Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

Firstly, All the great fighters were human. None of them were actually gods or demi-gods.
But once we start talking about how great or brilliant they are, some of it will tip over into mythology, idolisation, romanticisation.

And, let's be honest, most of the exaggeration on these boards is actually NEGATIVE EXAGGERATION - eg, "he had no skills", "conclusion : he can't fight", "his chin was ****", "You ****in' kidding ? Those guys were literally bums !", "he's a 190 pound MIDGET for chrissakes !"

Maybe moderation on both sides is advisable.

If you say so.
Personally I don't care to get into this skin colour stuff.
Throwing that cloud over other postors' views and statements is not productive discussion, IMO.
You may be right, you may be wrong. I don't know and I certainly don't care.
Arguments should be tackled on their own merits, not on the suspected motivations behind them.

Also, I'm from the UK, and the "heavyweight champions race tribalism" issue seems a somewhat peculiar American phenomenon. :good

 

I'd disagree, maybe P4P but not as a HW

 

he, WRONG ! When you imply that I hold a Jack Dempsey in a high regard because he is "white", you are dabbling in reverse racism, yessir. I have been around a long time,and I can speak for myself ,which I will . What YOU are saying that because a fighter,be it Dempsey, Marciano etc are inherently
not capable of greatness because of their race, is patenly WRONG. If that be the case I am prejudiced against black fighters,in favor of white fighters ,why would my alltime great boxers who i have seen include Ray Robinson, Ike Williams, Ezzard Charles, Beau Jack,Henry Armstrong ,Kid Gavilan,Mathew Saad, Joe Frazier, and my idol Joe Louis, were i to have favored only white boxers.? Remember prejudice runs both ways !
Are you telling me that my high regard for Jack Dempsey is based on the fact he was white ? A DAMNED slander he!. I know no color when I see brave fighters in the ring. I admire everyone of them for their darn courage even to enter the prize ring. Color be damned.
I'll say this one more time ! As I or you have never seen the prime Jack Dempsey fight,except for a few snippets of film ,I place more faith on his ability's as a great heavyweight, on the testimony of dozens of boxing experts
who saw him in the flesh, and raved about him [pre Tunney],than naysayers
of today, EIGHTY FIVE years after his prime...Oh yes,even if Dempsey was
Caucasian....Cheers...

 

I take it to mean how much value you'd put on a POUND of one man against a POUND of another.
Like a currency exchange.

How a fighter does against a GOOD fighter who outweighs him loads will go a long way in assessing that value.
In that sense, that is why Fitz, Langford, Walcott (the original), Greb, were pound-for-pound monsters.

Obviously, some men merely "specialize" in defeating heavier ones, and prove no more capable against men their own weight. But, as Dempsey did pretty well against some decent "same sizers" his pound-for-pound rating stays high on the index.

Evander Holyfield was recently asked about Mayweather-Pacquiao as referred to the two best pound-for-pounders, and he seemed to interject with the same objection. Holyfield knows about pound-for-pound because he's stood in there with VERY GOOD fighters who possess more pounds that him.
Holyfield is a pound-for-pound monster, one of the greatest ever.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying.

Of course, class exists in the sense that Wlad and Audley are in two different classes.
One is a successful world champion, the other not even a fringe contender and barely a fighter at all.

But if we're talking about comparing some guys who, in their primes, were all world champs who could dominate legitimate contender rivals on multiple occasions, these men who we can all agree are ATGs - I believe the concept of different class becomes a lot less real.
If someone is the best in their time and kicking ass well enough to be remembered, he's certainly in the argument against even "the very best one ever".

 

Actions speak louder than words. The words were that he wanted to fight, the action was that he'd rather fight a mediocre Carpentier, an already beaten, Brennan, etc.

All make-believe. The fact is that Dempsey refused the best heavyweight of his time despite at least a seven-year window of opportunity and similarly avoided Greb for several years. Instead he opted to fight the guys who lost to Harry.

Why is avoiding the best opposition out there and sitting on the title for three years not a mark against one's greatness?

See, I do think this is an outrageous claim when not only did he fail to prove himself against the best heavyweight of his time (despite seven years of opportunity), he also got beat up BAD by the best light-heavyweight of his time. Twice. He also avoided Greb who, despite being a middleweight, was second only to Tunney at lightheavyweight, and only marginally.

But because he beat a fat, inactive 37 year old Willard and a very limited Firpo as well as Fulton, he's one of the best pound-for-pound of all time?

Might as well consider Frazier one of the best pound-for-pound of all time too, then. He beat two mediocre big men in Ramos and Mathis, and unlike Dempsey, he destroyed the best lightheavyweight of his time and also beat arguably the best heavyweight of all time despite being the smaller man.

If you rank Dempsey in your top5 pound-for-pound, where do you rank Frazier?

 

How can you say he ruled a division when he avoided the two best fighters out there and was inactive for three full years?

 

1. Tyson, Ali, Louis, Patterson, Tunney and RJJ were all faster, plenty of fighters were as fast

2. Tyson/Patterson had better head movement, allot of fighters had a better defense than Dempsey, his head movement didn't stop him often getting outboxer, knocked out, knocked out the ring, so in essence it wasn't that good

3. Allot of HWs hit harder

4. Avoiding the best in the division and not fighting for 2 years at a time is hardly ruling a division is it?

 

Because, for me, greatness is based on what he DID do in the ring, not on what he didn't do.

Tunney was as big as Dempsey. He had outgrown light-heavyweight, and he was at his physical and career peak at 185 - 190 pounds too.

I don't have a pound-for-pound list, but Dempsey would be in the running. He's certainly worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as anyone, just as he always has been.

Joe Frazier is up there too, no doubt. At 205 pounds, I can't say for sure that he's above or below a 185 pound Dempsey. I don't even have a list.
But I've been saying all along that these heavyweights - and the smaller heavyweights in particular - are horribly underrated pound-for-pound.

 

This is surreal, actually. After all these pages you're still ignoring that the most dangerous challengers didn't get the chance "to beat the man". It's pretty obvious that you can't beat the man if you don't get the chance.

So if Holmes sat on his title until 1988, instead of facing Spinks, and then lost it to Tyson he would have been the man for 10 years? In reality, it's questionable if Holmes was "the man" after 1982, even though he was much more active than Dempsey.

 

:-( You're been explained why he doesn't have any claim to have ko'd Tunney time and again. This is either clear bias or you're as thick as pig ****, I feel sorry for your students if its the latter, but it's more likely hero worship

 

Apparently if you won the championship off a bum and defended against nothing but bums it means you ruled the division for 7years, nothing else matters because you were linear and no one can take that away from you :nut

LUFC if he really believes his own insane brand of logic must believe Erdei is a top10 LHW of all time, afterall he's been lineal LHW champ for 7 years too