my point exactly, the old timers like Freddie Brown and Arcel and Teddy Brenner were very good, Today we have a few but Burt Sugar and Teddy Atlas are often laughed at because they usually pick the opposite of who wins. I like to watch the picks of so called experts and then I can judge how accurate they are on the past based on their current picksatsch
Was Dempsey improving by 1922? Most of his ardent fans say 1919 was the pinnacle of his career. The old Langford that beat Wills was still younger than the one Dempsey ducked... Calling Runyon a news man is a stretch. He editorialized about sports but he, like Grantland Rice, were more concerned with creating characters out of sports heros through which they could connect to their audience. Nothing wrong with this but dont pretend they were practicing journalism. I stand by the fact that Runyon, who was a great friend to Dempsey, isnt the most believable of sources. You might as well ask Teddy Hayes or Jerry the Greek what they thought of Wills. His opinion is one of many, the minority btw (especially at the time of his writing that) and doesnt change that Wills was the top contender. His ludicrous lauding of Willard is enough to let me know Runyon cant be relied upon for a great pick. At the time of this writing Willard hadnt fought in over two years, hed had just two fights in almost 7 years, and was considered so far past his prime that the New York State Athletic Commission was doing everything they could to ban him from the sport for his own safety. His showing against Dempsey was so pathetic, so awful, and so one sided, combined with his lack of conditioning and age that his call that that version of Willard would beat Wills is all I need to read to know he had his head up his ass or was doing damage control for Dempsey so he could get another soft touch in a rematch with Willard.
oh deary me, don't tell me that Runyan has dared to contradict a stance you are taking even though you weren't even alive duriung his lifetime, what he said about Wills he supported by facts mate. So because he was a freind of Dempsey that makes him a liar ???? gee ye of little faith. Has this anything to do with him daring to question if Mike Gibbons was involved in a fix in the McFarland fight ?,,,, deary me, how dare he the blighter.
OOOOOOOOO, Klompton knows alllll. He knows more than those there 100 yrs ago. He is untouchable. But he soo objective when it comes to Dempsey!
So, who do you say the top contenders for Dempsey's crown in 1922 were, and what were there strengths, weaknesses and accomplishments?
Ill tip my kap to old Nat In "50 years at Ringside' he mentions all other great boxing writers of his day for folks like us to cross reference. I don't believe he left out a one.
Even Nat Fleischer's rival boxing writers of his day had great admiration and respect for his love and dedication to the sport of boxing...What his eyes had seen of boxing for about 65 years can hardly be imagined...I think his 2 favorite fighters were Benny Leonard and Joe Louis...Why not ?
Runyon criticized Dempsey in print several times he was pretty impartial on that. I think Dempsey improved after 1919 ,after 1922, I wouldn't be sure about .Basically what we have here is anything positive anyone said about Dempsey , you discount as friends doing him a favour or ignorant hack journalism, and anything less than positive anyone ever said about Wills was racist bull**** or lip service from bribed by Rickard toadies. Has anyone ever told you, you are not the most objective of men?
I thought I was the only person crazy enough to read through threads from years ago. Maybe I am your alt after all.
I think the trainers rating and opinions are the most biased of all. Whomever a trainer worked with is usually overrated. Now a match maker, I value a bit more. Nat has an account as he was there, but he also has guys he liked, and guys he didn't. His accuracy suffers a little too, okay, he didn't have a computer or internet to work with, I get it, but sometimes he either forgot or made stuff up. A very visible, but also a flawed historian. As a writer, he's a bit of a hack. In his later years, he was highly sought after as a judge. Never heard a problem with any of his scorecards. You can not universally dismiss him; he was essential for the history of the sport. Do your research and if you think something is out of place don't take his word as a well-researched fact.