Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

Not true at all. I do not idolize or romanticize any of them. I could not care less about their color. I strongly believe everyone here is entitled to their own opinion as long as I feel it is rational. If I don't I enjoy pointing it out ... Doesn't mean I'm correct but that's the fun of the Forum. In addition, I rarely allow myself to get hot here although I get a do get a kick out of playing the usual, small assortment of jerk offs who try and get cute with me ! The rest of the guys are quite decent.

 

H, you cite that "many people who saw both of them[Dempsey @Marciano]
fight,said that Dempsey was BETTER ].Partly true H. Vitually EVERY boxing person who saw Dempsey and Marciano in their primes picked Dempsey,the victor, were they have fought each other.This is no hyperbole statement on my part...Dempsey's Duran like speed would make Rocky Marciano's movements
appear to be stuck in mud,as much as i like Rocky who I saw at MSG, and greatly admired. Cheers.

 

I don't know if A.J Liebling ever saw Dempsey fight, but he saw and analysed some of Dempsey's opponents (such as Willard and Firpo).

He also saw Rocky against opponents like Moore, and was very impressed with what Rocky brought to the table. His comment was "While Dempsey may have been a great champion, he had less to beat than Marciano."

Not that I'm doubting what you say, Burt! I'm sure that prime Dempsey made an indelible impression on any who witnessed him in action.

 

I love The Sweet Science, but it's pretty clear to me that Liebling is enamoured with Marciano. He's a stan in his own way. He does a pretty great job of covering the fights but doesn't have much context, he doesn't discuss the early career of Charles or his lower weight exploits nor his ring age or military layoff, he doesn't take Moore's age into account... It's not that simple.

 

C, I am aware of Liebling's statement. But that opinion right or wrong ,has nothing to do with the relative styles and fighting prowess of Jack Dempsey.
He beat in his prime whoever was in front of him.Dempsey or Louis could not have changed the era they fought in. No one can. All the great writers and boxing trainers of the Marciano era [my own], took all this in account, when
they chose Dempsey over the much slower Marciano.
Today it is fashionable to underate some of Dempsey's victims. Fred Fulton was a large heavy hooking heavyweight,Big Bill Brennan was probably
equal to Jerry Quarry, Tommy Gibbons was in my eyes vastly underated. Never Kod,in 105 bouts until his last fight in 1925 at the age of 34,with Gene Tunney. Marciano fought a 38 year old Walcott, and a 42 year old Archie Moore. Ezzard Charles, past his peak, was 33 years old in 1954 . So Marciano's resume has to be taken in the proper perspective,ala Liebling...
Yep, just on ability and style alone, I go along with the vast majority of
boxing people who saw them both. Dempsey,just as tough, and twice as fast.

 

I don't care what anyone says Dempsey would smash both Wills and Johnson.

 

Okay, I'm glad you acknowledge that Wills deserved his shot.

Here is the thing about Wills. The worst thing you can say about him is that he looked less than impressive during his wins, after having dominated the division (paper champ aside) for years. I'm not sure why we're still talking about this - you just acknowledged yourself that Wills deserved his title shot.

Harry had done more than any heavyweight in history - or of the future up to 2011 - had done to earn his title shot. Maybe he thought that looking mediocre (while still winning) would make Dempsey less afraid and willing to face him? He knows. He must have been desperate as hell to get his well-earned title shot. One mediocre win does not erase eight years of beating everyone he fought, even if you'd wish it to be the case.

Regardless of how you look at it, the fact that Dempsey failed to fight great opponents available and avoided rightfully challengers for so long, is a huge black mark on his boxing career. Anyone who denies this is delusional.

How much value you attach to this is subjective. I think it's very important that you fight the best out there, to prove that you're still champion; the man to beat. This is why I rank Marciano and Lewis very high. A guy like Holmes loses many points for (openly) avoiding the best challengers out there. However, the fact that many of those challengers lost within one or two years after their top3 status, and the fact that Holmes redeemed himself courageously in his later years, makes up for that. Dempsey doesn't have that - he just has the color line card, and if I have to believe you, the "Greb couldn't punch anyway"-card.

 

I'm not for OR against counting light-heavyweight wins. I feel it's right to footnote them as light-heavyweight though. Esp. when one or both of the contestants has yet to have made an impact ABOVE light-heavy.
I think I'm being consistent with that.

IF we count light-heavyweight wins, we have to include Tunney as a genuine contender much earlier in the game than 1925. Something I rarely see from the regular postors.
I hear from most regulars on this board that Tunney's wins over Greb don't count as " resume at heavyweight" .... yet some of the same people talk about Greb's wins over Gibbons as heavyweight eliminators.

I don't think it's me who's only seeing what suits me.

I look at Gibbons' record and I see his best work as a HEAVYweight contender happens AFTER his loss in Greb in 1922.
I see a win against Billy Miske, for starters, who too, mysteriously, becomes a bigger heavier full-blown "heavyweight" and racks up his best streak in his "dying" years. Strange but true.

Sure, as you rightly say, Greb had a run of wins, some against heavyweights, after he beat Gibbons too. He also loses to Gene Tunney.

During this time Dempsey wasn't even fighting. When he finally comes back to fight in summer 1923, he fights Gibbons.

By this time, Gibbons isn't just a light-heavy guy who lost to Greb, he's re-established himself with a win over a 190 pound rated heavyweight Billy Miske.
In the same period Greb has had several fights, but the best heavyweight he's beaten lately is Bob Roper, rated nowhere near Miske at the time. And besides, Greb has lost to Tunney.

So, I don't think it's clear cut that Gibbons is ranked beneath Greb and Tunney as a heavyweight in summer '23. But I'm quite happy to say, yes, he's in 3rd place below those two because I'm always willing to concede close points for argument's sake. By the same standard I'd have to put Tunney above Greb. This paragraph is just "ratings talk", hence merely my opinion. The rest of the above are FACTS.
No rhetoric, cold facts.

In this same period (early '22 - mid '23), Harry Wills' form and opposition is decidedly shaky.
He drew with Bill Tate, who really wasn't good. (Sorry janitor). Tate looked so bad on film I thought he must have been tanking his fight with Norfolk. I think you, McG, said he was about the worst historical 'name' fighter you'd seen. But Tate was just Dempsey's long-time sparring partner, and that's why we know his name, He could take a beating in a non-official bout rather well, and he was big giant for Dempsey to chase around, the crowds would have loved it.
It's definitely not a result befitting of a man of Wills' reputation.
And the closest thing Wills does to re-build himself in that period is a 2 round KO of Kid Norfolk, who wasn't really a contender at that point either.

These are facts. Examining the records and reports of the time.
It's not just rhetoric.

I'm backing up my statements about Wills "perhaps not continuously unquestionable number 1 contender" with facts based on recorded details, and some of the opinions of his time.

My OWN opinion on the Gibbons-Greb thing is that if Tommy shows he can't beat a 165 Greb but goes on to show he can handle a 190 pound rated heavyweight, it's arguable that the Greb loss should be discounted in assessing his suitability for challenging a 190 pound heavyweight champion.
I mean, if a fighter fails against fast super-middleweights but looks like a decent boxer-puncher at cruiserweight, there's no need to say he can't be the contender at cruiser until he beats that 165 pounder.
Just an opinion.

 

I think this is a silly comparison. The titles were frozen during WWII. It was the same for all champs. And the one outstanding challenger that arose during this time did get beat by Louis. His reign was so-so after WWII, though. Had he fully cleaned out the new upcoming contenders, he may just have been a clear choice for GOAT HW and even p4p top 5.

But Louis' legacy was already well secured by thoroughly cleaning out the division in the 6-7 years prior to WWII. The same with Ali by the time he started to neglect his defenses in 77-78. Had Ali decisively defeated Norton and Young in rematches his stock would have been even higher in my eyes, though.

Yes, if anyone starts to effing call Wills a p4p great, but guess what, no one would be that silly.

How many times do I have to answer the same questions? A fighter's legacy suffers by not beating the best. I'm quite consistent there and this is no exception. But again, I'd laugh at anyone who'd call Wlad a p4p great. Can he ever have a case for top 10 at HW without those wins (especially over Vitaly) and with the unavenged losses he's suffered? Well, let's just wait with that until he's retired.

Oh man. That's for Janitor, McGrain, McVey, Boilermaker and co. What I can say is that Langford clearly is greater p4p.

 

C, There U go again. Who in your agenda ridden opinion, did Dempsey not fight,aside from the Harry Wills controversy. I'll say it again. THEY DID SIGN
and the fight was cancelled. Dempsey was willing to fight Wills in the ring or in a telephone booth for that matter.The promoter could not come up with the darn money,and the bout was aborted. I know C, U don't want to believe this but it ia a FACT ! Of course U Chris today, were U a Tex Rickard,the promoter, you
would disregard the serious and real fears of that time in history,of serious
race riots that resulted in the deaths of American citizens following the Johnson/Jeffries fight in Reno. wouldn't bother you. Correct ? if Rickard did take that risk[remember he loved money],and riots and deaths ensued, he
would be tarred and feathered for promoting this fight ,knowing the risks.
Dempsey had nothing to do with this.He just fought. Floyd Fitzimmons,
took that chance, signing Dempsey and Wills for a bout, but understandibly he coukdn't come up with the money. No backers.They all knew the risks
ala Reno aftermath of the Johnson/Jeffries fight.
So C,aside from this Wills affair, and tackling a fiery middleweight,[my idol]
Harry Greb, and understanding that Langford, Jeannette, McVey near their
40s,were no longer viable,who the heck did Dempsey not fight ? Pray, tell me.
Remember this C, Jack Dempsey circa 1920-1923, when at his peak was considered as UNBEATABLE, as Joe Louis was later on. I repeat this opinion
of the older Sam Langford,when asked of who would win after the signing
of Dempsey/Wills, Langford, retorted " well when they fight, my money is on Jack Dempsey, he is the greatest heavyweight I have ever seen ",Unquote :
C, it is one thing to have an opinion as to who would win that fight, but facts are facts. DEMPSEY at his peak FEARED no man. They feared this"man-killer"
If the Manassa Mauler lost a fight then it would be because he might be outboxed, but never outfought. Dempsey was one of a kind IMO...Cheers.

 

Well, I acknowledge it long ago, throughout this thread. Maybe you didn't read my posts.

I feel you assume a lot about Wills' accomplishments. You say he "dominated the division for years", in a way maybe he did, but any big name he didn't fight you assume they must have ducked him. You also seem to assume that all those wins over black fighters means he was fighting at a higher level than anyone else. I feel a lot of his campaigning was of dubious quality ..... but the same could be said of any fighter.
I think you attempt to draw a significant contrast between Dempsey's and Wills' opposition and record-building modus operandi that probably isn't there.

Don't get me wrong, I admire Wills' longevity and believe he was great and would have fought anyone at one time, but in a way, by 1921/'22 he's doing a similar thing Dempsey is accused of doing - coasting along with his own bum-of-the-month protecting his status.

Why would I wish it to be the case ?

I'll say this : it's fair to rate fighters on their current form and recent results.
Contenders can drop down the queue by resorting to tomato can mismatches, layoffs, draws with third-raters, bad performances against second-rate opposition.
That's how ratings should be done.
The fact that a fighter earned his shot years ago and has never been given justice is irrelevant in the ratings. The fact that he's been rated high for years doesn't mean his immune to being dropped or doubted either. Big wins in the contender ranks has a shelf-life.
It's harsh, but true.

Wills remained unbeaten, so it's VALID to proclaim him number 1 all through until he loses, but it's not CERTAIN.

It's a mark against his career. Definitely.
I don't see it as much of a mark against his greatness though.

To be fair to Holmes' rivals, they may have lost soon after they were rated high, but they were fighting each other.

Dempsey beat the man who beat Harry Wills, to be fair also. :hey

:good

 

Something that I find a little strange.

Looking back at this era there is a beleif, almost a dogma for some people, that it is the absolute obligation of the champion to meet the challengers with the best credentials on paper. Any contemporary value judgment that is made against the top paper challenger is dismissed in favour of the retrospective judgment based on records.

Yet in ourt own era, such value judgments are made all the time, and often pass with little comment. A champion is rarely criticised for taking the challenger that there is most public interest in them fighting, on the grounds that there is another fighter with a higher ranking.

If we take Lennox Lewis as a recent example, then Chris Byrd and John Ruiz had better credentials to fight him than prety much any of his title challengers, perhaps all of them. He not only refused to fight them but actualy gave up parts of his title to take other fights. Imagine how this wouls look if you only had these fighters boxrec profiles to judge them by. People today not only rate Lewis's resume increasingly highly, but acept almost without question, his decision not to take these fights.

Jack Dempsey did not give up a third of his title to Harry Wills and another third to Harry Greb, then say that he had declined to take those fights because they would not be competitive.

It is strange that these value judgments can stand today, but they cannot in an era 90 years ago.