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

Dempsey's legs were gone by the time of the Tunney fights.Holywood ruined him for the ring.

 

Yes, I do, but only in terms of greatness, not H2H ability.
When assessing greatness, I look at 3 main factors: achievements (put into context, what they did in their own era), H2H ability (how good was he in his prime) and impact on the sport.
1. Achievements:
Dempsey cleaned out the division in his era before gaining the title, then held on to it for 7 years. Granted, he did avoid Wills and only defended it a few times, but he still achieved a lot.
2. H2H
For his era, great. Against modern ATGs, not so much.
3. Impact on the sport.
The last factor is the one where Dempsey shines the most. He's among the most influential boxers of all time, in the same club as the likes of Louis, Ali, Tyson, etc. Jack Dempsey brought huge attention to boxing and helped it to grow/expand. The only sportsman that was more famous than Dempsey in the United States at that times was Babe Ruth since baseball was the “national pastime” in the 1920s.

 

I'm not going to lie, I'm not exactly a fan of yours but I'll concede this is an excellent post. Props to you my man.

 

No it isn't.

Tunney defeated old Dempsey foes Battling Levinsky, Georges Carpentier, and Tommy Gibbons. (one might consider them light-heavies, but all campaigned often at heavyweight and were often successful) Many would put all three among Dempsey's top ten scalps, and Gibbons perhaps among the top five.

Others include Johnny Risko, Tom Heeney, Erminio Spalla, Bartley Madden, Charley Weinert, and Marty Burke (all had important heavyweight scalps and other than Madden, were rated fighters)

Marty Burke was rated at light-heavy and could make 175 lbs. but was 6' 3" and his heavyweight scalps included Fred Fulton, Larry Gains, Johnny Risko, Quinton Romero-Rojas, Floyd Johnson, Otto von Porat, Homer Smith, Bob Martin, Sully Montgomery, Jim Coffey and Bob Roper. He drew with Charley Weinert. Looking at his resume, he is one of the most overlooked fighters of his era. By the way, he defeated Romero-Rojas right after his KO of Jack Sharkey and right before his wins over Risko and Jack Renault.

I haven't mentioned yet Harry Greb.

So who among Dempsey's top opponents weren't beaten by Tunney or someone Tunney beat? Sharkey? Lost to Risko and Weinert. Fulton? Lost to Burke. Firpo? Lost to Weinert? Gunboat Smith? Lost to Weinert and Greb. Brennan? Lost to Greb. Miske? Lost to Greb and Gibbons.

In my judgment, Dempsey's most impressive win was over Sharkey, but this has to be put into perspective by this win being sandwiched between the two losses to Tunney.

So looking at it, I think a strong case can be made for Tunney having the better heavyweight resume based on the two wins over Dempsey as well as quite a few other impressive victories.

*like most everyone else, I have always bought into the groupthink that Tunney didn't do much at heavyweight, but a careful examination of his opponents leads me to reconsider. As was stated in an article I just read today, "All history is revisionist history."

So who among Dempsey's top men are left. Faded vets Flynn and Pelky. Carl Morris.

The one man really top man Dempsey beat that none of Tunney's opponents defeated seems to be Willard. But this has to be balanced out by Tunney beating Dempsey twice.

 

"Janitor wasn't suggesting Tunney's thin HW resume means Dempsey was great."

I posted a reply to Janitor questioning whether Tunney's heavyweight resume was all that thin. Would be interested in your rebuttal.

But my point was that if you do believe Tunney accomplished little at heavyweight, doesn't that detract from Dempsey's standing? For example, whatever else is said of him, Jeff only lost to the man who was clearly the best heavyweight in the world at the time, Johnson.

Losing to a lesser man hurts a legacy more than losing to the top man.

 

"he did very little else"

I disagree and gave my argument in a reply to Janitor. Would be interested in your rebuttal.

 

My rebuttal? The chronology is as follows - You said you rank Tunney above Dempsey at HW. Janitor responded "no chance", citing Tunneys thin HW resume. You asked why Tunneys thin resume made Dempsey great. I posted that Janitor didnt say Tunneys thin HW resume made Dempsey great, it meant he ranked below Dempsey at HW. Does that make sense?

Who do you higher at HW, Tyson or Buster Douglas?

 

That isn't what I meant. I wondered about your rebuttal to my post on Tunney's heavyweight resume higher up on this page. I am interested in what the counterarguments will be.

"Tyson or Buster Douglas?"

I don't see any connection to Gene Tunney or Jack Dempsey with this question.

I am much more interested in evaluating Tunney's resume.

 

What did you mean when you said you ranked Tunney above Dempsey at HW?

 

Well, no sense going on if you will not read my post above in response to Janitor's post claiming Tunney had a thin heavyweight resume, at least in comparison to Dempsey.

I am interested in feedback on my take.

 

Gene Tunney did.

 

Tunney defeated past their sell by date versions of those three.

 

Dempsey also said "honey I forgot to duck"

 

Sure, happy to do so.

When ranking, the first & most important step is to define criteria. For my top 20 weight divisional rankings I decided that no 1 fight could factor into a fighters ranking at more than 1 weight. For pre-Cruiserweight era HW fights, I decided a fight where either fighter weighed in excess of 180lbs was a HW contest. This allowed a bit of wiggle room for a just over the weight non-title contest between LHWs. Lastly, it’s always the heavier man that determines the weight division that the fight was contested at. So, if a 175lbs fighter beat a 220lbs opponent, it counts towards his HW resume. Sound reasonable?

Now, onto your post. The heavier fighter in the Carpentier bout weighed 173.25lbs, so counts towards Tunney’s LHW resume (where, incidentally I rank him at #3, higher than most).

Battling Levinksy was 176.5lbs, so again I consider a LHW contest.

I rate Tommy Gibbons extremely highly and as Tunney was 181.5lbs I rate this win at HW, though Gibbons was 34 (old for that time), it was his last fight & I consider him past prime.

1 Greb win was contested at HW by my criteria, their last contest, when the brilliant Greb was clearly past prime.

Heeney, Risko and Weinert were ok wins, I guess. I’m not especially impressed with wins over Madden (who was 35-24-7 going into that fight), Spalla (who doesn’t hold a win over a world class boxer and who lost 2 out of 2 against Firpo, as well as many fighters inferior to Firpo) and Burke (34-19-6 going into the Tunney fight).

At #14 I rank Dempsey average to below average compared to others. At #19 I rank Tunney average to above average at HW. Whilst I have them closer than most, I do think Dempsey is locked ahead of Tunney at HW (Tunney way ahead P4P):

Dempsey - 53-6-8, 6-2 in WT fights, champ for 7-years, best wins include Sharkey, Fulton, Miske x 3, Gibbons (closer to prime than the version Tunney faced), Willard, Firpo, Gunboat Smith x 2, Battling Levinksy (Tunney gets credit for beating him at LHW, Dempsey at HW, as per my criteria), Brennan x 2, Morris x 2, Flynn, Carptentier, Meehan.

Tunney @ HW only - 18-0, 3-0 in WT fights, champ for 2-years, best HW wins include past prime Dempsey x 2, past prime Greb, past prime Gibbons, Reinert x 2, Risko, Heeney.

 

certainly means something