Dempsey doesn't belong in HW top 5's. Perhaps not HW top 10's.

I agree that Dempsey doesn't belong in the top five. I have him substantially higher than you at #7, though I think he could reasonably be ranked lower- perhaps as low as 10-11, and I have a hard time seeing him ranked ahead of anyone currently ahead of him, unless one is utilizing a pure head-to-head-evalutation style of ranking (which I think is largely fallacious). Anyway, again, although I largely agree with the spirit and substance of your post, here are some points on which I disagree (and which, perhaps, help explain Dempsey's higher standing in my own personal view):

1. On Dempsey's run up to the title, I think you are badly overlooking the Fulton win- as it is never even mentioned in your post- when you talk about Dempsey not beating anyone from the first tier or never beating a #1 contender. Fulton was a big, skilled, hard-hitting heavyweight, widely seen as the #1 challenger to Willard's title before Dempsey beat him, and had beaten Langford in impressive fashion (so much so that Langford predicted Fulton would be the next world champ). Dempsey not only beat a world-number-one contender- he wiped him out in under 20 seconds. Add that to the numerous other dominant and explosive victories he posted in the last year-and-a-half before winning the championship, culminating in the stunning demolition of Willard, and I absolutely think you have one of the best concentrated runs of success in the history of the division.

2. I disagree on Willard not being a credible opponent; that is, your points hold sway and do marginalize the victory, but Willard, the hulking world champion who had never been knocked down, was a credible opponent nonetheless. Note also that Willard posted a credible victory over a legitimate contender several years later in Floyd Johnson.

3. I further disagree that Miske was a "sham of a defense" and "could not be considered 'live.'" In spite of his disease, Miske was still fighting very competitively against upper-tier opposition. Boxrec lists him as being on a bit of a bad streak going into the fight, but note that the loss and draws were all newspaper decisions (and hence would not necessarily have been seen to hold the same significance as a match with an actual decision)- and very close ones against legitimate world-class fighters. Miske's post-Dempsey career should erase any doubt about his still being a "live" opponent, as he compiled a stellar 21-1-1 record with wins over the likes of Brennan, Renault, Fulton and Gibbons. This is absolutely a legitimate win over a world-class fighter and does deserve credit.

4. On Gibbons, I think you're once again being excessively harsh; note that Tunney's knockout over Gibbons came about two years after the Dempsey fight, when Gibbons was growing a bit long in the tooth at 34 (it was also Gibbons' final pro fight). Further note that it was the only time he was ever stopped in over 100 pro fights. To the contrary, saying that the fight more reflects Dempsey's weaknesses than his strengths is taking a pessimistic, "glass-is-half-empty" view of the result; ultimately, Dempsey fought a very credible, skilled opponent and beat him in dominant fashion, showing skill, control and stamina we would not necessarily be so certain he possessed were it not for this outing.

5. I think it should be further pointed out- and should stand as a strong point of credit in Dempsey's favor- that Dempsey knocked out a prime future heavyweight champion and floored and virtually knocked out the reigning one while considerably removed from his own peak. The fact that Dempsey was still good enough to produce these results against arguably the two best fighters in the world, back-to-back, at that stage of his career, is a strong testament to his ability and a noteworthy accomplishment in my book.

 

I wouldn't make any fight between Gibbons and Miske against McVea and Jeannette any more than a 50/50. Except for Miske-McVea, which I think Miske would have won. Neither of them rate as high at heavy in terms of resume, because both fought a lot of their career at light heavy, but I think they were both just as dangerous in terms of skill and ability, as Mcvea and Jeannette.

The whole thing is just a matter of perspective and opinion. There are arguments one way or the other, I just don like people telling me how I should or shouldn't rate certain fighters. Rather than continue this discussion (I kind of overexposed myself to enternet debates on the merits of Dempsey as a fighter, and lost my taste for them a while back.) So, you make good points, but I disagree on some, and others I don't feel they hurt Dempsey's legacy as bad as you feel they do. I've read so much about Dempsey that I know a lot of the circumstances around many of the questionable decisions made in his career, and it's hard for me to overlook those at times. Debates can be fun for a while, but I'm gonna bow out of this thread. I'll go ahead and let Janitor take over, he never seems to get tired of these.

 

Did you know Mike Tyson has the biggest dick of all heavyweight champions? Yes his opposition does not look that impressive in hindsight, but his iconic status in boxing history means he has to be a top5 fighter in any serious list of all-time Queensberry rules Heavies. A man so big, just for that reason he deserves a place in the top5.

 

Dempsey's rating among the heavyweights really depends on where you rate all the others.

It's easy to scrutinize any of these fighters under a microscope in isolation, but it's a bit more difficult to examine them all and ascertain how they relate and rate against each other.

The heavyweights who really stand out ABOVE Dempsey are few. I'd say Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, and Larry Holmes, on pure activity, longevity and consistency as champions, should rate above Dempsey. But the others - Liston, Frazier, Marciano, Johnson, Foreman, Holyfield, Tyson, Lewis etc. - can all be scrutinized and picked at in equal measure, they all have certain things lacking or embarrassing set-backs on their records and may well be seen to balance out above or below Dempsey in the final analysis.

 

Lewis, Marciano and Johnson faced and beat virtually all there were in their own era. Dempsey didn't and therefore can't really compete with them. Neither did he dominate the very best possible opposition as Tyson did during his peak and therefore should rank below him as well. His record closer resembles that of Holyfield, Frazier and Liston, but he doesn't have as impressive victories (Tyson, Ali, Patterson) and there also is the issue of the colour line. He wasn't responsible for it, but it resulted in him having less competitive opposition.

I think his record might be more comparable to Foreman's, if it wasn't for Foreman's comeback. I wouldn't have Foreman if my top 10 either if it wasn't for the comeback.

 

I could pick apart this entire paragraph, but I'll limit my critique to one fighter.

Marciano?

What is Marciano lacking in comparison to Dempsey and what are his embaressing setbacks?

I see a guy who was -

1. Undefeated in 49 fights.

2. Rematched every fighter who ever gave him a tough time, including ones from before he won the title (and KO'd most of them in rematches).

3. KO'd pretty much everybody he fought, actually

4. His six title defences were against 5 #1 contenders and one #2 contender.

5. Championship fight record of 7-0-0 (6KO's)

6. Retired after having bested every consistent, meaningful contender of his era.

 

I wholeheartedly agree Dempsey does not belong anywhere near the top as far as a quality reign is concerned.

But head-to-head he has been securely in my top 5 since my very first list.

 

I think Dempsey belongs in the top ten:

" Why I beleive Dempsey should be highly rated ."

While it’s true Dempsey lacks a win over another all time great heavyweight, and he has some shady outcomes in some of his most famous matches, I believe he has done enough to rank as a top all time 10 heavyweights.

Here’s why I beleive Dempsey should be highly rated:

*Power. Dempsey was a true two fisted puncher, with knockout power in both the cross and the hook. Many punchers only have fight ending power in one hand. With Dempsey, once he landed his best, the other guy often went down quickly, and shortly after that was O-U-T. Dempsey was not an attrition type of puncher like Marciano or Frazier was in most cases. Dempsey carried his power well into the later rounds too.

*Size and Style. Dempsey was an aggressive swarmer / stalker type who excelled as both an out fighter, and an in-fighter. He worked the head and the body equally well and could string together combinations. At 6’1 1/2”, and 77” of reach, Dempsey was by no means a short or limited reach type of fighter. While a prime Dempsey weighed about 188 pounds in the 1920’s, he had no trouble knocking out modern sized heavyweights, and some of them had top chins. Dempsey had the frame to properly carry about 205-210 pounds.

*Speed, reflexes, and agility. Dempsey had excellent hand speed, good reflexes, and unusually quick feet in comparison to all great heavyweights. He could move forward, backwards, or in a circular motion to get angles on others fighter. Most punchers just aren’t this fast with their hands or their feet, nor can they circle or get angles then attack the way Dempsey could. Dempsey has a speed advantage over most sluggers, a reach and height advantage over most swarmers, and the footwork speed to catch up to the deluxe boxer types. When you combine this with his power and aggressive nature, you have a unique type of fighter.

*Chin. Dempsey has one KO loss in 83 fights. This is very good. Dempsey fought a few good punchers. He survived a chin checking shot vs Fripo, and a pasting from Jack Sharkey. Dempsey was not a chinny puncher at all.

*Heart and will to win. Dempsey proved he had a ton of heart in the Fripo match, and would do what it took to win. The hardest place fight is in the clinches. In the clinches, Dempsey was at home. In fact he was pure hell.

* Stamina. A prime Dempsey had true 15 round stamina.

* Defense. Dempsey had a very good slip and duck type of defense, which can be seen on film. Most swarmer types who prefer to attack do not have this good of a defense.

* Ring record. 66-6-11 at Box rec. The losses to Tunney were vs another all time great when Dempsey was past his best. One of those losses to Tunney is marred by “ the long count “, which might have been a KO win for Dempsey if there was no problem with the count. Besides the Tunney losses, Dempsey lost to Flynn. The Flynn loss was avenged via KO. Dempsey never lost a match scheduled for 6 rounds or more. Had the Meehan fights been 10 round affairs, Dempsey likely wins via TKO late. Meehan was a cheese type of fighter who moved, covered up and came back with slapping type of punches.

* Quality wins. Dempsey holds wins over Fripo, Willard, J. Sharkey, Gibbons, Carpentier, Brennan, Miske, Gunboat Smith, Morris, Levinsky, Fulton, and Pelky. Dempsey owns a KO win over all these ranked fighters, except for Gibbons who ran for 15 rounds.

*Historical opinions. Dempsey is a highly rated fighter to this day. Boxing historians, mangers, referees, promoters, fighters, and fans who saw Dempsey rated him in the top 3 in the 1940’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s and 1970’s. In 2007 the IBRO, a group of boxing historians gave Dempsey their #4 spot in the top 20 among heavyweights. While I think these rating might be a trifle high, they do speak volumes about opinions on Dempsey in multiple decades.

*Film. There is no doubt Dempsey had some speical performances on film in the ring, and in sparring session that live up to his legendary status. Not all old timers perform on film as good as their legend suggests they should have. While the film quality on Dempsey isn’t smooth or crystal clear, we can get a good feel for what he was about.

 

Marciano an attrition puncher? what film u watching? when marciano landed on layne, walcott, matthews, louis they went out cold just 1-2 punches. dempsey did not have 1 punch knockouts. Dempsey even said marciano was the hardest one punch guy hes ever seen, that it took guys like him and others many punches too knock out opponents, but with marciano all he needed was one punch and it was all over.