I'd make this observation. Up until I would say Rocky Marciano, maybe a bit before, every single article I read was about who would win in fights between the greats, and how this was the defining factor in what would make a fighter the greatest. This was around the time tv came in. Whatever you think about the chances of fighters 1900 fighting guys from 2000, you must acknowledge the sport looked different, for whatever reason. I think people stopped comparing who-would-beat who and started to look at acheivments. The way we look at boxing has changed. You don't have to be any kind of historian to find details of the great fighters careers. However Dempsey looked to the guys who also saw Louis, Louis was a greater champion and fighter. The factor that he looks like he would have handed every Dempsey i've ever seen on film his ass aside from the Willard fight is not that relevant to my thinking, one factor only. I think Dempsey's high ranking is a hangover to a time when fighters were ranked a little differently. And not to re-open old forum wounds, it's easier to look good when you don't bother with the best on your way up, or when you're on the throne.
You know I was watching the Long Count again the other day and wondered that maybe Dave Barry was lunging in not to count 'One' on Dempsey but maybe to stop Tunney hitting him while he was down?, or am I being too kind to the guy? Anyone have a gif of that moment? can you see Barry mouth 'One'? sure I remember Tunney with fist cocked very near and thinking maybe Barry was stepping in to prevent a disqualification blow? Dempsey was not felled heavily, surely Barry, if he was a 'bought referee', did not think he could have counted to 10 before Dempsey got up? Edit [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nn4yOm6Noc[/ame] About 8:14 on here but you cant see Barrys face, although Dempseys already getting up before Barry lowers his hand, its a strange one
Absolutely he could be JD. I'm guessing there's some ringside testimony though, by the time everyone criticises him for it?
Yeah just got me thinking thats all:think Not read any contemporary accounts from the newspapers of the fight to see what they said about the incident, maybe it grew in stature as an incident as the legend of the bout and Dempsey grew over time
Mc, unless all the top boxing writers, trainers ,old boxers such as old Sam Langford, to young Max Schmeling,suffered from dementia, calling Jack Dempsey supreme, I must defer to them in my evaluation of the Manassa Maulers ABILITY in a MAN against MAN matchup. They who had seen the great Mauler,were not any less intelligent or sophisticated than you or me ! At his darn best he LICKED all who faced him ! He, nor anyone else could pick the time of their birth,nor who his contemporary challengers would be. Dempsey had NO say in that matter.He was a monster ,lithe and powerful and would have been hell on wheels for anyone after him in my opinion, and more importanly,in the opinion of a L angford, Walker, Tunney, Ray Arcel, Hype Igoe, Damon Runyon,Bill Gallo,and dozens of observers who saw Jack Dempsey and the heavyweights who followed him... Yes Dempsey for the ages. He was a great one...
Generational bias is at an absolute premium. Fighters, trainers, promoters, they all go for their own people, as often as not. Burt, at the end of the day you base your entire opinion of Jack upon these opinions. Everybody next door in General, they think the best fighters there are are Vitali Klitschko, Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis. Because they grew up with them. Because they are the best fighters when they were a certain age. That's the way it is. Elbows McFadden dismissed Benny Leonard's chances against Joe Gans without ever having seen him fight...that's just the way it is. But like you say we can't just chuck all this testimony out of the window. Nor can we ignore the FACT that he didn't face then two men that may have been the most likely to beat him, one of those also the most qualified (Whatever the reasons). By taking all of this into account, perhaps we can come to a balanced conclusion. "At his best" most great fighters beat everyone who face them. This is true, but obviously is tested the most when a great fighters faces another great fighter. Demspey had two chances and declined them both.
Interesting you say that as the same people on here that disparage Dempsey praise Jack Johnson who fought a bunch of guys smaller than him, refused to fight the top black contenders etc. I don't understand that logic.
Well that logic isn't a part of my experience. I rate Johnson lower than most on the forum and I rate Demspey lower than most on the forum.
Johnson is overrated by some, yeah, but no one names him among the very best p4p. That kind of overrating is actually exclusively reserved for Demspey. I can't come to think of any other fighter who gets rated by some so very much higher than his record merits.
I was not directing that comment at you was just posting an observation on what I read over here a lot. :good
I think they both get overated a lot. I think Dempsey looks better on film. I think Johnson beat better fighters. I think they have horrible title runs.
well as I pointed out Dempsey often was the smaller fighter brutalizing bigger opponents where Johnson was the bigger guy beating up on smaller guys (not all the time but a lot) That is probably why Dempsey is talked about in a P4P sense because he was only 188 pounds. Both are ATG's I just don't understand all the "Fighter X" is way overrated stuff on here.
Like I said I mostly just read over here because there is often very good discussion and I like to learn. You made some very good points. :good
Several of Dempsey's biggest wins are against smaller fighters as well. Marciano also beat bigger fighters, but he never gets mentioned among Greb, Robinson etc. Holyfield is another who often competed against bigger guys, but name him as p4p top5 and be laughed out of here.