Jack Dempsey's Ranking

The devil is in the detail here. The second article is very critical of Dempsey, and accuses him as using Tate as a shield, but it ends with the sentence- “Wills main objective in life at the moment is a match with Jack Dempsey for the title. He knows that unless he can beat Tate he can never hope to get that match.” This is tacitly admitting that the Tate debacle needed to be resolved before Wills could challenge Dempsey for the title. The third article shows that Tate was actively pursuing Wills for a rematch, while Wills was trying to re-establish his credentials as a contender. All in all Tate is looking to be a much more interesting fighter than I had thought previously.

 

Fair enough.:good
I will say they are probably all writing it for the same reason you wrote it, just copying what someone else wrote.

I think someone from Robinson's era may have once wrote "the term 'pound for pound' was invented for Robinson" but they didn't mean it literally.

I don't know what Langford thought or meant .... or whether he actually even said the things quoted. Most newspaper quotes should be taken with a pinch of salt.

But personally I think Dempsey arguably ranks higher in a p4p sense than as a heavyweight.
The man was an absolute beast for his size.

 

Now you are asking.

I suspect that Tunney rates more highly head to head, than he does in terms of resume.

We have to credit Dempsey with being better resume wise, if only because he was at the top for a lot longer.

Beyond that he can theoretically be rated over anybody in that period.

 

Depends on the critic, cos it's only an opinion, if you ask the GOL's it makes Dempsey, worst then mediocre, to many more, It makes Dempsey great and it still makes Wills mediocre .

 

"or whether he actually even said the things quoted."

I agree totally.

Quotes are the poorest of all evidence.

Not only might Langford have been misquoted as you mention,

but even if he said it, he might not have really meant what he said.

He was a black man fighting in the South at a time when lynching was common.

He might just have said what he felt the white folks wanted to hear.

*on a personal note, thanks for implying I was naïve in an earlier post of yours. Most who know me think I am too cynical by half.

 

Wills does not have a better record against common opposition than Dempsey.

Dempsey koed Fulton with one punch in 30 seconds of round one. Fulton was No 1 contender at that time. It took Wills three rounds.

Dempsey knocked Firpo unconscious in two rounds. Wills beat Firpo by Decision.

Dempsey knocked out Sharkey with one punch in round seven. Wills lost to Sharkey in a one sided thrashing.

 

Okay, on Wills.

If box rec is right, and I admit I went to box rec to refresh my memory of his record (and a guy as old as me better refresh his memory)

From 1912 to 1926 Wills lost only to McVea and Langford, all time greats whom he beat more often than not, via an injury to Battling Johnson, and via a DQ to Tate, and he beat both Johnson and Tate several times.

And the white guys that were willing to get into the ring with him--Fulton, Firpo, Weinert, etc., lost to him badly.

He destroyed some of the guys Dempsey destroyed, and also beat guys that Dempsey struggled with--Meehan and John Lester Johnson.

It just seems to me that "mediocre" is an over-the-top putdown.

 

Langford stated what he stated. To try to twist his words or infer he did not mean what he said without solid evidence is unsupported and false logic.

Again the greatest boxing trainer ever, the greatest technical hwt champion boxer ever and the greatest p4p fighter ever all state the same thing.

"Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen".

 

Not if you view the vid's.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

In my judgment, Sharkey is the only one Dempsey really did better with.

Fulton--Dempsey went at his opponents at the opening bell. Wills might have felt his opponents out a bit. But a 1st round KO versus a 3rd round KO proves nothing. Both dominated the guy.

Firpo--Well, Dempsey actually came closer to losing at the prime age of 28. Wills dominated Firpo for 12 rounds at 35.

But these weren't the only common opponents. Both KO'd Charley Miller, Homer Smith, and Gunboat Smith.

Wills won his only fight with Willie Meehan. Dempsey won two, lost two, and drew one with Meehan.

Dempsey had a difficult time with John Lester Johnson. box rec lists this fight a draw. (Dempsey himself is quoted as saying he thought he lost. I criticized him for saying he could beat Wills when he didn't fight him, so I must praise him here for giving credit to Johnson where credit is due.)

Wills is credited with a decision and two newspaper decisions over John Lester Johnson.

So Wills did better against Meehan and Johnson. Dempsey did better with Sharkey.

In fairness to both,

Wills was more experienced when he fought Meehan and Johnson.

Dempsey was not yet in his prime, except perhaps for the later Meehan fights, and those were only 4 rounders. However, Dempsey was a fast starter, so questions are raised.

For Wills, he was 37 when he lost to Sharkey. Dempsey was a significantly younger 32. Who knows if a 1921 Wills would have lost to Sharkey.

 

This is why at the elite level that they were you can't compare two fighters, from any weight class or era for that matter, based upon common opponents that they beat because they obviously had different styles.

 

:good

 

"Langford stated what he stated. To try to twist his words or infer he did not mean what he said without solid evidence is unsupported and false logic."

I agree with you completely.

We don't know how he meant this statement, so claiming he meant it in a p4p sense is to impose an interpretation on words which don't necessarily mean that. None of us should be claiming to know what he was thinking.

Anyone claiming he was thinking p4p is claiming to know what he can't know.

But I would also say this is a very limited opinion as Langford didn't see anyone after the 1920's, and most of the top ten on most lists come from 1930 or later. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since Langford.

"The greatest technical hwt champion boxer ever"

But let's be real. No one can possibly claim Tunney as an objective source as his own reputation rests so heavily on his wins over Dempsey. Saying Dempsey was overrated would be the same as saying Tunney himself is overrated.

Langford is limited by whom he saw. Tunney by his ego involvement in Dempsey's rating.

"The greatest trainer"

The one good source of the three, other than Langford's showing he respected Dempsey back in the day,

but Arcel was a lifelong close friend of Dempsey. Does that matter? Could it effect either his judgment or simply what he would want to say publicly?

 

You are missing the point. Three of the very top, the best, in their field rank Dempsey very highly, THE BEST. If you are a Dempsey hater looking for any possible way to degrade the man than you say one was wrong, one was lying but you cannot dismiss the overall statement that is being made here.

In fact if you know boxing technically and watch Dempsey perform the level of skill is really astonishing.

Sam Langford "Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen."

This statement coming from the p4p greatest fighter ever (or at least top three) carries great weight. To try to dismiss it in any way reveals alterior motives.