Does anyone still have Dempsey as a top ten heavy? Top 15?

Dempsey proved nothing in the Sharkey bout other than he could fuk a guy up who wasn't looking.

 

As Dempsey said."what the hell why aint you looking?"

 

I think there are a lot of parallels between Dempsey and Corbett.

Both got attention before they became champion for their new style of fighting. Both became champion by beating a guy who had been inactive for years (Willard / Sullivan). Both failed to defend against their #1 contender, who was the World Coloured Champion and arguably had a better claim to being the best in the world (Wills / Jackson), both had long spells of inactivity, and both ultimately lost their titles in the ring without cleaning out the division.

Neither belong in my personal top 10.

 

After a very slow start I had Dempsey fighting Sharkey on even terms at time of stoppage. That fight whatever you may think of the blow that ko’d Sharkey - was far from a lock for Sharkey. Sharkey was very good and is a good barometer at how good a prime Dempsey must have been in my opinion.

 

This content is protected

Here Is the bout in HD - to me it looks like in round 6 that the fight is being fought on even terms. And in round 7 I do believe the last punch is low but up to that moment round 7 is also even or slightly Dempsey. Jack D certainly was not getting his butt whipped. This was competitive hard nosed infighting combat.
Great quality footage too.

 

Excellent

 

On what metric? In terms of impact on the growth of the sport, he certainly is a top five, first million dollar bout, after all, one of the sport's first international "superstars" considering his Hollywood career and acceptance into high society. He was truly a megastar, and helped usher in the golden era of sports,

In terms of impact on the sport on a technical/skill basis, he is certainly top 10 (top five for me), greatly advancing techniques on generating power in punches, particularly short ones and combinations, defensive head, body movement, and footwork.

On his title defense opposition, the best of his defenses was the great Tommy Gibbons, Brennan was a decent boxer, Carpentier was a blown-up light-heavy, Firpo was a powerful but crude brawler, Miske by the time of his third Dempsey bout was sickly. He never had the chance to fight the best contender of his day in Harry Wills. His layoff in Hollywood certainly leaves a bad stain in this regard and greatly increased his decline shown in his fights against Tunney and Sharkey. Not top 10 in this regard by any means.

On his opposition in his overall career, one could argue top 10. He pretty much cleaned out the division pre-title, racking up an impressive assortment of wins, often first-round KO's against the top boxers of his day in Fulton, Smith, Flynn, Morris, Levinsky, and Miske among others. Gibbons remains among the top LH's of all time, and an aging Dempsey defeat of a peak Jack Sharkey was a great final victory (no, wearing your shorts above your belly button doesn't make gut shots illegal). No shame in losing to a great boxer like Tunney when Dempsey was past his best and especially after a three-year layoff,

He certainly had one of the greatest left hooks of all time, possessed extremely advanced defensive movement as well as combination skills, and was the hardest puncher up to that point, and remains among the hardest punchers in Boxing history, 50% of his KO's were in the first round, a record still unbeaten by any HW before or since. He was only knocked out once, in a fight highly speculated to have been thrown, against Flynn, whom he would KO in less than thirty seconds in the rematch. All this considered, he is in my top 10 for overall HW's, top 5 for P4P, and certainly one of the greatest punchers and innovators of styles and techniques

 

Who did the greatest fighters who ever live consider to be the best they bsaw. From Battling Nelson and Abe Attel to Tony Canzoneri, Johnny Kilbane to Jack Brritton ,Jim Braddock gate Joe Louis . and two dozen more. View the newspaper clippings at Michael Hunnicutt Facebook Branford Conn fellow with goatee

 

I think the issue of whether an ATG claimant fought the best guy(s) out there is a valid and critical one.

But being rated the top challenger in and of itself doesn't cut it for me as proving the top rated guy at the time was the best out there.

There are #1 contenders and then there are #1 contenders.

For example, Nova, Mauriello, LaStarza,

versus Conn, Walcott, Moore

 

Valdes lost twice to Baker and never defeated him. He was coming off four straight losses going into the Agramonte fight.

The Ring Magazine Annual Ratings are end of the year ratings and not the ratings in the summer when the big fights were back then in outdoor venues.

LaStarza and Charles were the #1 contenders when Marciano fought them.

It is valid to point out that Valdes was rated above Cockell, so this is the one reasonable criticism of Marciano's title defenses, but Moore defeated Valdes and Marciano defended against Moore.

 

The men who fought Jeffries were pretty strong in rating him the best also. I don't think this point means a lot, really. Old timers considering the best of their era the best of all time is one of the most shopworn of cliches.

 

"Valdes certainly beat more ranked contenders"

Not up to September, 1953, when Marciano defended against LaStarza.

Valdes was coming off losses to Harold Johnson, Bob Baker, Bill Gilliam, and Archie Moore, before beating a washed up Agramonte, and then Charles in what at the time was a big upset. Valdes' manager passed on a rematch with Charles with the winner to get Marciano.

LaStarza was not only the #1 contender, but there was their controversial first fight. This defense was logical and in demand.

 

Weinert got blown out by Firpo and Wills and beaten badly by Tunney. I think I understand why there is not much of a Weinert cult out there all hot and bothered about him not getting a title shot over let's say Wills or even Renault.

Bettina peaked during WW2 when the title was frozen. He does seem to have been a guy who earned a shot, like Jimmy Bivins, but getting blown out in one by Gus Lesnevich in 1947 clouds his claim.

 

Marciano would gain a legacy arguing point if he had beaten Valdes rather than Cockell.

Subbing Valdes for either Charles or Moore would lessen his legacy for me.

 

I can't say I am as high on Tate as you are. He was pretty consistently beaten and KO'd.

Tate's big win over Wills was on a foul when he got knocked down in the first round and the ref DQ'd Wills on the basis of hitting on the break. By far his best effort was in the unpaid rematch four days later in which he earned a draw. Generally he seems to have lost his series to every top man, including Wills. Norfolk for example beat him three times, once via decision, twice by KO.

Norfolk is a much more interesting contender, although a light-heavy. He beat Miske twice, got the best of Tate, and gave Greb hell in a newspaper decision fight in which the newspapers were split on who won. Wills KO'd him decisively.