Dempsey's vaunted run to the Title

Yeah like when he fought Brennan, getting booed because he didnt knock him out in the first few rounds imagine if Wlad or somebody fought in those days what the crowd would do to him

 

I don't know how high it would rate on a list of Dempsey's best wins. Not very high, I guess. But being the first man to KO Levinsky makes it at least worthy of remark.

Yes. :good



Though we know that King Levinsky was at least KO'd at least once prior (7 months earlier), though it was unofficially.

[yt]g8Xh4WUGq24[/yt]

 

Yeah, I wouldn't necessarily call it a great win. That's semantics though.

Henry Akinwande pretty much destroyed Jeremy Williams years before Peter did. But yeah, the Peter KO was kinda scary.

 

Yeah, Sam Peter should have done more with his career.

I have no idea what the reaction to Jack Dempsey v Battling Levinsky was though.

 

It's great in that he destroyed a hof fighter in a way noone else did. The flipside of Dempsey being small means he can't be criticised for beating light heavyweight fighters as the weight difference is minimal.

 

What is so hard to understand about Ali not having a stellar build up to his title shot BUT THEN GOING ON to beat ATG and have a awesome career. Compared to Dempsey ALSO not having a solid run up to his title shot and THEN NOT DOING JACK **** once he got the title. Those scenerios are worlds apart. We can't credit Dempsey as being some world beater, when in fact, he wasn't a world beater. Some mythical belief on what he could've done if it wasn't for this or that, is just conjecture at its finest with proof at its thinest.

 

Dempsey defended the title successfully 5 times.
5 times in a 7 year reign is pathetic activity, but still it's more than "JACK ****".

If you're going to make comparisons, why exaggerate ?
It's not hard to show that Ali's resume and reigns are better, so why the need to diminish Dempsey's work even further ?
I don't get it.

I think Dempsey KOing Fulton in 1 round alone is a lot more impressive pre-title credentials than what Cassius Clay had going in to the Sonny Liston fight also.

 

I reckon I'd struggle to name 5 guys with a better pre title run all things considered. He certainly wasn't a brilliant champion though.

He barely set himself apart from Wills as it was, going Hollywood whilst Wills continued clearing house was poor form.

Atleast Willard was genuinely perceived as peerless with wills, Fulton and Dempsey competing to be his standout challenger. Dempsey never really set himself apart from the field like that.

 

That's not said with great conviction btw I'm happy to be proved wrong about the view of Jack during Hollywood.

 

Are you saying Jess Willard was perceived as being more of a champion than Jack Dempsey was ?

 

Careful McGrain.. He's too old to have his emotions toyed with like that... lol

 

Really though, I wish people would just accept that Dempsey was more the product of the media than any other fighter in history. As I stated, if you read some of the articles about him, you would think he could take on Germany all by himself. The exaggeration about his abilities are all there to be seen, and then perpetuated by a select few who keep talking about it. However, when you look at the facts, they can't be denied. His pre title run wasn't stellar.. even good.. His title reign was even worse. THAT is what we are left with, and that doesn't jive with the "Greatest HW to EVER live" "Best I ever saw" blah blah blah

 

No but whilst champion he was perceived as further above his peers than jack was. Is that not fair to say?

I don't think Willard was in any way greater than Jack. I just think his absence is easier to justify due to his status.