Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

Some people are picking David Haye to KO Wlad.

Dempsey as challenger might KO Wlad.
Dempsey as champion ends up fighting Audley Harrison instead.

 

M, As you insinuate, I am playing the "same " song, but is the "right" tune !
P.S. The fact that Dempsey's prime days opposition,might not have been up to your standards, Dempsey DID lick whoever he fought convincingly.
And The great boxing experts who saw this Dempsey,and his successors,ala Ray Arcel, Sam Langford, Grantland Rice, Hype Igoe, Mickey Walker,Damon Runyon,and so many more "experts",were much more qualified than YOU or me, to evaluate and judge the Manassa Mauler. If i err, I err on the side of men who EYEBALLED Dempsey. And i could live with that.!

 

Audley's black, though? Just kidding...

Yeah, I'm not saying Dempsey couldn't. I'm just asking HeGrant if he's evolved his opinion of Dempsey being romanticized by his fans like Marciano. I rarely see him go on the attack against Dempsey fans. Now he's lumping them with the same categories as their fans. I haven't seen He grant be as consistent about that until now.

 

Corbett, Tunney, Ali and Norton probably share that distinction from an anthropological perspective, with perhaps Max Baer as an honorable mention.

 

I think he prefers Dempsey's style.

I think lots of fighters are "romanticized" or "glorified" by the type of people who you might find spend hours on an internet boxing history forums. Let's face it, what we do is crazy. Most these guys are long dead, and most of them forgot more about their careers than we know - others didn't care. They hit lumps out of each other for a living. And, let's be honest, we folks elevate them to historical figures of vital importance because of it.



The more violent and aggressive and damage-inducing a fighter is, the more he gets "idolised" probably.
Dempsey and Marciano tick them boxes.

Almost all these guys we go on about were world champions or should have been, so they must have been some badass mother****ers, or at least bloody good at the job or professional fist-fighting.

The rest of it - arguments about "underrated" and "overrated", resume, primes, "greatness" etc. - is just the mode we use to express our preferences. And we exaggerate differences, like connoisseurs, to give us more room to revel in this stuff we love for inexplicable reasons.
But arguably what we're really here for is to glorify the **** out of boxers and boxing, mostly long past.


:good

Whatever I'm rambling on about, it's true.

 

I get what you're saying and agree, bro. And im glad to see you use the word 'mother****er'.

Dempsey is still **** though

 

You are being disengenuous M. I have stated that the fighters that Dempsey
beat in his championship reign,were as a whole inferior to the Ali era !.I have
stated that several times, yet it is you who are "playing the same song", to borrow your musical phrase. You keep repeating this opinion that i have
have agreed to. But the fact that Dempsey's era,wasn't the richest in talent,
does not take away the fact that he had an amazing blend of speed, power,
defense,and toughness never surpassed since. Was he the greatest heavyweight,with the best contenders who he licked in his reign ? Hell no !
But I believe on a man to man basis, Jack Dempsey's unique talent, gives any heavyweight in history hell on earth, man to man. Now i have to practice on my "song" ...

 

burt, bro. Its like you know the chorus but none of the verses, bro.

 

You're music to my ears Burt :good if you were music I would pump up the volume to the max and drown out the relative annoying muzak being bleeted by McGrain

 

Dempsey is legit top 5 HW. He was the ultimate combo of speed, power, toughness and brutality.

 

And you reaaly belive what Tunney wrote? I made a trend on this, and most agree, not even Dempsey himself could have done such a feat in takeing out a good contender and 3 great champions in 1 night.

This is when people start ranking Dempsey up there with Zeus and not putting him on the mortal plains were he belongs.

 

No, you're not rambling. Good post man, I especially like the part you wrote in bold. I think that's true for a lot of posters, although it's not always that simple because certain fighters that are truly polarizing (You see some ranked inside the top 5 and others somewhere in the 10-15 spot. Something has to give). I do think a lot of posters try to learn, and of course just love to talk about boxing. I agree there are plenty here that want to almost defend legacies, and in a sense I feel I could've been that person early when I joined. But you try to get past that while still appreciating everything you can about boxing and some of the great past time fighters.

Sometimes I'll watch the K brothers and go "**** it, I swear Frazier could kill these guys." There's an emotional element to some of this stuff, and really who knows maybe I'm wrong. You can never be too adamant about anything.

 

Everyone that enjoys and studies the history of the sport does not blindly favor fighters the same just as everyone does not have the same knowledge base on each niche .. no different than fans of the history of any other sport. Compare Klompton with Princess and that point is made, case closed.

 

What are you even saying here? Klompton has more knowledge on Greb than you do of the entire history of the sport. Of course he knows more than me and 98% of the forum. Are you implying that I blindly favor Marciano? I guess the same should apply to blindly hating fighters then, huh?