Where do you rate Jack Dempsey and why?

Lou Stillman, Nat Fleisher and Tex Richard are other important boxing figures who saw Dempsey pre-title run (something we never seen), and rated him as one of the greatest if not the greatest HW; as in fact most of the ppl. who saw both Dempsey and Louis fight in their primes, said that Dempsey would KO Louis.

 

And most who saw Louis and Ali in their primes said Louis, and most who saw Ali and Tyson said Ali, and most of those who've seen Tyson and Wlad...

That is the typical case. Things you saw when you're younger has a stronger effect on you. Now, if they pick the later fighter, then you really should give heed.

Knowledgeable as these men were you will find that their favourite almost always is someone the saw as young men/boys. Fleischer: Johnson, Arcel: Dempsey, Futch: Louis, Steward: Liston, etc, etc.

 

Bottom line bitches. Dempsey was the great white hope. Of course they would say Dempsey beats Louis. Truth is in that time Louis, like Wills, would not even get a shot at Dempsey, through fear of him and another era of pale ones getting spanked, ala Johnson. After watching film of both, the only sane conclusion you can come to is that Louis knocks him the **** out!

Why are you prenteding to see something thats not there??? In the sparring clip his head movement consists of bobbing his whilst looking at the ground, his punches are wider than Duranimal's sphinctor and he's not particularly fast at all. His footwork is hopping around like a kangaroo. And this is all great stuff back in the day when men fought like charlie chaplin, but he is absolutely cruder than crude and it is right there on film to see!

 

Bottom line: Pachilles doesn´t know sh*t.

 

Top3 of the 1916-1927 period, below tunney, probably tied with Wills, slightly above Greb

 

Going by film evidence and peer evidence PP and especially the forums resident bufoon monsieur pacotato dont know anything about boxing.

One would think that without creatine,gatorade,a dark complexion and foul proof protectors that boxing is impossible pre 1990.

 

What do you disagree with in my post, I'm ranking the 1916-1927 era based on resume and performances, I don't recall Tunney looking that dark who I rated at no1 :think

 

You unfortunately are symptomatic of the 'moderns are superior to the oldies' crew. Just as much as bertie venerates some of the old timers a little too much.
I have read your posts on other issues. Your bias is clear,as also is your dodgy reasoning.
In your favour,your not as bad as you used to be.

 

Yes I believe boxing and sports science has seen big improvements in performance although to an extent their maybe a drop off in the talent pool. However in my above posts I haven't mentioned it. I've come to the conclusion its best to rate fighters in their own time.

Many who disagree with me on boxings progression would also rate WIlls on par with Dempsey, nothing shocking about that when you look at their records

 

Ok,lets look at it wthout smoke and mirrors.
Who is considered the best heavyweight fighter out of greb,Wills,tunney and demspey?
Lets not be pedantic,lets say head to head prime and historically.
I know dempsey reign as champ is weak comparitively speaking,but his career as a whole shows a really great fighter and giant killer.
I dont see why you cant compare dempsey with other eras? Can we not compare Ali,louis or even tyson with the current era by that reasoning?
Finally,there is absolutely no DEMONSTRABLE evidence of progression in boxing performance as a whole or even just at the elite level in the last 30 years. Show me these proofs please. The eighties was vastly superior as a whole to anything after it.

 

Louis knocking out a prime Dempsey is not a foregone conclusion. Louis was a slow starter who was prone to getting dropped early, and simply based on styles and performance was obviously vulnerable to crowding fighters. Dempsey is the most explosive crowding fighter in the HW division, and one of the most dangerous opponents ever in the first 5 rounds of any fight with equal power to Louis himself(according to sharkey who fought both). Louis could certainly counter and outbox Jack successfully but there is certainly a chance of Jack knocking him out early.

As for the second part, you're just being thickheaded as usual(charlie chaplin, etc). So that's not even worth responding to.

 

Who is considered the best depends on who is asked, assuming the general consensus is right is a flawed outlook. Just because a general consensus considers Felix Trinidad a better welterweight than Charles Burley doesn't make it right does it? The avoided fighters who never got to be champion will always be underrated. The less exciting fighters will also be generally underrated and more exciting will be overrated.

Lets compare Wills and Dempsey's common opponents

Firpo - both stopped him, Dempsey quicker, Wills without being hurt
Meehan - Wills beat him, Dempsey drew the series with him
Sharkey - Dempsey won, Wills lost (but was 37)
Fulton - Both stopped him quite quickly Dempsey quicker
John Lester Johnson - Dempsey drew pre-prime, Wills beat him twice

Other significant wins:

Dempsey: Brennan, Willard, Gibbons, Carpentier, Miske (despite him being very sick)
Wills: Langford/McVey/Jeanette (countless times), Denver Ed Martin, Kid Norfolk

Lets compare Dempsey and Tunney's common opponents

Each other - Tunney dominates both fights, the greatest wins of the era
Gibbons - both beat him easily enough
Capentier - both dominate, Dempsey takes him out much quicker

Tunneys other notable wins: Greb, Heeney, Riske. Not that deep but in the case of Greb he beat a man who'd emphatically beat Brennan and Miske 2 of Dempseys better opponents

So in conclusion on resume Tunney has the best single wins, Wills has the best depth, in terms of common opponents its close between them all.

 

Ok,cool.
But head to head prime for prime who is the best of the three?
And historically who would be the best heavy vs greats of other eras?

(I havent missed that you havent brough one shred of proof for the 'improvement' of performances due to modern training.)

 

Given we haven't see Wills? We can't comment. You may argue reporters of the time, but for 1 many of the time may not have seen allot of Wills fight and for 2 I wouldn't take picks of today's pundits too seriously, so that differ. In terms of Tunney and Dempsey, I think Tunney would always have the style to beat Dempsey. The question is how would Tunney cope with bigger men? I think he probably beats Firpo and Willard, especially over 15rounds, against a skilled big man like Wills is another question

(I was going to respond to that comment later as I'm juggling a few things)

 

How do you think Tunney would have coped with the faster Dempsey of the championship run though? We saw in those fights that even if you give an old, slower, inactive Jack a chance/opening he'll pounce on you with a right hand or left hook and smother you with combinations. It makes me think at least that a sharper and more explosive version would have knocked Tunney down more times than just that once throughout a 12/15 round fight.