Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

Wills fought Langford who is considered greater than anyone faced about 17 times winning most of them, then he has many wins over the best of the other black contenders in Mcvey, Jeanette, Tate, Norfolk, Ed Martin. Most rate Mcvey and Jeanette to be greater than anyone Dempsey beat.

He performed better against Meehan and John Lester Johnson. He has mutual wins over Firpo and Fulton, Dempsey ko'd those quicker but Wills had less trouble from Firpo

 

Sorry, but this is getting embarrassing. Unless I missed all those threads on "Mayweather exposed the Gatti hype!" and recently "Vitali Klitschko exposed the Briggs hype yo". Trying to spin an easy payday into something legit like that is really reaching for straws. Dempsey took an easy payday and he was entitled to it - at that point.

What's more embarrassing is that you point out the fact that there were no rankings before 1924, so Wills was perhaps not the consistent #2!

He was as good as undefeated while fighting all quality boxers out there, multiple times. The opponents the champion should've been defending against. I have read several articles spread over the 20's that consistently list Wills as the "logical challenger for Dempsey's title". In a poll, Wills won by a landslide, followed by Greb (also avoided by the champ). I mean this is as clear as day.

Nearly a century later, Dempsey still holds the record for ducking the #1 contender for longest period of time, in all weight classes of boxing. The record gets additional accolades because he also managed to avoid the #2 during that time.

 

Damn, it's sure fun watching Burt go to war on Dempsey's behalf like this.op Reminds me of my earlier exchanges with Chris Pontius on the subject of Jack's merits and demerits. Good times!:cheers Chris and I had very spirited and passionate discussions about him, with me as an advocate, and he largely as a cynic concerning Dempsey's achievements and qualities, before we moved on to other subjects of interest. We never devolved to personal insults and name calling, and have enjoyed pleasant conversations via PMs on other matters. No matter how vehemently we disagreed on something, he's always been a fine gentleman with me, and there was always an undercurrent of respect as well as humor with respect to sillier "tongue in cheek" facetious tirades. (Don't ask!)

Certainly, I have disagreements with Burt on subjects such as Ali versus Louis, where Burt sides with Joe and I with Muhammad, and I treasure his dissent and conviction that the Bomber would prevail in such a pairing. Between Stonehands89, Burt and myself regarding Greb, there is little if any dissent, and we all independently submitted posts at the outset of 2010 expressing our belief in Harry's P4P primacy. My conceit is that dissenting views like ours may ultimately alter the historical consensus which holds that SRR it the P4P GOAT, if we can begin here the process of changing minds and challenging the status quo orthodoxy.

 

This is the thing, for example : He beat Fred Fulton and Jess Willard, the number 1 contender and the world champion, within a year of each other. He destroyed them both.
Is that useless information ?

Yeah, you've explained yourself and I've explained why it doesn't matter to me.

Tbh, I don't find rankings that dull, just don't love them enough to go back and retroactive compile or revise some for 100 years past.

I'm all for talking about what Dempsey DID, in the ring, and the fighters he went up against.
Once we starting emphasising fights that never happened, of course it opens the door to hypotheticals and theory of imagined alternate history's.

You'd rather talk about Lennox Lewis now ?
Ok.
I don't dismiss Lewis's wins. Nor do I gloss over Lewis's defeats.
I don't see the inconsistency in my approach to Dempsey and Lewis.

I will when I get home, on my PC and with the relevant info.
:good

 

I said Dempsey exposed the Carpentier hype, which he did.
Like it or not, Carpentier was hyped up as a threat, and many people genuinely bought into it.

There were no rankings before 1924, so the onus is on those who state categorically that "Wills was unquestionably the number 1 contender for the title throughout Dempsey's entire reign" to show it.

Wills also fought some **** ones, like Clem Johnson, and by several accounts looked very poor in there. And a draw with Bill Tate.
Fighting Jack Thompson and an old Sam Langford over and over again may not have been so good, either, you know.
Or a 40-year-old Denver Ed Martin.
Or a Gunboat Smith who was so washed-up he'd lost another 11 fights (at least) after his fight with Dempsey.
Or someone called Ray Bennett, a horrible set-up. TWICE ! Two more 1st round KOs.
The big names he fought -McVey, Jeanette, Langford - were a good 5 to 10 years past their primes during Dempsey's reign.
Charley Weinert, Bartley Madden, Luis Firpo and Fred Fulton may have been the best Wills fought in the period ... and Dempsey had destroyed the last two before Wills got around to them.

I understand Wills had to make a living, but please don't tell me he was fighting in a higher class than Dempsey during those years.

Who are all these opponents Wills was fighting who Dempsey should have been defending against ?