My Dad's Top 10 Heavyweights

I don't know who these men were, and I am only asking who they were and how many not only had seen Dempsey, but the earlier champions such as Corbett (hadn't fought in 47 years), Jeffries (hadn't fought in 40 years), Johnson (last major US fight 38 years earlier). They probably saw Louis.

Here are the major sportswriters of the 1920's:

Damon Runyon-----died 1946

Hype Igoe-----died 1945

Tad Dorgan-----died 1929

Ring Lardner-----died 1933

W. O. McGeehan-----died 1933

Heywood C Braun-----died 1939

Paul Gallico-----retired from sportswriting to write fiction in 1930's.

Grantland Rice-----died 1954

Men drank to excess and smoked several packs a day, or cigars, or pipes, in those days. That a man in his thirties or forties or even older in the 1920's is still going to be around in 1950 to vote is not a given.

Of the big name 1920's sportswriters, only Grantland Rice, mainly a football, horse racing, and baseball writer, with a secondary interest in boxing, was still alive and active to vote in 1950.


*Joe Louis versus Jack Dempsey is one thing in a 1950 vote, but I would severely doubt if very many of those 300 sportswriters actually had seen fighters like Jeffries or Johnson in their primes.

 

OLD FOGEY, I am not saying that all the writers went back to Corbett.Not at all.I do know that Therewere boxing writers on the old Ring Mag, Fleischer, Jersey Joe, Daniels
etc went back to 1910 .But all of them did see Dempsey and Louis at their peaks...No
one questioned the skills of these boxing experts before you brought this up...They all loved and admired Joe Louis,as WE ALL did then...
For the life of me I cannot understand the contempt you and some posters have for Jack Dempsey...Why do you have no respect for these past writers.? Were they somehow less intelligent because a majority chose the Manassa Mauler as the best that
they saw...Writers such as Dan Parker, Red Smith, Gene Ward,Jimmy Cannon,were a few from NY papers,around at that time...I can assure you they were very competent
boxing writers who had nothing to gain in their poll pick...As I have said before if the
Writers in that 1950 poll chose Joe Louis as the best fighter til 1950,over the prime Dempsey, I would accept their choice with no hesitation ,for I did not see Dempsey
prime and the 300 writers did...Why am I wrong ?

 

Agreed. The lack of footage and the revisionist history regarding his "resume" has really downgraded what an amazing fighter he was said to have been by all during his time. Langford himself claimed that there was never a better Heavy than Dempsey.

 

Sportswriters--Dan Parker, born in 1894, started covering sports in 1920's. Might have seen a peak Dempsey.

Red Smith--born in 1905, graduate of Notre Dame, began working at Milwaukee paper. Possibly never saw a peak Dempsey.

Jimmy Cannon--born in 1910. Probably didn't see a peak Dempsey. Seems off his writing to have considered Louis the greatest.

W C Heinz--born in 1915. Seems to have considered Louis the greatest.

Gene Ward--born in 1914--not likely to have seen a peak Dempsey.



Ring Magazine writers--Nat Fleischer--according to Wikipedia, the first heavyweight championship fight he attended was Johnson-Jeffries. Saw most of the greats, but considered Johnson, Jeffries, and Langford better than Dempsey. Did pick Dempsey over Louis.

Dan Daniel--born 1890. I remember reading an article in which he said the Dempsey-Willard fight was the first championship fight he saw. Picked Dempsey as greatest.

Jersey Jones--born 1898. I don't know his opinion. He might have seen a peak Dempsey. Not likely to have seen Jeffries or Johnson.

Ted Carroll--born 1904. Could have seen a peak Dempsey, but if my memory doesn't fail me, he voted for Joe Louis in the 1962 poll.


**Of the writers born after the turn of the century or in the teens, even if they saw Dempsey as youngsters, would they have been sophisticated enough about boxing at that time to make this sort of evaluation?

***I don't think this 1950 poll is probably that useful in judging how Dempsey was viewed vis-a-vis Jeffries or Johnson by those who saw them all.


Who says I have contempt for Dempsey. He was my boyhood idol. There has never been a more colorful boxer nor one who touched the imagination quite like him. All this doesn't negate that he was a largely inactive champion who didn't fight one top challenger and lost to another. The boring as dishwater Jim Jeffries did fight the best of his time and beat all but Johnson. I have to go by what the record says.

 

"The stigma of Dempsey being a WWI dodger hanged over his head for yrs after the fact"

I doubt if it was a negative factor against Dempsey in the 1950 poll after Dempsey served honorably in WWII and actually saw combat.

 

I resemble that remark.

 

Apart from experts being wrong in estimating matchups between top opponents (4:1 Hopkins winning every round against Pavlik anyone?), I think it's worth pointing out that guys like Dempsey have a tendency to be overestimated due to having an exciting style. The same happened with Tyson, who was an unparalleled 44:1 and 21:1 favorite in fights during his prime that he lost.

It should also be noted that DESPITE this, people at the time apparently didn't like Dempsey's chances against his mediocre opponents that well. He was only 11:5 (basically 2:1) against Gibbons. Marciano was twice that (4:1) against a much more accomplished fighter in Moore, late in Rocky's career. Note that Gibbons lost to Greb in 1922 and unlike Moore, wasn't as accomplished against heavyweights nor bulked up any himself.

Is anyone willing to guess what Dempsey's odds were against Miske during their 3rd bout? I'll give a hint: despite the two pretty much going even in their first two bouts, Dempsey was the biggest favorite of his reign at 7:1. Miske being terminally ill no secret but an obvious reality. I gotta laugh at those who label calling Miske that ill "historic revisionism", when the odds show this to be fact and known fact at that time even.

 

Lucky guy. So many people rate Langford so highly and for him to be so competitive in the Heavyweight division with his shortcomings (excuse the pun) was a testament to his skills.

 

I do NOT see a lot of hate for Dempsey at all..... I think Dempsey is "Overrated" by many here on ESB but not actually hated...... Some folks, like me, know better than to rate him # 1 of all-time... But that's not really hating on Dempsey.....

MR.BILL

 

I agree with you about "head to head" but what people tend to forget here is that the strength or worth of "resume/legacy" boils down purely to opinions too.
It's 100% a value judgement when it comes to assessing resumes and legacies, because people tend to factor in how "impressive" they believe a win or set of wins is, and how good the opposition was.
For example, Tommy Burns defended the world heavyweight championship 11 (ELEVEN !) times but how heavily is this FACT weighed up in the discussions on resume/legacy-based rankings ?

 

MR BILL, I made a statement that was true...It is true that in a 1950 poll of sportswriters who saw Dempsey and most of the fighters til 1950,they chose Dempsey as the greatest til that time....My statement was accurate..It is on record...Now I am asked to give a background bio of these boxing experts by some on the board...Because they in 1950 voted their opinions of fighters they saw,contrary to the wishes of todays Dempsey detractors,doesn't make the integrity of these long dead men less valid...Not ONE whit...I am not saying that Demp0sey was a sure thing to beat any fighter prior to 1950...Not at all...But I have the right to
bring to the attention to the board , the Poll of 1950...Don't you think so
Bill ?.
I feel like I am on trial so the next time I report a fact I'll bring a ladder.
So I can take my case to a higher court!

 

I'd like to clarify that I do not base my rating of Dempsey on the 1950 poll, but the poll (along with a whole multitude of opinions expressed at any time pre-c.1980) should at least be enough to make reasonable-minded boxing historians think that such a high rating of Dempsey is a legit choice.
Ray Arcel is another opinion that should be respected by every boxing fan/historian.

When it comes to dissecting Dempsey'd resume/opposition and spinning it negatively, the same thing can be done with any other great fighter.

 

Old Fogey just won this thread and broke into the top 10 ESB classic poster P4P list

 

Any fair minded person would have to agree with your evaluation. What I have read from old time writers who saw the young Dempsey destroy a Willard and before has left an impression on me, along with a Ray Arcel and other famous trainers,assessment of his place in history..
As you so clearly posted ,we can dissect any fighter to devalue him, to
bolster our personal choices...You hit the nail on the head Unforgiven.

 

... Old Fogey has been a top poster on this site for a long time. Burt is still relatively new to this forum. He's just a whipper-snapper in terms of his ESB Classic age --but he is a top poster on this site already. Easily.

As per Dempsey: Dempsey's championship reign leaves much to be desired all over the place. He began to slip, in my opinion, the day after Willard. However, major fans like Ray Arcel, a legion of ultra-competent sports/boxing writers (who were by and large superior to today's bunch in terms of literacy and analysis), and fellow fighters like Mickey Walker saw him in the ring at his most ferocious and were awe-struck ...for decades.

As short as Dempsey's prime was, it was something to behold.

However, in terms of greatness, I rank Louis considerably above Dempsey. Prime for prime, head to head, I believe that Dempsey would defeat Louis.