Honestly Debating Greatness vs. Pure Slander

Clearly those who actually saw Jack Dempsey fight considered him one of, if not the greatest heavyweight champion of all time. He was every bit the terror of the ring that a young Mike Tyson was. They described him as they saw him. He was fast of hand and foot, could take it, was very quick to recover when hurt and could dish it out with the best. He was also an under-rated boxer as Ray Arcel and Jersey Jones both pointed out. Dempsey, according to eyewitnesses, was highly regarded for his fighting prowess.

Today, we see a lot of people trying to re-write history for their own personal agenda’s. It is important to consider the established views of those that came before us, who actually saw the fighters they were judging, before forming our own opinion.

One must consider established opinion when trying to rate the heavyweight greats. As late as 1962, in the Dec 1962 Ring Magazine, a panel of 40 boxing writers tabbed Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight of all time. When considering what has taken place since 1962, just before the Ali era began, one must still consider established opinion when viewing everything that has happened since that time. In other words one must consider the opinions of those who lived in the time and saw those fighters when trying to form a new opinion. Don’t radically alter established opinion, because you are too far removed from that time to change it honestly. That is the essence of “revisionist history.” It is better to consider the opinions of those who saw the fighters prior to the Ali era, and then form new judgments using established opinion as a backdrop.

It's like the Supreme Court when they decide a case they weigh heavily upon established opinion. Now they do form new opinions, but not without precedent. So to magnify a rating of someone in a time period that you did not live in and to lower someone's stature, which is contrary to established opinion, is just wrong because you were not there, you did not see Dempsey and do not know enough about him to change established opinion. One should consider the actual eyewitness account of what happened and not just stare blindly at a record book. Consider established opinion and then add to it based on what has taken place in the generation one lives in.

The legal status of the doctrine of joint and several liability isn't going to change over time (or at least it shouldn't). A straight-up opinion as to "who is better than who" must change, by definition, every time something better comes along, but it shouldn't shake up established opinion of fighters whose time has past. If the new guy is proven to be better over time, Ali for example, than he should move ahead, but that shouldn’t change established opinion of previous generations.

Add in the new but don’t change the order of the old, at least not drastically. Obviously everyone has a different opinion but for instance in the Dec 1962 Ring magazine Jack Dempsey was rated #1, and Joe Louis #2, Jack Johnson #3 and Marciano was a distant #6.

Today on most lists Ali/Louis are in the top 3, which is not a drastic change, but to leave off Jack Dempsey in the top 10 is just wrong and completely revisionist. Today it is common to see Rocky Marciano high on an all time list and Dempsey not on at all. This is a gross change in established opinion of those who saw them both fight.

Marciano is rated highly today almost completely because of his undefeated record. Marciano’s record of 49-0 appears impressive at a glance, but his competition is not inspiring. The argument that Rocky beat four Hall of Famer’s is laughable when one considers their ages when he met them, Walcott was 38-39 years old in their fights, Charles was past his peak at 33, and Moore was 42. Moore was older than Holyfield when he lost to Toney but yet he put Marciano down.

Also consider the fact the "Rocky was floored by the 2 strongest punchers he ever faced, Moore and Walcott, as Joe Louis doesn't count since he had long since lost his once devastating punch" -Nat Fleischer Dec 1955 Ring.

Virtually no one who saw both Dempsey and Marciano would tab Rocky over Dempsey in a match. Recall, that Marciano finished a distant 6th in the Dec 1962 Ring magazine rating of the all time great heavyweights, far behind #1 Dempsey. Anything Marciano could do, Dempsey could do better. Jack hit just as hard with his right, was a much stronger puncher with his vaunted left, had superior hand speed, was more maneuverable, was a better boxer, had a better jab, and had an equally good chin, and better cut resistance.

In another comparison of a similar fighter, Jack Dempsey would most likely have little trouble with Joe Frazier. Joe was a much slower starter than Dempsey. Dempsey would beat Frazier because Joe would have taken too long to hurt the Mauler. Frazier warms up to his task before he starts “smokin” and he usually didn’t get to that point before 3-4 rounds. Dempsey was a fast starter. The bell rang and he went to work. He had better hand speed than Frazier and is very similar to Mike Tyson in many respects. Frazier was vulnerable early, he was down in the second round against Mike Bruce, down 2 times in the second round against Oscar Bonavena, destroyed early by George Foreman, and almost dropped by the relatively lighter hitting Muhammad Ali in the second round of their second fight when he was saved by an early bell. Dempsey would explode early against Frazier and end things quickly and he had the speed, power and killer instinct to do it. If Bonavena could down him twice in the second round then Dempsey, one of the greatest finishers in ring history, would certainly do the job.

 

People pick fighters of there own day, as a kid, I didnt think Tyson would never be beaten and I consider one one of the ATG's. Dempsey look impressive destory Willard and Firpo, but they were flat footed, and made in order for Dempsey's style, but I cant put them on the level of Walcott or Charles or even Archie Moore. Like it or not, Marciano did beat better fighters, even at that stage of there lives. Firpo or Willard are not really on the same level skill wise.

Dempsey blasted though Willard and evey one goes AWW, Marciano has a historic clash with a still great Walcott, who is ten times the fighter of Willard, and people call Marciano over rated.

 

Dempsey because he drew the color line and did not fight all contenders ... Marciano because his competition and size are questionable when comparing him as an all time great.

Why these two men ? To me the answer is obvious ... in short, because they are cultural hinge points to many for different reasons ...

 

Dempsey as all white hwt champions before him drew the color line the day he won the championship. He was also the first to announce that he rescinded the color line. It was the tradition and expected that the new champion draw the color line. There is a mountain of evidence That Dempsey not only pursued a fight with Wills but he signed to fight him at least twice maybe three times. Dempsey into his old ago always said that he wanted to fight Wills but could not make it happen. Indeed as much as you want to spin it that is the generally accepted account most historian agree to. It's just the revisionists who believe otherwise.

 

Dempsey....your missing the major point.....experts..those that know how to train a fighter know what great fighting abilities are all about when they looked at Dempsey from ringside and then watched Marciano from ringside almost in one singular voice say you cannot compare the two. Once again..."you cannot compare Marciano to Dempsey except as a puncher." Dempsey was the far greater fighter. You choose to ignore the voices of these experts. You have to look within yourself to understand why. No matter what the reason it's wrong. You are trying to write your own version of boxing history 90 years after it's been written.

 

I grew up in the 70s and I always thought Dempsey and Louis as well as Johnson were the best. Using your logic I should have thought Ali, Frazier or Foreman were greater. The reason I did not was that during that time period I studied these champions from past times. As I had a very good understanding of boxing and it's history I had a clearer understanding of what made a fighter great. Now years later I rate Ali and Foreman high but how I rank Johnson Dempsey and Louis remain unchanged in relation to one another.

 

And I can respond to you that YOU might BASE your opinion on Dempsey
as much for CULTURAL reasons as WELL... Whenever the name Dempsey is mentioned you unconditionally spout Harry Wills...Even though photos of Dempsey and Wills signing for the fight exist and were shown on ESB, you
to buttress your denial, say that the signing of that proposed bout was propaganda on the Dempsey group. Just a DISPLAY for the public.
Nonsense, the promoter Floyd Fitzsimmons of Michigan couldn't come up with the rest of the dough and the bout was never consummated...
Whether you believe it or not, there was a strong fear on the part of
boxing promoters to chance a bout between a black and white heavyweight title match for fear of possible deadly riots that followed the Jeffries /Johnson bout in Reno 1910...This historically cannot be denied. I have read about this subject so many times in boxing magazines of the 20s and 1930s, attesting to this fear....My dad would mention this subject to me while I was growing up...Was this fair for harry Wills ? Hell No. Did Wills deserve a shot at the title ? Hell YES. But we are PRODUCTS of our times whether we like it or not. And when we today almost a century later
talk about Jack Dempsey's place in heavyweight history, cannot for ONE thread at least not regurgitate "Jack Dempsey avoided Harry Wills" just for once ? After all my favorite heavyweight COULD HAVE given a money bout to several black deserving heavyweights who were much better than some of his opponents if his BRAINTRUST truly wanted to ? But they chose not too, except for his close friend JH Lewis a lightheavyweight who Lewis
kod in less than a round in 1939...Joe Louis feared no one personally, but his advisors Julian Black and John Roxborough, evidently CHOSE not to...
he, if you were in Dempsey's shoes those different times then today I suspect you might have no different were you in Dempsey's shoes...
On ESB there is today a target on Jack Dempsey's back that I hardly see on other boxing sites...
P.S. don't you think that the great many writers, ex boxers, trainers who raved about the prowess of Jack Dempsey, didn't calibrate all the pros and cons relating to Dempsey before naming him the best heavyweight they ever saw ? were they somehow less smart and less knowledgeable than you or I are ? somehow I think you know the answer he...Did he fight the best opposition of heavyweights during his reign ? No. Would he at his best give everyone hell in a H2H bout ? You bet your life....cheers.

 

I started this thread recently to make a similar point
http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=486135

Without generalising too much, there is a clear tendency for the uneducated to resort to the irrelevant character assassinations or remain completely obstinate in their opinions, regardless of the evidence presented.

When I say uneducated, I mean in terms of understanding the merits of boxers who fought in bygone eras.

Take the Deontay Wilder 's Marciano thread. Was this a serious thread? If so, was the clear evidence of Wilder's lack of accomplishment so to this date not enough. After all, we can not know his future. He may be KTFO in his next fight and never fight again. Conversely he might end up at 110-0 with 108 KOs.

I'd much prefer to see educated and evidence based discussion rather than "this guy is 250 pounds and therefore must be able to beat ANY 180 pound man in the history of time. " , after all that is fundamentally the argument being presented, which I shall not debate here, but must say it is laughable that it is even contemplated.

To further well thought discussion.

 

You can credit all that to the troll infestation that took place here several weeks back when the new people took over. Looks like they've gotten rid of some of them though, which is good.

 

I love a good discussion. I respect the old legends, know a whole lot about them, but I try to be unbiased. Some people get blinded by nostalgia, some have little to no respect for the guys from the past.

Opinions are like assholes... everybody has one and most of them stink!

Too many people think their opinion is fact, get over yourself.

 

Just because Nat thinks Dempsey would destory Marciano does not make it fact, its his option and he has a right to it, Yes Marciano may not of impress the writers of his day style wise, but Marciano clean out his era. He did all that could really be ask of him. If Pee We Herman was the number 1 guy for Marciano's entire rein, and duck him, I would raise hell over that.

Yes Dempsey try to get the match in 1925, but the thing was Wills was the top guy for most of Dempsey's 7 year rein. What was Dempsey doing in 1922, 24, and 25? It was not that he was not fighting Wills, but pretty much no one. The fight could of been made. I think a Marciano Dempsey fight could go either way. And would not be what expert Gene Tunney claim when he said Dempsey would ko Charles, Walcott, and Marciano one after the other on the same night, under ten rounds.

 

Dempsey, Tunney, Schmeling, Patterson, and some others... good, very good, and even great, but not big enough, plain and simple.

I can't imagine any of them beating Bowe, Lewis, W. or V. Klitschko, or some who were smaller than these 4 like Tyson or Holyfield. Ali, Holmes, Foreman? All 3 would beat Dempsey, Tunney, Schmeling, or Patterson in my opinion.

How about Marciano or Louis beating the more modern and bigger HWs? This is where my heart gets in the way of my brain. I want to pick them over at least some of these guys but my brain tells me not to. They'd have a chance but I wouldn't favor them.

I still put Ali, Holmes, and Foreman ahead of Bowe, Lewis, and the Klitschko's. They had the right combination of skill, durability, strength, power, and size. Holyfield and Tyson get highly ranked on my list. Louis, Marciano, Frazier, and Liston deserve a mention and get ranked ahead of Dempsey, Tunney, and others in my opinion.

Top 15? Maybe? Where do Norton or Witherspoon belong? Do you rate a guy like Chris Byrd who may have been able to beat some of these guys? Michael Moorer, David Tua, James Toney?

It can't be all about how you think they'd do H2H? I can't be all about numbers either.

None of this really means anything though... just another opinion

 

Wow, here it is yet again. We get it, people should rate Dempsey above Marciano. Move on.

 

The trouble on this board is that quite a few younger posters simply align themselves to one or two boxers and diss everybody else.
The other fighters are "bums" "frauds" or whatever, one acually called Sugar Ray Leonard a coward in a thread the other day.
It's very difficult to debate with people like that, not just because of their obvious lack of knowledge but their immature mentality.

 

True. It's equally difficult to debate with somebody stuck in the early 1900s. Passing things off as "trainer/fighter saw him and said nobody could live with him" despite said trainer dying in about 1949 has no relevance whatsoever on how they'd do vs a modern fighter. Their opinion is relevant to their time and how they compared with contemporaries, more than anything. If I think a heavyweight from, say, the 1990s who outweighs, has height advantage, a better reach and, most importantly, is a far better boxer than a fighter from 70 years earlier...why would I need to hear quotes from trainer who knew the elder fighter much better- i wouldn't.


When doing all-time ratings, I respect the achievements, record, opponents beaten (not fought, beaten) etc and head-to-head is something that is a 'nice to have' in my ratings. But in a thread about exactly that, the more modern fighter- especially if he's the superior ring craftsman- will come out on top far more often than not.