What is the general consensus on Jack Dempsey in 1926-27?

Mc, You say" there is no way to know" if I am in my 80s,and if I'm telling the darn truth. ? Well I'm willing to send you or anyone copies of my birth certificate and drivers license proving my age once and for all...to think that I in my dotage has to prove my age is a disgrace, but to preserve my honor and what dignity I have left, I am willing to do that....
P.S. Mc, if someone accused you of lying about your age, and personage, I am sure you would try to show the damn truth...

 

I've always enjoyed Burt quite a bit .. he clearly holds more than his own regardless of age .. as far as Klompton, seems like many opportunist are trying to jump on him over the Burt issue since they have zero ability to lay a glove on him when debating fact since as a historian he is in his own class .. time to move on as this is boring and only becoming personal ..

 

Although he was still pretty strong and retained a lot of his power,he had slowed up a hell of a lot. Those tiger like reflexes and hell for leather aggression had gone.

 

Why do Ray Arcel and Lou Stillman who both have seen thousands of fighters rate Dempsey the Greatest?

 

Why do their opinions hold more weight than any other person who has seen thousands of fighters?

 

dont include me in that "THEY"....you speak for yourself brother.

 

They were the experts who saw these fighters day in day not a newspaper man who saw thousands of fighters.
Jeff Powell a Uk reporter may have seen thousands i dont know,hes been reporting a long time the absolute crap he writes is incredible.Now if he said Jack Dempsey was the Greatest i wouldnt take any notice,Arcel who is the authority whos seen everyone says it i cant ignore it.I rate Joe Louis No1 By the way

Arcel rated locche better than Pep he weren't one of them 'old timers were better types''

 

You make it sound like klompton's getting bullied.

I'd say Klompton's an outstanding researcher but nowhere near objective enough to be a great historian. There's a difference. It's not just about gathering facts, it's about assessing and interpreting them fairly, coolly without a prejudiced agenda.
That's my judgement anyway, for what it's worth. Perhaps it's worth nil, but I've seen enough, and I think some intelligent postors on here have developed the same judgment.

Yeah, that will happen when people let their personalities show.

 

Again, I would love to hear how I was not objective in my book. There have been a couple of people who have made this claim, or claims like Morlocks but cannot seem to be bothered to back it up with any substance. I find that strange. When I criticised the recent book about Tiger Flowers I backed up my criticisms with cold hard facts. LOTS OF THEM. When I criticised the book on Stanley Ketchel I explained why using examples from the book that anyone could follow and see for themselves why I had those criticisms. So far Ive seen a couple of people representing an extremely small minority criticizing whether my book was objective and completely unable to back it up. I'll be here waiting if someone wants to post an example but Im guessing you wont.

 

These are the seven guiding principles that an objective historian adheres to:

The historian must treat sources with appropriate reservations;
The historian must not dismiss counterevidence without scholarly consideration;
The historian must be even-handed in treatment of evidence and eschew "cherry-picking";
The historian must clearly indicate any speculation;
The historian must not mistranslate documents or mislead by omitting parts of documents;
The historian must weigh the authenticity of all accounts, not merely those that contradict a favored view; and
The historian must take the motives of historical actors into consideration.

I adhered to each and every one of these principles and look forward to examples of how I didnt.

 

Klompton, I recently purchased your book through Amazon. Enjoyed it immensly. I can only imagine the time spent researching. Anything to look forward to in the future?

 

Thank you for the kind words and Im glad you enjoyed it.

Im working on two books at the moment: One is about the murder of Stanley Ketchel and the decade or so of turmoil that it threw the middleweight division into. It will shed light on guys like Papke, Klaus, Chip, Darcy, Dillon, Langford, Clabby, Gibbons, Smith (Jeff and Dave) Cyclone Johnny Thompson, Bryan Downey, McCoy, O'Dowd, Carpentier, McGoorty, etc. The other is a history of Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills and their often discussed but never staged title fight which I am working on with a friend.