How good was Dempsey's title reign?

They saw him. They knew the boxing game - they weren't mugs. They made their livings in the boxing game. They made up their minds on what they saw. They knew what was going on. They said these fighters were great ... Robinson, Leonard, Greb, whoever, it doesn't matter ... but they named DEMPSEY among those greats.

You may find it hard to stomach, but they knew the subject better than we do. They knew it first hand.

 

I gave Dempsey a "C+" for his reign on this poll.

 

Dempsey was inactive for over ONE year from July 1919 to September 1920. Then two years from July 1921 to July 1923. Then three years from September 1923 to September 1926. Simple math (something Dempsey apologists have a hard time with) will show you that from July 1919 to September 1926 Dempsey was inactive for over 6 full years.

How do you figure Wills was the highest paid boxer or similarly inactive to Dempsey? During Dempsey's THREE years away in which he didnt fight once Wills fought six times. Yes he slowed down but I think we can forgive that at 34, 35, and 36 years old. Where was Dempsey at that age? Furthermore, Wills didnt duck Tunney. Vertainly not in the same manner in which Dempsey had been ducking Wills and Greb. Wills had fought at least three elimination bouts and won all three easily. He had been a top contender for 6 years. His stance was that he shouldnt be forced to fight innumerable eliminators only to watch Dempsey sit back and continue to duck him. At that point Wills and Mullins had the upper hand and forced the issue with NYSAC. The NYSAC rightly backed Wills and Mullins on the issue. History is on their side in this issue not Dempsey or Tunney's.

Tate did not win the rematch with Wills... Either you, or Dempsey is wrong about that. Nobody regarded Tate as the black champion as evidence by the black HW championship held between Wills and Norfolk two months later. The telling phrase here is "written by Dempsey" of course he is going to try to make himself look favorable. He always did. He was constantly making it up as he went along. In the book In This Corner he once again says nobody would allow them to fight, that both he and Rickard wanted it (which we know to be false) but that it wasnt allowed anywhere. Thats simply not true. I'll believe what Dempsey says in regards to Wills when I believe Holyfield will unify the titles again...

I dont think Greb or Wills saw any need to fight each other. For a long time they both had basically equal standing. One had shown himself to be Dempsey's top challenger but if the champion was going to draw the color line and only fight a white guy then Greb was going to be that guy. There was no need for either to fight the other. Who exactly did Wills duck? He fought everyone they stuck in front of him whenever they dangled a title shot in front of him, he beat them easily, and never got anything. Why should he have fought year after year, endless eliminators. I know you think thats the way it should be but Im sorry, thats just ridiculous. Like I said, I bet youre a huge Floyd or Roy Jones fan... You would be satisfied with Dempsey knocking out garbage men and walmart greeters so long as you could pay for the privilege.

So now we add another excuse to the pile: Wills never fought a top challenger to become a top challenger. Kind of like he "didnt hold up his part of the contract... (??). Like I said, its every simple. Wills and to a lesser extend Greb were denied the same opportunity that Dempsey benefitted from and you can pin that directly on Dempsey. Some of the blame can be laid on Kearns and some Rickard but at the end of the day Dempsey left Kearns before he fought Tunney (who was given almost no chance to beat Dempsey, as opposed to Wills who was considered almost universally as his greatest challenge) and still chose not to fight Wills. Similarly people can blame Rickard and say he didnt want the fight but Dempsey wasnt promoted exclusively by Rickard. He had been promoted as champ by his friend Floyd Fitzsimmons and later, when Kearns was trying to break Rickards hold on Dempsey they went out west and were promoted by a group headed by St. Pauls Mike Collins. So at the end of the day there were plenty of options to make that fight and even Dempsey admits in Heller's book that they both would have made a boatload of money. So the bottom line is that he didnt want the fight. I'll ask again, show me how that is not ducking your top contender?

 

P,so what U are saying is that I who saw Ray Robinson in his welterweight prime several times,and still believe 55 years later,that he was better than anyone else until the present day,should not have a better insight of Robinson than fans of today ? All my contemporaries who saw Robinson and raved about him as myself,knew as much or more than today's fight fans, because I for example had access to a pro card in NY EVERY night of the week, except Sunday.
So why not the writers of Jack Dempsey's time who twice polled him as the best fighter of the century ? Why is your opinion as valid or BETTER than
all of the great writers in that poll who saw Dempsey fight ? I read history,
and must have faith with the majority opinions to evaluate a boxers rating.
Otherwise, why the hell read history. And so with the whipping boy of today Jack Dempsey. I'm with you Jack, wherever U are !!!
todays fans.?

 

We can agree to disagree on this then. Ive done enough study on many of these so called experts who worshipped at Dempsey's altar to know that their take on history is shoddy at best and like I said, if their opinion is based on Dempsey's over protected title reign that kind of skews things doesnt it?

I know a lot of people who think Roy Jones was the greatest P4P fighter of his generation. I see his "title reign" as much the same as Dempsey's (although I admit Dempsey was fighting professional fighters unlike Jones) in that careful matchmaking can make a fighter look better than he actually was. Dempsey was carefully matched and still managed to get buzzed, bloodied, and outpointed by Brennan, buzzed by Carpentier, made to look bad against Gibbons, went life and death with Firpo, all before finally facing the first prime, quality (what I would consider) challenging challenger and getting absolutely battered for basically 20 rounds over two fights (and that includes the KD round where Tunney was in control easily both before and after the KD). They used to call it ballyhoo.

 

:barf

 

I really dont understand how anyone could possibly disagree with this.

Imagine being in a debate on the other side of Klompton in the older days, without Internet Newspaper searches, youtube, Cyberboxingzone or even boxrec:admin. I suppose it would be in person, so that would only leave one chance of settling it in my favour - :bbb or more likely, this :finger followed by this:bolt

 

Thats exactly what Im saying. Considering you swear up and down that you were at a Robinson fight that never happened Id say you are a prime example of an old timer whose heart is in the right place but whose memory has failed him.

 

If a heavyweight champion defends their title half a dozen times, and is genuinely fighting top ten oponents, then that alone is enough to put them somewhat higher than a C+.

How many guys have actualy done it?

 

Klompton, now U are hitting below the belt ! Why not tell the fans what you are referring to,when YOU LIE saying I never saw Ray Robinson fight Bobby Dykes at the Coney Island Veledrome in the 1950s. Why bring up this snide innuendo ? I swear on my loved one's that see them I did ! My darn memory has not failed me K, and U should fervently pray that you will have my presence of mind when and IF, U reach my age.
U hate Jack Dempsey, and now U have to besmirch me. Fine chap U are...

 

Never happened burt. Another example of you being on the wrong side of history.

And for the record I don't hate dempsey. He used to be my favorite fighter but the more I learned about the facts the less respect I have for him. The difference is I can appreciate his place in history without having to elevate it to a higher stature than it/he earned or deserved.

 

Who the hell are you to say that I never saw Ray Robinson fight Bobby Dykes in the 1950s at the old Coney Island veledrome. I saw that fight,between the two. I can recall VIVIDLY Ray Robinson arriving very late, the crowd restless, and i and my pal, looking over the wall in the outdoor arena seeing Robinson' fuscia coloired Caddy arrive and the delayed fight between Robinson and Dykes [whom I'd seen on TV] finally start. It was a dull fight which Robby won by decision. I 'm sure i felt at the time that they had fought once before.
I know a Billy Brown fought Robinson in 1950 at the Veledrome, but I SAW Bobby Dykes, of that I'm certain.So Klompton there was no damn good reason to bring this up in this thread, except to say i am a liar or an old fool. I can assure you, my close friends would tell U differently. So, to win a point
pertaining to Dempsey' title "reign", you low-blowed me..Thanks for nothing!