Ray Arcel on the black fighters of the 30's.

Does Arcel’s opinion on Dempsey inherently or by extension render any other opinion he might have irrelevant?

 

I don't pretend to know more than Arcel. But when he uses his knowledge in a way so obviously biased, when he's talking about Dempsey... well, I'm sorry if it offends some people here, but then I prefer to form my own opinion!

 

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

I don’t agree with their assessment of Dempsey being the greatest, but respect their opinions. Also I wish I knew as much as they had forgotten about the sweet science.

 

Pure hyperbole. It's always nice to be able to say things like this that can never be proven.

 

Well I stand corrected. I never read that particular article before.
Thanks....

 

So you use your knowledge to form level-headed hypotheses and Ray Arcel uses his to form "obvious bias."

Got it. Just waited to make sure I had it right.

 

"Arcel’s verdict on the Manassa Mauler was thus: “Dempsey would have absolutely beaten any fighter who came after him – without a doubt. I know all about Joe Louis and how he knocked guys’ teeth out. I have every respect for Joe – I rate him number two. But Dempsey would have killed Louis, George Foreman, any of those guys. What Jack had was God-given – you can’t develop the kind of talent he had.

“Marciano? Same result. Dempsey would have murdered Rocky. I tell you, Jack would have chased everyone out of the ring. I trained Max Baer a couple of times and often got asked how good that booming right of his was and whether it was as good as anything Dempsey had. Are you kidding? It wasn’t even close.

“Mike Tyson might have got through a round with Dempsey, maybe two. People always asked me what Jack’s weaknesses were. That’s the point – he didn’t have any.”


Now when I see something like this, what would you suggest I do? Should I say, OK Arcel knows best, so I'll take his word for it... or should I be allowed to question his judgement?

Also, if you can't see, that the above is a serious case of bias... then I don't know what to say!

 

I don't agree with what he says here, but why don't we just call everything you write biased then too? After all, someone here might see it that way, right? Nailed that one, nice work.

Hope you'll pardon us all if we see a little more merit in the opinion of someone like Arcel over you. Most of us are strange like that.

 

So what have I said in this thread, that is as biased as Arcel's opinion on Dempsey?

 

Arcel was a great trainer, but he was about as objective as any other old man half-remembering fighters he saw decades earlier through rose tinted glasses.

I don't know what black fighters he is referring to, but the 1930s had black world champions at heavyweight, light-heavyweight, middleweight, welterweight, lightweight, featherweight and bantamweight (and there were a couple of Filipinos in there too), so they clearly weren't all being frozen out.

 

THIS.

 

Or maybe a guy that was in boxing from WW1 well into the 1980s and worked with Duran, Holmes, Ezzard Charles and has seen more rounds of boxing than you and everybody you know combined, as well as knowing the ins and outs of the business as well as anybody ever has a valid opinion and perhaps you are smug, online know it all?
I mean, if anybody has an opinion on boxing that should be taken with a grain of salt....run down a list of the world champions that you have managed and trained.