Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

Luf, U cannot convince "closed minds",with evidence, logic, or opinions of
myriads of boxing experts who saw Jack Dempsey at his best ! CANNOT be
accomplished ! I think the old adage of , " there are none so blind as those
that have eyes, but do not see ",applies best for the Dempsey haters. After all they 85 years after Dempsey fought, know better than THEY ! Cheers Luf for a gallant effort !:good:good:good:hi:

 

Why is it ridiculous? Not everyone in his era rated him that highly. Jack Johnson and Greb didn't rate Dempsey particularly highly, Greb thought Tunney would easily beat Dempsey and was proven right and Johnson called Dempsey a 4round fighter

 

Its not that he's bad. He's very good, clearly. He beat most of who was put in front of him, by knockout. He was undisputed heavyweight champion. Most dont get anywhere near that far.

He's just not as good as Louis, Ali, Marciano, Tyson, Liston, Foreman, etc. I don't see it. And most of the people who rated him so high didnt see them, either. He was the best ever to come along, for his time. Louis clearly overtook him. His title reign was mediocre for a fighter like him, and the only great fighter he fought school him. Thats just not true about the other great heavyweights.

 

What it comes down to is that there has been a lot of revisionism.

Some of this revisionism is eminently justified, but a good portion of it is sheer nonsense.

The former is generaly stuff that many people were saying at the time, when Dempsey gained his high standing.

Make of that what you will

 

He got voted for a reason by who? Do we take popular opinion as fact? The world once was thought to be flat by the masses, do we take that as fact? Dempsey was the most popular sporting figures in history and this clouds judgement, his excitement level clouds judgement, as does the fact most people involved in the sport don't analyse the sport anything like as much many of annoraks on this forum. Did half of these people even know of Harry Wills, watch him and in turn rate him fairly without the racial prejudice prevailant in the time? Were half of this poll singing racially abusive songs in the crowd of Johnson-Jeffries? To discredit the racial bias of judging Dempsey, considering the times, is in my view naive at best

 

What I would make of that is that it isn't revisionism in that case.:smoke

 

Beyond doubt, every one of the people who voted in that poll would have known about Harry Wills claim to fight for the title, and witnessed the storm of controvesy in the press surounding the issue.

Inevitably, some people reached different conclusions to others.

 

Then those arguments were being thrashed out as they are today, at the time when Dempsey was given the GOAT acolade.

 

I think contemprorary experts often have dense opinions as well. What Steward says about Duran, for example, is hardly very impressive. Incidentally, the one he thinks would flatten all other HWs is Liston, who was his teenage idol. Go figure.

 

I think it is necesary to understand the lines on which contemporary opinion breaks down.

For example on the issue of Harry Wills, the matter was scarcley less contentious than it is today. Opinion essentialy broke down into three factions:

1. The suporters and admirers of Wills.
2. People who thought that Wills wasn't reraly all that good.
3. People who saw Wills as an obstacle that needed to be eliminated.

None of these factions ever thought that Wills was the outstanding challenger for 10 years or whatever ridiculous figure is banded about.

 

I don't believe there's too much evidence that racial prejudice, a culture of racial HATRED even, actually made boxing writers under-rate the black fighters. The argument that some black fighters remained a bit obscure due to discrimination and were forgotten or ignored may be valid though.

Jack Johnson was the most hated of all black fighters, but was highly rated. Some of his most venomous critics conceded he was an absolute master boxer.
Sam Langford was lauded too.

Joe Louis and Henry Armstrong came 2nd and 3rd in the 1950 poll.
Harry Greb, who was white, was not mentioned.
Benny Leonard wasn't either - though we can blame anti-semitism if you like ?

I think your modern day assumptions that the sports and boxing men of those times were largely simplistic white racists who would down mark a boxer for being black are mistaken.
(And besides, many white racists are very comfortable with saying blacks are great at sports etc.)

James J Corbett was probably not a progressive beacon of racial tolerance. He was likely "a man of his times", and a white one. A racist perhaps, in today's parlance. (I haven't looked into it, doesn't interest me, but have noticed him referred to as such several times here on this forum anyway)
In 1928 he rated the best men ever in each division.
He had :
George Dixon as the greatest bantam
Young Griffo as the greatest feather
Kid Lavigne and Joe Gans tied as the greatest lightweights
Joe Walcott the greatest welter
Bob Fitzsimmons as the greatest middle
Jim Jeffries and Peter Jackson as the greatest heavy.
Four of those eight names are black men.