The bout was for the championship of America, as stated in the articles of agreement. Considered as such by Frank Queen, editor of NY Clipper, Joe Elliott of NY Herald and I believe Toppy McGuire of NY Sun. The reporter for Spirit of the Times, who probably was Charles Foster, its sporting editor, questioned in his report, how it could be styled for the championship of America when both fighters were born in England.
I've always wondering, since Dempsey seemed to be the consensus best ever up until at the 1950's with most experts having seem both Louis and Dempsey fight, what changed afterwards to warrant Louis ranking so much higher than Dempsey now a days?
ESB is discussing Dempseys greatness. Historians worth their salt already know this as fact. They have known this as fact for 90 years. It's the dumb and dumber crowd that need the education.
Except when you ask who he beat to rate him above Ali or Louis or a dozen other guys ... The answer is never met with the names of opponents. It's always -- "Well, so-and-so thought he was good, and so-and-so saw everyone." Right. But opinions are like @ssholes. Everyone's got one. The same guys might have thought PABST was the best beer, too. Who did Dempsey beat to rate him among the best ever? It's a simple question that you guys all DANCE LIKE MAD around. I've heard FRED FULTON. And I've heard JESS WILLARD.:roll::thumbsup Is beating Willard better than beating Ali in 1971? Is beating Willard better than knocking out a prime Foreman in 1975? Is beating Willard better than knocking out Frazier in Jamaica in 1973? Hell, is beating Willard more impressive than knocking out Leon Spinks in one round in Monaco? Dempsey couldn't even put Willard away. The fight was stopped in the corner after the third. The "dumb and dumber" crowd (as you call them) are asking a simple question? WHO DID DEMPSEY BEAT to make him the best ever? You guys have spent nearly 30 pages telling everyone they are dumb and telling everyone the names of people who "also thought" Dempsey was great. And how awful it is that people bring up race. And how disrespectful everyone is being to a great champ. But you NEVER ANSWER THE QUESTION that should be so easy to answer. WHO DID DEMPSEY BEAT TO MAKE HIM GREAT? If you can't answer that, you are "the dumb and dumber" crowd. And I that's becoming more apparent by the day.
I don't think so at all. I think the vast majority agree that Dempsey is great, the question is where would you place him and why. Some seem hell bent on lowering his placement because he never fought Wills because he was a racist who avoided black fighters, and others like myself, think it was more a product of the times situation. But I doubt many are placing him out of the top 15 or so, and I'm sure some have him as high as top 5. So yes, we are discussing his greatness, but we aren't disagreeing, as far as I know, whether or not he was great, just how great.
Because most of those "experts" may have seen Dempsey once when they were a kid. And they saw Louis once when they were an adult. And all they did was read the legends of fighters in magazines for 50 years and repeat the same stories over and over again. And, in the second half of the 20th century, films became more readily available. And when the films became available, the "stories" started to fall apart. I posted an article of Jim Jacobs showing the Corbett-Fitszimmons fight to a bunch of people in the early 60s, and people there (pro fighters and trainers) were laughing at the people on screen. And Jacobs had to tell them afterward who the two guys were, and people didn't believe him. Because the guys on the film looked nothing like the stories they had read. When you see Joe Louis on film and look at his record (and look at the guys he fought on film against others) and you see Jack Dempsey on film and look at his record (and look at the guys he fought on film against others), Joe Louis obviously gained ground and Dempsey lost. People believe their eyes. You can tell them what they are seeing is wrong ... because some old guy a 100 years ago didn't agree ... but they believe their eyes.
Exactly. Until people start naming the names of the top guys Dempsey beat WHO WERE BETTER than the top names other heavyweights beat ... and they start listing the performances that qualify him to be listed among the ten best ever ... I'm bowing out. It's always "I read this guy said this." Name the fights that put Dempsey over the top. If you can't, he wasn't. Simple as that. :good
The quality of film dilutes boxing skill appearance. Louis films are mostly crisp and clear and he looks great.
Meaning those who never saw Dempsey, have a different opinion, I presume. Personally I find it hard to simply dismiss those who saw both fighters live.
I guess that when the dust setled on Louis's career it became apparent that he had a huge edge in depth, then people who had seen Dempsey started to thin out.