Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

1. You have no basis to say he'd beat Wills, you've no idea who would win, I wouldn't call you naive, I'd call you unobjective and unscientific. To say he was unquestionably the best heavyweight during his reign when he was dominated twice by the best HW he faced and didn't fight the second or third best either certainly is unobjective or more likely pure bias

2. In that case you don't know the rules of boxing, boxing is about the count not a seconds clock, the boxer responds to the count, according to the rules a count does not start anyway until a boxer makes his move to the neutral corner - that is the rules of boxing. In any case Tunney was doing as all boxers are told to do - not getting up fully until the ref counts to 8

 

The only fight that is historically comparable is Lewis-Bowe and Bowe is ripped nearly as much as Dempsey for ducking that fight but Bowe didn't duck the fight for 10years like Dempsey did, that in effect is the problem. Bowe isn't near the top10 but his best 2 wins are a league above anything Dempsey ever did, that speaks volumes

 

Could it perhaps have something to do with those guys being better than a flabby, 37 year old Willard, who had been inactive for 3 years? :think

 

I personally like the Firpo fight. He's crude, but it's still a man overcoming a big size and style disadvantage, coming back from a big hit and injury, and roaring back for a KO win. It'd be like Cintron jumping up, running back in the ring and KTFOing Williams in R3. If Williams was a LHW.

 

Bokaj, what the hell do you know about my "moral fibre'? Did you have to get personal ? Why should you question my integrity, because I don't agree with your political correctness ?I have seen more great fighters, read more boxing history, and may I add, are just as moral as you. Judging me incorrectly ,must make you feel good B, so enjoy !!!

 

He also destroyed some men who were rated by many as the men to beat.
He destroyed Willard, he destroyed Fulton, he exposed the Carpentier hype.
He beat Gibbons, who, personally, I wouldn't place far below Greb as a heavyweight, if at all.

Talking about fights than never happened is problematic.
Dempsey's perceived "greatness" may have been strengthened or protected by the fact that he didn't fight every good fighter out there. On the other hand, it may be diminished because of it.
By the same token, the "greatness" of a Wills may strengthened by the fact that he never had to fight Dempsey.
And the men who Dempsey beat may have been denied the "great" label because they happened to have been beaten by Dempsey.

I consider the best men who Dempsey beat to be good enough barometers, esp. considering the manner in which he beat some of them.

You can read the press of the time to get a feel of how not everyone was always convinced of Wills being the outstanding contender. Not that the press were unbiased and honest, - they could be paid to say Wills was looking lousy or paid to say he was looking amazing - but what else have we got ?
Wills was involved in his fair share of meaningless fights too, set-ups and re-treads - probably not entirely the fault of himself or his manager - so, yes, it is worth looking into.
I don't want to just "boxrec" it, and I'm on a **** mobile browser at the moment, so I'll leave that for now.

I think Wills deserved his shot regardless, but that's another subject. That's the subject of the injustice done to Harry Wills. I don't extend that reasoning to make claims about how good Wills was above the field for the whole 7 years of Dempsey's reign.

 

Ali would toy with Dempsey

 

Maybe more insight but in other ways maybe not the best analysts. Take Roger Mayweather as an example of a world class trainer, working with the best, who to a large degree has a limited knowledge of the history of the last 50years