How good was Dempsey's title reign?

Yep. :good

 

Burt, you look like a very sympathetic senior and I respect your opinion.

However, that doesn't mean I will just let it slide when I disagree with you.

We'll just disagree on this.

But answer me this. Boxing historians, with all their superior knowledge, having seen the fighters (memory of events 40 years ago is more reliable than watching film, right) - how come they COMPLETELY miss the boat when making their rankings? Who in their right mind ranks a Jack Dempsey as the greater boxer than Joe Louis?

I can only think of three explanations:
A) They are incompetent.
B) Memory may not be that reliable on a time scale of decades, and the lack of instant access to records, newspaper articles and fight film leads to an incomplete or distorted picture, and thus distorted judgment.
C) Generational bias, racism or another form of bias clouds their judgment.

I can only assume it's not option A. Option C is not out of the question, but I'm thinking the root is in option B. What do you honestly think?

It is actually true. Just look at how many mistakes for instance Fleischer makes in his writings. He'd be destroyed in a debate without access to the sources that we have.

 

Wait I thought it was a low blow? Or was it a low blow, rabbit punch combo? I'm confused

 

you know exactly where the link is it is on the other forum unless you have deletted it to cover yourself... you have just within the last 10 minutes posted that you disagree with 10 or more boxing historians who expressed their opinion of where Gene Tunney ranks in history claiming they are all wrong. ... almost every post you make on this forum someone pulls you up on it and corrects you :verysad

 

i answered and addressed it awhile back

 

Yes you typically get a much better view and better angles on the screen

 

Walker was interviewed in1971 and he still had all his marbles,he didn't die till the 80,s ,so there's a good chance he saw as much of those guys as anyone ,and possibly live from ringside.

 

Two things :

Firstly, there's a distinction to be made between ranking based on "accomplishments" and "head-to-head" peak ability (to use the terminology common to this forum.
With his 25 defences in an 11 year reign, Louis is superior in the "accomplishment" ranking.
But they were ranking Louis and Dempsey on who was absolutely better, "head-to-head" at their absolute peak, at the absolute height of their powers, and who would win a hypothetical match between the two ... and Dempsey is a valid choice under such criteria.

Secondly, in 1950, Joe Louis was still active/recently retired. Certainly I would expect some of the polled sportwriters to have been slightly hesistant in assessing his true place at this time because it's difficult to do so with an active fighter, which may account for the weight of the lean towards Dempsey.
It doesn't however invalidate the idea that Dempsey and Louis were of comparable greatness, and close to one another under the criteria of peak greatness .... simply, both worthy candidates as the two greatest fighters of the 1900 - '50 period.

 

Sitting ringside - and often some rows back - is far superior. You can grasp things - feel them even - that just don't come through on TV.

 

PP,don't be confused. I was hit with a low blow and also was hit with a bunch of carrots, hence the "rabbit punch ".

 

what the f@ck is your looking for me to answer you clown.. your stalking me around the site making accusations i need to respond to your posts. yet your posts are stupid and make for nothing but laughter and are nothing but buffoonary now run along boy and watch your Tommy Morrison dvd set

 

yes you are correct, sitting watching Live`is far superior than watching on TV..getting back to the Lewis v McCall (1) fight i watched live` McCall hit Lewis with a body-shot just before the bell to end the opening round which knocked the stuffing out of Lewis who sat in his corner grimacing in pain yet it was not picked up on cold-flat-screen.