Who rates higher all time Jeffries or Dempsey?

The Dempsey skeptic movement (for want of a better name) started out with a valid line of criticism, i.e his failure to meet certain key opponents.

It ended with some people throwing the baby out with the bath water, and putting his entire legacy on trial.

 

"No one is questioning Dempsey's talent level"

Certainly fast, a strong puncher, and durable.

"We're questioning his record and accomplishment for a great fighter"

In comparison to standards set by other great fighters.

 

"putting his entire legacy on trial"

But isn't this what posters also do for Jeffries, Johnson, Louis, and Marciano?

I might ask why not? If posters want to say Dempsey and his legacy are better than these men, why shouldn't both be put under scrutiny. On this thread, I have never credited any other fighter beating Dempsey head to head. One supporter or another on this thread has said Dempsey KO's Louis in three and Fitz in one.

The facts of his career are open to evaluation.

How Dempsey or anyone else does h2h is pure guesswork, putting what we do not know and can never know above what we in fact do know.

 

One point, just being revisionist isn't bad. There are cases where things accepted to be true are found not to be, and these sorts of things should be challenged. I think what you mean is more either just presentist, or just untrue

But so often people go from valid analyses to just trying to discredit someone

It's valid to talk about his shortcomings when comparing him to other greats, but by focusing on his shortcomings there is certainly a danger in becoming overly foussed on them, and going way to extreme arguing against them.

 

It is, and if it is done in a consistently negative way, we always call them for it.

I have always been a strong advocate of resume over head to head.

I prefer to work with historical facts, rather than assumed outcomes.

I suspect that Dempsey probably does better head to head, than he does in legacy comparisons, but I don't put a very heavy weighting on the fact that I think this.

I do however see tangible merit in Dempsey's resume, which is perhaps getting sidelined a bit.

 

I am not against somebody being being revisionist, provided they say that they are being revisionist, and back it up.

If I wish to put forward a revisionist argument, I say something like "A was generally held to be true at the time, but it appears to have been wrong because of B."

 

No offense, Janitor, but

what is missing is any specific focus on what I've said which isn't correct.

What constitutes an atg is personal and therefore subjective.

Dempsey comes up short for me because I am not that impressed with the fighters he did defeat, and he didn't beat the best of his time. If he had beaten the best out there, I would give him a pass on this standard as he would have done all he could possibly do and it would be unfair to judge him harshly.

So for me he falls into the class of a second-tier great, or near-great, but not in the top echelon.

of the pre-1960 heavyweights, I rate Jeffries, Johnson, Louis, and Marciano of the champions above him. And I don't see a good case for rating him above Wills.

 

OK, I can go with that. As to how those 3 would do vs Jeffries- speculation, obviously. But I bet I'm right

 

A good American example is the Trail of Tears. Andrew Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling and forced the Cherokees to locate about 1000 miles to the west in Oklahoma. Most died on the way.

Old biographies either never mentioned it or approved. Times and perspectives have changed.

History is constantly being revised, whatever one thinks of this or that Dempsey dispute.

 

OK, I will play devils advocate here.

Dempsey beat Willard who was the man before him, and Sharkey who was the man after him.

They were the best around because they beat the man.

Wills is assumed to be the best between, because he did not get to fight the man.

Greb is assumed to be the best of the rest, because he beat some of Dempsey's contenders.

Against this we could put up the fact that other all time greats, either did not fight the best of their era, or alternatively lost to them.

I sympathize with your line of reasoning to a large extent, but have you perhaps taken it too far?

I would have to agree here, but by a narrow margin in some cases i.e. this one.

Here I would have to disagree.

The prosecution argument seems to run along the lines of:

"Wills beat half of his key opponents, and Greb beat the other half, therefore what he did was not that impressive."

The crucial exceptions of Willard, Carpintier, and Sharkey of course get swept under the carpet in this line of argument.

 

Jeanette, McVey, Langford were an irrelevance when Dempsey was campaigning for the title.

Fulton, Miske, and of course Willard were the other key men in the division.

Missing Wills is of course a serious omission, but perhaps not a unique one among ATGs.

The same people who damn Dempsey for this, are quick to forget that they recently lived through a decade, where the two best heavyweights never faced off.

Why then is an earlier champion, even a great one, measured to this standard of perfection?

Although he did not beat Tunney, he did beat Tunney's successor as champion, and the man who defeated Wills.

 

I think that's often the problem when people go after someone's record. If a heavyweight champopm didn't beat a successon of 6'6", prime, teak tough, heavyhanded slicksters, they faced a bunch of bums.