Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

No, he never beat peter jackson

 

Ok. Let's leave it at that. It's food for another discussion that you have Louis as the clear GOAT at HW, though. Those who think very highly of Dempsey very seldom has Ali as the nr. 1 (Unforgiven, Janitor, Burt and Rockysplitnose don't, for example). McVey is the only one I can think of on this forum who does.

 

Aren't you that guy that couldn't be bothered to address my prediction with a little decency and responded by calling Fitzsimmons' defense crude, not taking an objective look at his one punch power, or his overall legacy and responding to me with Family Guy and South Park clips? **** off.

 

I have to say Janitor, i am impressed with your knowledge, persistance and cool head. You're a tricky politician type who could describe the smell of **** as if it were that of roses, in depth

 

Yeah, it just hit me.

The flipside is, of course, that those who have Ali as nr. 1 tend to be more critical of Dempsey. There are more exceptions than McVey there, though. I think that for example Swarmer, Bodhi and Suzie all have Louis as the GOAT.

 

Yeah, I understand your point.
I don't see any shame in him losing to the best fighter he fought though. The 1926/'27 Tunney may have been better than all of them, primes included.

If Dempsey had fought Wills (certainly post-'22) I'm not sure "the highest level" tag applies necessarily. Wills, a great fighter in historical terms, but the "past his prime" thing would be used to render him ordinary.
Sharkey beat the crap out of him and gets very little credit for it.

I believe Greb might well have beat Dempsey.

Well, it's no secret that Dempsey had a very inactive reign, and was semi-retired and making movies when the other guys were fighting.

Not at all.
I don't consider these discussions with you on this thread to be simple Pro-Dempsey v. Anti-Dempsey debates.
I'm not that simple, and I don't believe you are either. :good

 

You have to be a real good hit n' run artist to beat Dempsey. I think Greb is that.

I don't think Wills is, although I'm no expert on his (from what i've heard boring) style.

 

M, I did get my facts straight. According to sources at hand, Archie Moore was born Dec.13, 1913 in Benoy, Mis. When ol Archie fought Marciano in 1954,
that would make Archie Moore FORTY TWO years of age. I.E. Boxing Register.
I saw archie moore in Stillmans gym in the 1940s,standing a couple of feet near me with some friends ,and i remember his beard was quite grayish
for a boxer. So my facts are accurate, and my opinion about Bill Brennan
as equal to the later day Jerry Quarry, is an opinion but I lean to Jerry Quarry over Brennan,man to man.
Fred Fulton by all accounts was a big heavyweight with a great left hook .
Not championship material, but because of his size and punching ability,
a good test for anyone...
Ezzard Charles was going on 33 years of age in 1954,when he fought Marciano. Charles one of my very favorites was born in 1921.
I am not implying that Marciano fought has beens. i am stating that Rocky
fought past prime fighters in Moore and Marciano,and Joe Walcott who was 38 years old in 1952,when Walcott fought Marciano...
I saw Joe Walcott flatten a sensational young puncher Tommy Gomez in MSG,
in 1946. Gomez was never the same.
A couple months later I saw Walcott lose a decision to Elmer Ray, whom Walcott beat 6 months later in a re-match. Walcott was fun to watch with his
side-step style and sneaky powerful right hand. Cheers...

 

Yep, I think it's a matter of taste.

Historical imagery certainly plays a part.

Ali was great as great, but he represents a shift from the old school slug'em-and-sock'em heavyweight punchers, Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey.

Dempsey and Louis come about between Two World Wars, and only a Great Depression separating them. They were champions of the world when fighting was something men were supposed to do. They were simply prizefighters, Darwinian specimens fighting for survival, fighting for a living in a hard world.

Ali represents the era of colour TV and theatrical trash talking in the post-prosperity American era. He was an athletic superman, a proud warrior but also consciously a showman/entertainer. Boxing was the stage on which he perform an act.

Louis and Dempsey are pre-Sinatra.
Ali is post-Elvis.

It's a nostalgia thing, yo. :good

 

This probably sums it up quite well.

 

Yeah, but he was a great fighter. He can slip quite a bit and still beat the most of them, esp. the non-entities.

Even a "dying" Billy Miske can get the numbers, against some good 'uns too.

We just don't know how washed-up Wills could be seen as, I suppose, because Dempsey didn't fight him. And then it depends largely on the outcome.
I have serious doubts over Wills after c.1921.

Dempsey could have fought him as late as 1926 and escaped the vast bulk of the critcism he's now open to.
And people can point to Wills schooling Firpo in '24, and the RING magazine rankings to hold that it's still the great Harry Wills, who hasn't lost in 10 years.

 

My point is that unless you were arguing to put Dempsey in the #1 slot or the #3 slot on your heavyweight list, he would find himself jostling with fighters whose resume's arguably had similar flaws.