Jack Dempsey's Ranking

Does one have to have seen the reigning champion in a fight personally to know he'd be over his head challenging him? Langford's manager may have seen Jeffries, but I have no idea.

Theoretically, he could, at least there's a physical possibility to get from one coast to the other and back, between the fights Langford had around that time. But what's the probability that he did, between the Walcott and Griffo bouts held in MA and RI? And Langford was still a near unknown at the time, the victory over Joe Gans was several months later, and travelling such distance would have been too expensive in his situation. Same with two other Jeffries fights, in 1902 and 1904, both were held in San Francisco, far-far away from Langford's home.

 

I disagree with you that it was even physically possible to get from San Francisco to Boston in four days in 1903. Langford fought in Boston only four days after the Jeffries-Corbett fight in San Francisco.

 

1903-07-16 Langford-Walcott in RI
1903-08-14 Jeffries-Corbett in CA
1903-08-28 Langford-Griffo in MA

 

Langfords statement was..... "Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen"

Add to this the comments by:

Arcel - greatest boxing trainer ever.
Tunney - greatest technical boxer at hwt ever.
Sharkey - only man to fight both Louis and Dempsey. Former worlds hwt champion.
Schmeling - former hwt champion. Top hwt contender for over a decade.
Fleischer - Renouned boxing historian who saw all hwt champions live from ringside from Johnson to Frazier.

Can't get more expert opinion than this and it's only the tip of the iceberg.

 

Langford could have seen Corbett in exhibitions and training many times. Bottom line Dempsey is being given the highest of praise by possibly the greatest p4p fighter ever to live. Trying to get around this by nitpicking shows the depths of absurdity and intellectual corruptness haters will go to in order to degrade Dempsey. The level of very positive expert opinion cannot be nitpicked away.

 

A fighters ability and standing is not measured by an experts opinion. It has to be proven in the ring. Ali and Frazier nearly died fighting for the crown.

True champions like Marciano and Louis fought their best challengers consistently to prove who the best fighter in the world was.

But we're supposed to ignore Dempsey sitting on his ass for years doing nothing and not fighting his 2 outstanding challengers because a bunch of guys that fought him and some "experts" that idolized him think he was the best ever?

No.

 

Your opinion is uneducated. Learn a bit about the history of boxing up to and including the Dempsey era. Expert opinion counts significantly especially within eras that are so far removed from today.

 

So explain how a fighter arranges title fights with top contenders, for the most important boxing title on earth at the time, without a manager or promoter?

 

More condescending gibberish from you. Not that I expected anything substantiated.

When people talk about how great Joe Louis was, they don't mention the opinions of experts. They talk about how he beat half a dozen hall of famers and defended his title 25 consecutive times against top challengers...

Similar arguments are made for Ali, Marciano, Holmes, Lewis, Foreman etc.

Yet in Dempseys case, second hand accounts and expert opinions overshadow his actual accomplishments. And guess why? Because they're utter ****e in comparison to those of actual greats.

Even if he was as good as you cheerleaders try to make him out to be, it's still insulting to compare him to champions who worked their asses off and stepped into the ring time and time again against their top challengers instead of doing nothing for 3 years.

 

Your post demonstrates you do not grasp the differences of the times these fighters fought within. The history is very important as to understanding why things were the way they were.

Expert opinion counts greatly especially during Dempseys time period and prior.

 

And I am no cheerleader. I rank many above Dempsey. It is you and people like you who instead of understanding the history do everything to find a reason to degrade. It's either you are uneducated or young and inexperienced......or both.

 

Yes, it is all possible, that was my point.

Seamus is quick to understand that the press were being paid by Rickard and other promoters and parties when he can use the fact to cast doubt on Dempsey's abilities and illustrated how Dempsey's reputation and legend was embellished.
But then he'll go and post something written about Harry Wills as if it means something too.
Best to take it all with a pinch of salt.

I will say :

- The historical record shows that Tex Rickard, and others who made up the boxing establishment (including the champion Dempsey), profitted immensely from the public perception of Jack Dempsey as an almost invincible force.

- The historical record also shows that large sections of the boxing establishment, including Tex Rickard (AND HARRY WILLS HIMSELF), profitted from having the public perceive Harry Wills as a lurking and erstwhile 'black menace' to Dempsey, and possibly an 'uncrowned champion' in his own right.
Especially during the years when Dempsey was idle.

It suprises me how naive people on this subject continue to be, despite our years and years of discussing it.
Or perhaps not naive at all. Just so blinded by partisan prejudices and too entrenched in the argument to accept the most logical and obvious explanations.

 

Exactly. :deal

:happy

Actually beating top heavyweights counts more than "experts predicting" you could.

Everyone's rated on who they actually beat. And Dempsey doesn't have the big wins over top heavyweights like so many others who followed him did.

Whether all the top heavyweights went down with the Titanic or they all decided to play in the NFL ... and there aren't any around to fight ... it doesn't matter.

You are ultimately rated on who you actually beat. That's the bottom line.

:hi:

 

Do Foreman and Marciano's wins really overshadow Dempsey's resume that much ??

I mean, by most standards, I would have thought they would come in closer to Jack Dempsey in terms of accomplishments instead of being lumped with "25 consecutive defenses Joe Louis".

 

That's good.
So, what's your heavyweight top 5 or top 10 ?