Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

One things for sure, if you want your thread to make in excess of 5 pages, make it about Dempsey, must be the most discussed fighter on here

 

I feel Marciano is, but this has been a much better thread than most recent Dempsey threads. Quality posts...

 

I guess that depends on each individual's criteria for ranking the greats.
A fighter's brilliance in his prime weighs quite heavily, in my opinion.
Beating good fighters who were significantly larger than him puts him right up there pound-for-pound.
I think you underestimate the heavyweights pound-for-pound. Some of the smaller heavyweights have accomplished the most remarkable pound-for-pound feats.
But my criteria obviously differ from yours.

 

Different eras in Dempsey's day there was what 8 weight classes? In Holyfield's era there was what 17? :huh:think So of course you are not going to get a lot of P4P discussion because there are a ton of "smaller" fighters/weight classes for him to compete with on a P4P level which I think the whole P4P thing is silly anyway because it is rarely proven and is all just conjecture but that is a whole different topic.

 

Well, he beat two tremendously skilled superheavies in Douglas and Bowe, and was competitive with a peak Lewis while long past his own prime. Actually, when old as a shot windmill he beat the biggest title holder ever (because he should have gotten that win).

Aside from that he also beat good bigger fighters like Dokes and Mercer etc. So if we're going insert some p4p when small HWs beat biggers HWs, Holyfield surely takes the price, not Dempsey.

 

Even if the punch was low (I agree with you that it was borderline), that knockout footage is a fantastic example of the power Jack had- a short left hook that doesn't even look like Dempsey put much on it literally takes Jack Sharkey off the ground. One shot. Game over.

The power he could generate in short distances was truly impressive.

 

Marciano and Holyfield are disgracefully underrated p4p.

If Lennox Lewis is considered very good for a 242 pounder, and Holyfield can hang with him and run him close weighing 215 (as he did in their rematch) that's an amazing pound-for-pound feat.
And Holyfield's record is full of it.
PLUS he proved he wasn't just a "giant-killer" specialist, he could dominate men his own size too.
The big men and the smaller men he fought were world-class, several of them.

Holyfield is a pound-for-pound monster.
Laugh me out of here if you want. I know Holyfield is great p4p.

 

I totally agree with you. And I think that Dempsey, just like Holy, probably ranks higher p4p than fighters I'd have ahead of him in the HW rankings. But neither of them touches Greb, Armstrong, SRR.

I think it's a bit unfair that I come off as a Dempsey hater, because I like his style and think he, aside from being a great HW, brought a lot to boxings development. I like Holy as well, but would also laugh off any notion that he belongs in the p4p top five.

 

Here are a few facts on Dempsey as a boxer:

-He was the face of boxing when sports in America were booming. He produced the first million dollar gate.

-He consistently fought the loser of title eliminators, the winner (Greb) was avoided.

-His title reign of eight years is formidable and among the longest of heavyweight reigns.

-He is tied with Willard for the record for sitting idle on the championship throne. People didn't see a title fight for three years.

-He holds the record for avoiding the best challenger (Wills), in any weight class, in the entire history of boxing.

-Stylewise, he was far ahead of his time and set the benchmark for swarmer/punchers, even half a century later, albeit with some changes.

-The heavyweight division at the time was so poor that half of his title fights were either against lightheavies or big men who literally display less skill than amateurs in the gym where I train. The opponents who were any good (Langford/Jeannette in the mid/late 1910's, Wills, Greb) were never in the corner opposing him or gave him a one-sided beating (Tunney).

-Many boxing historians who saw Dempsey rated him as the more accomplished boxer than Joe Louis, proving their lack of judgment, lack of fight record knowledge or bias.

-Dempsey vs Willard is not only one of the most spectacular title wins, but also one where the emotional favorite (the small underdog) gets the dramatic win. This also seems to overrule the fact that Willard was 37 years old (ancient in those days), overweight, and hadn't fought in three years.

-He has more excuses than any other champion for suffering a first-round knockout loss to a mediocre, old lightheavyweight.

-The vast majority of his supporters seem to grant him an imaginary win over Wills because "he destroyed big guys". That's like saying Michael Moorer would've beaten Bowe and Lewis because he beat big Mike White. Regardless, Dempsey never fought or beat Wills in the real world.

-Devastating punchers with an exciting style are often more highly rated than they should be. This is evidenced by the fact that for instance Mike Tyson got ridiculous odds in his favor in his losses (as well as many wins).

-Having a good financial reasons to be inactive as a fighter does not mean it doesn't detract from his boxing greatness. He should be rated on boxing achievements, not on doing well in life or making smart decisions outside of the ring.

-There have been a lot of good heavyweights since Dempsey, inevitably pushing him down in the ratings. Conversely, gloved boxing had only been around for a few decades in Dempsey's time, hence there was less historical competition for him.

Is Dempsey one of the greatest boxers to ever lace 'em up? No doubt about it. Is he a top10 heavyweight of all time? Perhaps, though not in my book. A man like Wills has a similar - if not better - resume, and should be ranked at least as high.

I think this is short-sighted. Did said historians have the context of 120 years of boxing that we do? Did they have instant access to footage of basically any fighter that there is footage of? Or newspaper articles and ratings?

I forgot who it was, but there was a brilliant 18th century scientist a la Sir Isaac, who stated something along the lines of "humans traveling in the air is an absolute physical impossibility that will never happen". Does that mean he wasn't smarter than anyone on this forum? No, it just means that he lacks proper perspective and knowledge, the jewel of our modern time.

 

Excellent post Chris.

 

I don't know who exactly belongs in the top 5 p4p.
I would have to retain a lot of details of a lot of fighters and consider many factors before committing to a top 5.

It's easy to say SRR, Armstrong, Greb - plus Langford - because that's what many are saying on this site presently. I certainly believe they are candidates but not out there on their own.

I can't take that consensus view (the 'ESB Classic' orthodoxy/dogma) in any higher regard than the more long-standing consensus view that has Dempsey right among them, and my own reasoning that considers the likes of Dempsey, Holyfield and Marciano may be much closer to them than you suggest.

There are MANY fighters who could arguably be placed in the top 5.

 

True. But for me the records of Greb, Robinson and Armstrong are a clear step above Holy's and Dempsey's. As much as I hate to admit it, they are a step above Ali's as well. Louis, with his absolutely stellar record in title fights, actually may come closer to them than Ali. Making title fights a very heavy criteria does bring Louis into the discussion (and to a lesser extent also Ali).

 

Chris, nice post on your part, butempsey did not fight in the middle ages-
He fought in the first GOLDEN AGE of boxing...This ERA produced a DEEP POOL of fighters, who fought almost weekly ,in thousands of fight clubs
in the country,with full time trainers, sharpening their skills as ONLY
FIGHTING OFTEN does. This tremendous competition ,where the cream rises to the top produced such GREAT fighters as Dempsey, Tunney, Greb, Walker,
Leonard, Dundee, Kilbane, Flowers, Kid Norfolk, Jack Delaney, Tendler,
Charley White,Tommy Gibbons, Britton, Ted Kid Lewis, Jimmy Wilde, Pancho Villa,Tommy Loughran, Bud Taylor,and a host of other great fighters of that wonderful deep era. This fact, you or other doubters cannot deny, the richness
of Jack Dempsey's time. They were all great fighters and Jack Dempsey was
king of the hill !
No, Jack Dempsey's supporters did not have "120" years context supporters,
and so didn't Harry Greb, Benny Leonard, Mickey Walker, or for that matter
the best fighter I SAW ringside, Ray Robinbson,not have this bogus 120 year claim. But that Dempsey era produced great writers, who had seen Jack Dempsey,and beyond, and still recognized his unique talent that comes along
rarely, regardless of the year of their birth. If all the truly great fighters of the golden age,cited above fought at the same time as Jack Dempsey did,how can you EIGHTY YEARS later deny, what the boxing historians who saw him and
his successors,including Louis, and still voted him the best fighter they had seen.?? I rest my case, your honor !!!
P.S. in reference to Sir Isaac Newton. I see airplanes flying today, but not
human beings. In the course of human evolution, since Dempsey's time
[85 years], it is like a grain of sand on a beach. Only fighting often as the oldtimers did ,improves a crop of fighters...Not evolution...Cheers...