Jack Dempsey's Ranking

"Senya . . . lives as far away as possible from the US."

Just stepping out of the whole debate for an instant,

distance and being an outsider often brings objectivity.

"Senya is very young"

Having been young and being old,

being old has some impressive advantages,

but being young often brings fresh and original thinking.

 

You really think you can learn something about Jeffries' punching power by seeing him exhibiting a few rounds with his sparring partner?

 

As for Jeffries and Langford sparring, I don't have Adam's 2nd volume on Johnson, but Clay didn't think the story (emerging 2,5 years after Jeffries-Johnson bout had taken place) was true.

 

"the greatest technical boxer ever to hold the hwt championship"

Whose reputation rests on Dempsey's reputation. Come on, now. Tunney is hardly an objective source at all. This is as worth while an opinion as Tom Sharkey saying Jeffries would have beaten Dempsey and Louis in the same night.

"the greatest p4p fighter"

Yes, but what was Langford's record in actually picking who would win fights? As a matter of fact, do you have any evidence that great fighters are particularly better than interested fans in picking winners in fights? Being great yourself doesn't automatically translate into picking winners. Pete Rose certainly knew baseball, but his betting just got him into debt.

"the greatest trainer"

The most impressive opinion, but Arcel was only learning his craft in the Dempsey-Wills era, and was a close life-time friend of Dempsey's. Still, this one means the most.

 

I always loved Ray Arcel. But he was a human being. And he exaggerated quite a bit (he was a promoter, too, for god's sake.)

And he was wrong as often as he was right.

Hell, 12 of Joe Louis' 25 title defenses came with Ray Arcel in the other corner. Arcel thought all 12 guys could beat Joe Louis. And none of them did. He finally won over Joe Louis when he worked Ezzard Charles' corner. So he clearly was "a little" biased when it came to Joe Louis ... since he went 1-13 against Louis and predicted the wrong outcome 12 of those times.

(Sort of like Teddy Atlas when it came to the Klitschkos.)

And Arcel left boxing for nearly 20 years. He didn't even follow it for most of the 1950s and 1960s. Not until he was brought out of retirement to train Duran along with Freddie Brown.

Arcel was a great trainer. But the sport has had a lot of great trainers. Don't make him out to be something he wasn't. He wasn't the all-knowing trainer who saw everyone for 60 years. He didn't tend to work with guys from the start of their careers to the ends. During his heyday, he was more of a hired gun most of the time.

And, ironically, he was known as a the trainer who could get fighters in the best shape ... and in his last bout, his best fighter (Duran) quit because he claimed he had to take a cr@p because he ate too much.

I thought he was great. And he had a lot of great quotes - like when the doctor said Duran had an irregular heat beat and Arcel said 'he doesn't have a heart.'But he was wrong A LOT of the time, too. Don't take everything he said as the final word.

You rate fighters by WHO THEY BEAT. Not according to who people "thought" they could beat if they ever fought them.

And Dempsey didn't beat enough top heavyweights to leap over those fighters who did.

 

What a bunch of ****. I just finished reading a bio on Arcel about 4 months, and I certainly don't recall him thinking everyone who stepped in the ring with Louis was going to beat him.

If they were high enough ranked they fought him because there was money to be made fighting the heavyweight champ, but that's a far cry from him asserting any or all of his fighters were in a position to beat Louis. Why anyone would equate them to mean the same is beyond me.

In fact all your post demonstrates is how little you really know about the guy.

 

I've followed boxing when Ray Arcel was still training fighters. And you can find the newspaper articles with Arcel picking his guy to win before nearly all of them.

I didn't just "finish a book" about him. I was a fan when he was actually around. He wasn't freaking god. He was a boxing trainer and a promoter. And he was one of my favorite trainers to listen to.

But if he could pick winners, he'd have been a gambler. He'd have made more money.

Hearing who Arcel thought would win a fantasy fight is fine, but Dempsey didn't ACTUALLY BEAT enough people to move ahead of those who came later WHO DID BEAT better opponents.

Actual wins and losses carry more weight than who people "thought" would win.

 

"if he could pick winners, he's have been a gambler. He'd have made more money."

I honestly think this is a very strong point. Great fighter or great trainer, if you can pick the winners, why don't you make yourself a rich man by betting?

Certainly it is reasonable to ask if either Langford or Arcel in fact ever showed himself as very good at picking the winners of competitive fights.

 

Fighters should be ranked and judged by who they beat, how they performed against those individuals, and when they fought them (early in their careers, late in their careers, in their primes, etc.)

Ranking someone the best because 'somebody else said he was' is ridiculous.

Everyone has differing opinions on the outcomes of fights. Every major boxing upset includes quotes from the "best experts in the sport" who have seen both fighters and still pick the wrong guy.

The actual fight results mean more than people's opinions regarding who "might" win bouts that never took place.

They always have ... unless we're talking about Dempsey. In the case of Dempsey, the wins are pushed aside (because they don't measure up) and it's all about "well this guy said he was the best."

It's a losing argument.:deal

 

I have never read such ****. What bizarro world do you people come from? No trainer that has ever lived picks his fighter to lose! Of course Arcel if asked is going to say only the most positive comments concerning the fighter he has trained for months.

You have the greatest boxing trainer ever, the greatest technical hwt champion ever, the greatest p4p fighter ever saying the same thing. That's just three people but three VERY KNOWLEDGABLE PEOPLE. FAR KNOWLEDGABLE THAN ANYONE ON THESE BOARDS 90 years after the fact. Now listen to Jack Sharkey who fought both Dempsey and Louis. Who did he say hit harder? Dempsey. He added "I never thought anyone could hit that hard". Dempsey had power that today is not fully appreciated. Sharkey explained...."Louis was a combo hitter so he would hit you with one and another and another until you went down. When Dempsey hit you on the shoulder it broke your shoulder, when he hit you to the body it felt as if his fist was coming out your back, if he hit you on the hip he dislocated your hip".

Another thing not fully understood was Dempsey wrote several technical books on how to fight and how to hit hard. These are available on the Internet and I suggest you read them. It gives one insight that Dempsey was a real student of the game. You won't find such technical insight from any other former hwt champion.

 

You can find LOTS of advices on how to fight and how to punch by Sullivan, Corbett and Fitzsimmons in the 1890s, but as separate articles in the newspapers, not as a book.

 

Not at a level that is relevant 90 years later. Dempseys book are still used by students of the game. Suggest you read them sometime.

 

They were all students of the game or they wouldn't have become heavyweight champions.

Who did Dempsey beat? That's what it boils down to.

Guys like Michael Olajide have written technical boxing books. That didn't mean he could beat Hearns.

And you can find many famous, talented boxers and trainers who were wrong in predicting the outcomes of fights. Muhammad Ali was one of the best heavyweights who ever lived. He predicted Ken Norton would beat George Foreman. WRONG. Ray Arcel was one of the best trainers ever - even though he couldn't train 12 guys to beat Joe Louis - Arcel picked Hearns to beat Leonard. WRONG. Jack Dempsey and Jack Sharkey picked Walcott to knock out Louis in their rematch and Max Baer picked Walcott, too, just not by KO. ALL WRONG.

You could fill a book with boxing experts making the wrong call. Pick a fighter or trainer, you can find predictions he made that were incredibly wrong.

You don't rate fighters based on predictions of fantasy fights or who the guy who fought both thinks (those are typically the worst predictions of all). If you did, Ken Norton would've beaten Foreman in Caracas, Hearns would've destroyed Leonard and unified the welterweight title and Walcott would've knocked out Joe Louis ... and Louis wouldn't have 25 successful defenses.

What matters is who they fought, when they fought them and how they performed.

Dempsey wasn't among the ten best heavyweights ever. The guys Dempsey beat, compared to those ahead of him, are not good (to be kind).

How many books he wrote, or who picked him to win fantasy fights, doesn't matter in the least.