Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

Well that's the thing we judge fighters with our eyes otherwise there would be no point in watching fights, we'd just read the results in the paper. Now the old timers have to base a ranking of Dempsey not on his record as it is not good enough but their opinion of his ability, which is flawed because of his technical weaknesses. Fighter's with technically weaknesses are usually exposed at some point of there careers, Dempsey was exposed, he was slightly past prime but more importantly his style that lacked a jab and was very hittable was exposed

Not really, fighters who are still active/recently retired aren't ranked high until years after they retire. Marciano/Louis were simply too new to appreciate in 1950. The rose tinted glasses factor is a big 1

Then we have to question the knowledge of the pollers, some will have never boxed, some won't be as enthusiastic fans or knowledgable as many of the posters on this forum. A journalist from the 50s is no more accurate than people who have seen the films recently, read the articles, seen the records in depth. In all likelyhood their opinion does not benefit from the depth of sources that ours today does

 

I don't rank him as high as many others do because:

1. He drew the colour line.
2. He had an inactive title reign
3. There is no doubt in my mind he loaded his gloves against Willard.

 

That's a very reasonable post, and good points.

I don't necessarily agree that any fighter improved upon Dempsey, that get us into the old "evolution" of boxing skills question.
Dempsey was Dempsey, an individual with his own style and own physical and mental make-up, just like any other fighter. And we can't transplant him into other eras with any certainty, we just know he was a terrific and devastating fighter.
I don't agree that Louis was on a whole separate level to Dempsey. If I did then I would have to believe that Louis would have done just as well, and BETTER, than Dempsey did if he was transplanted into the exact same circumstances as Dempsey in the 1910s and 20s.
I don't believe Louis would do a better job on Willard, Carpentier or Firpo necessarily, or that he could come off a 3-year layoff and do any better against Tunney.
Again, it's all subjective.

 

PP,Dempsey,at 32 years of age was fighting since he was 14 years old, fighting in Western towns for grub. That 18 years of scruffing takes it's toll on a human body. Terry McGovern was about shot by the age of 21.
Besides you conveniently fail to mention Dempsey's not fighting for THREE YEARS, prior to tackling Tunney in 1926, and without a tune-up fight.
Besides, Dempsey still was able to drop and ko Gene Tunney in 1927,with
another referee officiating. :happy

 

Yeah, and which was the best opponent that Dempsey succesfully displayed this against?

Sharkey was having the better of him until the low blow changed the fight. He showed that even past prime he had a very lethal left hook, but that's about it. Miske is said to have been ill when they rematched and in earlier fights he had run Jack much closer. Willard was 37 and came back from a long inactivity. Sure, Jack looked impressive, but this has more than a sniff of Ali-Williams about it (i e looking devastating against a has-been).

For me, there's only so much you can take from this kind of opposition, no matter your expertise. Even if we dismiss the notion that Miske was ill and disregard Dempsey's losses to his best opponent due to him being past his prime - even if we do that - we're left with the KO of Miske as his possibly most convincing win. How far can we possibly go with that?

 

I think he does better in every situation you listed.

Thats probably where our disconnect arises. Agree to disagree.

 

Fred Fulton [1rd] Gunboat Smith [2rds],Bill Brennan, Levinsky[never kod
before].Carl Morris].Arthur Pelkey etc,and other destructive ko's not seen on film ! Maybe these guys were not hit, but suffered heart attacks.?
Should Marvin Hagler be penalized because he ruled over a weak division ?
No I say. He and Dempsey ruled over their era of fighters that were born about the same time they were. And Joe Louis ruled over his era.
Of course, I believe Ali fought better competition than Dempsey and Joe Louis
did generally.But this does not mean Ali would have whipped a prime Jack Dempsey or Joe Louis in my eyes. Cheers...
same time as they were...

 

These are good wins, no doubt. Dempsey is probably most similar to Liston and Tyson with his peak run, and I also think he deserves to be ranked about where they're ranked at HW. But I don't think they should be mentioned among the very greatest p4p either.

 

You repeat this nonesense allot, Tunney was aware of the count and always would have risen at the count of 9 if the count was faster, Tunney was completely in control of his faculties and was going by the refs count, which is the rule anyway

 

I take it as response to the Dempsey-rubbishers who say he there's absolutely NO WAY Dempsey is anywhere near the truly great fighters in history.

I suppose that illustrates the two sides of the debate. I'm merely defending my own opinion and integrity by pointing out, "hey, if I'm a wacko then so was almost everyone in the boxing community for a good 50 or 60 years and more !".

Marciano is up there with the greats too.
I don't buy into these theories that if you rank someone #15 he must declared to be in a completely different class and level to the man you rank #1.
Some people here seem to see huge gulfs in class between their all-time #1 and #5 even.
I just don't see it.

You hold up Zivic as a great fighter, which he was. But he had about 60 recoredd pro losses. I wonder how 60 losses on a Dempsey opponent would be treated.

 

What one can say is that Dempsey would have had a better chance to finish him off if the count had been shorter. On the other hand, Dempsey has only himself to blame for not going to neutral corner in time. That rule was after all insisted upon by his own camp.

 

These things can be overstated, yes. And a fighter's record isn't necissarily an excellent mirror to his ability, but it's the best we got imo. And I do think there's a way to go between the very best records and Dempsey's. Even at HW I see a clear gulf.

 

Oh, I repeat this "nonsense " a lot ! In other words, the infamous "long count controversy " was recently invented by me ? PP you flatter me . This incident
of the long count is the most talked about event in boxing history for a damn good reason. Because millions of Americans since then,have argued the point
whether Tunney could have gotten up before the 10 count,and without that
17 or so seconds,could his befogged brain have allowed him to avoid the
onrushing attack by Dempsey ? I personally doubt that he Tunney, without that 7 seconds would have survived Dempsey's onslaught. Today we will never know p, but NONSENSE on my part,aligns me with millions of boxing
fans since 1927. Thanks, I'm in good company, methinks. Cheers...