Jack Dempsey as champion. Did he face top ten ranked opponents? How many did he beat?

Well Willard was the lineal champion.

That makes him a pretty important piece of the jigsaw here.

It would be hard to find a fighter who did not lose to somebody who Greb defeated, if you took enough steps.

We are still left with the fact that Dempsey defeated the incumbent champion, which neither Wills nor Greb did, and he defeated the heir to his throne, who happened to be the man who ended Wills reign as the top contender.

 

Well Willard didn't fight anyone 1916-1919 so kind of hard to fight Willard when he won't take anyone on. Also, he showed up old inactive and in terrible shape vs Dempsey in 1919 then retired again. No opportunity to fight a lazy Willard

Sharkey. Irrelevant to Dempsey's title reign


Go ahead and say it. Dempsey only defended his title against Greb leftovers

 

Lineal champion because he didn't fight from 1916-1919.

Not really because he wasn't defending against anyone, let alone the division's best. And came off a 3 year layoff at age 37 and looked in dreadful shape. Who knows if he was capable of beating anyone in the top 10. I doubt it

Willard was a useless win at that point. Unless you think a 3 year layoff for a 37 year old fighter had no effect.


Congrats, the younger Dempsey outlasted the 37 year old wills who finally lost. Spent so many years ducking wills, wills grew old. Eventually he was going to lose.

 

Whatever the reasons, we are still left with the facts that he held the title, and only Dempsey and Firpo beat him.

Not entirely.

He was the man who beat Wills, and also the eventual heir to Dempsey's throne.

I won't say it, because it isn't strictly the case.

 

How much credit should a fighter get for beating a 37 year old man coming off a 3 year layoff? You decide


Congrats he beat a 37 year old wills. The much younger Dempsey outlasted the 37 year old Wills after ducking him for 7 years. Eventually old age was going to beat Harry


You say it isn't the case, yet miske Brennan Gibbons and Tunney consisted of the majority of his title defenses and all these men lost to Greb.

Dempsey's title reign was **** poor and I'm shocked people still defend it

 

Great posts guys.

Has anyone seen Burt Beinstock recently?

I hope he's okay.

 

This is a very good post. The proof is in the pudding...Dempsey did not beat the best of his era.

 

Who the hell is Matt D? Who is this person and rankings I've never heard of?

 

It's so refreshing to FINALLY see a Jack Dempsey title thread.

 

Good old Fripo!

 

How old was Johnson when he went 26rds with Willard and was in front after 20 rounds?

 

It is easy to say this in hindsight, but lets not forget that everybody expected Dempsey to get slaughtered.

If the Vitally Klitschko of the Sam Peter fight, had fought a small cruiser instead, he would have been a prohibitive favorite.

Also however far gone Willard was, nobody else has ever overcome that sort of size disparity, in a lineal title fight.

You could argue that Dempsey was also getting old, and that his style was less suited for longevity.

Just because you beat somebody, it doesn't make you a better title challenger than them for all time.

Miske and Gibbons were strong title challengers in their own right at one time or another.

I think that even the people who defend it, recognize that there are serious problems with it.

The defense of it, tends to stem from a belief that the argument against it, has gone a bit too far now.