Jack Dempsey's Ranking

They are just opinions not facts, just cos someone says this and another says that doesnt make it a fact, and certainly doesnt make it true.

What is so hard to understand?

 

I don’t know if this is literally true, but I know that Dempsey inflicted horrible damage on some opponents and sparring partners.

I don’t think that there have been many men of his weight who punched harder.

 

OMG, ok whatever you say, no wonder you cant decide if the statements are true or not.

 

Senya, Frank Menke was a famous sportswriter of those days. Reading this article written in 1926, it FAILS to mention the most important fact. That Menke was watching a Dempsey trying to come back from THREE years without a fight, being in the midst of litigation
with his former manager and mentor Jack Kearns, and his brother dead after killing his wife and then committing suicide and this on top of everything left Dempsey depressed. And foolishly his new mgr. took the Tunney fight without ONE tune-up bout after a three year layoff...Is it any wonder this version of the onetime murderous
Jack Dempsey got whipped by a razor sharp Gene Tunney ?
Why Frank Menke NEVER mentioned any of this in his column you posted is utterly an amazing omission...? Any competent fight fan of those days would KNOW THIS...Jack Dempsey's forte as a great heavyweight was he was considered as fast as some middleweight with great power...The Dempsey of this article was a shell of himself, but still good enough to flatten a prime version of Jack Sharkey at the age of 32 and dropping Gene Tunney in the 7th round in Philly with a blistering 7 punch knockdown that truly would have k'd Tunney in the famous "long count". At his best he was a tiger in the ring and truly had a damn good shot to ko any heavyweight who ever lived. ciao...

 

"Being able to pick winners correctly does not mean you don't know a great fighter when you see one!"

But being unable to pick winners does seem to mean you can't pick the better fighter between two fighters who are actually right in front of you.

The issue here isn't exactly if Dempsey was "great" on some level. He was. The issue is if he is "greater" than Joe Louis or other great fighters who came before or after him.

If a one maintains that Louis clearly had the more impressive record, what value should be put on a claim that Dempsey should be rated higher because X says Dempsey would win if they fought.

If X is to be taken seriously, he had better show us that he is capable of picking winners.

 

"How many hips did he dislocate"

In boxing matches. That is interesting. And Wills is being criticized for fighting dirty.

Seriously, though, men might get hurt falling which is more likely for hip injuries and probably shoulder injuries than punches.

No doubt Dempsey was a top level puncher.

 

I think where a lot of people's thinking is misguided is when they think that just because Dempsey was destroying guys who weighed 10-20 pounds lighter than the fighters of today his power would be ineffective against the guys of today and those being discussed in other threads. I think history has proven that wrong. Just look at fighters in the late 19th-early 20th century. Middleweights were kicking Heavyweights asses. H2H Dempsey's size would be a small factor other than making him more elusive. Same goes for guys like Marciano. Just because he was knocking out 190-200 lb guys doesn't mean he can't knockout a guy who weighs 220-240.

 

So if middleweights were kicking heavyweight asses back when then why aren't they kicking cruiserweight today, never mind heavyweights?

Could it be that generally speaking fighters are better today and there was simply less talent back then this allowing a talented middleweight to beat a less talented heavyweight?

 

Todays boxing commissions wouldn't approve a MW fighting a cruiser/HW. Fighters cheat a lot today they make the contracted weight then they re-hydrate 20pds. So a MW today is really a cruiser when they fight. Back in the day they had day of weigh in's. Even right before they get in the ring. A bantam weight today is really a featherwt or superFW. With the advent of S&C guys weight loss is easier while maintaining their strength. SRR, was a two division champ, WW and MW, in today's world SRR, would've been a champ at 135, 140, 147, 154, 160.

 

There is no doubt the Dempsey of 1926 was not the fighter he once was. The article reveals no new news.

Sharkey is obviously emphasizing how hard Dempsey punched. He was obviously a huge puncher.....all time punching power.

Again picking a winner of sporting events has no bearing on sports expertise. Arcel, Langford and Tunney gave Dempsey the highest praise. This trumps all other very uneducated opinions in the forum by 100 miles. Instead of continuing being uneducated learn from the experts. Langford..... "Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen". Game set and match.

 

Like Golovkin hitting harder than heavyweights?


To me, these testimonials have one clear meaning to them. The people who gave them, intended to separate the boxer from everyone else.

Whether it's true, a lie, or an exaggeration, the intention is at least clear.

 

Everything Dempsey said.

Fighters today make a lot more excuses. A lot of fighters today say they are "too small" for a division which is bull****. Look at Tommy Burns, he was 5'7" fighting 6'+ guys.