempsey beats Liston on the same criteria, and I didn't see Dempsey mentioned in your all-time list (whereas Sonny was).
Obviously the bare facts of reign and title defences dont suffice entirely.

Well for starters i think Dempsey is massively overrated head to head and would be beaten by my entire top 10.

Secondly i think Patterson would likely beat any guy Dempsey faced.

Thirdly Liston was from most accounts avoided, and beat some of the more dangerous guys Floyd would have had to face. If he got his chance sooner he would have been mopping up the division as a champ instead of a contender chasing his shot.

I think Liston would knock out Dempsey.

I'm not really that impressed with Dempsey's reign at all, missing the likes of Wills and squatting on the title for years.

I think Liston is head to head top 5 and possibly lower, Jack doesn't look like making my 10 in that regard. I think he's been blown out to mythical proportions and some writers of the day would agree. Blame it on the times.

[Sizzle]

So where does he make up the difference to be "in the same category of greatness of Louis"? He certainly didn't beat anyone fantastic like an Ali did to gain ground that way.



Well for starters i think Dempsey is massively overrated head to head and would be beaten by my entire top 10.

Secondly i think Patterson would likely beat any guy Dempsey faced.

Thirdly Liston was from most accounts avoided, and beat some of the more dangerous guys Floyd would have had to face. If he got his chance sooner he would have been mopping up the division as a champ instead of a contender chasing his shot.

I think Liston would knock out Dempsey.

I'm not really that impressed with Dempsey's reign at all, missing the likes of Wills and squatting on the title for years.

I think Liston is head to head top 5 and possibly lower, Jack doesn't look like making my 10 in that regard. I think he's been blown out to mythical proportions and some writers of the day would agree. Blame it on the times.

In the current context Jack Dempsey would not even be allowed to COMPETE as a heavyweight. Too light. Lets not forget he begun his professional career as a spindly middleweight.

So why not compare him to cruiserweights?

I think if you're going to compare him against heavyweights you have to assume the advantage of modern training and nutrition, which I think would take him to 210-220lbs of solid muscle. This Dempsey I would fancy to blitz the current heavyweight division, apart from perhaps Klitscho.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]You won't hear any of them speak of the record-setting duck job (that still stands 80 years later today) of Harry Wills. Did they even know or did they not want to let their idol down?

Perhaps they just asumed like most people at the time that Wills would have been anihilated.

What Sharkey says doesn't have much value to me. Of course he's gonna praise him, he got knocked out by him. Praising a popular person always makes yourself more popular.

I dont have a problem with you treating witneses like Sharkey with caution.

Where I have a problem is when you choose to airily dismiss their views completely in favour of an "I know better 80 years after the event" position.

This man did fight them both for christs sake.

What makes your position even more absurd is when you have a thousand people all saying the same thing and you dismiss all of them on the basis that each individual could theoreticaly be subject to bias and put forward a radicaly diferent view based your own boxrec hunting.


Fleischer was a biased writer with a retarded, blinded view on boxing. I don't value his opinion unless he's comparing someone from the 1900's to the 1910's.


You dont value his view even though he saw certain fighters from ringside and you will never even see film of them?

If only everybody had your driving curiosity.

I would add that you have gone way beyond being biased where any analysis of Dempsey is concerned. If Fleischer was biased he was not a propagandist like you.


And yeah, they "saw" Dempsey. For about a few hours or so, in fights, spread over years. Judgement upon that is totally unreliable.

It is a damn sight more reliable than your own boxrechunting and clumsy analysis of a few charlie chaplin vintage films.


Memory of such a short event (especially when you're in your 20's or older) are being modified, partially lost or otherwise changed by the mind to make them more acceptable. This is natural human behaviour as phychological research has shown. Cus D'Amato himself commented on how he held a fighter from the 20's in really high regard, but was de-illusionised when he saw the actual film again, many decades later. Apparantly he remembered the guts and courage, but was surprised by the technical deficianies of the fighter of which he didn't recall anything.


It is fine to be sceptical of such recolections but when you want to argue that an entire generation are equaly and uniformly deluded and that you can put them right 80 years down the line then you are going beyond being arogant.

[dmt]

[quote]

Perhaps they just asumed like most people at the time that Wills would have been anihilated.



I dont have a problem with you treating witneses like Sharkey with caution.

Where I have a problem is when you choose to airily dismiss their views completely in favour of an "I know better 80 years after the event" position.

This man did fight them both for christs sake.

What makes your position even more absurd is when you have a thousand people all saying the same thing and you dismiss all of them on the basis that each individual could theoreticaly be subject to bias and put forward a radicaly diferent view based your own boxrec hunting.



You dont value his view even though he saw certain fighters from ringside and you will never even see film of them?

If only everybody had your driving curiosity.

I would add that you have gone way beyond being biased where any analysis of Dempsey is concerned. If Fleischer was biased he was not a propagandist like you.




It is a damn sight more reliable than your own boxrechunting and clumsy analysis of a few charlie chaplin vintage films.



It is fine to be sceptical of such recolections but when you want to argue that an entire generation are equaly and uniformly deluded and that you can put them right 80 years down the line then you are going beyond being arogant.with all due respect, there is no need to even argue with posters who think they are the first ones to research and know about Dempsey, or that he was popular just because of skin colour and knockouts.

[ChrisPontius]

Perhaps they just asumed like most people at the time that Wills would have been anihilated.



Which goes to show you their ignorance and God-praising of Dempsey. Firpo, who had no idea how to box, nearly knocked him out for crying out loud. To dismiss Wills would be just to be able to retain views of Dempsey as an almight fighter.



I dont have a problem with you treating witneses like Sharkey with caution.

Where I have a problem is when you choose to airily dismiss their views completely in favour of an "I know better 80 years after the event" position.

This man did fight them both for christs sake.

What makes your position even more absurd is when you have a thousand people all saying the same thing and you dismiss all of them on the basis that each individual could theoreticaly be subject to bias and put forward a radicaly diferent view based your own boxrec hunting.


And there were a million people saying that Tyson was going to knock Lewis out easily, that he was back, etc. Would that make my view that Lewis was going to knock out Tyson radical as well?

The people knew shit about boxing in 2002 and they knew even less about it in the 20's when information was a lot harder to come by.



You dont value his view even though he saw certain fighters from ringside and you will never even see film of them?

If only everybody had your driving curiosity.

I would add that you have gone way beyond being biased where any analysis of Dempsey is concerned. If Fleischer was biased he was not a propagandist like you.


Right.

Tell me what is more reasonable:

Rating Dempsey low in the top10 and saying that having him in the top3 or top5 is overrating him or
Rating Jeffries (who feasted on and had trouble with ancient middleweights and lightheavies) and Dempsey higher than Louis. :patsch




It is fine to be sceptical of such recolections but when you want to argue that an entire generation are equaly and uniformly deluded and that you can put them right 80 years down the line then you are going beyond being arogant.

The current generation who was so convinced that Tyson was gonna beat Lewis was equally deluded. It always happens. People don't know much about boxing, they idolise spectacular fighters based on a few knockouts, commercials or even movie roles. Dempsey did not lack popularity and the all time ratings of that time reflected that. When that went away and he was judged on his record, his ranking sank like a brick, and rightfully so.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]Which goes to show you their ignorance and God-praising of Dempsey. Firpo, who had no idea how to box, nearly knocked him out for crying out loud. To dismiss Wills would be just to be able to retain views of Dempsey as an almight fighter.


I think that if we are honest about it it was only a fluke that even made Firpo competitive against Dempsey and unless Wills is going to benefit from a similar fluke he is going to be in trouble.



And there were a million people saying that Tyson was going to knock Lewis out easily, that he was back, etc. Would that make my view that Lewis was going to knock out Tyson radical as well?


No because the majority of contemporary opinion made the corect deduction that Lewis would destroy Tyson.


The people knew shit about boxing in 2002 and they knew even less about it in the 20's when information was a lot harder to come by.




Right.


In my opinion columnists from Dempseys era were a lot more informed than those today.

Most papers actualy had a boxing columnist for a start.

Tell me what is more reasonable:


Rating Dempsey low in the top10 and saying that having him in the top3 or top5 is overrating him or
Rating Jeffries (who feasted on and had trouble with ancient middleweights and lightheavies) and Dempsey higher than Louis. :patsch


It would be crass to suggest that either was automaticaly unreasonable.

The current generation who was so convinced that Tyson was gonna beat Lewis was equally deluded. It always happens. People don't know much about boxing, they idolise spectacular fighters based on a few knockouts, commercials or even movie roles. Dempsey did not lack popularity and the all time ratings of that time reflected that. When that went away and he was judged on his record, his ranking sank like a brick, and rightfully so.

And why did some people think Tyson could beat Lewis even when he was so thar gone?

Because he was that good at his peak.

Something that you would not gather from judging him just by his record with little or no film evidence.

[JohnThomas1]

In the current context Jack Dempsey would not even be allowed to COMPETE as a heavyweight. Too light. Lets not forget he begun his professional career as a spindly middleweight.

So why not compare him to cruiserweights?

I think if you're going to compare him against heavyweights you have to assume the advantage of modern training and nutrition, which I think would take him to 210-220lbs of solid muscle. This Dempsey I would fancy to blitz the current heavyweight division, apart from perhaps Klitscho.

Well i judge them exactly as they are or it is too much speculation, so maybe i should take your advice when i do the Cruiserweight list :good

[JohnThomas1]

[quote]
It would be crass to suggest that either was automaticaly unreasonable.



With all due respect Louis defended the title 19 more times than Dempsey and dominated for 7 more years. When we factor in Dempsey's opposition wasn't exactly flash it is sheer absurdity to rate Dempsey on the same page. It's an absolute disgrace to Louis you lot putting Dempsey ahead. All his toiling and grinding and you mob suck up the sensationalistic propaganda of the day to pronounce Dempsey the better champion.

:patsch

[Mendoza]

I like Dempsey here for several reasons. He was a fast starter who liked to swarmer all over his man. Louis said he was ineffective when swarmed ( films back this up ). I also think Dempsey's chin, footwork, and defensive ability were a bit better than Louis'.

[Sonny's jab]

So where does he make up the difference to be "in the same category of greatness of Louis"? He certainly didn't beat anyone fantastic like an Ali did to gain ground that way.


Dempsey was a phenomenal fighter. On film he looks a fairly complete package. Reliable testimony from worthy sources back this up. Dempsey had a ton of "natural" ability and mastered the science of applying it.

He beat lots of good fighters.

Inactivity is a mark against him, but I feel it is also somewhat offset by his high level of activity as a leading contender, in 1918.
When a fighter is beating some fellow contenders in a matter of seconds, you have to take notice.


Well for starters i think Dempsey is massively overrated head to head and would be beaten by my entire top 10.


Whereas I think Dempsey beats most of them ...... which goes a long way in explaining why we rate him differently.


Secondly i think Patterson would likely beat any guy Dempsey faced.


There are one or two he wouldn't beat, IMO.
And he wouldn't beat some of the guys the way Dempsey beat them.


Thirdly Liston was from most accounts avoided, and beat some of the more dangerous guys Floyd would have had to face. If he got his chance sooner he would have been mopping up the division as a champ instead of a contender chasing his shot.


Dempsey could have taken Willard 12-18 months earlier too.

Some observers thought Fred Fulton could have outboxed Willard. Dempsey beat the guy in 18 seconds.


I think Liston would knock out Dempsey.


I think the opposite.


I'm not really that impressed with Dempsey's reign at all, missing the likes of Wills and squatting on the title for years.


Those are fair criticisms.


I think Liston is head to head top 5 and possibly lower, Jack doesn't look like making my 10 in that regard. I think he's been blown out to mythical proportions and some writers of the day would agree. Blame it on the times

I disagree. He looks absolutely awesome on film to me.

Sportwriters' descriptions and musings are to be taken with a pinch of salt. I dont base my opinion on colourful hyperbolic write-ups, nor on cold overly-critical write-ups.

The great Jimmy Cannon didn't think much of Ali in the 60s, for example. I think that he must have had a "negative head" on, I think he was WAY off the mark.

On the other hand, those articles that come out when a great fighter has a major victory lauding that fighter as unbeatable through all-time are not to be taken as gospel either. In my limited years of watching boxing, writers and "experts" have elevated Tyson, Chavez, RJJ, and now Mayweather (and others at various times) as "Best Ever" and all sorts of things, in the heat of the moment.

So I dont buy into the "Dempsey myth", I genuinely find him one of the most impressive fighters I've seen on film.

[Sonny's jab]

With all due respect Louis defended the title 19 more times than Dempsey and dominated for 7 more years. When we factor in Dempsey's opposition wasn't exactly flash it is sheer absurdity to rate Dempsey on the same page. It's an absolute disgrace to Louis you lot putting Dempsey ahead. All his toiling and grinding and you mob suck up the sensationalistic propaganda of the day to pronounce Dempsey the better champion.

:patsch


I think Seamus has a similar line on Sonny Liston.

We are all besotted with the "image" that the writers of the time created of Sonny, "the creature from the black lagoon", the stare that turns you to stone, the scary "bad negro" of indeterminate age, coming out of the back alley to scare the white reporters with fists the size of cannonballs, "old stoneface", the invincible one, the jaibird, mob enforcer .....

Or at least that's Seamus's take on why we rate Liston, as I remember it.

[JohnThomas1]

I think Seamus has a similar line on Sonny Liston.

We are all besotted with the "image" that the writers of the time created of Sonny, "the creature from the black lagoon", the stare that turns you to stone, the scary "bad negro" of indeterminate age, coming out of the back alley to scare the white reporters with fists the size of cannonballs, "old stoneface", the invincible one, the jaibird, mob enforcer .....

Or at least that's Seamus's take on why we rate Liston, as I remember it.

Yeah Seamus really had it in for Liston. Me, i just go by his filmed fights and there's oodles, and i have some sort of rare compilation tape of him somewhere. Liston has a lot more filmed fights to go on than Dempsey and the film is much much clearer and indicative.

[Sonny's jab]

i just go by his filmed fights and there's oodles, and i have some sort of rare compilation tape of him somewhere. Liston has a lot more filmed fights to go on than Dempsey and the film is much much clearer and indicative.

I feel I have enough clear film of Dempsey to form a solid opinion, as I said in an earlier post.

You seem to have formed a solid opinion on him too. Enough to accuse others of sucking up to propaganda and overrating him.

[JohnThomas1]

I feel I have enough clear film of Dempsey to form a solid opinion, as I said in an earlier post.

You seem to have formed a solid opinion on him too. Enough to accuse others of sucking up to propaganda and overrating him.

My rating goes beyond just footage, the guy did bugger all achievement wise when put beside a Joe Louis. This is just plain fact. He's more a mythical figure than any other heavyweight i know of. Sorry, but i am not going to treat him as the sacred cow. He can stand by what he did and didn't do, and he did an enormous amount less than Joe Louis - i can't see how it can be sanely argued any other way.

:deal

[Sonny's jab]

My rating goes beyond just footage, the guy did bugger all achievement wise when put beside a Joe Louis. This is just plain fact.

Joe Louis was far busier champion, yes. His reign of defences stands alone, above any other heavyweight. That's a very good reason to seperate them, and to rate Louis higher, but it doesn't exclude Dempsey from being on the same short list of ATG heavyweights as Joe Louis.

Dempsey did a lot more than "bugger all" when put beside anyone.


He's more a mythical figure than any other heavyweight i know of.

Only if you want him to be. Since neither you nor I buy into the myth, then it's irrelevant.

It's not really a fair argument against him. The same thing is done with Muhammad Ali, it's easy to be sceptical in the face of such idolization of any icon.



Sorry, but i am not going to treat him as the sacred cow. He can stand by what he did and didn't do,

Sounds fair to me.

and he did an enormous amount less than Joe Louis - i can't see how it can be sanely argued any other way.


By those standards, maybe all the greats did an enormous amount less than Joe Louis, but it gets lonely for Joe in that panthenon by himself.

[janitor]

[quote=JohnThomas1]
With all due respect Louis defended the title 19 more times than Dempsey and dominated for 7 more years. When we factor in Dempsey's opposition wasn't exactly flash it is sheer absurdity to rate Dempsey on the same page.


I personaly have Louis at No1 but I can understand why it took a while for him to get there. His wins over Walcott for example would not have been seen as signiture wins but we know that Walcott went on to be the heir to Louis's throne.

Of course at the end of the day there are always some people who call it like it is at the time. Some contenmporary observers did recognise Louis as being greater than Dempsey during his career but they certainly did not doubt Dempseys greatness.


It's an absolute disgrace to Louis you lot putting Dempsey ahead. All his toiling and grinding and you mob suck up the sensationalistic propaganda of the day to pronounce Dempsey the better champion.


Louis got his due but he had to work hard for it.

If a person wanted to rank Dempsey higher after this on a head to head list however that would be a fair call.

[Bummy Davis]

This is a hard fight to judge because Jack was a fast starter and had fast powerfull hands and Joe was a master counterpunching power puncher. both men could be dropped but both had good recup powers and got off the floor to win, I give Joe the edge for the Ko win which could be before the 5th round and it could be a Dempsey stop the same way. Overall Joe was the better fighter but a fighter like Dempsey would spell trouble for him.

[pudding]

Prime for prime it is difficult to say would win between Louis and Dempsey. Louis certainly had much better skills but then Dempsey had a much better chin. Louis was a stand up boxer facing Dempsey's lateral head movement. Louis was knocked on his ass by lesser men than Dempsey then again Louis knocked out better boxers than Dempsey. Anybody who thinks Louis would make short work of Dempsey is making a shortsighted analysis.

[mcvey]

Yes, but this would be like reading an article in 2050 that rates larry Holmes #4 and Ali #6...both are retired and have been...what is the reasoning of elevating one of the other when no action has actuall taken place during that time?
Their careers overlap Dempseys and Louis,s dont,Tunney was denigrated fior beating Dempsey ,Charles for decisioning Louis,Holmes for thrashing Ali,you ghave to have time to look at it objectively imo.Personally I think Jack kos Louis quick,that isnt to say he was a more complete fighter.

[JohnThomas1]

Joe Louis was far busier champion, yes. His reign of defences stands alone, above any other heavyweight. That's a very good reason to seperate them, and to rate Louis higher, but it doesn't exclude Dempsey from being on the same short list of ATG heavyweights as Joe Louis.

Dempsey did a lot more than "bugger all" when put beside anyone.

I don't believe Dempsey can be put on the same short list at all, there's WAY too much gap between their actual achievements. If it makes you feel better Ali is the only one i put on the same shortlist - and this is only possible because his quality of opponent is unmatched. One could also put up a good argument for Marciano, but certainly not many more.

Only if you want him to be. Since neither you nor I buy into the myth, then it's irrelevant.

If you don't buy into the myth how on earth do you have him 3 or whatever it is? A calm eye tells us he really didn't do THAT much. Your list must be based on about 70% head to head percieved ability.

It's not really a fair argument against him. The same thing is done with Muhammad Ali, it's easy to be sceptical in the face of such idolization of any icon.

At least Ali has victories over fellow greats and more than triple the time at or around the top that Dempsey had. We can also pop on most any of his fights to peruse filmed in perfect clarity.

By those standards, maybe all the greats did an enormous amount less than Joe Louis, but it gets lonely for Joe in that panthenon by himself.

I'm sure Joe's happy enough with just Ali for company, with Lewis, Marciano and Holmes a stones throw out the back.

[JohnThomas1]

[quote]


I personaly have Louis at No1 but I can understand why it took a while for him to get there. His wins over Walcott for example would not have been seen as signiture wins but we know that Walcott went on to be the heir to Louis's throne.

Of course at the end of the day there are always some people who call it like it is at the time. Some contenmporary observers did recognise Louis as being greater than Dempsey during his career but they certainly did not doubt Dempseys greatness.



Louis got his due but he had to work hard for it.

If a person wanted to rank Dempsey higher after this on a head to head list however that would be a fair call.

You won't find me being silly enough to debate someone putting Louis at the top of the heavyweight heap. I have Ali by a razor due to better top level opponents, but Joe's sheer longevity and compelling record can be put ahead depending on personal preference. People can put Dempsey where they like on head to head lists, but he doesn't cut the mustard when resume only based or even blended.

Louis was a great man, figure and fighter. A true champion in my humble opinion.

[Sonny's jab]

I don't believe Dempsey can be put on the same short list at all, there's WAY too much gap between their actual achievements. If it makes you feel better Ali is the only one i put on the same shortlist - and this is only possible because his quality of opponent is unmatched. One could also put up a good argument for Marciano, but certainly not many more.


Well, I think I can afford to run my shortlist of elite ATG HWs to perhaps as many as 5,6 or 7 names. I'm not talking about an exclusive 2-man club.
Dempsey may make the top 3.

I dont see why Marciano would get consideration while Dempsey does not. I'd actually rate Dempsey above Marciano, almost certainly. That's MY opinion. (And all opinions can change)


If you don't buy into the myth how on earth do you have him 3 or whatever it is? A calm eye tells us he really didn't do THAT much. Your list must be based on about 70% head to head percieved ability.


I think you under-estimate him. He actually beat a lot of good fighters. Again, if Marciano gets passed why be so dismissive of Dempsey ? I dont believe Marciano had a far superior resume or reign, nor do I think he tallied any more dominating impressive performances.

You act as if there's no substance to Dempsey's reputation at all.


At least Ali has victories over fellow greats and more than triple the time at or around the top that Dempsey had.


Ali was great.

I was saying doubting the fighter and his fans for him being an icon, and explaining away any high ranking of him with talk of "propaganda" and "myth" is not helpful. It's a declaration that you already see the opposing opinion as being an inferior, "wishy-washy" baseless one. It doesn't encourage useful debate.

Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't say it like you see it - I'd probably do the same - but dont be surprised that a detailed explanation of why I think Dempsey should be ranked highly is not forthcoming. I get the impression anything I do write would be seen as "Dempsey Cult" talk by a prejudiced eye.




We can also pop on most any of his fights to peruse filmed in perfect clarity.

I'm sure Joe's happy enough with just Ali for company, with Lewis, Marciano and Holmes a stones throw out the back

That's YOUR list.
They were all great, but most - if not all - of them can be ripped apart with a "calm (critical) eye".
Your list is not the only correct list, in fact there's a no such thing as a correct list.

You can explain your reasons for the way you rate them, good reasons, but you know as well as I do that there are good arguments for a completely different order.

I dont know where this obssession with Dempsey as "the overrated one" stems from. You make good arguments, but ratings are just opinion, and each individual can offer a different take.

I would almost certainly rate Dempsey above Lewis, Holmes and Marciano on my list, and I'm not the only one.

Perceived head-to-head and the actual impression a fighter's performance makes on me does play a large part, but it does in all lists and generally on the way we regard all boxers and potential matches , otherwise we'd be just counting wins dispassionately and not having any feelings or preferences about the sport and its participants.

But solid concrete credentials obviously play a large part too, and a fair-minded person would see that Dempsey's actually got a lot of substance to him.

[JohnThomas1]

Well, I think I can afford to run my shortlist of elite ATG HWs to perhaps as many as 5,6 or 7 names. I'm not talking about an exclusive 2-man club.
Dempsey may make the top 3.


Personally i think there's a gap from Ali and Louis to the others. Why put Joe Louis in a club with people who can't compare? Longing for a certain favourite fighter of mine to be bracketed with a higher level sure won't seduce me into putting him there. Blind Freddy knows Dempsey's record doesn't blow wind up Joe's arse. We can bracket ten of them as ATG's, but there are gaps and levels within that 10.

I dont see why Marciano would get consideration while Dempsey does not. I'd actually rate Dempsey above Marciano, almost certainly. That's MY opinion. (And all opinions can change)

Marciano was never beaten, finished on top, has no Firemen, was a peoples fighting champion, didn't miss perhaps the best of his era and didn't go out on a double negative. There's also plenty of film and he is a lot less blown out of proportion due to his later date and more realistic and down to earth media coverage. I've tried to avoid personal favouritism as a criteria as much as possible when making my list but others will obviously go the other way.


I think you under-estimate him. He actually beat a lot of good fighters. Again, if Marciano gets passed why be so dismissive of Dempsey ? I dont believe Marciano had a far superior resume or reign, nor do I think he tallied any more dominating impressive performances.

Already close enough to answered.

You act as if there's no substance to Dempsey's reputation at all.

You ought to be talking with your vaguely hidden anti Tyson agenda. Sniping away at him everywhere and anyhow you think you can get away with it. He wiped out more ranked contenders than Dempsey ever fantasised about yet you continually cut him down while promoting Dempsey as some sort oh Heavyweight demi god.

Ali was great.

I was saying doubting the fighter and his fans for him being an icon, and explaining away any high ranking of him with talk of "propaganda" and "myth" is not helpful. It's a declaration that you already see the opposing opinion as being an inferior, "wishy-washy" baseless one. It doesn't encourage useful debate.

Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't say it like you see it - I'd probably do the same - but dont be surprised that a detailed explanation of why I think Dempsey should be ranked highly is not forthcoming. I get the impression anything I do write would be seen as "Dempsey Cult" talk by a prejudiced eye.

Mate, it's really this simple - Ali has the proven record and performances to form a decent foundation for much of the hype, but Dempsey hasn't! He's blown so far out of proportion comparative to his actual achievements that it's entirely possible he is the most overrated fighter in the history of boxing. Certainly the heavyweights.

That's YOUR list.
They were all great, but most - if not all - of them can be ripped apart with a "calm (critical) eye".

I see you stick to a conservative "most", good move. Anyone trying to compare Dempsey's achievments with Louis will be looked at very strangely to say the least.

Your list is not the only correct list, in fact there's a no such thing as a correct list.

Obviously, but nobody is going to rate a Liston say, over an Ali or Louis are they? There are reasonable picks, and there are pisspoor ones. Not all is murky.

You can explain your reasons for the way you rate them, good reasons, but you know as well as I do that there are good arguments for a completely different order.

No argument there, but only among close picks.

I dont know where this obssession with Dempsey as "the overrated one" stems from. You make good arguments, but ratings are just opinion, and each individual can offer a different take.

Obsession? Surely you kid yourself? That's the thing with Dempsey devotee's, they take any criticism or opening up of the facts behind the legend as some sort of personal affront and get all melodramatic and sensationalistic in the process, just like the pro Dempsey media back in the day. I hardly post at all about Dempsey, but because the few comments i make don't suit your swollen opinion of him i am seen as "obsessed".


I would almost certainly rate Dempsey above Lewis, Holmes and Marciano on my list, and I'm not the only one.

We all know where you rate him.

Perceived head-to-head and the actual impression a fighter's performance makes on me does play a large part, but it does in all lists and generally on the way we regard all boxers and potential matches , otherwise we'd be just counting wins dispassionately and not having any feelings or preferences about the sport and its participants.

Given you rate Dempsey at 3 i don't doubt passion, feeling and preference does indeed play a "large part" for you. Immense even. Personally i would never allow head to head speculation to reach past 50%. We can make lists three ways, head to head, achievements of a combination of head to head and achievements. Given head to head involved heavy speculation i'd be want to let it overrun my list. I'd say my list is achievement driven with head to head helping with closer calls.

But solid concrete credentials obviously play a large part too, and a fair-minded person would see that Dempsey's actually got a lot of substance to him.

He's got some substance but nothing like history has put forth when we actually get off our bums and dig. Chris has done some fantastic work in this area and has really provided updated thinking on something that had been previously taken for granted. Kudo's to him for having the balls to do so - he's really grown as a poster of late. He sat back for the longest time, dissecting differing theories on numerous topics, watching loads of pertinent bouts and generally solidifying his depth of knowledge before coming forth of late as a more provocative poster quite confident in his own knowledge and more than willing to have a go in area's of slight uncertainty. His stance on Dempsey may not be perfectly balanced, but it's a whole lot better than most around here.

[JohnThomas1]

BTW Sonny i hope you don't take these debates too personally, i know i don't. It'd be boring if we all thought the same and tho debate can often get a bit tense it's still only fun at the end of the day. None of us are perfect and we all have a leaning or lack of knowledge somewhere or other.

[Sonny's jab]

Personally i think there's a gap from Ali and Louis to the others. Why put Joe Louis in a club with people who can't compare? Longing for a certain favourite fighter of mine to be bracketed with a higher level sure won't seduce me into putting him there. Blind Freddy knows Dempsey's record doesn't blow wind up Joe's arse. We can bracket ten of them as ATG's, but there are gaps and levels within that 10.


I dont base everything on "the top 10 rankings". These things aren't real.
I consider certain fighters among the true greats, and I'm not going to go back on that by worrying about how much we CAN seperate them, and what the "list" is.
To me, the list is an afterthought. To others here I understand it is central to their whole belief system. But, of course, making lists is fun.



Marciano was never beaten, finished on top, has no Firemen, was a peoples fighting champion, didn't miss perhaps the best of his era and didn't go out on a double negative. There's also plenty of film and he is a lot less blown out of proportion due to his later date and more realistic and down to earth media coverage. I've tried to avoid personal favouritism as a criteria as much as possible when making my list but others will obviously go the other way.


I dont think Fireman Jim Flynn is a relevant knock on Dempsey.
Dempsey was basically still a raw prospect not close to being put forward as a championship prospect, a western fighter who had failed in New York, without management. The circumstances of the time suggest it MAY have been a fix, as was rumoured around the time. ALL Dempsey's victories, all his contender/championship career came AFTER the Flynn fight, AND he owns a 1 round KO over Flynn himself.
It was a stage of his career that has no real bearing on his status as he was as an elite fighter.

You wont ever hear me criticizing ANY fighter for obscure early defeats in "learning process" stages of their careers. Certainly not defeats they avenged as they grew, and certainly not fights that some reliable sources reckon were fixed.

Dempsey was past his best when he lost to Tunney, but I think a 1926-27 Gene Tunney was better than anyone Marciano ever fought.

Dempsey beat some big 6'5 and 220+ fighters who were rated as contenders at the time. Marciano did not.

Some people swear blind that Marciano's manager gave big Nino Valdes the run-around while Valdes went undefeated for 2 years of Marciano's 3 year reign. Valdes beat Charles shortly before Charles was given a shot at Marciano ! Valdes was ONE OF the best of the time, and Marciano didn't fight him - and Al Weill is accused of ducking him.

So, you cant preach that Marciano was squeaky clean in that regard while continously beating Dempsey with the Harry Wills stick.

The opposition that Dempsey beat is on the same level as those Marciano beat, IMO.

[Sonny's jab]

You ought to be talking with your vaguely hidden anti Tyson agenda. Sniping away at him everywhere and anyhow you think you can get away with it.


I dont "snipe" at Tyson.
Tyson was a great offensive force, a great KO artist. Dempsey-esque actually.

But he DID get beaten comprehensively in his prime by Buster Douglas, a competent boxer but not a great one.

Let the excuses fly, I dont buy it.
The "front-runner" criticisms of Tyson do hold some weight too, albeit not to the extent that some of his critics have used them.

You want me to fall in line and brush-over the whole Douglas affair like it didn't really happen, or it doesn't really count, then drag up some obscure early loss on Dempsey's record to denigrate Dempsey ?

I judge Tyson by the same standards I judge everyone else. He was great, but he's disqualified from standing within the highest category because he got owned in his prime by an average contender. And I have little reason to believe he was ever truly the best in the world at any time after that point in time.

If Ali had been whipped by Terrell, and got beaten up everytime by Frazier and Foreman in a comeback, I wouldn't rate him either !

He wiped out more ranked contenders than Dempsey ever fantasised about yet you continually cut him down while promoting Dempsey as some sort oh Heavyweight demi god.


They didn't have rankings in Dempsey's day, so please tell me which of Dempsey's opponents you consider to have been equivalent of ranked contenders.

You would have to have a VERY good knowledge of the era to compile a reasonable list of who should be ranked in a world top ten, for example, at those given times.

You're just parrotting ChrisPontius, who is really just a boxrec hunter.


Mate, it's really this simple - Ali has the proven record and performances to form a decent foundation for much of the hype, but Dempsey hasn't! He's blown so far out of proportion comparative to his actual achievements that it's entirely possible he is the most overrated fighter in the history of boxing. Certainly the heavyweights.


Yeah, I gathered you felt like that.


I see you stick to a conservative "most", good move. Anyone trying to compare Dempsey's achievments with Louis will be looked at very strangely to say the least.


I dont think any heavyweight matches Joe Louis.


Obviously, but nobody is going to rate a Liston say, over an Ali or Louis are they? There are reasonable picks, and there are pisspoor ones. Not all is murky.


Well, ranking Dempsey in the top 5 is seen as reasonable by a hell of a lot of people who do these lists.
YOU dont agree with it, but most people acknowledge him as a reasonable pick as a true great.


Obsession? Surely you kid yourself? That's the thing with Dempsey devotee's, they take any criticism or opening up of the facts behind the legend as some sort of personal affront and get all melodramatic and sensationalistic in the process, just like the pro Dempsey media back in the day. I hardly post at all about Dempsey, but because the few comments i make don't suit your swollen opinion of him i am seen as "obsessed".


I can take the criticism of Dempsey.
It's the fanatical attempt to dictate what the rankings are to others that I find a bit over-the-top.
I apologize if I'm pereceiving you wrong here, that's just how it comes across.


We all know where you rate him.

Well, I dont really do ratings, not seriously. I will when I know more.
But let's say for arguments sake I rate him top 3 but below Joe Louis.


Given you rate Dempsey at 3 i don't doubt passion, feeling and preference does indeed play a "large part" for you. Immense even. Personally i would never allow head to head speculation to reach past 50%. We can make lists three ways, head to head, achievements of a combination of head to head and achievements. Given head to head involved heavy speculation i'd be want to let it overrun my list. I'd say my list is achievement driven with head to head helping with closer calls.


Mine would be a similar combination.
But we can still arrive at completely different lists, because subjective factors are inescapable. In fact, subjective judgment dominates the whole process, whether you are looking at achievement or otherwise.


He's got some substance but nothing like history has put forth when we actually get off our bums and dig. Chris has done some fantastic work in this area and has really provided updated thinking on something that had been previously taken for granted. Kudo's to him for having the balls to do so - he's really grown as a poster of late. He sat back for the longest time, dissecting differing theories on numerous topics, watching loads of pertinent bouts and generally solidifying his depth of knowledge before coming forth of late as a more provocative poster quite confident in his own knowledge and more than willing to have a go in area's of slight uncertainty. His stance on Dempsey may not be perfectly balanced, but it's a whole lot better than most around here

To me, ChrisPontius' views on Dempsey seem to be based on scanning boxrec and selectively scouting for fact, rumour or baseless innuendo that puts Dempsey in a negative light.

None of it is original "work", all of it I have debated and seen debated here 4 or 5 years ago.
You've obviously been bowled over because you never took such a deep interest in Dempsey before ChrisP made you sit up with his, frankly unsophisticated and shallow, "factual analysis" of Dempsey.

You put yourself in the "pupil" role to his "teacher", and when you go check the facts through that negative paradigm you think they confirm all that he says.

Excuse me for being condescending, but when you put ChrisP's "work on Dempsey" forward as some sort of current standard I dont know what to say. There are a few historians out there who actually research the records and reports, and there's so much information to gather on so many fighters and fights, there is plenty testimony that isn't just hyperbolic hero-worship.
There's a whole wealth of information that goes beyond a few hours looking on boxrec, a few hours which could still have you being able to make the schoolboy error of saying "Dempsey never fought a black fighter" (when he fought a few) - as ChrisP said mid-debate. So much for great knowledge and great work.

ChrisPontius is a very good postor but there's nothing new or informative for me in his posts on Dempsey. It's a caricature critique to me, verging towards "Revolverism".

I find it odd that you are constantly admonishing me for my "sniping at Tyson" when I have lots of great stuff to say about him, but ChrisP's 99.9% negative "work on Dempsey" is held up as fair and admirable.

Not that I'd want you or Chris to ever change your views on, or ranking of, Dempsey.

I rate him, you dont. That's fine with me.

[Sonny's jab]

BTW Sonny i hope you don't take these debates too personally, i know i don't. It'd be boring if we all thought the same and tho debate can often get a bit tense it's still only fun at the end of the day. None of us are perfect and we all have a leaning or lack of knowledge somewhere or other.

I dont take these debates personally at all.
In fact sometimes I lack any real motivation to engage - other than I ENJOY the writing and reading - precisely because I dont take it that seriously.

So, apologies again for me being patronizing, condescending or otherwise infuriating (if I ever am). It's just a writing style really.

I ENJOY being here, otherwise I wouldn't bother.
I enjoy reading what you, ChrisP, MDWC, Mendoza, dmt, Marciano_Frazier, mcvey, bummy, (apologies to those ommitted), etc. have to say. You all know your boxing, and are good writers.

:good

P.s. Perhaps we spend a little TOO MUCH time here though. LOL

[dmt]

. His stance on Dempsey may not be perfectly balanced, but it's a whole lot better than most around here.Not really to be honest. His stance over Dempsey is not even close to being better then most.

Someone with a more balanced view on Dempsey is OLD FOGEY who is an excellent poster and has criticised Dempsey in he past without going overboard and also giving him credit for somethings instead of filling countless threads with biased views. OLD FOGEY is someone with a more balanced view.

How is his view better when he claims Dempsey never fought a black fighter, or that he had a weak chin because he was knocked down as a hobo, or continually criticising him for going the distance with a light-heavy while completely ignoring it happened to some others as well. (even though Dempsey won most of the rounds vs Gibbons)

I know we all like boxing and as fans have a right to criticise fighters- only to an extent in my opinion. Thats because none of us here as fighters and as far as i can tell being a fighter is very difficult. It is one thing criticising a fighter with balanced views and another of filling countless threads with biased views. As fans sitting behind a computer it does seem easy for us to criticise fighters . Dempsey was after all a fighter- who fought tough fights and showed heart. and i think as fans we ought to respect him for that instead of criticising him at every turn. Yes as fans we do have a right to criticise fighters, however filling countless threads over a matter of few months is very unfair in my opinion.

[UpWithEvil]

I dont think Fireman Jim Flynn is a relevant knock on Dempsey.
Dempsey was basically still a raw prospect not close to being put forward as a championship prospect, a western fighter who had failed in New York, without management. The circumstances of the time suggest it MAY have been a fix, as was rumoured around the time.

I'm late to the party (but I brought a quiche!) and I don't want to get too caught up in this discussion, although my opinions on Dempsey are well-documented on this forum.

But I do want to address this "Fireman Flynn Thing", because I do think it's been used unfairly as a bludgeon against Dempsey's early career. I don't think there is any reason to consider this fight to have been a legitimate contest, and there are multiple lines of evidence supporting the contention that it was a dive. Boxing historian Monte Cox has a fine article ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) highlighting the details of the fight and including published interviews with firsthand witnesses recorded in 1920 - more than two years before Dempsey became the international sporting idol that might have colored old recollections. The fact that so many witnesses felt the fight was a fix (“Flynn came out fanning with both hands and Jack went into his shell, dropped his left at the blow and as he fell put his right glove against his cheek and did a little flopping," said firsthand witness Hardy Downing of the TEN SECOND "fight") is certainly a red flag to any critical-thinking historian.

Further, Dempsey's former wife Maxine Cates testified under oath in the infamous "Slacker Trial", that the fight was a fix. Dempsey's lawyers, who would be eager to discredit Cates' credibility on any outright fabrication that could be denied by their client, never challenged her testimony on this fight.

I don't think it is fair to hold this ten-second bout against the 21 year-old Dempsey when so much evidence exists questioning the veracity of the contest.

[JohnThomas1]

I'll try keep things super short (might seem abrupt but if so not meant that way mate) as we have punched out enough words to cover a week of primary school :lol:


I dont base everything on "the top 10 rankings". These things aren't real.
I consider certain fighters among the true greats, and I'm not going to go back on that by worrying about how much we CAN seperate them, and what the "list" is.
To me, the list is an afterthought. To others here I understand it is central to their whole belief system. But, of course, making lists is fun.


You will notice i myself too have never made a list till now. My point was Dempsey doesn't belong at all beside Louis in resume nor achievements. Louis is comprehensively ahead.

I dont think Fireman Jim Flynn is a relevant knock on Dempsey.
Dempsey was basically still a raw prospect not close to being put forward as a championship prospect, a western fighter who had failed in New York, without management. The circumstances of the time suggest it MAY have been a fix, as was rumoured around the time. ALL Dempsey's victories, all his contender/championship career came AFTER the Flynn fight, AND he owns a 1 round KO over Flynn himself.
It was a stage of his career that has no real bearing on his status as he was as an elite fighter.

You wont ever hear me criticizing ANY fighter for obscure early defeats in "learning process" stages of their careers. Certainly not defeats they avenged as they grew, and certainly not fights that some reliable sources reckon were fixed.

Fireman Jim was thrown up in jest. It gets people in every single time. Regardless of anything tho Dempsey does have one and Louis doesn't. No big deal, but it's still there no matter what.

Dempsey was past his best when he lost to Tunney, but I think a 1926-27 Gene Tunney was better than anyone Marciano ever fought.

I think the Charles Marciano beat for starters would give him a run, and many might pick Walcott over him. Who knows. Dempsey wasn't exactly that old and had only 4 fights in 5 years, so where is the wear and tear? I'll agree it wasn't peak Dempsey but he didn't exactly have the recent carnage on his body that a Larry Holmes had when losing to Spinks. I think he was in better nick that Holmes or Louis when they lost the title. Maybe Tunney was simply the most decent fighter he had ever faced as well as being stylistically difficult? The mind boggles :hey

Dempsey beat some big 6'5 and 220+ fighters who were rated as contenders at the time. Marciano did not.

Mostly real oafs who would have been cut down by Marciano as well.

Some people swear blind that Marciano's manager gave big Nino Valdes the run-around while Valdes went undefeated for 2 years of Marciano's 3 year reign. Valdes beat Charles shortly before Charles was given a shot at Marciano ! Valdes was ONE OF the best of the time, and Marciano didn't fight him - and Al Weill is accused of ducking him.

I've seen whisperings but have never read enough of both sides (Suze etc) to form an opinion.

So, you cant preach that Marciano was squeaky clean in that regard while continously beating Dempsey with the Harry Wills stick.

Dempsey's is proven while Marciano's is more of an accusation, or do you have conclusive proof?

The opposition that Dempsey beat is on the same level as those Marciano beat, IMO.

I'll take Marciano's personally, Walcott, Charles, Moore, all fine heavyweights and there are some underrated names as well hidden in his massive W column. Marciano went out by beating the superb Moore, who hadn't been beaten in 4 years :yikes and had been on a sensational long term run. By contrast Dempsey was beaten twice at the finish. I feel very comfortable having Marciano well ahead.

[JohnThomas1]

I dont "snipe" at Tyson.
Tyson was a great offensive force, a great KO artist. Dempsey-esque actually.

But he DID get beaten comprehensively in his prime by Buster Douglas, a competent boxer but not a great one.

Let the excuses fly, I dont buy it.
The "front-runner" criticisms of Tyson do hold some weight too, albeit not to the extent that some of his critics have used them.

You want me to fall in line and brush-over the whole Douglas affair like it didn't really happen, or it doesn't really count, then drag up some obscure early loss on Dempsey's record to denigrate Dempsey ?

I judge Tyson by the same standards I judge everyone else. He was great, but he's disqualified from standing within the highest category because he got owned in his prime by an average contender. And I have little reason to believe he was ever truly the best in the world at any time after that point in time.

If Ali had been whipped by Terrell, and got beaten up everytime by Frazier and Foreman in a comeback, I wouldn't rate him either !


I'll sum up fast, you do indeed paint Tyson with a different brush to the one you use in your usual masterpieces and it stands out like dogs balls. You say you don't, i say you do, end of story.

Excuse me for being condescending, but when you put ChrisP's "work on Dempsey" forward as some sort of current standard I dont know what to say. There are a few historians out there who actually research the records and reports, and there's so much information to gather on so many fighters and fights, there is plenty testimony that isn't just hyperbolic hero-worship.
There's a whole wealth of information that goes beyond a few hours looking on boxrec, a few hours which could still have you being able to make the schoolboy error of saying "Dempsey never fought a black fighter" (when he fought a few) - as ChrisP said mid-debate. So much for great knowledge and great work.

ChrisPontius is a very good postor but there's nothing new or informative for me in his posts on Dempsey. It's a caricature critique to me, verging towards "Revolverism".

Chris made some mistakes and may have went a bit far on some things but he had to to combat the unbelievable amount of denial and self righteousness many Dempsey fans seem to possess. He dared to open up the tale, and it was a most enlightening read when he did. Even if the truth met in the middle of the fanatics and Chris, we still see a very very watered down verson of the legend.

I find it odd that you are constantly admonishing me for my "sniping at Tyson" when I have lots of great stuff to say about him, but ChrisP's 99.9% negative "work on Dempsey" is held up as fair and admirable.

Dude, you run around in circles trying to find ways of making the Norton's and Shavers competitive vs peak Tyson when all evidence points to blowouts. You refuse to write off almost anyone vs Tyson and were picking Witherspoon over him as well from memory. You allow him absolutely zero quarter while allowing Holyfield a different mark. I'm not even a Tyson fan and revel in stirring up his rabid disciples, but i do recognise when someone has it in for the guy.

Not that I'd want you or Chris to ever change your views on, or ranking of, Dempsey.

I rate him, you dont. That's fine with me.

Exactly, if we all agreed what fun would it be

:good

[JohnThomas1]

I dont take these debates personally at all.
In fact sometimes I lack any real motivation to engage - other than I ENJOY the writing and reading - precisely because I dont take it that seriously.

So, apologies again for me being patronizing, condescending or otherwise infuriating (if I ever am). It's just a writing style really.

I ENJOY being here, otherwise I wouldn't bother.
I enjoy reading what you, ChrisP, MDWC, Mendoza, dmt, Marciano_Frazier, mcvey, bummy, (apologies to those ommitted), etc. have to say. You all know your boxing, and are good writers.

:good

P.s. Perhaps we spend a little TOO MUCH time here though. LOL

Ditto for me on everything to Sonny, and if you think i cross the line at any point sincere apologies. I think a pair like you and i can have a debate that some might think approaches "heated" and even a little patronising, but deep down feel we both appreciate the exchange and would never take it for what it isn't.

Cheers mate

[JohnThomas1]

Not really to be honest. His stance over Dempsey is not even close to being better then most.

Someone with a more balanced view on Dempsey is OLD FOGEY who is an excellent poster and has criticised Dempsey in he past without going overboard and also giving him credit for somethings instead of filling countless threads with biased views. OLD FOGEY is someone with a more balanced view.

How is his view better when he claims Dempsey never fought a black fighter, or that he had a weak chin because he was knocked down as a hobo, or continually criticising him for going the distance with a light-heavy while completely ignoring it happened to some others as well. (even though Dempsey won most of the rounds vs Gibbons)

I know we all like boxing and as fans have a right to criticise fighters- only to an extent in my opinion. Thats because none of us here as fighters and as far as i can tell being a fighter is very difficult. It is one thing criticising a fighter with balanced views and another of filling countless threads with biased views. As fans sitting behind a computer it does seem easy for us to criticise fighters . Dempsey was after all a fighter- who fought tough fights and showed heart. and i think as fans we ought to respect him for that instead of criticising him at every turn. Yes as fans we do have a right to criticise fighters, however filling countless threads over a matter of few months is very unfair in my opinion.

Nice spiel DMT, but i vividly remember your violent treatment of poor Earnie Shavers the time a couple of us picked him over Dempsey to try to get the poor bugger a vote. I hardly think you are suited to the podium is what i am trying to say i guess.

Again i must say to you - it's only a forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Life will go on mate, don't panic.

As far as gagging/banning/disallowing opinion on Dempsey you don't agree with or deem fair - in the day of free thought and speech it just ain't gonna happen. People can say and do whatever they like within the regulations of the forum - whether you like it or not.

Sorry to tell it like it is.

[dmt]

Nice spiel DMT, but i vividly remember your violent treatment of poor Earnie Shavers the time a couple of us picked him over Dempsey to try to get the poor bugger a vote. I hardly think you are suited to the podium is what i am trying to say i guess.

Again i must say to you - it's only a forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Life will go on mate, don't panic.

As far as gagging/banning/disallowing opinion on Dempsey you don't agree with or deem fair - in the day of free thought and speech it just ain't gonna happen. People can say and do whatever they like within the regulations of the forum - whether you like it or not.

Sorry to tell it like it is.i am not panacking, nor is esb the most important thing in my life. I do admit that i was far too harsh on Shavers- but i did not fill 50 threads about it. Then again everyone has their own opinion. :good

[JohnThomas1]

i am not panacking, nor is esb the most important thing in my life. I do admit that i was far too harsh on Shavers- but i did not fill 50 threads about it. Then again everyone has their own opinion. :good

I'd hardly say Chris has done/filled 50 threads either.

[Sonny's jab]

I think the Charles Marciano beat for starters would give him a run, and many might pick Walcott over him. Who knows.

I think Tunney is VERY underrated. He was at his absolute peak in 1925-28, and he looks terrific on film.

I think he was better than Walcott or Charles, and Marciano never had to fight them after a three year layoff.


Dempsey wasn't exactly that old and had only 4 fights in 5 years, so where is the wear and tear

Obviously inactivity is as damaging, or more damaging, than wear and tear through activity, in many cases.

Dempsey took 3 years off, and tried coming straight back against top fighters.

I dont believe THREE YEARS INACTIVITY is something most fighters can be expected to recover from immediately.
Sugar Ray Leonard was an exception, and he was expected to lose badly.It's almost an anomaly in boxing history.

Seriously, if Manny Pacquiao or any top fighters these days went off for 3 years doing Hollywood movies and stuff, then came back to fight a really good active fighter immediately, in 2011, I wouldn't expect them to win.


I'll agree it wasn't peak Dempsey but he didn't exactly have the recent carnage on his body that a Larry Holmes had when losing to Spinks.

Well, I think inactivity was his downfall, and as I said above, I believe inactivity is probably the most damaging thing.
Young athletes rarely come back to what they were after 3 year layoffs.

But if you want to talk "carnage" on the body, and "wear and tear" - god knows how much Dempsey had accumulated over the years. More than Larry Holmes, I would say. It doesn't have to be "recent".
Comparing the eras in that regard would actually make the moderns look pampered.


I think he was in better nick that Holmes or Louis when they lost the title.

He was in better shape than Louis against Charles.

I feel you're bending over backwards to alibi Holmes though.

Then, you obviously dont see a 3-year layoff as particularly important.


Maybe Tunney was simply the most decent fighter he had ever faced as well as being stylistically difficult? The mind boggles :hey


Tunney WAS, unequivocally, the best fighter Dempsey faced, IMO.
Prime-for-prime Tunney's a serious threat to Dempsey, you wont hear me say different.

But it wasn't just that.
Sorry to sound ike a broken record, but .... THREE YEAR LAYOFF.

In fact, this was Dempsey's second ridiculous layoff. He took 2 years off from real championship boxing after the Carpentier fight, then came back to fight Gibbons and Firpo, fights in which some observers thought he'd clearly lost something. THEN he takes a full three-year semi-retirement (actually the layoff was elongated to allow him to break free from his contract with Kearns) and then he fights a superb fighter in Tunney !

But you know all this. Inactivity is a fair criticism of Dempsey. But it also damaged his ability as a fighter, which just seems obvious to me.


Mostly real oafs who would have been cut down by Marciano as well.


I dont disagree (though I dont know they were real oafs). "Would haves" can be applied in Dempsey's favour too, but I'm fairly sure you'd object to that line of reasoning.


I've seen whisperings but have never read enough of both sides (Suze etc) to form an opinion.

Dempsey's is proven while Marciano's is more of an accusation, or do you have conclusive proof?


What exactly is proven ? That Dempsey didn't fight Wills ?
Marciano didn't fight Valdes. That's the conclusive proof that ChrisP uses.


I'll take Marciano's personally, Walcott, Charles, Moore, all fine heavyweights and there are some underrated names as well hidden in his massive W column. Marciano went out by beating the superb Moore, who hadn't been beaten in 4 years :yikes and had been on a sensational long term run. By contrast Dempsey was beaten twice at the finish. I feel very comfortable having Marciano well ahead.

Gibbons, Fulton, Sharkey and Firpo were all on good winning streaks when Dempsey beat them. I think Gibbons was the oldest - at 32 !
Others like Carpentier, Miske, Brennan and others were good fighters too.

[ChrisPontius]

You're just parrotting ChrisPontius, who is really just a boxrec hunter.


See, that's the thing about criticising Dempsey. He is so legendary that when you criticise him, you're a "boxrec" hunter.

If you say that Miske went 3-3-2 with two losses two lightheavies in his fights up to getting a shot at Dempsey, you're a boxrec hunter.

When i bring up a newspaper article that said Dempsey got booed by the crowd after leaving the ring with a black fighter (illustrating that the people didn't exactly mind seeing a black vs white fight), i'm a boxrec hunter.

When i bring up that Dempsey did not fight the #1 contender for an incredible period of time, i'm a boxrec hunter. When i bring up that he avoided the best black fighters pre-title, i'm a boxrec hunter. When i bring up he was knocked down 9 times by a mediocre middleweight early in his career, i'm a boxrec hunter.

I guess i should be saying that Dempsey is an All American Legend, impervious to criticism to avoid being a boxrec hunter.


Have a made a mistake? Sure, we're all human. I took it back. But most of it still stands. And i'm sorry to see that poor DMT has caught janitor's iterative-disease of repeating already debunked points.


Come to think of it, i was also a boxrec hunter according to janitor, because i thought Johnson beating Simmons once in 3 fights, when Simmons was one fight away from retirement while losing the earlier ones, was not so impressive... and for calling Simmons a journeyman. That was boxrec hunting because according to janitor, he drew once with Fox. Of course, the fact that he lost the other three times he fought Fox, when Fox had more than 6 fights like the first loss, he lost all the time.




There's a whole wealth of information that goes beyond a few hours looking on boxrec, a few hours which could still have you being able to make the schoolboy error of saying "Dempsey never fought a black fighter" (when he fought a few) - as ChrisP said mid-debate. So much for great knowledge and great work.


As i'd already said in that thread itself, by no black fighters i meant no good black fighters. Anyway, that was one mistake - big deal. It's very convenient to keep bringing that up while ignoring the other information that was brought to the table. That's not debating.

I never claimed to be a prophet. Dempsey lived nearly hunderd years ago. I'm still learning, everyone is. But the more information i gathered, the more black marks i found. Of (semi) modern fighters we know all details of their careers, Ali having a close fight with Jones, Tyson having a close one with Green, but few people know Dempsey had a close one (draw) with Lester Johnson.

If a fighter these days avoided the #1 contender for five or more years, he would be extremely criticised and the general forum would be filled with "Dempsey is a fraud"-threads. Dito for taking a full three year break. Many people simply do not know this, see Dempsey destroying Willard, Carpentier and a few other lightheavyweights, say wow and rank him in their top3. Back then information was much not as easy to come by: there was no Internet or tv and not everyone could read. Less than 1% of Dempsey's fans knew that Firpo fought like someone walking in the gym for the first time.

The same amount of people thought Willard was a hulking giant in magnificant shape, while in fact he was inactive for almost 3 years, 37 years old and overweight. But hey, if Dempsey writes the former but not the latter in his autobiography, then people would never know. And how can you blame them? It's not like they could see the fight or look up Willard's record, anyway. So his legend grows and grows. And big surprise. From the moment that Dempsey's career is evaluated on records, his ranking in all time lists drops like a brick. You can be pretty sure that most of the people had no idea who Wills was either. Hell, in 1918 there was an article that described Dempsey as "a relatively unknown fighter". And he was white and exciting. Not saying that he was so unknown everywhere, but it just goes to show you how lousy information-spread was that day.








I find it odd that you are constantly admonishing me for my "sniping at Tyson" when I have lots of great stuff to say about him, but ChrisP's 99.9% negative "work on Dempsey" is held up as fair and admirable.


Yeah, but the difference is that i admit that i snipe at Dempsey. You pretend to be objective about Tyson and Lewis while i think it's pretty clear you apply different standards to them than to others.

On a sidenote, i still rank Dempsey in the top10. I think he's a great fighter. Just not as great as he's often made out to be.


i am not panacking, nor is esb the most important thing in my life. I do admit that i was far too harsh on Shavers- but i did not fill 50 threads about it. Then again everyone has their own opinion. :good

Here is what i want you to do. Click on my name, then click on "watch all threads started by ChrisPontius".

Count all threads i made the last three or two (whatever you want) months. How many are they? And how many of them were about Dempsey?

I would be surprised if i even made 10% of your claim, 5 threads about Dempsey, and i'd also be surprised if 10% of the total of my threads during those period were about Dempsey.


Tell me the exact numbers about your discoveries DMT. Don't run away from this one. :good



p.s. if for some reason, i have made less than 50 threads about Dempsey, i will keep bringing this up forever, like me saying Dempsey did not fight black figthers.



How is his view better when he claims Dempsey never fought a black fighter, or that he had a weak chin because he was knocked down as a hobo, or continually criticising him for going the distance with a light-heavy while completely ignoring it happened to some others as well. (even though Dempsey won most of the rounds vs Gibbons)


You see, this is simply not true. You're twisting my words. I already adressed and corrected the never fought a black fighter part long ago. It's okay, you can let go of that trauma now.

I never said Dempsey had a weak chin because he was knocked down 9 times by a mediocre middleweight in his early days. Here is how it really went:
Someone claimed that Dempsey had a better chin than Louis, so i summed up the facts for both fighters, and yes, Dempsey being knocked down 9 times early on is a fact that should be taken into account. I know he was young and i do excuse him somewhat for that, but that doesn't mean we should ignore it!
If Louis was knocked down 9 times by Adolf Wiater, we wouldn't hear the end of it. Dempsey just has the advantage that many parts of Dempsey's career are lesser known, while we know just about everything for Louis, so that every bad part on his career is shown.



About criticising Dempsey for going the distance with a lightheavyweight: i think most of my criticism was that half of Dempsey's key opponents were lightheavyweights. And why not? Marciano gets a daily shower of shit for fighting (much greater, mind you) lightheavyweights. Dito for Tyson and Spinks. But Dempsey somehow is shielded from this criticism? Why?

As for him going the distance with a lightheavyweight. Let's have an objective look at similarly high ranked champions after him:
Louis: knocked out Lewis in one round, knocked out Conn in 13 and 7 rounds.
Marciano: went the distance with Charles but knocked him out in the rematch. Knocked out Moore in 8.
Patterson: knocked out Moore in 5.
Ali: knocked out Foster in 8.
Frazier: knocked out Foster in 2.
Foreman: stopped Peralta once, once went the 10-round distance with him.
Holmes: twice went the distance with Spinks.
Tyson: destroyed Spinks in one.
Holyfield: once went the distance with Moorer and once stopped him in 8.

It should be noted that Moorer and Spinks bulked up to 200 and 220lbs, respectively. That's different from fighting from 175 or 180lbs.

Even at that, only 4 other lightheavyweights went the distance, despite:
a) Moorer and Spinks bulking up
b) Spinks, Foster, Moore, Charles and arguably Moorer being greater fighters than Gibbons
c) Dempsey being claimed as a devastatingly big puncher, whereas Holyfield and Holmes are "good punchers" at best: he's in their company at this comparison.


Yes as fans we do have a right to criticise fighters, however filling countless threads over a matter of few months is very unfair in my opinion.


Wrong again, but you'll find out about that when answering the above questions.

[ChrisPontius]

What exactly is proven ? That Dempsey didn't fight Wills ?
Marciano didn't fight Valdes. That's the conclusive proof that ChrisP uses.



I don't really see the connection here.

Wills was as good as undefeated for 5 or 6 years against top-opposition.

Valdes was the top contender for only 3 or 4 months during a brief period of 1953 when he beat Ezzard Charles over 10. He went down to the #3 spot after winning a disputed decision over journeyman McBride, during which Charles had knockout wins over Wallace and Satterfield, and Valdes didn't want to rematch a focused Charles, so Charles got the shot instead. In 1955, he made it back into top contendership. Marciano's management wanted to test his split (by Charles) nose and see how he'd do, so they put him in with a relatively safe opponnent in Cockell (#2 contender). During that period, Valdes lost to Moore which again made him lose his top contender spot and Moore got the shot instead.


The difference here is that Marciano fought the #1 contender five times and once the #2 contender. Dempsey avoided the #1 contender for five or six years. Dempsey's #1 contender went undefeated against a myriad of top opponents. Valdes, as i explained above, got close but didn't receive his title shot for reasons other than being avoided. He was only top ranked for a few months.

So there you. Some nice boxrec hunting there right?

[JohnThomas1]

Valdes was the top contender for only 3 or 4 months during a brief period of 1953 when he beat Ezzard Charles over 10. He went down to the #3 spot after winning a disputed decision over journeyman McBride, during which Charles had knockout wins over Wallace and Satterfield, and Valdes didn't want to rematch a focused Charles, so Charles got the shot instead. In 1955, he made it back into top contendership. Marciano's management wanted to test his split (by Charles) nose and see how he'd do, so they put him in with a relatively safe opponnent in Cockell (#2 contender). During that period, Valdes lost to Moore which again made him lose his top contender spot and Moore got the shot instead.



Now this is what i was looking for, i honestly didn't know for sure one way or another before this post. So we have another bubble that has been burst. You ought to be on MythBusters mate.

[janitor]

I don't really see the connection here.

Wills was as good as undefeated for 5 or 6 years against top-opposition.

Valdes was the top contender for only 3 or 4 months during a brief period of 1953 when he beat Ezzard Charles over 10. He went down to the #3 spot after winning a disputed decision over journeyman McBride, during which Charles had knockout wins over Wallace and Satterfield, and Valdes didn't want to rematch a focused Charles, so Charles got the shot instead. In 1955, he made it back into top contendership. Marciano's management wanted to test his split (by Charles) nose and see how he'd do, so they put him in with a relatively safe opponnent in Cockell (#2 contender). During that period, Valdes lost to Moore which again made him lose his top contender spot and Moore got the shot instead.


The difference here is that Marciano fought the #1 contender five times and once the #2 contender. Dempsey avoided the #1 contender for five or six years. Dempsey's #1 contender went undefeated against a myriad of top opponents. Valdes, as i explained above, got close but didn't receive his title shot for reasons other than being avoided. He was only top ranked for a few months.

So there you. Some nice boxrec hunting there right?

Perhaps your contention that Wills was the No1 challenger continuously throughout Dempseys title reign is equally misguided on closer inspection.

I would argue that he did not clearly establish himself as the No1 guy in the division untill he beat Fred Fulton. I could also argue that he maintained that position to a large extent by not fighting the other top contenders.

To put things in perspective Fred Fulton stopped Sam Langford in 1917 immidiately after Langford had sucesfully defended his coloured heavyweight title against Harry wills having previously won the same title from Wills by knockout. Langford also went on to beat Joe Jeanette and I believe retained his title claim against Wills in a later encounter.

[Sonny's jab]

ChrisP,

I'm not against a high level of scrutiny being put on Dempsey.
But I argue that the same can be done to most of the other great heavyweights, with similar conclusions.

I dont go much on early results and early set-backs on any great fighter's record, because I acknowledge a learning process in a career, but I accept criticism of a fighter's blemishes in or around his peak/prime.

I dont use results of obscure fights that I know very little about as sticks to beat fighters with, as some would use a 1930s KO loss to denigrtae a 1951 Jersey Joe Walcott, for example.

I think Dempsey was a great fighter, and having considered all the things you have considered, I rate him a lot higher than you.

There's a gap between THE FACTS and THE JUDGMENT that must rely on one's own subjectivity.

I dont think you are wrong to rate Dempsey at 9, or 10, or even at 15.

But I think you are wrong to assume that MY (and anyone elses) higher rating of Dempsey is based on this historical "myth", "legend" or "sacred cow" stuff.

Years of hype and idol-worship does NOT influence my rating of Dempsey, and why should it, seeing as the vast majority of people on this forum would tell me my rating is too high.

I believe you've considered the facts and made your best judgment, I have done the same. I would be nice if you acknowledge that rather than impose all this stuff on my rating that is irrelevant.

Having said that, some of the things you might see as "facts", I wouldn't. For example, I believe Firpo was a damn sight better than a man who has just walked into a gym for the first time. He looks wild and crude, he WAS wild and crude, but so were some of the "greats". Firpo must have had something going for him.
Tony Galento and Renaldo Snipes fought wild and crude too, IMO.
Still, I dont want to re-open a debate, so I'll shut up .....

P.S. I apologise about "boxrec hunter" generalisation, which was out of order. Next time I'll call you up on "boxrec-hunting" if and when I feel it appropriate and valid.

P.P.S. I dont have any conscious agenda against Tyson or Lewis.
I simply call it like I see it. Tyson was one of the great offensive fighting machines but he got beaten up and knocked out in his prime by Buster Douglas, who was NOT a great boxer by any means.
That's my take.
No one contradicts the facts when confronted with them, but then brings up later that I have been "sniping at Tyson". In other words, mentioning a SIGNIFICANT LOSS is somewhat unfair ??

[JohnThomas1]

No one contradicts the facts when confronted with them, but then brings up later that I have been "sniping at Tyson". In other words, mentioning a SIGNIFICANT LOSS is somewhat unfair ??

I've taken you on numerous times on the spot when i considered you to be unfair to Tyson and most had nothing to do with the Douglas loss.

[Sonny's jab]

I've taken you on numerous times on the spot when i considered you to be unfair to Tyson and most had nothing to do with the Douglas loss.

Ok, so I have made a few unorthodox picks against him, is that a crime ?
OF COURSE you were right about Norton.

I said Jimmy Ellis beats Evander Holyfield on an EH thread yesterday, a pick I know will upset some but a I stand by as of now.

So, is this "sniping" at Holyfield ?

I was going on about Walcott beating Foreman the other day, and I'm sure that upset some people, but do I now deserve to be label as having an "unfair" "agenda" against Foreman ?

What's the difference with Tyson ?

It seems to me the difference lies within your heads, not mine.

[JohnThomas1]

Ok, so I have made a few unorthodox picks against him, is that a crime ?
OF COURSE you were right about Norton.

I said Jimmy Ellis beats Evander Holyfield on an EH thread yesterday, a pick I know will upset some but a I stand by as of now.

So, is this "sniping" at Holyfield ?

I was going on about Walcott beating Foreman the other day, and I'm sure that upset some people, but do I now deserve to be label as having an "unfair" "agenda" against Foreman ?

What's the difference with Tyson ?

It seems to me the difference lies within your heads, not mine.

Well it's blatantly obvious to most but we're all human that's for sure. No biggie.

[Sonny's jab]

I don't really see the connection here.

Wills was as good as undefeated for 5 or 6 years against top-opposition.

Valdes was the top contender for only 3 or 4 months during a brief period of 1953 when he beat Ezzard Charles over 10. He went down to the #3 spot after winning a disputed decision over journeyman McBride, during which Charles had knockout wins over Wallace and Satterfield, and Valdes didn't want to rematch a focused Charles, so Charles got the shot instead. In 1955, he made it back into top contendership. Marciano's management wanted to test his split (by Charles) nose and see how he'd do, so they put him in with a relatively safe opponnent in Cockell (#2 contender). During that period, Valdes lost to Moore which again made him lose his top contender spot and Moore got the shot instead.


The difference here is that Marciano fought the #1 contender five times and once the #2 contender. Dempsey avoided the #1 contender for five or six years. Dempsey's #1 contender went undefeated against a myriad of top opponents. Valdes, as i explained above, got close but didn't receive his title shot for reasons other than being avoided. He was only top ranked for a few months.

So there you. Some nice boxrec hunting there right?

Thanks for clearly that up, ChrisP.

Some British writers (contenporary and since) have certainly been of the opinion that Valdes was avoided. But perhaps they valued Valdes high because he beat their best fighters. It is usually within British books or mags that I read brief mentions of Valdes, "the man Marciano avoided".

Still, relating to janitor's counter-points, I think it's relevant that they didn't actually have official regular RATINGS until 1924 or '25, when Ring magazine introduced them. So, if the McBride performance was enough to drop Valdes, perhaps some of Wills' work over a 6-year period was enough to at least cast doubt over his status as the hottest contender out there at certain points in time.

[Sonny's jab]

JohnThomas,

If you still think I have any agenda against Tyson, I think you always will do.

To be honest, I've given up any hope of convincing you otherwise, which is a shame really because we can at least understand each other on most other issues even when we dont agree.

Basically you think I'm a liar, someone who "hides" things.

All I can say is that I do NOT have an "agenda" against Tyson, or Lewis, or Foreman, or Holyfield, or any other fighter for that matter.

Magoo accused me of creating a thread to discredit Vitali Klitschko the other day, the thread was entirely about Hasim Rahman !
Everyone seems to be looking for an angle, a slant, a hidden agenda.

I rate some fighters higher than the general consensus, I rate some lower than the general consensus, and I rate most of them where everyone else rates them.
That's normal.

Anyway, I know I'm wasting my time trying to explain myself to you, but I thought I'd give it one last try.

:good

[JohnThomas1]

JohnThomas,

If you still think I have any agenda against Tyson, I think you always will do.

To be honest, I've given up any hope of convincing you otherwise, which is a shame really because we can at least understand each other on most other issues even when we dont agree.

Basically you think I'm a liar, someone who "hides" things.

All I can say is that I do NOT have an "agenda" against Tyson, or Lewis, or Foreman, or Holyfield, or any other fighter for that matter.

Magoo accused me of creating a thread to discredit Vitali Klitschko the other day, the thread was entirely about Hasim Rahman !
Everyone seems to be looking for an angle, a slant, a hidden agenda.

I rate some fighters higher than the general consensus, I rate some lower than the general consensus, and I rate most of them where everyone else rates them.
That's normal.

Anyway, I know I'm wasting my time trying to explain myself to you, but I thought I'd give it one last try.

:good

Well if no agenda let me say your rating of him is WAY off base. Cool now?

[dmt]

Here is what i want you to do. Click on my name, then click on "watch all threads started by ChrisPontius".

Count all threads i made the last three or two (whatever you want) months. How many are they? And how many of them were about Dempsey?

I would be surprised if i even made 10% of your claim, 5 threads about Dempsey, and i'd also be surprised if 10% of the total of my threads during those period were about Dempsey.


Tell me the exact numbers about your discoveries DMT. Don't run away from this one. :good


.I never said you made 50 threads about Dempsey but you have unfairly criticised him in several ones, virtually every thread on Dempsey. I honestly dont have time to go back on every thread but your arguments are pretty one sided and unfair on Dempsey :good

[Sonny's jab]

Well if no agenda let me say your rating of him is WAY off base. Cool now?

That's fair enough.
Tyson wouldn't make my top 10, he never will.

[JohnThomas1]

That's fair enough.
Tyson wouldn't make my top 10, he never will.


I'm not talking a number, i am talking in every regard.

[Sonny's jab]

I'm not talking a number, i am talking in every regard.

Every regard ?
I think Tyson was one of the great offensive fighting machines in history, a great puncher, a great finisher. Aggression, speed, power, skillfully applied fury - he's up there with almost anyone in those areas.

If that's an underrating, I'm up really against it here.

[dmt]

.


When i bring up a newspaper article that said Dempsey got booed by the crowd after leaving the ring with a black fighter (illustrating that the people didn't exactly mind seeing a black vs white fight), i'm a boxrec hunter.. Claiming that he so called jumped out of the ring while the article stated he was calm is exxageration- great exxageration, mind you. You think Dempsey is some sort of a god who is supposed to take fights on no notice.

When i bring up that Dempsey did not fight the #1 contender for an incredible period of time, i'm a boxrec hunter..[/quote]
Who said that? Ofcourse not. But everybody knows that and it has been brought up several times. You are however extremely biased claiming that politics had no role in Wills not recieving his title shot, that it was entirely Dempseys fault. I have always said that it hurts a fighters legacy if they dont meet their too contender/contenders, however that does not mean they cant be rated.


.
When i bring up he was knocked down 9 times by a mediocre middleweight early in his career, i'm a boxrec hunter.. And how heavy was Dempsey when he fought this average middleweight? He weighed 250 pounds, was at the peak of his powers, yeah? He had great management, great trainers and great facilities at this time yeah? He had a 100 or so fights up to this point, yeah?

And how many times was he down between 1918-27, a grand total of three times. So suggesting that Dempsey had a suspect chin just because of his fight with Sudenberg is frankly quiet silly, if it was really suspect someone should have knocked him down more then three times after he hit his prime.

Completely ignoring the circumstances that he fought under, his lack of experience, management and training, you started claiming that the Sudenberg kds are relevant.










If a fighter these days avoided the #1 contender for five or more years, he would be extremely criticised and the general forum would be filled with "Dempsey is a fraud"-threads.
Dito for taking a full three year break. Many people simply do not know this, see Dempsey destroying Willard, Carpentier and a few other lightheavyweights, say wow and rank him in their top3 .[/quote]Actually most of the people(probably) in the general forum know Wills never got a shot and that Dempsey had a three year layoff. Suggesting otherwise is silly.

You think you are the only one who has studied Dempseys records? I bet majority, if not most of the posters here have looked at his record as well as other articles and film.

.

The same amount of people thought Willard was a hulking giant in magnificant shape, while in fact he was inactive for almost 3 years, 37 years old and overweight. But hey, if Dempsey writes the former but not the latter in his autobiography, then people would never know. And how can you blame them? It's not like they could see the fight or look up Willard's record, anyway. So his legend grows and grows. And big surprise. From the moment that Dempsey's career is evaluated on records, his ranking in all time lists drops like a brick. You can be pretty sure that most of the people had no idea who Wills was either. Hell, in 1918 there was an article that described Dempsey as "a relatively unknown fighter". And he was white and exciting. Not saying that he was so unknown everywhere, but it just goes to show you how lousy information-spread was that day..One more sentence of pure nonsense.

I wil, repeat it here, NO OLD TIME HISTORIAN RATED WILLARD IN THE TOP 10, NOR HAVE I EVER SEEN AN ARTICLE CLAIMING WILLARD WAS AN ALL TIME GREAT. NO ONE ON THIS FORUM CLAIMS IT EITHER. I have said this before several times- Willard was described as a weak fighter by Nat Fleischer and others, and he was highly criticised both by the press and fans for his fight with Frank Moran.

People would never know about Willard? You think no one in the 50s or 60s knew who Willard was, or had read an old time article claming Willard was a average fighter?

You can be sure that most people had no idea about Wills? Have you got any clue as to what the demand for this fight was- alot of people wanted it and alot did not- there were countless articles about Wills in the newspapers which talked about him. About an year ago or so UPWITHEVIL, i think posted some of these articles.

Suggesting that most people had no clue as to who Wills was is laughable. They knew more then you or i do about Wills because they had actually seen him fight. So according to this, most people had no clue as to who Langford was until the 1960s yeah? :good




.
About criticising Dempsey for going the distance with a lightheavyweight: i think most of my criticism was that half of Dempsey's key opponents were lightheavyweights. .Levinsky, Carp and Gibbons were the only top light-heavies on his resume. Fulton, Brennan, Miske, Sharkey, Fripo, Morris, Smith etc were not light heavies. That means arguably 7 of his ten best wins were not against light heavies but against men his own size of bigger. That is 70 percent which is more then half.

Regardless Dempsey only weighed 190 lbs or so and so what if he fights someone 15 or so pounds lighter? Other heavies did not do the same thing?

[JohnThomas1]

Every regard ?
I think Tyson was one of the great offensive fighting machines in history, a great puncher, a great finisher. Aggression, speed, power, skillfully applied fury - he's up there with almost anyone in those areas.

If that's an underrating, I'm up really against it here.

Sonny you picked Witherspoon against him, tried to make Norton favourite and talked up Shavers chances BIGTIME. You also argued ages back that it was the best of Tyson that fought Douglas. You opinion of the guy is way off what would be called balanced and this is just the way it is. If you want to be in denial fine, whatever. You've often taken him down and 90% of your talk of him is negative. These are the facts. You can pile superlatives on him right now in an effort to show your great admiration but it's a bit too late for this little black duck sorry. Have at the guy and stop worrying about what we think.

[RockyJim]

Jack Sharkey...the only guy to fight both Louis and Dempsey...said that if you put both of them in a telephone booth and closed the door...Dempsey would be the one to walk out...

[PhillyPhan69]

Jack Sharkey...the only guy to fight both Louis and Dempsey...said that if you put both of them in a telephone booth and closed the door...Dempsey would be the one to walk out...

yes, but that is solely a H2H opinion...I have no problem envisioning a scenerio where either guy wins...i am more curious about the fact that Dempsey and louis were both retired (although Louis would make a comeback, that I don't really believe elevated his standing), with dempsey rated witgh a higher ranking...i am trying to find out why over 50 years that ranking has reversed when there has been no further significant action....why would we 50 years later be more qualified than contemporaries of both men who witnessed them in person??? I am not disputing Louis being ranked above Dempsey, as I do as well, merely wondering what factors determine that we are able to reverse this?

[dmt]

yes, but that is solely a H2H opinion...I have no problem envisioning a scenerio where either guy wins...i am more curious about the fact that Dempsey and louis were both retired (although Louis would make a comeback, that I don't really believe elevated his standing), with dempsey rated witgh a higher ranking...i am trying to find out why over 50 years that ranking has reversed when there has been no further significant action....why would we 50 years later be more qualified than contemporaries of both men who witnessed them in person??? I am not disputing Louis being ranked above Dempsey, as I do as well, merely wondering what factors determine that we are able to reverse this?alot of old timers rated Louis ahead of Dempsey as well - difference is their rankings were based more on who they think would win head to head and todays fans tend to somewhat base it more on accomplishments. (where Louis is clearly greater)

Another thing is the quality if film on Dempsey is pretty poor, so some people think of him as so called crude. Louis has much more film and better quality so he is easier to judge.

Both were greats and two of my favorites. Louis ranks higher but head to head i say it could go either way. :good

[PhillyPhan69]

alot of old timers rated Louis ahead of Dempsey as well - difference is their rankings were based more on who they think would win head to head and todays fans tend to somewhat base it more on accomplishments. (where Louis is clearly greater)

Another thing is the quality if film on Dempsey is pretty poor, so some people think of him as so called crude. Louis has much more film and better quality so he is easier to judge.

Both were greats and two of my favorites. Louis ranks higher but head to head i say it could go either way. :good

That would be verified by the comments of Sharkey (mentioned by more than one poster!)..Perhaps the combination of H2H (hypothetical), and the unfortunate truth of racism were 2 of the more influincing factors...I am just struggeling with total disregard for the knowledge of the media/fans of the day, that some have been so willing to do.

I also think that Louis has a better resume, and more quality footage, although I think jack has some decent quality (video) stuff as well, and that his own resume' is not being given a valid seriousness at times? Actually I am enjoying listening to this debate more than giving my own opinion on it...although most seem to rate Louis above, there seems to be a counter balance as well...

[Sonny's jab]

Sonny you picked Witherspoon against him, tried to make Norton favourite and talked up Shavers chances BIGTIME. You also argued ages back that it was the best of Tyson that fought Douglas. You opinion of the guy is way off what would be called balanced and this is just the way it is. If you want to be in denial fine, whatever. You've often taken him down and 90% of your talk of him is negative. These are the facts. You can pile superlatives on him right now in an effort to show your great admiration but it's a bit too late for this little black duck sorry. Have at the guy and stop worrying about what we think.

I'm certainly not worrying what you think.
I'm telling it how it is.
I've never NOT thought of Tyson as described by those superlatives, but the true complete greatness that others ascribe to him requires more, IMO. All those things made him formidable, but they weren't sufficient to make him even close to INVINCIBLE. That's the essence of what I argue.

I'm certainly not partaking in an effort to "regain lost ground" as it were. I stand my most of what I've said.
I regularly mention Tyson's strengths in conversations all over the place. 90% of my talk on him is NOT negative.

You said my rating of him is WAY off base in every regard. But in some areas I rate him close to perfect, and always have done.


Picking Norton over him was inexcusable, and probably fuelled by reading the cliched remarks about Norton losing to every puncher.

Likewise, I like to champion Shavers' chances now and then against anyone.

The Tim Witherspoon of the Larry Holmes fight could beat Tyson, IMO. I thought Witherspoon was good, fearless, technically impressive.

But so what if you dont agree ? I dont expect people to agree with some of my picks.
I think Jimmy Ellis could beat Holyfield.

Obviously, some of the guys YOU would pick over Dempsey would make me think you underrate him, which is what the other discussions on this thread are all about. But I dont respond with :


You opinion of the guy is way off what would be called balanced and this is just the way it is

I respect the fact that you have based your opinions on what YOU consider balanced and reasonable, and you've come up with a different opinion to mine.

It's just a difference of opinion.

I STILL think Tyson was very close to his best, more or less, he was the same, when he fought Douglas.
It's not like he was a 31 year old coming straight off a 3-year off !

[UpWithEvil]

Claiming that he so called jumped out of the ring while the article stated he was calm is exxageration- great exxageration, mind you. You think Dempsey is some sort of a god who is supposed to take fights on no notice.

Fighting anybody who steps into the ring with no notice doesn't make you "a god", it makes you an idiot. Dempsey was a rising contender with a major fight scheduled in just a couple of weeks, donating his time to spar with a former sparring partner. The idea that he should instead face any fighter who stepped into the ring without any forewarning is so ridiculously stupid as to be unworthy of further comment.

[PhillyPhan69]

Sonny: I STILL think Tyson was very close to his best, more or less, he was the same, when he fought Douglas.

Agreed...but you should know that, criticism of some is forbidden here...If you have a different veiw you are labeled a hater. Good luck

[janitor]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[OLD FOGEY]

yes, but that is solely a H2H opinion...I have no problem envisioning a scenerio where either guy wins...i am more curious about the fact that Dempsey and louis were both retired (although Louis would make a comeback, that I don't really believe elevated his standing), with dempsey rated witgh a higher ranking...i am trying to find out why over 50 years that ranking has reversed when there has been no further significant action....why would we 50 years later be more qualified than contemporaries of both men who witnessed them in person??? I am not disputing Louis being ranked above Dempsey, as I do as well, merely wondering what factors determine that we are able to reverse this?

Off your posting name, I assume you are American, so I will use a baseball analogy. In 1936, when the Baseball Hall of Fame opened, Ty Cobb and not Babe Ruth recieved the most votes. The voters were the men who had seen both play. By 1950 when the AP picked the best player of the first half century, they picked Ruth. By 2000, Ruth was generally judged and placed way ahead of Cobb. Now, were the writers of 1936 really the best judges? They are the ones who saw both of them and unlike boxing, there is no film that helps with an evalutation. Do you think we should judge Cobb the better player off the 1936 opinion? Both men had finished their careers.

I remember reading an interview with an old timer back in the sixties in which he was questioned on why he thought Cobb was better than Ruth. He replied that Cobb was the better bunter. The writers of 1936 valued 'inside' baseball and considered home runs a distortion of the game which rewarded power over skill, and so voted.

[Sonny's jab]

Fighting anybody who steps into the ring with no notice doesn't make you "a god", it makes you an idiot. Dempsey was a rising contender with a major fight scheduled in just a couple of weeks, donating his time to spar with a former sparring partner. The idea that he should instead face any fighter who stepped into the ring without any forewarning is so ridiculously stupid as to be unworthy of further comment.

Be careful with these types of level-headed posts, you'll only be accused of worshipping a "myth" and being in denial.

BTW, didn't you know that Ali, Holmes, Marciano et al. were always taking on surprise opponents on 30 seconds notice ?

[PhillyPhan69]

Off your posting name, I assume you are American, so I will use a baseball analogy. In 1936, when the Baseball Hall of Fame opened, Ty Cobb and not Babe Ruth recieved the most votes. The voters were the men who had seen both play. By 1950 when the AP picked the best player of the first half century, they picked Ruth. By 2000, Ruth was generally judged and placed way ahead of Cobb. Now, were the writers of 1936 really the best judges? They are the ones who saw both of them and unlike boxing, there is no film that helps with an evalutation. Do you think we should judge Cobb the better player off the 1936 opinion? Both men had finished their careers.

I remember reading an interview with an old timer back in the sixties in which he was questioned on why he thought Cobb was better than Ruth. He replied that Cobb was the better bunter. The writers of 1936 valued 'inside' baseball and considered home runs a distortion of the game which rewarded power over skill, and so voted.

Good analogy!! I miss the days when baseball games were 3-2/2-1 instead of the homerun fest they have turned into....America (correct) certainly loves the long ball more than sound base ball...but we also love KO's more than a sound technical performance (not necesarily me, just a generalization)...have you ever heard the comment..yeah, he won but it took him 12 rds???? in that light would not Dempsey's impressive KO record, been a motivating factor to more recent observers, who certainly rate KO's as a better win???

[OLD FOGEY]

Good analogy!! I miss the days when baseball games were 3-2/2-1 instead of the homerun fest they have turned into....America (correct) certainly loves the long ball more than sound base ball...but we also love KO's more than a sound technical performance (not necesarily me, just a generalization)...have you ever heard the comment..yeah, he won but it took him 12 rds???? in that light would not Dempsey's impressive KO record, been a motivating factor to more recent observers, who certainly rate KO's as a better win???

But what about the main point? Do you think we should consider Cobb better because those who actually saw the two of them play judged him better?
Or can we arrive at a different judgement by using different criteria?

[Sonny's jab]

Sonny: I STILL think Tyson was very close to his best, more or less, he was the same, when he fought Douglas.

Agreed...but you should know that, criticism of some is forbidden here...If you have a different veiw you are labeled a hater. Good luck

Thanks.
I know it only too well.

:good

[PhillyPhan69]

But what about the main point? Do you think we should consider Cobb better because those who actually saw the two of them play judged him better?
Or can we arrive at a different judgement by using different criteria?

I certainly don't think it is ludicrous to label Cobb as the better player...baseball is probably even more subjective than boxing in ranking people...fielding (rarely even taken into account), hitting, power/ ability to generate runs, sacrifiec/bunt (lost in this day abd age because it does not look good in stats...Ruth has certainly become a more well known household name, but that does not automatically eliminate Cobb from valid discussions...or rather it should not.

[UpWithEvil]

Off your posting name, I assume you are American, so I will use a baseball analogy. In 1936, when the Baseball Hall of Fame opened, Ty Cobb and not Babe Ruth recieved the most votes. The voters were the men who had seen both play.
Well as a fairly hardcore baseball fan I'll point out that Babe Ruth had only retired in 1935 and there was still some thought that he might return to playing (if you're a modern baseball "stat-head" fan you'll note that Ruth was still a very productive hitter at the end of his career - his 1934 full-season OPS+ was a whopping 161, and his limited play in 1935 still let him put up a 116). For this first election active players were allowed on the ballot, but some sportwriters thought only retired players should be eligible.

Further, the difference in votes between Ruth and Cobb were insignificant. There were 226 total ballots distributed for votes that year. Cobb's name appeared on 221, Ruth's on 215. At the time of voting Cobb was the all-time leader in hits by 700 hits, the all-time leader in stolen bases by more than 150, the all-time leader in total bases (Ruth was 2nd), the all-time leader in total times on-base, and the all-time leader in career batting average, a distinction he still holds to this day.

Simply put, there can be no doubt that Cobb, retired for 10 years, was a slam-dunk Hall of Fame player - and five voters STILL left him off the ballot! Ruth, recently retired with whispers of a return, was left off 11 ballots - still indefensible, but let's not go overboard with intepreting the meaning of this slight.

[OLD FOGEY]

I certainly don't think it is ludicrous to label Cobb as the better player...baseball is probably even more subjective than boxing in ranking people...fielding (rarely even taken into account), hitting, power/ ability to generate runs, sacrifiec/bunt (lost in this day abd age because it does not look good in stats...Ruth has certainly become a more well known household name, but that does not automatically eliminate Cobb from valid discussions...or rather it should not.

Just to pin you down--how much weight to you give the opinion of the writers who saw both? Would you defer to their judgement yourself and rate Cobb over Ruth? even if you otherwise felt Ruth was better, perhaps because he was both a top positions player and a top pitcher.
I'm just interested in what you think.

*Mendoza---if you read these posts, I would be very interested in knowing your opinion on the Ruth versus Cobb issue and the opinions of the 1936 writers.

[OLD FOGEY]

Well as a fairly hardcore baseball fan I'll point out that Babe Ruth had only retired in 1935 and there was still some thought that he might return to playing (if you're a modern baseball "stat-head" fan you'll note that Ruth was still a very productive hitter at the end of his career - his 1934 full-season OPS+ was a whopping 161, and his limited play in 1935 still let him put up a 116). For this first election active players were allowed on the ballot, but some sportwriters thought only retired players should be eligible.

Further, the difference in votes between Ruth and Cobb were insignificant. There were 226 total ballots distributed for votes that year. Cobb's name appeared on 221, Ruth's on 215. At the time of voting Cobb was the all-time leader in hits by 700 hits, the all-time leader in stolen bases by more than 150, the all-time leader in total bases (Ruth was 2nd), the all-time leader in total times on-base, and the all-time leader in career batting average, a distinction he still holds to this day.

Simply put, there can be no doubt that Cobb, retired for 10 years, was a slam-dunk Hall of Fame player - and five voters STILL left him off the ballot! Ruth, recently retired with whispers of a return, was left off 11 ballots - still indefensible, but let's not go overboard with intepreting the meaning of this slight.

So Ruth had just retired and might come back. Couldn't the same arguments be used concerning Louis versus Dempsey in 1950?

But there is no doubt that the writers of 1936 were probably more impressed with Cobb's much higher batting average than the typical 'stat-head' baseball fan or expert would be today.

[PhillyPhan69]

Just to pin you down--how much weight to you give the opinion of the writers who saw both? Would you defer to their judgement yourself and rate Cobb over Ruth? even if you otherwise felt Ruth was better, perhaps because he was both a top positions player and a top pitcher.
I'm just interested in what you think.

While not the total factor...I would give SERIOUS consideration to those who saw both....I have seen very little (not have I tried to..if it exists?)! I can't merely look at the stats (sometimes stats lie and/or are incomplete?) and say they were wrong..in this case I won't render an opinion..in the case of dempsey and Louis i have seen footage of both, have an awareness of how history has portrayed them...without total disregard for history, I rank Louis ahead on what I believ his total accomplishment...I have no trouble however believing that Dempsey would prevail over Louis (or Louis as the victor) in a H2H match-up..I am more curious about when and how this transpired...Did it occur in the 60's..70's//and what criteria was used in reversing their order ...again in this I claim ignorance!

[PhillyPhan69]

So Ruth had just retired and might come back. Couldn't the same arguments be used concerning Louis versus Dempsey in 1950?

absolutely!!!! Although we probably would agree that the return to the ring for Louis did little in the way of elevating his position...perhaps it was in the years of retirement dempsey achieved a legendary status in peoples minds that would not be shared by louis untill 10-20 years of retirement??? not a fact...more speculation

[OLD FOGEY]

absolutely!!!! Although we probably would agree that the return to the ring for Louis did little in the way of elevating his position...perhaps it was in the years of retirement dempsey achieved a legendary status in peoples minds that would not be shared by louis untill 10-20 years of retirement??? not a fact...more speculation

It is not only the men who saw Dempsey who were voting in 1950, it was men who were boys when Dempsey was champion and a boyhood idol to many of them. These men were in their 30's and early 40's in 1950. Humans are human and it is difficult to be objective with or critical of a boyhood idol.

And, yes, I think Dempsey had achieved a legendary status he probably did not have in 1928 and which Louis would not achieve until the 1960's or so.

[UpWithEvil]

So Ruth had just retired and might come back. Couldn't the same arguments be used concerning Louis versus Dempsey in 1950?

But you're talking about two very different things here - being voted into a Hall of Fame, versus being declared "The Greatest" by some measure. The Hall of Fame had specific standards and those standards were still evolving - note that Lou Gehrig, perhaps the greatest 1B of all-time, was on that same ballot and only drew 22% of the vote. Does that mean that the voters thought Gehrig a mediocre player? No, Gehrig was still an active player at the time, and many voters thought it premature to enshrine any active player, even an obvious great like Gehrig. Eventually the baseball writer's association agreed upon the current standards - 5 years retirement, at least 10 years in the big leagues. Before that was the formal standard, each writer made their own standard.

In determining "The Greatest", there is no limitation on how long one must be retired, or indeed if a fighter could still be active. I just don't think you're making a fair or accurate comparison.

[ChrisPontius]

But I think you are wrong to assume that MY (and anyone elses) higher rating of Dempsey is based on this historical "myth", "legend" or "sacred cow" stuff.

Oh, sorry if i said or implied this about you, but i was talking in general.

What i meant was that a lot of people put Dempsey very high in their top10 mostly based on legend but hardly knowing the substance behind it.


I never said you made 50 threads about Dempsey but you have unfairly criticised him in several ones, virtually every thread on Dempsey. I honestly dont have time to go back on every thread but your arguments are pretty one sided and unfair on Dempsey :good


Considering you didn't answer my question, i will help you:

Of my last 25 threads, 2 were about Dempsey.
Of my last 50 threads, 3 were about Dempsey.

And one of them is the recent "Who should rank higher, Dempsey or Johnson?", hardly one aimed to criticise him.

Furthermore, the threads had substance, a lot of arguments and weren't "Quitali Quitschko is a bitch" threads.



Who said that? Ofcourse not. But everybody knows that and it has been brought up several times. You are however extremely biased claiming that politics had no role in Wills not recieving his title shot, that it was entirely Dempseys fault. I have always said that it hurts a fighters legacy if they dont meet their too contender/contenders, however that does not mean they cant be rated.


I never said that politics played no role at all. As Fogey argumented though, a lot of the evidence shows that Wills was held on a leash. If the fight was so impossible to make, then why did they keep promising him the fight if he got by a certain opponent?

Regardless, fact remains that Dempsey did not fight the #1 contende for all that time.


And how heavy was Dempsey when he fought this average middleweight? He weighed 250 pounds, was at the peak of his powers, yeah? He had great management, great trainers and great facilities at this time yeah? He had a 100 or so fights up to this point, yeah?


Yeah, he did and i claimed exactly that.


And how many times was he down between 1918-27, a grand total of three times. So suggesting that Dempsey had a suspect chin just because of his fight with Sudenberg is frankly quiet silly, if it was really suspect someone should have knocked him down more then three times after he hit his prime.


Jesus christ. How often do i have to repeat this? I have already said that it is merely a factor to consider when looking at the entire picture, not the sole reason to say his chin is questionable.



I wil, repeat it here, NO OLD TIME HISTORIAN RATED WILLARD IN THE TOP 10, NOR HAVE I EVER SEEN AN ARTICLE CLAIMING WILLARD WAS AN ALL TIME GREAT. NO ONE ON THIS FORUM CLAIMS IT EITHER. I have said this before several times- Willard was described as a weak fighter by Nat Fleischer and others, and he was highly criticised both by the press and fans for his fight with Frank Moran.


Don't be silly, where did i claim that Willard was in the top10 ranked by anyone? I never have and i never will. I'm glad you recognise how bad he was, though.


People would never know about Willard? You think no one in the 50s or 60s knew who Willard was, or had read an old time article claming Willard was a average fighter?

You can be sure that most people had no idea about Wills? Have you got any clue as to what the demand for this fight was- alot of people wanted it and alot did not- there were countless articles about Wills in the newspapers which talked about him. About an year ago or so UPWITHEVIL, i think posted some of these articles.

Suggesting that most people had no clue as to who Wills was is laughable. They knew more then you or i do about Wills because they had actually seen him fight. So according to this, most people had no clue as to who Langford was until the 1960s yeah?


Dmt, we're talking about nearly one hundred years ago here. You couldn't see fights on the television because there was no television. You couldnt' read about or look up results of fights or even training camps on the Internet. A lot of people were illiterate. I read a while ago that 65% of all African Americans over 21 in Missisippi were illiterate in 1920. How are they supposed to read a newspaper report?

And how many people do you think actually saw Wills fight? As i said before, you couldn't watch them on TV or download them, and travelling was not as easy or cheap as it is now. The living standards were much lower.

However, if there was more demand on Dempsey-Wills, then this only reflects even worse on Dempsey.


Fighting anybody who steps into the ring with no notice doesn't make you "a god", it makes you an idiot. Dempsey was a rising contender with a major fight scheduled in just a couple of weeks, donating his time to spar with a former sparring partner. The idea that he should instead face any fighter who stepped into the ring without any forewarning is so ridiculously stupid as to be unworthy of further comment.


Well, if you read my posts then you'd know that the point is not just that he refused this fight, but the main point is that he was booed and gave boxing a black eye, despite it being a black opponent! Where was that dreaded color line now? The crowd certainly didn't seem to know about it.

And neither did Dempsey's management as they kept promising Wills a shot.

[UpWithEvil]

Well, if you read my posts then you'd know that the point is not just that he refused this fight

The newspaper article doesn't give any indication that *Dempsey* was unwilling to fight. Naturally Dempsey's management opposed it, and it's mere common sense for them to have done so. Any insinuation otherwise is nincompoopery.

but the main point is that he was booed

I'd boo too. I paid my money for a sparring bout and the promoter screwed me out of my entertainment by trying to double-cross a young, up-and-coming fighter generously donating his time for the cause.

and gave boxing a black eye

Promoters have been giving boxing black eyes since the bare-knuckle days. I'm not going to look for a fainting couch after reading about this botched exhibition.

Where was that dreaded color line now? The crowd certainly didn't seem to know about it.

Where was Dempsey's scheduled opponent? The one he agreed to fight? What of him?

Where was the promoter when the time came to inform Dempsey's management of the change in opponent? The newspaper article claims the Dempsey team wasn't aware of the promoter's attempted chicanery until Jeanette was actually in th ring.

And yet you still flog this baloney as if it means anything about Dempsey. Preposterous.

[UpWithEvil]

Double post. To distract you from my boobery, here's a photograph of Harry Wills from the Library of Congress.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[UpWithEvil]

WHAT THE HECK?

Moderator, please clean up my mess.

edit: Thank you, Mr. Moderator

[OLD FOGEY]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I have a tape of Fleischer giving his opinions on the Woroner all-time tournament in the 1960's and Fleischer picks Louis over Dempsey.

[ChrisPontius]

Actually most of the people(probably) in the general forum know Wills never got a shot and that Dempsey had a three year layoff. Suggesting otherwise is silly.


Well, coincidence wants that there is currently a thread about "the best fighter to have not had the championship" in the general forum. Guess what, it was flooded with names like Quarry, Langford, Burley, even Shavers and Carl Williams. Wills was only mentioned once at the end of a list, by McGrain who has also spent a lot of time in the classic forum.

You can be pretty sure that they all know Dempsey and rank him pretty high. No mention of Wills though.

[janitor]

I have a tape of Fleischer giving his opinions on the Woroner all-time tournament in the 1960's and Fleischer picks Louis over Dempsey.

He changed his mind after the second Godoy fight and other classic Louis performences.

And that is fair enough to me. Louis had to earn being picked over Dempsey and eventualy he did.

[OLD FOGEY]

But you're talking about two very different things here - being voted into a Hall of Fame, versus being declared "The Greatest" by some measure. The Hall of Fame had specific standards and those standards were still evolving - note that Lou Gehrig, perhaps the greatest 1B of all-time, was on that same ballot and only drew 22% of the vote. Does that mean that the voters thought Gehrig a mediocre player? No, Gehrig was still an active player at the time, and many voters thought it premature to enshrine any active player, even an obvious great like Gehrig. Eventually the baseball writer's association agreed upon the current standards - 5 years retirement, at least 10 years in the big leagues. Before that was the formal standard, each writer made their own standard.

In determining "The Greatest", there is no limitation on how long one must be retired, or indeed if a fighter could still be active. I just don't think you're making a fair or accurate comparison.

You have a point--maybe I can give a better analogy. In 1969 Joe DiMaggio was selected as baseball's 'baseball's greatest living player' when baseball was celebrating its 100th anniversary. Mickey Mantle retired in 1968 and was obviously beaten by DiMaggio. I have seen polls since which rate Mantle ahead of DiMaggio, although I have no idea what the general consensus would be. In his Historical Baseball Abstract, Bill James argues that Mantle was better than DiMaggio. Now is the 1969 vote definitive, or can new generations, reevaluating the worth of criteria such as batting average and on-base percentage, reverse the judgement of men who saw both play?

On Cobb and Ruth--I know of very few experts who rate Cobb over Ruth today, Many did back in the 1950's and 1960's and I assume earlier. Batting average was considered the definitive measure of a batter's ability back then. Now I think slugging percentage and/or on-base percentage would be considered better markers. My point here is that the criteria of one generation need not be the criteria of succeeding generations, and perhaps should not be, or else we have learned nothing.

[JohnThomas1]

Jack Sharkey...the only guy to fight both Louis and Dempsey...said that if you put both of them in a telephone booth and closed the door...Dempsey would be the one to walk out...

I lost count of the number of times "common" opponents of fighters in an upcoming match picked the wrong winner. Just goes to show.

[ChrisPontius]

The newspaper article doesn't give any indication that *Dempsey* was unwilling to fight. Naturally Dempsey's management opposed it, and it's mere common sense for them to have done so. Any insinuation otherwise is nincompoopery.



I'd boo too. I paid my money for a sparring bout and the promoter screwed me out of my entertainment by trying to double-cross a young, up-and-coming fighter generously donating his time for the cause.



Promoters have been giving boxing black eyes since the bare-knuckle days. I'm not going to look for a fainting couch after reading about this botched exhibition.



Where was Dempsey's scheduled opponent? The one he agreed to fight? What of him?

Where was the promoter when the time came to inform Dempsey's management of the change in opponent? The newspaper article claims the Dempsey team wasn't aware of the promoter's attempted chicanery until Jeanette was actually in th ring.

And yet you still flog this baloney as if it means anything about Dempsey. Preposterous.

I'll say it again, my points simply are that:

a) Dempsey wanted no part of Jeannette.
b) The crowd had no trouble seeing black vs white, i.e. there didn't appear to be a color bar that night.

[UpWithEvil]

a) Dempsey wanted no part of Jeannette.

Present your evidence, I've yet to see any in support of such a claim.

b) The crowd had no trouble seeing black vs white, i.e. there didn't appear to be a color bar that night.

...for a charity exhibition. Yes, I agree.

Many fans paid good money to watch Jim Jeffries spar with Bob Armstrong too, but I wouldn't be so foolish as to claim that a 1900 crowd's willingness (or, indeed, fervor) to watch an exhibition between a black fighter and a white fighter should stand as "proof" that no color line existed.

[JohnThomas1]

Agreed...but you should know that, criticism of some is forbidden here...If you have a different veiw you are labeled a hater.

With Dempsey being the absolute perfect example of what you speak

:good

[ChrisPontius]

Present your evidence, I've yet to see any in support of such a claim.


I've seen several newspaper articles over the years stating on how Jeannette campaigned to fight Dempsey as an attempt to get into contention. Unfortunately i haven't saved any of these articles (including the one of Dempsey walking out of the ring). Supposedly, Jeannette being a "substitute" was the icing on the cake of his Dempsey-challenging.


...for a charity exhibition. Yes, I agree.

Many fans paid good money to watch Jim Jeffries spar with Bob Armstrong too, but I wouldn't be so foolish as to claim that a 1900 crowd's willingness (or, indeed, fervor) to watch an exhibition between a black fighter and a white fighter should stand as "proof" that no color line existed.

As i've said, unfortunately i haven't saved the articles on it, but from what i remember, it was a real fight. But i'll take your word on it.

So you're telling me now that Dempsey was afraid of an exhibition fight with Jeannette??

It's a pity i don't have access to those newspapers, i would like to research this color line more. There were several black vs white fights around that period, even black champions as Battling Siki and Tiger Flowers.

[JohnThomas1]

I think Tunney is VERY underrated. He was at his absolute peak in 1925-28, and he looks terrific on film.
I think he was better than Walcott or Charles, and Marciano never had to fight them after a three year layoff.


I'm not sure about better but have no problems with him being mentioned on the same level. The thing is Marciano won his fights regardless of layoff.

Obviously inactivity is as damaging, or more damaging, than wear and tear through activity, in many cases.

Dempsey took 3 years off, and tried coming straight back against top fighters.

I dont believe THREE YEARS INACTIVITY is something most fighters can be expected to recover from immediately.
Sugar Ray Leonard was an exception, and he was expected to lose badly.It's almost an anomaly in boxing history.

Seriously, if Manny Pacquiao or any top fighters these days went off for 3 years doing Hollywood movies and stuff, then came back to fight a really good active fighter immediately, in 2011, I wouldn't expect them to win.

Well with the first fight and the Sharkey fight ring rust was gone and he didn't pull the second fight out. By comparison a Holmes pulled out the rematch vs Spinks even if he didn't get the nod. He was at least as badly off as Dempsey and Spinks was a stylistic drama at that advanced stage of his career. Jack had his chance to make amends. He gave it a good shot tho.


Well, I think inactivity was his downfall, and as I said above, I believe inactivity is probably the most damaging thing.
Young athletes rarely come back to what they were after 3 year layoffs.

After having 6 fights in the previous 9 months Tunney had not fought for another 9 coming into the Dempsey fight. Tho not as bad as Dempsey he too was a bit rusty. It's not one way traffic here and we must remember there were two people in the ring, not just Jack.

But if you want to talk "carnage" on the body, and "wear and tear" - god knows how much Dempsey had accumulated over the years.

Again i must remind there are two people in this fight. Tunney had 83 fights going into Dempsey, Jack had 80. Tunney was only 2 years younger, no big difference there.
Tunney had 5 BRUTAL fights against the great Harry Greb. All we ever see from Dempsey fans are allowances made for Jack concerning this fight and i have never ever seen any of them make allowances for poor Gene Tunney.

Tunney also only had one more fight ever post Dempsey - they were both at the same career stage!

When all the facts are gathered and presented this fight becomes a much different proposition. In the race to salvage Dempsey all regard for Tunney and his own difficult set of circumstances go flying out the door.

More than Larry Holmes, I would say. It doesn't have to be "recent".

Holmes showed steady easy to see signs of decline over a long period of time. Dempsey didn't show the same.

Comparing the eras in that regard would actually make the moderns look pampered.

No arguement there, even the 40's etc were just brutal when we look at the schedules of SRR, Charles, Hank, Moore et al. Scary times.

He was in better shape than Louis against Charles.

I feel you're bending over backwards to alibi Holmes though.

My post showing the difficulties Tunney faced as well in the face of you not even mentioning any of the relevent points i made in this debate show that Dempsey is the alibi'ed one. No regard whatsoever for Gene Tunney, none, nada, zilch. Holmes don't need no excuse as we all know he come back to beat Spinks regardless of Don King and his merry men.

Then, you obviously dont see a 3-year layoff as particularly important.

I do, but we then have the Sharkey fight then the rematch. Ain't no 3 year layoff in the rematch sorry to say.

Tunney WAS, unequivocally, the best fighter Dempsey faced, IMO.
Prime-for-prime Tunney's a serious threat to Dempsey, you wont hear me say different.

Oh definitely, the rest didn't overly impress me. Considering my seldom if ever mentioned pertinent points for poor Genes side i have to say Tunney is every chance of matching him peak, EVERY chance.

But it wasn't just that.
Sorry to sound ike a broken record, but .... THREE YEAR LAYOFF.

REMATCH

In fact, this was Dempsey's second ridiculous layoff. He took 2 years off from real championship boxing after the Carpentier fight, then came back to fight Gibbons and Firpo, fights in which some observers thought he'd clearly lost something. THEN he takes a full three-year semi-retirement (actually the layoff was elongated to allow him to break free from his contract with Kearns) and then he fights a superb fighter in Tunney !

But you know all this. Inactivity is a fair criticism of Dempsey. But it also damaged his ability as a fighter, which just seems obvious to me.

Inactivity can also be a godsend for a fighter as proven numerous times throughout history Sonny, it has been shown to extend and revitalise many careers. Jack had the rematch and Tunney as i have shown wasn't in a much different situation.

What exactly is proven ? That Dempsey didn't fight Wills ?
Marciano didn't fight Valdes. That's the conclusive proof that ChrisP uses.

Chris has since shot this down as absolute BS so no need for further comment from me.

Gibbons, Fulton, Sharkey and Firpo were all on good winning streaks when Dempsey beat them. I think Gibbons was the oldest - at 32 !
Others like Carpentier, Miske, Brennan and others were good fighters too.

I bet they were nothing like Moore's fantastic run. Last time i looked Miske had just one win from his previous 5 going into his title shot vs Dempsey - a disgrace.

[UpWithEvil]

Again i must remind there are two people in this fight. Tunney had 83 fights going into Dempsey, Jack had 80.
Dempsey had 80 officially recorded fights. I don't want to get bogged down in another Dempsey thread, but I think it's patently unfair to compare on this basis. Gene Tunney was a New York-based, well-groomed and trained fighter whose early fights were all in established and regulated venues. Jack Dempsey was fighting in boxing backwoods out West in towns that are still in the middle of nowhere today.

In a 1930s interview Dempsey estimated his "real" career record as approximately 120 wins, 15 losses, and 20 draws. I think this is a more accurate estimation of his actual number of prizefights than the currently-acknowledged "official" record.

In fact, now that I give the matter some consideration, Gene Tunney may be the first gloved heavyweight champion for whom we can state with some confidence that all his professional bouts are known and credited officially. Surely the same could not be said of Sullivan, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Jeffries, Burns, or Johnson. Willard might break the streak given the relatively small number of fights in his late-starting career. Record-keeping in the early days really was a crapshoot.

[Sonny's jab]

JohnThomas,

Tunney was a great fighter in his absolute peak in both the Dempsey fights.

Dempsey was a great fighter who NEVER recovered his peak form after the 3-year layoff (the 2nd extended layoff of his career).

This is simple stuff to understand.

They were both great fighters. One of them was at his best, the other had slipped considerably (noticeably).

Layoffs generally damage the capabilities of a fighter, in most cases. Telling me otherwise wont change that. It's basic stuff.

I dont understand the bit about "making allowances for poor Gene Tunney". I think the man was at his peak in 1925-28. Dont you ?
I'd "make allowances" for him losing to Greb when he was young, but no one's doubting Tunney.

Tunney retired at his peak, so telling me they were at the "same career stage" is silly, it means nothing, it's a misleading statement. But only a fool would be misled by it. I expect better arguments from you, JT.

[OLD FOGEY]

JohnThomas,

Tunney was a great fighter in his absolute peak in both the Dempsey fights.

Dempsey was a great fighter who NEVER recovered his peak form after the 3-year layoff (the 2nd extended layoff of his career).

This is simple stuff to understand.

They were both great fighters. One of them was at his best, the other had slipped considerably (noticeably).

Layoffs generally damage the capabilities of a fighter, in most cases. Telling me otherwise wont change that. It's basic stuff.

I dont understand the bit about "making allowances for poor Gene Tunney". I think the man was at his peak in 1925-28. Dont you ?
I'd "make allowances" for him losing to Greb when he was young, but no one's doubting Tunney.

Tunney retired at his peak, so telling me they were at the "same career stage" is silly, it means nothing, it's a misleading statement. But only a fool would be misled by it. I expect better arguments from you, JT.

It is true that Dempsey took three years off, but is it relevent? I don't see why he gets dibs for being totally inactive. If he had gone way down hill, it was not because of age but because he chose not to fight for years on end. I see no reason to give him some sort of edge when comparing him to later champions. The best that can be said is that he POTENTIALLY could have been a top five heavyweight if he had put all his efforts into it from 1922 to 1925. But he didn't, and so he isn't.

[JohnThomas1]

It is true that Dempsey took three years off, but is it relevent? I don't see why he gets dibs for being totally inactive. If he had gone way down hill, it was not because of age but because he chose not to fight for years on end. I see no reason to give him some sort of edge when comparing him to later champions. The best that can be said is that he POTENTIALLY could have been a top five heavyweight if he had put all his efforts into it from 1922 to 1925. But he didn't, and so he isn't.

Well it looks like you're the voice of reason and knowledge in all this that sits somewhere in between (almost always the right place of course) the two extremes. I'd best round a few of your posts up and learn a bit.

:good

[Sonny's jab]

It is true that Dempsey took three years off, but is it relevent? I don't see why he gets dibs for being totally inactive. If he had gone way down hill, it was not because of age but because he chose not to fight for years on end. I see no reason to give him some sort of edge when comparing him to later champions. The best that can be said is that he POTENTIALLY could have been a top five heavyweight if he had put all his efforts into it from 1922 to 1925. But he didn't, and so he isn't.

I've always said that Dempsey's inactivity is a valid criticism on which to rate him down on a list.

If someone rates Dempsey at 11-15 all-time and cites inactivity as reason to keep him out of the top ten, I consider that a fine reason.

But to NOT acknowledge the degree of detrimental effect that those layoffs had on Dempsey's capabilities as a fighter, and to assess the mostly one-sided losses to Tunney as being somewhere near representative of his prime ability, is to do him a great disservice, IMO.

As for where you say he does or doesn't rate on a list, I've been over those subjects before. Personally, I DO rate him in the top 5. But that's just me. I have no problem with other ratings.

[Sonny's jab]

I bet they were nothing like Moore's fantastic run. Last time i looked Miske had just one win from his previous 5 going into his title shot vs Dempsey - a disgrace.

Sharkey had won his last 13 including wins over George Godfrey and Harry Wills.

Fulton had gone 17 fights with only a draw and a crooked DQ loss (that should have been a KO win?) as blemishes, including a stoppage win over Sam Langford.

Tommy Gibbons record is superb from start to finish. The worst thing you can say about his record going in to the Dempsey fight is that Harry Greb seemed to have a distinct upper-hand in the most recent fight of his series with Gibbons. But I think Greb and Gibbons had fought 4 times in all, with the series split and disputes over who won which.
Gibbons had an amazing record.

Firpo had won about 20 in a row, and scored some brutal KOs.

Yes, maybe Archie Moore's run surpasses all of them, but there must at least be an argument for Sharkey and Fulton, seeing as Langford, Wills and Godfrey are held up as outstanding black heavies at that time.

The point being, I think Dempsey's win column compares favourably with Marciano's.

[Dempsey1238]

The Marciano Valez thing is nothing compare to Dempsey Wills if any at all. Wills was setting at top for about Dempsey's entire 7 year rein. No title shot what so ever. Valez got in to the top rank, but only held it for a few months before Charles rebounded(And Valez poor showings) He got the rank back after the Marciano Charles fights, before loseing to Archie Moore. Valez was not the number 1 rank contender for very long before he got knock off. Wills on the other hand waited nearly 7 years and still didnt get his shot.