More footage of past time greats is always gonna be great. To answer the question, it ain't gonna hurt him, even he he doesn't look that great on it. All Dempsey had to do was to be good for his era. It's common sense he wouldn't do well against more modern HW's like Liston, Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Lewis, etc. But that doesn't matter.
He fought some contenders in that era and lost to all of them - Joe Jeannette, Kid Norfolk, Harry Wills, Gunboat Smith, George Godfrey. He wasn't among the best black fighters of his era, he was decent fighter but he wasn't a threat to Jack Dempsey. Sure it was - he wasn't durable. That's not a good thing to have against someone like Firpo, who didn't care about boxing and changed every fight into wild brawl.
Or, It could be your choosing to worship a myth. I didn't belittle Dempsey once. Never have. But if you choose to buy in to the mythical version of Dempsey, without any real facts to support his greatness, also knowing he didn't fight some of the best black fighters around for whatever the reason . Well, your welcome to that belief, and your opinion sir. But I will question was he the best of his own era.
Not "buying into" crap. I have researched this fighter all my life and either read, watched or talked to authorities on boxing history WHO WERE THERE AND SAW THEM ALL. You and the rest of the revisionists nincompoops are grasping at straws to jack up (pun intended) yr hatred of Dempsey. Others it is expected from, but kind of surprised you have joined their circus.
What am I revising? What have I changed to fit my argument? I have absolutely no hatred of Dempsey, or any man that steps into a boxing ring for a living, with the knowledge of the last punch they got hit with, could literally be their very last. But its facts that angers you so, not any revisionism. Facts that doesn't fit what you would like to believe was a spectacular fighter. I've only pointed out facts of him not wanting to or allowed to fight black fighters, therefore it's hard for ( Me at least) to make him the best fighter of his OWN era. Much less any other fighters era's. Its facts there is little film on him, so it's hard to make a sound opinion on him. Its facts that most trainers , fighters, or sports writers that saw him, probably never saw Ray Robinson , and definitely not Mike Tyson. And of those that did see Robinson, how many had a personal slant, shaded by racism or other favoritism. No it's not me that trying to revise history, it's you. It's you that has to personally attack a different opinion. It's you that rants and raves like a madman. It's you that refuse to see a different point of view because of your ideology of Dempsey. It's you that refuses to see the very FACT of him not wanting too, or, not allowed to fight the best fighters of the era that wasn't white. So again, was he the best of his OWN era. All your ranting and ravings doesn't change the FACTS of the argument. Though it may sound good to anyone that doesn't want to see the FACTS of this subject, but are blinded by the Mythology of Jack Dempsey.
Quite on the contary they almost all did almost to Tuson and some like Arcel Tyson himself. Now don't tell me u believe Tyson is pfp 1. Tyson th*nkks Dempsey was.
You think Walker, when he said in 1970 that Dempsey was the greatest fighter to step in a ring, was choosing to “worship a myth” as well?
That’s quite the theory. Or maybe, being 6’5 with good fundamentals doesn’t automatically indicate success in fighting. Just maybe.
I find the fact that Dempsey did not fight Willis or Greb less problematic than how often he fought as champion & the size & quality of his opposition. He was great for his era, but how great is in question. Things like losing to Tunney (twice when still pretty young) & having the stylistic advantage. And when younger still was losing to Sharkey before nailing him with a low blow to set up the win. Not blaming him for Sharkey's leaving himself defenseless, just saying he seems to have needed this to win. That he needed to be illegally helped back into the ring by sportswriters to beat Firpo. I am not among the hordes whose ehop identifies with or hates a fighter, then always takes a position on their own "side" regardless of it being reasonable or supported by the evidence. For example, it is nonsense that Dempsey had a metal bolt in his hand against Willard. Though the damage Jess sustained was also exaggerated. Without being able to blugeon a fighter as he tried to rise, Dempsey would have had a hard time doing quite so well0inonically not following that rule his camp insisted upon hurt him vs Tunney when he did not go to the neutral corner. Morlocks you should not be calling people names like "nincompoop" just because they interpret the evidence differently that you. Flash has not stooped to that level, but such denigration just lowers the debate here & erodes credibility. If people differ about how good Dempsey was, they should consider at least that it is not plausible that he would be competitive against the best modern HWs. I have seen 187 & as here 180 listed as his weight at his peak-when he fought Willard. He was around the weight of a rehydrated SMW today. Years ago Tyson was being interviewed-before there were as many giants & the age of SHW dominance. The reporter pointed out that he looked like a Middleweight. No matter how good any man who had/has the muscle mass of a MW (bulk per height), even IF he would be dominant today against men who came in the ring at the same size as he... They will be at too much of a size disadvantage to roll with the best later HWs. And many of the 2nd tier, world class contenders could take him out. If you think nobody who comes in the ring in the last decades in the 180's could beatr the best HWs...And it is extremely hard to justify that they would... You need to consider that you can only expect to consider *if* Dempsey might be dominant...among the most skilled guys who were his actual size.
