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

I don't think stats have much to show us in boxing. Winning percentages mean very little in a sport in which all matches are manipulated.

For years the argument over hwo was the greatest HW ever was always between Louis and Dempsey. Obviously more champions came who were rated higher but many observers who saw these men up close and live were prepared to put Jack near or even at the top.

Whilst Louis must be up there with the very best there are big question marks next to Rocky, Foreman and Lennox. All had their doubters and all had their weaknesses. 20 years ago Foreman barely made an all-time top 20.

 

Yeah the fight was scheduled to occur on July 4th 1925. The most believeable rumor regarding why the fight never took place points to promoter Tex Rickard squashing the deal. The same Rickard who promoted the Johnson - Jefferies fight and had sworn never to promote another mixed black/white heavyweight fight. Rickard claimed that the fight didn't occur because he couldn't find a site to host the bout that wasn't a potential trouble spot. When the fight was signed, Willis was given a $50,000 signing bonus. Willis kept the money.

 

I actually wasn't aware of that. Could you find me some kind of a reference to support that. All I can find is references to the neutral corner rule being agreed upon before the Tunney fight and then being enforced from that point onwards.


http://www.ibhof.com/dempsey.htm

Before the fight, it was agreed upon that after a knockdown, the fighter scoring the knockdown would go to a neutral corner. But when Tunney hit the canvas, Dempsey hovered over the fallen champ, ignoring the referee's order that he retreat a neutral corner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Dempsey

Dempsey was losing the fight on points when he knocked Tunney down with a left hook to the chin in the seventh round, and landed several more punches. A new rule for boxing at the time mandated that when a fighter knocks down an opponent, he must immediately go to a neutral corner. But Dempsey seemed to have forgotten that rule (compare his fight with Willard where he almost stood over his downed opponent ready to strike again) and refused to immediately move to the neutral corner when instructed by the referee.

http://www.ibhof.com/ibhfhvy4.htm


As Tunney began to fall the challenger connected with a four-punch combination to his head. The champion hit the canvas with a thud that no one heard. The hundred thousand fans who were on their feet screaming also drowned out the radio announcer's voice, preventing the estimated 60-million people listening on radio from hearing his account.
Dempsey reacted the way he always had, remaining as close to the former champion as possible. But the Illinois State Athletic Commission rules stated that in the event of a knockdown, the opponent must go to the farthest neutral corner before the referee begins his count When referee Dave Barry motioned Dempsey toward the neutral corner, he replied, "I'll stay here." Barry then walked over to Dempsey and half pushed him in the proper direction.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1120922/index.htm

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Frazier was twice destroyed by Foreman. Nobody ever destroyed Dempsey.

Norton also beat Ali, should he also be above Dempsey?

Regardless we're talking about the difference of one place from what could be a list of over a hundred fighters. It's a little anal don't you think?

 

"Winning percentages mean very little in a sport in which all matches are manipulated."

If winning and losing doesn't matter, why debate anything about these fighters? I couldn't disagree more strongly with your post. There may be question marks next to Rocky, Foreman, and Lennox, but there are more and bigger ones next to Dempsey--at least for many observers.

Winning percentage is not a statistic in any sport. It is what sports are all about. A "statistic" as you are using it is some measurement which does not go to the heart of who won the contest--such as batting average in baseball, yards gained in football, rounds won in boxing, yards driven off the tee in golf, etc. None prove you actually won the contest being talked about.

On the other hand, if you wanted to know which was the best team in the National League in 1923, what other criteria could you use except winning percentage?

 

Fogey, if they had all fought the same fighters, around the same time, all under the same rules then you have an argument. As none of them did then winning percentages mean next to nothing in this context.

All of the fighters have their question marks... I don't think Dempsey's are any bigger than the others mentioned. His pre-championship career was superior to all of them. His championship career was not as good.

The question amrks are more down to the observers than anything else...

In the last 15 years Dempsey's stock has fallen whereas Marciano's has risen. Neither man has fought fot a long time but time changes perceptions.

 

You can compare how they did versus how other fighters of the same era did? Did Dempsey win at the greatest percentage of any heavyweight of his era? If you blindly put the records of various fighters next to one another, would you be certain which one was Dempsey's. Would his record stand out as the best? In his era, I think not. Tunney won at a higher percentage. Godfrey had a higher knockout percentage. Wills beat better fighters. There is nothing much that stands out in Dempsey's performance.

What about Louis? He won at by far the highest winning percentage of any heavyweight of his era. His knockout percentage is better than anyone other than Buddy Baer, and was better than Buddy's until his late comeback, and he defeated far more top fighters than any other heavy of his era.

Marciano? In an era when top fighters lost a great many fights, he did not lose at all. His winning percentage is far better than anyone else of his era, obviously. So is his knockout percentage. Others may have defeated more top fighters, but Marciano beat a surprising number for a man with a relatively short career, and he beat the best available.

The records of Louis and Marciano stand out. Dempsey's does not to anything like the same degree. I think that is a valid basis for evaluation.

I certainly don't think it is obvious that Dempsey's pre-championship career was better than Marciano's, at least. Who had Dempsey defeated who was better than even an old Louis? Layne certainly was in about the same class as Fulton. Matthews, Savold, and LaStarza were all men who were or had been top rated. Muscato, Reynolds, Beshore, and Shkor had been fringe contenders. Vingo a promising prospect. So Marciano beat some people while going 42-0 with 37 knockouts. I know Dempsey was fighting under difficult circumstances when young, but there are still a lot of defeats and draws and the men defeated are certainly not an unquestionably better bunch.

 

At best it's a jumping off point... What matters is ability and accomplishment both of which cannot be captured by a percentage. Jersey Joe Walcott has a poor percentage... Charles' does not reflect just how great he was.

If you put too much stock in numbers you end up in 2008 where fighters protect their unbeaten records by fighting as few risky opponents as they can get away with.

 

You make valid points, especially about recent fighters avoiding tough bouts, but I still think Louis and Marciano ran up records which stand out like sore thumbs in their own eras and which gives each of them a stronger claim to the highest status than Dempsey.

 

Wills and Dempsey signed a contract to fight in 1922 ,but it was not promoted.Regarding the neutral corner rule,it was in effect when Firpo met Dempsey ,but rather ambigously worded."When a contestant is down,his opponent shall retire to the farthest corner and remain there until the count is completed.Should he fail to do so,the referee and timekeeper may cease counting until he has so retired" . The important word is MAY.Referee Johnny Gallagher failed to ensure Dempsey went to the furthest corner,or indeed any corner.Dempsey stood over Firpo and as he rose was ready to clock him.After this fight the wording was changed MAY was replaced by MUSt .Another rule was altered after this fight,as a result of Dempsey being knocked out of the ring ,and assisted back in by Jack Lawrence writer for the NY Tribune,"you big****,get me back in there,get me back in there I'll fix him"Dempsey whose backside had ben torn open by colliding with Lawrence's typewriter was in a rage,struggling to get back inside the ropes he accidently hit judge Kid McPartland in the eye.the count was nine when Dempsey returned to the fray.Nat Fleischer had been instrumental in getting the wording changed regarding the neutral corner rule ,and he did the same regarding a fighter being knocked out of the ring .The ruling was clarified thus
"If a fighter did not return to the ring immediately the referee may count him out as if he were down". Fleischer felt that Dempsey should have been dsqd ,,because of the help he received getting back into the ring.Dempsey was lucky. The rule was amended to,"any boxer who was knocked out of the ring was required to return within ten seconds ,under his own power".Dempsey was fortunate that night he got away with several infringements ,when Firpo was down he stood over him circling behind him ,[as he had done with Willard],as Firpo arose Dempsey belted him down again another incident was as the referee demanded the fighters break,Firpo obediently stepped back ,Dempsey stepped forward and smashed home an uppercut to the jaw.If there was pandemonium in the ring ,the crowd was allmost as bad Babe Ruth took a swing at Mickey Walker ,after disputing the sitting rights to a bench,it must have been some night!

 

I'd say it is evidence in their favour, no doubt at all... But I guess we both agree that there's more to consider...

I enjoyed your points too...

 

For is time and primitve boxing training methods, he was a top quality fighter. It is too hard to say how he would have faired with the same training and nutrition that was developed in the post war era. I think nowhere near top5, but can be considered top 10 if you think about him in terms of p4p, as they were smaller in his days. Only way you should compare them really as he would be a cruiserweight or less in todays game. So people be wise and look at him in terms of p4p. Does he make top 10? Maybe.