Jacks Dempsey ranking - arguments

He is my number 3 .I'll let the usual haters get their poison in.

 

Some Champs who lost their title to ex LHvys
Hart
Corbett [to a super middle]
Holmes
Holyfield

Those who lost to one, contesting a vacant title
Sharkey
Moore

 

The key word is ex.

Anybody over 175 lbs is an ex light heavyweight.

Dempsey himself had some early fights under 175 so you could add Willard to the list.

The fact is that by the time he contested the heavyweight title Tunney was a good sized cruiserweight.

 

I think that any ranking between 3 and 10 could be justified.

I personaly have hin at #5.

He ranks higher head to head than he does on resume.

Head to head he is an absolute monster. The verry perfection of the come forward ofensive fighter. I have no hesitation in saying that he was a offensive technician than Mike Tyson. I also think that he was the greatest infighter of all the heavyweight champions and the best finisher outside of Louis.

He missed a couple of important legacy fights which hurts his standing but despite that his resume still stacks up well against other champions in terms of depth and quality of opposition. It also has to be noted that some of his top wins were in an extremely dominant manner.

Ultimately however he droped the ball by taking a long layoff. He had the chance to establish a claim for the No1 slot which would have been taken seriously today and he missed the boat.

 

He gets very little credit for beating Banana Sam.:-(

 

Losing the title to an ex-light heavyweight is not a valid criticism. How many heavyweights were technically light-heavyweights at one time? Tunney matured into a full-sized heavyweight (for the era) and was at his best at the weight. I'd also take the position that he did beat many of the best contenders of the era in his run up to the title, often in devastating fashion. At any rate, he beat everyone that he had to to get a title shot, and I don't think anyone could reasonably ask anymore from a contender.

I'll give you inactivity, definitely. And he certainly should have fought Wills and Greb. He could also be a bit inconsistant. I'll cite his first fight with Miske and his second with Brennan. Both were bad performances when he was in his prime in which he was troubled by a fighter that he should have defeated dominantly, though he did so in other fights against both men. And also - Willie ****ing Meehan...

 

For one thing, P4P, I consider him the most dangerous heavyweight of all time. The only heavyweights I might give better than even odds against him outweigh him by 30 pounds at least. So I rate him very highly head to head. He did fight some excellent fighters, even some great fighters, contrary to what many claim. He also beat many of these fighters in extremely dominant fashion. KO'd Fulton in 18 seconds, who was at the time the No. 1 contender and one of the best Heavy's of the era. Dominated Gibbons and won 12 or more out of 15 rounds against him coming off of a two year lay off. Gibbons is an ATG light-heavyweight and at the time was a highly ranked contender. His run up to the title was also extremely impressive.

 

Bob McAllister was a good fighter.

 

I think Dempsey was the best Heavyweight Champion leading up to him and until Louis and I always rated him top 4 but after reading opinions of him not fighting Wills makes me think ..........2wce....

 

Jack was the template for inactivity among heavyweight champs. Vitali is an amateur where "hiatus" is concerned.