How good was Dempsey's title reign?

Originally Posted by McGrain

How many times did Mickey Walker see Joe Louis fight?

How many times did he see Rocky Marciano fight?

Is it possible he was biased towards the HW champion of his era?


The fact that these guys thought him great is interesting, but all these questions are valid.

In the interim, we, whatever the rest of it means, can look at both of these fighters in terms of record and film, in detail, and make our own conclusion. This is the crucial point.

watching a boxing fight on cold-flat screen is a million light years away from sitting at ringside.. i seen Oliver McCall poleaxe Lennox Lewis from ringside at Wembley back in 1994 Lennox barely beat the count and fell into the referee's arms with glossy eyes, many at ringside was shouting,"Stop it, Stop it" as the referee waved it off. Lennox left the ring 5 mins later and had to be helped down the ringsteps by a couple of his handlers and was still glossy eyed as they passed by me. yet i read repeatedly on forums how many who was not at that fight claim Lewis was ok and could have continued, which is simply not true as he was in no condition to continue. yet Television coverage can give a false perspective of the actual truth of a prize fight and leave the viewer with the wrong impression of the events which unfolded.... also like klompton has indicated with Burt there are some who simply claim you to be a liar for attending Live`Boxing shows especially if being there contradicts their posts on the forum.

[JAB5239]

Originally Posted by JAB5239

You posted a link on this subject by the same guy? Show it to me. And than show me where I "trashed" the guy. Unlike you I don't disregard the opinions of others, I disagree with them. That isn't a double standard, it's called free thinking. You and I have agreed on other subjects, is it a double standard by both of us because we do not agree on this?

You forgot to answer this Quarry. I'd like an answer please.

[Rock0052]

Originally Posted by bman100

That's Benny Leonard right?

Yep.

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by burt bienstock

P,so what U are saying is that I who saw Ray Robinson in his welterweight prime several times,and still believe 55 years later,that he was better than anyone else until the present day,should not have a better insight of Robinson than fans of today ? All my contemporaries who saw Robinson and raved about him as myself,knew as much or more than today's fight fans, because I for example had access to a pro card in NY EVERY night of the week, except Sunday.
So why not the writers of Jack Dempsey's time who twice polled him as the best fighter of the century ? Why is your opinion as valid or BETTER than
all of the great writers in that poll who saw Dempsey fight ? I read history,
and must have faith with the majority opinions to evaluate a boxers rating.
Otherwise, why the hell read history. And so with the whipping boy of today Jack Dempsey. I'm with you Jack, wherever U are !!!
todays fans.?

Burt, you look like a very sympathetic senior and I respect your opinion.

However, that doesn't mean I will just let it slide when I disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Many of the men whose opinions are being almost completely dismissed saw Dempsey far more extensively than that, and saw many of the other greats too, as well as thousands of non-great fighters. I'm talking about managers and trainers and gym owners, and people who made their lives in the boxing game.


Well, that's probably slightly different from hanging out at Stillman's, Gleason's and The Garden and the top NY boxing clubs and fight cards, and almost all the championship training camps, for decades on end during boxing's golden age.
You can make pretty good comparisons between the great fighters when you've seen dozens of them up close, as well as thousands of not-so-great ones.

It's a damn sight better insight than peering over microfilm collections and using boxrec as your primary opinion forming material regarding these fighters.
In my humble opinion.

We'll just disagree on this.

But answer me this. Boxing historians, with all their superior knowledge, having seen the fighters (memory of events 40 years ago is more reliable than watching film, right) - how come they COMPLETELY miss the boat when making their rankings? Who in their right mind ranks a Jack Dempsey as the greater boxer than Joe Louis?

I can only think of three explanations:
A) They are incompetent.
B) Memory may not be that reliable on a time scale of decades, and the lack of instant access to records, newspaper articles and fight film leads to an incomplete or distorted picture, and thus distorted judgment.
C) Generational bias, racism or another form of bias clouds their judgment.

I can only assume it's not option A. Option C is not out of the question, but I'm thinking the root is in option B. What do you honestly think?

Originally Posted by Boilermaker

Imagine being in a debate on the other side of Klompton in the older days, without Internet Newspaper searches, youtube, Cyberboxingzone or even boxrec. I suppose it would be in person, so that would only leave one chance of settling it in my favour - or more likely, this followed by this

It is actually true. Just look at how many mistakes for instance Fleischer makes in his writings. He'd be destroyed in a debate without access to the sources that we have.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by burt bienstock

You are a piece of cake. If I had proof,would i have asked for ESB help 2 years ago, to solve this mystery.? Why in tarnation would I bring up this fight
not recorded in the record book on ESB if I HADN"T SEEN IT ? Why of all the possible bouts i could have picked would I fib about a Robinson/Dykes bout
to enhance my ego ? Who the heck today would know who Bobby Dykes was, for Pete's sake ? Why 55 or so years later would I post for help on ESB,to help me solve this ommission ? Nope K, U have a right to doubt that this fight took place , but to bring this subject up from nowhere,calling me a liar and
berift of my senses, was a rabbit punch, unfairly thrown....

Wait I thought it was a low blow? Or was it a low blow, rabbit punch combo? I'm confused

Originally Posted by JAB5239

You forgot to answer this Quarry. I'd like an answer please.

you know exactly where the link is it is on the other forum unless you have deletted it to cover yourself... you have just within the last 10 minutes posted that you disagree with 10 or more boxing historians who expressed their opinion of where Gene Tunney ranks in history claiming they are all wrong. ... almost every post you make on this forum someone pulls you up on it and corrects you

[JAB5239]

Originally Posted by quarry

you know exactly where the link is it is on the other forum unless you have deletted it to cover yourself... you have just within the last 10 minutes posted that you disagree with 10 or more boxing historians who expressed their opinion of where Gene Tunney ranks in history claiming they are all wrong. ... almost every post you make on this forum someone pulls you up on it and corrects you

Oh, now its in the other forum. Lol, ok. And my question of double standards, do you care to answer that or are you just going to ignore it?

Originally Posted by JAB5239

Oh, now its in the other forum. Lol, ok. And my question of double standards, do you care to answer that or are you just going to ignore it?

i answered and addressed it awhile back

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by quarry

watching a boxing fight on cold-flat screen is a million light years away from sitting at ringside.. .

Yes you typically get a much better view and better angles on the screen

[JAB5239]

Originally Posted by quarry

i answered and addressed it awhile back

No, that is another lie. It was only posted 2 pages back (post 479 to be exact) and you chose to ignore it. Anybody can check and see for themselves, it takes about 2 seconds.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by McGrain;9742115[U

]How many times did Mickey Walker see Joe Louis[/u] fight?

How many times did he see Rocky Marciano fight?

Is it possible he was biased towards the HW champion of his era?


The fact that these guys thought him great is interesting, but all these questions are valid.

In the interim, we, whatever the rest of it means, can look at both of these fighters in terms of record and film, in detail, and make our own conclusion. This is the crucial point.

Walker was interviewed in1971 and he still had all his marbles,he didn't die till the 80,s ,so there's a good chance he saw as much of those guys as anyone ,and possibly live from ringside.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

We'll just disagree on this.

But answer me this. Boxing historians, with all their superior knowledge, having seen the fighters (memory of events 40 years ago is more reliable than watching film, right) - how come they COMPLETELY miss the boat when making their rankings? Who in their right mind ranks a Jack Dempsey as the greater boxer than Joe Louis?

I can only think of three explanations:
A) They are incompetent.
B) Memory may not be that reliable on a time scale of decades, and the lack of instant access to records, newspaper articles and fight film leads to an incomplete or distorted picture, and thus distorted judgment.
C) Generational bias, racism or another form of bias clouds their judgment.

I can only assume it's not option A. Option C is not out of the question, but I'm thinking the root is in option B. What do you honestly think?

Two things :

Firstly, there's a distinction to be made between ranking based on "accomplishments" and "head-to-head" peak ability (to use the terminology common to this forum.
With his 25 defences in an 11 year reign, Louis is superior in the "accomplishment" ranking.
But they were ranking Louis and Dempsey on who was absolutely better, "head-to-head" at their absolute peak, at the absolute height of their powers, and who would win a hypothetical match between the two ... and Dempsey is a valid choice under such criteria.

Secondly, in 1950, Joe Louis was still active/recently retired. Certainly I would expect some of the polled sportwriters to have been slightly hesistant in assessing his true place at this time because it's difficult to do so with an active fighter, which may account for the weight of the lean towards Dempsey.
It doesn't however invalidate the idea that Dempsey and Louis were of comparable greatness, and close to one another under the criteria of peak greatness .... simply, both worthy candidates as the two greatest fighters of the 1900 - '50 period.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Yes you typically get a much better view and better angles on the screen

Sitting ringside - and often some rows back - is far superior. You can grasp things - feel them even - that just don't come through on TV.

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Wait I thought it was a low blow? Or was it a low blow, rabbit punch combo? I'm confused

PP,don't be confused. I was hit with a low blow and also was hit with a bunch of carrots, hence the "rabbit punch ".

Originally Posted by JAB5239

No, that is another lie. It was only posted 2 pages back (post 479 to be exact) and you chose to ignore it. Anybody can check and see for themselves, it takes about 2 seconds.

what the f@ck is your looking for me to answer you clown.. your stalking me around the site making accusations i need to respond to your posts. yet your posts are stupid and make for nothing but laughter and are nothing but buffoonary now run along boy and watch your Tommy Morrison dvd set