Dempsey's vaunted run to the Title

They all were considered HW contenders, and they all were considered in or near their primes.

 

Which ones weren't considered rated HWs?

Outside of maybe Willard, which ones could be argued as past their primes?

 

You've actually found proof that the first Fulton-Morris fight was fixed? Or are you simply choosing to give credence to one of multiple descriptions of that fight? There are other reports that suggest Fulton "quit" (fouled out) after being outfought.

You also neglected to acknowledge that the Fulton fight was specifically deemed as an eliminator between two of Willard's foremost challengers.

And on the flipside, there are other, contradicting reports that tout him as a genuine prospect and contender.

"Morris isn't a clever boxer yet, of course, but he has everything to make a good fighter and he is improving fast. He thinks quickly, and it's easy for him to learn. That's where he is better than most of the other big fellows.

...Morris is strong and he hits hard. He is quick on his feet and quick with his hands, and he's game and willing and confident."
-Joe Jeanette, June 11, 1911

"Carl Morris, the Oklahoma giant who is to meet Tom McMahon tomorrow night at Duquesne Garden, showed his real class yesterday when he worked out four rounds with clever Buck Crouse at the Oakland gym. The bout was one of the fastest ever staged at a workout and showed Morris to be the fastest of all big fellows who have showed their wares in this city."
-Pittsburgh Press, Feb. 28, 1915

"He is Carl Morris, the original 'white hope,' the first man groomed to bring the heavy-weight title back to the white race.

...Morris is trying to come back. He has had a few bouts in the southwest and critics who have seen him declare that he has lost his awkwardness and is much better than formerly."
-Miami News, March 2, 1917

"But if Morris knocks out Fulton or defeats him decisively he will have a claim to a match with Willard that the public will back up. So Willard is pulling for Fulton to win. But the fight fans would relish a battle between Morris and Willard at that. It ought to mean an air full of fists if the two enemies meet."
-Desert News, March 10, 1917

But in between, he also had a reportedly impressive performance against two-time title challenger Moran, and had beaten Fulton, Levinsky, Smith, and Pelkey just prior to that. And the losses you listed were all to other legit contenders (McMahon had also beaten Willard, and Willard had received criticism in the press for refusing to rematch him). Even if Morris wasn't the best available contender, he was still in the mix.

If he really was such a dirty, spoiling fighter, Dempsey should get even more credit for taking on such a high risk, low reward opponent.

 

For the sake of arguement what if Dempsey had fought and knocked out Greb? How would that win be viewed? He beat great fighter but would he get credit for beating a good heavyweight?

Or that he beat a great smaller man etc?

 

Miske and Fulton were good wins. I don't think Dempsey had an outstanding run to the title, but it was more than enough to get a shot.

 

Of course - but enough, in conjunction with his lackluster title reign, to be endorsed so greatly?

 

No his greatness is owing purely to his destructive run and his ability in outboxing both miske and gibbons.

I think he's top 15 material but too many have come since for him to still be top 10.

His title run did it's job. His title capture is the stuff of legend and up until Hollywood he was a worthy champ. Throw in Greb and Wills and I think he's a consensus top 5 even today.

 

To me, Dempsey's legacy is greatly due to him being the real white hope in a time where people were extremely dissatisfied with that oaf, Willard. Dempsey - after the draft dodging controversy - fit the bill perfectly; a good looking, regular sized heavyweight with an all-American, brawling style. Naturally, he was cut some extra slack.

Johnson was slightly but clearly greater, even if their title reigns were equally mediocre (perhaps Johnson's was worse) - at least Johnson expressed superiority over Jeanette and McVey.

 

add langford to that list :good johnson's pre-title wins more than make up a HOF career.

 

Yeah, Langford was a bit small though. I wouldn't brag about a 1966 Carlos Monzon on Ali's record personally.

 

fair enough:good in the end, johnson's pre-title resume is likely a chunk better than dempsey's career. langford is gravy on top of that

 

Why ?

Also, records from that time are incomplete. We can't state with much certainly the half-dozen previous fights of any of those opponents, so you're wasting your time and fooling yourself with all that boxrec-inspired stat stuff.

I can't think of any fighter who scored loads of 1st round KOs over the best available opposition anyway, so it's not surprising that Dempsey racked up most of his early KOs against has-beens and journeymen.

 

Compare it to other heavyweight legends, if you are in much doubt.

You are absolutely right to identify the factor of good matchmaking and barnstorming in helping create Dempsey's reputation. But guess what ? Most, almost all, the great fighters, especially at heavyweight, were moved the same way. They were all to some degree the product of clever matchmaking, good management.