Heavyweight Champ with Worst Opponents?

[ChrisPontius]

Thing is, Chuvalo and Mavrovic weren't legacy-makers for Ali and Lewis. Miske is one of the few best names on Dempsey's resume, that's why he's in the spotlight.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by Sonny's jab

Well, I advocate a proper historical investigation too, and I'm not one to get emotional.

If there are seriously people without any anti-Dempsey agenda saying that Jack Dempsey faced the worst opposition of all the heavyweight champions, then we can debate that. Or not.

I admit I may be mistaken about what I interpret as "Dempsey bashing".

Still, I am covinced that some people here are vastly UNDER-RATING Dempsey. And I reckon Dempsey belongs in the highest category of greatness.

I dont think Billy Miske's credentials were as bad has you portray. He was a legit contender but no one is building him up as a mighty challenge, he was a respectable opponent.Dempsey dispatched him impressively. It's not like Miske had been losing to unknowns, his spotty record leading up to the fight was mostly draws and a couple of points losses among other top contenders. None of them were knocking Miske out.

To make a comparison, George Chuvalo challenged a PEAK Muhammad Ali coming straight off a loss to a largely forgotten Italian fighter, and he went the full 15. I dont look back and say it was a worthless win for Ali, I dont ignore the positives in Ali's performance or make out that Chuvalo was worse than all the evidence would point to.

The legend of Miske already being near to his death bed needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. A glance at his subsequent record suggests he had plenty of strength and vitality left in him.

I never hear anyone ranting about how a peaking Lennox Lewis fought Tommy Morrison shortly before Tommy was diagnosed with HIV.
I heard that guy Mavrovic never fought again due to serious illness.Lewis isn't admonished for it. Such arguments would be rightly condemned as absurd.

But Dempsey gets called up for this "dying man" Miske legend even though Miske fought again and performed very well afterwards.

On the Billy Miske thing, I don't think too many people are claiming that he was on his death bed per say. I happen to think that he was still capable of fighting, but probably not in ideal health. Some time ago a poster who's name I forgot, claimed to have met Miske's daughter in his travels. She apparently told him that Miske was certainly ill for that fight. This is obviously all heresay, and for all I know could be utter crap, but is it? Nevertheless, Miske was coming off a pretty bad patch of performances, and his most recent win was over a 3-13 tomato can. I want to clearify that I don't hold it against anyone for fighting a few average or mediocre opponents, as most champions have surely met their fair share. I will say however, that when you only fight 6 times in 7 years, your performances better at least be of the highest quality. I don't think I'd criticize Dempsey for his inactivity so much, if he at least fought better challengers like Wills and Godfrey for example.

That said, I agree with you that he does tend to get underrated by some.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

As for Byrd, he's little loss on the Lewis resume. You can't fight every single guy, tho Lewis came close.

I can tell you right now for nothing that people looking at records 50 years from now will damn Lewis for not fighting Byrd and Ruiz. The fact that he droped belts not to fight them will be seen as a virtual admision that he ducked them by some.

They will also be highly critical of some of his choices of title oponents.

What glitters like gold today will look drab in the eyes of history just as has hapened to Dempseys legacy in the eyes of many on this forum.

His resume vs Dempsey's isn't even close.

Not even close to what?

Look at Lewis's paper record with then same critical eye that you cast on Dempseys and it will disintegrate. It only seems so impresive by comparison because you lived through it.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by dmt

Did Meehan ask for a rematch? Miske did and he got it

Of course he did.

[JohnThomas1]

[quote=janitor]

I can tell you right now for nothing that people looking at records 50 years from now will damn Lewis for not fighting Byrd and Ruiz. The fact that he droped belts not to fight them will be seen as a virtual admision that he ducked them by some.

They will also be highly critical of some of his choices of title oponents.

What glitters like gold today will look drab in the eyes of history just as has hapened to Dempseys legacy in the eyes of many on this forum.

Wrong, much more complete and consistent historical records are kept nowadays and your scenario will not ring true. There are so many conflicting accounts of fights and happenings from back in Jack's era and prior one doesn't know whether they are coming or going.

Not even close to what?

Look at Lewis's paper record with then same critical eye that you cast on Dempseys and it will disintegrate. It only seems so impresive by comparison because you lived through it.

It's impressive full stop. He fought the best of his day, black, white or brindle. He also beat every fighter he ever fought.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by Sonny's jab

I dunno about this stuff about Dempsey being "over-rated" on this forum over the last 3 weeks, I havent been here all that much.But I will say I have ALWAYS rated him very highly.
I put him in the same category as Ali, Louis etc.

All this crap people are coming out with about Dempsey having a weak legacy and facing crappy contenders isn't really being backed up.
Gibbons, Brennan, Miske, Carpentier and Firpo had very respectable records.

Sure, Harry Wills - who he should have fought - was better, and yes Dempsey was inactive. I dont dispute that. He was criticized in his own time on both counts. Fairly.

Someone here claims Dempsey fought nowhere near the number of "ranked contenders" as did Lennox Lewis.
That's silly, since they didn't have RANKINGS until The Ring magazine started them in 1924 or 1925 !

The anti-Dempseys will say anything to discredit him. Sadly, I think they believe every word of it. Proper attention to history is needed, not just selectively picking on a few details, and distorting them if need be. That's bad form, IMO.

Actually Chris came up with a series of cracking posts on the subject. He took on every question and post and really showed some class and knowledge.

I for one had always taken it for granted that Dempsey was top 10 and had a sterling resume etc. It wasn't until i actually sat down and read the lengthy debate between Chris and others that i realised i may have been a bit blind to the real facts. He certainly opened up my eyes and IMO walked away with the topic.

[rekcutnevets]

Riddick Bowe. I rate Bowe higher than some like to accept, but his defenses against Jesse and Michael are bad.

Not what the OP had in mind, but those are bad defenses.

[dmt]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

I for one had always taken it for granted that Dempsey was top 10 and had a sterling resume etc. It wasn't until i actually sat down and read the lengthy debate between Chris and others that i realised i may have been a bit blind to the real facts. He certainly opened up my eyes and IMO walked away with the topic.

but i don't recall u ever having him in ur top 10 in the first placeso i really don't see how much ur opinion has changed

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

Actually Chris came up with a series of cracking posts on the subject. He took on every question and post and really showed some class and knowledge.

I for one had always taken it for granted that Dempsey was top 10 and had a sterling resume etc. It wasn't until i actually sat down and read the lengthy debate between Chris and others that i realised i may have been a bit blind to the real facts. He certainly opened up my eyes and IMO walked away with the topic.

Fair enough, I haven't read all the posts.
Some of the stuff I read from Chris P on the recent "Jack Dempsey sparring footage Bill Tate" the read was kind of lame, IN MY OPINION that is.

Quotes like "Dempsey was scared to death of black fighters" and technically vague claims about ONLY Gene Tunney among Dempsey's opponents possessing "modern gloved skills" are weak in my opinion.
On other subjects Chris P is a good postor. On Dempsey he's far too dismissive IN MY OPINION.

Tossing away the testimony of a generation of 'experts', fighters and trainers is very unwise. Reading too much in to the paper record is unwise too. Making sweeping claims about the historical development of boxing skills is beyond the remit of any postor here I reckon, we run into situations where a "clever" postor here is contradicting a Ray Arcel or Teddy Hayes over a fighter they can barely see on film, whereas Arcel and Hayes (and countless others) lived and breathed in the era, trained or studied the fighters in detail, were central in the world of boxing skills before, during and after the era in question, and basically knew the subject much much better.

In light of all this, the internet forum postor of 2007 is doomed to amateurish revisionism rather than any earth-shattering rediscovery.

I dont really care where others rate Dempsey, personally I rate him among the highest order. And I can defend my position.

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Thing is, Chuvalo and Mavrovic weren't legacy-makers for Ali and Lewis. Miske is one of the few best names on Dempsey's resume, that's why he's in the spotlight.

I think Chuvalo - and all the other Ali title wins in the 60s (incl. the brilliant win over the "sick or injured" Clevland Williams) count heavily in his legacy as a fighter.

Dempsey destroyed Miske in the title fight, and he destroyed several other fighters, including the world's champion, during his prime. Many were breath-taking destructions.

If I add up all his most notable wins, and consider the WAY in which he won those major wins, and look at his style and ability on film, I dont see many fighters EVER who are in the same class as him.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by dmt

but i don't recall u ever having him in ur top 10 in the first placeso i really don't see how much ur opinion has changed

If you recall correctly the few times i have looked at a Heavyweight top 10 i have always, ALWAYS made it Post Dempsey as i admitted i didn't know quite enough about him to make a fair judgement. Well Chris has now made it that i do, and when i do a be all and end all Heavyweight list i can go from Dempsey's era on.

[dmt]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

If you recall correctly the few times i have looked at a Heavyweight top 10 i have always, ALWAYS made it Post Dempsey as i admitted i didn't know quite enough about him to make a fair judgement. Well Chris has now made it that i do, and when i do a be all and end all Heavyweight list i can go from Dempsey's era on.

well in fairness you have looked at his opinions- some of which are legit, and others just somewhat unfair criticisms. Anyway it's your opinion and that's fine

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by dmt

well in fairness you have looked at his opinions- some of which are legit, and others just somewhat unfair criticisms. Anyway it's your opinion and that's fine

I've summed up his full debate vs others and looked at boxrec and done a few readings as things went on. A bit of footage to etc.

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by Sonny's jab

I think Chuvalo - and all the other Ali title wins in the 60s (incl. the brilliant win over the "sick or injured" Clevland Williams) count heavily in his legacy as a fighter.

Dempsey destroyed Miske in the title fight, and he destroyed several other fighters, including the world's champion, during his prime. Many were breath-taking destructions.

If I add up all his most notable wins, and consider the WAY in which he won those major wins, and look at his style and ability on film, I dont see many fighters EVER who are in the same class as him.

So where do you rate Mike Tyson?

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

So where do you rate Mike Tyson?

Tyson has to be rated highly.