Where do you rank Jack Dempsey??

For me it is hard to put Dempsey in my top 15. The main reason for this is because he never fought Harry Wills, his long time #1 contender. Fighting his number one contender was more important here, than in most other eras. During this time, you had the best white heavyweight in the world and the best black heavyweight in the world. The only way to know who the best heavyweight was to have them fight. Since the fight didn't take place, we'll never know.

I know this fight not occuring may not have been entirely Demsey's fault. I am not punishing him by not ranking him higher, I just can't reward him with a higher ranking.

 

He's in my top5 'cause he changed the way modern champions were perceived -- he was a-list as a champion, lived like a mad *******, and was the biggest draw for boxing ever. He was as hard as a coffin nail, and destroyed men (what did Tunney do after "beating" Jack? all credit to him for fighting Harry Greb).

 

Yes, we have. But watching film years after the fact, or even reading about the era, doesn't give you the same contextual understanding of BEING THERE.

I run into this all the time talking about fighters from the 70s, 80s and 90s with younger fans who were either too young or not even born yet. They may have watched the films, read the books, looked at the records, but they don't have the sort of appreciation that can ONLY be gained by having lived through an era.

I'm not saying that we should take the word of those sources as gospel - of course, it should be supplemented by one's own analysis, research, and observation. But it is an important element to consider that those who lived through Dempsey era and really experienced what the "Dempsey phenomenon" was all about frequently rated him the greatest ever, and above Louis, whose era they had also lived through.

 

I have Dempsey at Number 4, all time.

a) He was fundamentally very sound in his style, a slugger with boxing skills, coming in and out quickly on a proper stance, looking for the opening, ducking away, having excellent power in both hands and in all the punches; he was not a mere crude brawler at all.

b) He had excellent stamina.

c) He had a very solid chin.

d) He could go strong for the distance for a lopsided decision over a defensive-minded foe (Gibbons) or blast out a slugger toe-to-toe (Firpo).

e) A prime Dempsey had no weaknesses, but rather was a very strong, stable opponent who aggressively sought victory from the outset with dynamite in both hands. In brief contrast, Frazier was clearly too dependent on the left hook, Foreman was clearly troubled by defensive opponents, Louis clearly had a shakier chin. Dempsey was a complete, explosive package.

 

I have no scientific basis other than my memories from the fifties,
but I think those old enough to have seen them both more often than
not rated Jack Johnson over Dempsey. Dempsey was generally rated
over Louis. Having "lived through an era" might create bias and
nostalgia as well as measured judgements.

 

I think Willard's rare combination of impressive size(6'6 and 235 pounds, big even by today's standards), good power(had a dangerous right uppercut that knocked out Johnson and killed Bull Young), excellent durability(stood up to a great deal of punishment without ever going down up to and through his title-winning effort against Johnson and two fights as champion), and great stamina(fought 26 rounds in extremely hot temperatures while suffering a great deal of punishment and still knocked Johnson out) make him a very formidable opponent for most champions through history. Although he had some ugly performances and a pretty spotty record, he did amass a pretty solid resume, and his early shortcomings are more understandable and his accomplishments more impressive in light of the fact that he didn't start boxing until he was in his late 20s.
When Willard's win over Johnson is brought into a discussion, the emphasis is usually placed on Johnson's age and deteriorating skills, the intense heat, and/or the claim that the five was a fix. To the third item on that list, I think we can both agree in the negative(that Johnson did not take adive against Willard). The first two are the ones I'm most interested in discussing.
It is true that Johnson was past his prime when he fought Willard, but how much so? In truth, Johnson hadn't lost a fight in nearly 10 years at this time, and wouldn't lose again for over 10 years afterwards. To phrase that very dramatically, then, this was Johnson's only loss in a period of over 20 years! He was back the following year after the Willard fight with a string of wins, and even four years later, in 1919, knocked out solid gatekeeper Tom Cowler in the 15th round(NOTE: here I am slightly amending my earlier statement that while Dempsey was champion, Johnson hadn't beaten a top 50 heavyweight in six years- Cowler was a top 50 heavyweight). Even nearly a decade later, in his late 40s, Johnson was good enough to dominantly beat another solid gatekeeper in Homer Smith, amidst wins over various obscure journeymen and clubfighters. Again, none of this is meant to insicate that I think Johnson was still an elite-level fighter in 1919 or later, or that Johnson was still in his prime when he fought Willard. It is, however, evidence that Johnson was still a very, very good fighter when Willard beat him in 1915, probably good enough to beat most any other heavyweight in the world. Remember that Johnson, with his outstanding technique and understanding of boxing tactics and defense was the sort of fighter who often remains successful into old age.
Now, again, the fact that the fight was staged in such intense heat is often used as an excuse for Johnson's losing and making Willard's win less meaningful, but I see it a different way- the fact that he waded through round after round of punishment from an old-but-still-extremely-capable Johnson, persisting with dogged determination before finally catching up with him and flattening him is extremely impressive, and the fact that he did all this in 100+ degree heat makes it all the more remarkable. A very big, strong man with a pretty good punch who can take that much punishment and has that kind of stamina will, at his best, present a daunting task for just about anyone.

 

If a heavyweight legitimately dominates an era then he has a solid claim to a top 12 spot and a virtualy irrefutible claim to a top 20 spot.

The only way that you can rank him outside this zone is by producing a list that is grossley skewed in favour of some era's over others.

The same goes for Harry Wills who many criticise Dempsey for not fighting. Even without having fought one another they are both cast iron top 20 candidates.

 

Homicidal Hank,

Dempsey's hand speed, aggression, movement skills, and power in both hands should rate extremely high.

Even if you think Willard or Fripo couldn't fight, they were durable, big and tough. Each man had heart. Look how quickly Dempsey hurt them. This would translate into any era. A puncher with speed and power is dangerous in ANY era. Unlike other punchers, Dempsey had decent stamina, and a solid enough chin.

Dempsey's tale of the tape is not that bad. He has some room to fill out without getting fat. I do think he could be 210 pounds if he was fighting today, and Dempsey would certainly be one of the champions today.

If you want to be objective you will see that Frazier, Ali, and Foreman struggled as much as Dempsey did. I believe Dempsey was a top 10 head to head talent. In terms of a legacy few did more for boxing than Dempsey.

 

I think Dempsey would need to beat Tunney and Johnson in additon to the guys you mentioned to be the #1 all time guy.

 

Beating Wills would have been a big plus on his resume as would beating Greb.

Forgett Johnson, McVea and Langford. They were rocking chair relics at this point.

There are other fighters that might have made good aditions such as Kid Norfolk.

At the end of the day Dempseys reign fell short of it's promise because of his inactivity over the last three years. If he had been an active champion over this period his skills would not have deteriorated and he might have beaten Tunney, and some subsequent champions.