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

Langford, Wills and Jim Johnson were all beaten by McVea, though he didn't KO any of them. But you don't have to KO a fighter to beat him, do you?

The man holds wins of Wills and Langford. He's no world beater and certainly not a title contender. But don't you think he'd be a better scalp for Dempsey than the likes of Big Jack Hickey?

I agree. I didn't say he was on his death-bed, of course, just that he was unwell and not to be considered as a "live challanger". If there is a myth, it is that Miske was unwell and recovered at all...i've never seen it hinted at, anywhere.

You're a Willard fan - that's OK by me. As I said when I addressed the fight, it doesn't matter what you yourself think of Jess, the facts surrounding the fight remain the same - as I described.

 

This is fine, I've never claimed that Dempsey didn't fight good fighter though, he did. I'm saying that Dempsey never fought the best fighters, and he didn't.

Sure, and I don't criticise him for this - I addressed the title run because I think it is overated, and in NOW WAY accounts for his poor run as champion - like it might for Liston or Johnson, for example.

Yeah, this is a good win, as I said, I think that Demspey is generally under-credited for it.

If he fought with Bright's Disease, you can't credit Jack for this win. It doesn't matter if Miske beat Poseidon last time out.

Also, yeah, he didn’t fight Wills, and yes, being that Wills was the top contender for so long Dempsey certainly should have tried harder to make the fight happen, but given the circumstances, the political climate of the time and the attitudes of those closest to Dempsey, it’s understandable why the fight didn’t happen.[/QUOTE]

No, it's not. There was HUGE political pressure for the fight to happen in New York city. The reason it didn't happen was that Rickard didn't fancy it. If you have a promoter that doesn't want to match you with the best, get a new one would be my advice. Ricky Hatton managed to do this.

If you DON'T get a new promoter and fight the best, your legacy will suffer. Enormously, if the man you fail to fight is the outstanding HW of his generation, and on paper, out of your class.

Greb wanted the fight. Kearns was very clear. He DIDN'T want the fight. "Not Dempsey's fault". OK, but again, you got a manager that won't match you with the best get a new one. Otherwise your legacy suffers.

Two things

1 - It does make him less of a fighter in terms of all term ranking and legacy. Otherwise, Greb's insane activity counts for nothing because the reverse must also be true - so a fighter who fights many great fighers gets no credit.

2 - Dempsey's title opposition was not soft, it was just much softer than it should have been, that is my whole point. Relative to what was available, Dempsey fought soft touches for easy money. That's a poor champ.

I criticise the win because in my opinion Willard posed no threat.

As you'll see, in my original post, I praise Dempsey's performance to the hilt. Just not the win.

Those two could fight 100 times and WIllard would never win.

 

The only person determined to "screw over a non-human entity" was Rickard, and, by association, Jack Dempsey. New York wanted this fight instead of the Tunney fight, although it was hovering elsewhere for years.

Yeah.

It should be and is - I've dealt with the specifics of why it was left out of the original post elsewhere.

 

I have no objection to it being included in this discussion, people seem to think it is important. But, as you've pointed out the Meehan loss must also be included.

I think this hurts Dempsey's top 5 case more than helps it.

 

See, this is my point entirely. People go on and on about how it was "not possible" to make these fights and "not Dempsey's fault". But I don't see it that way. What it was, was desperately convinient. New York wanted the Wills fight, Dempsey (or his people didn't). Langford wanted to fight Dempsey, Dempsey (or his people) didn't want to fight Langford. Greb wanted to fight him, Dempsey (or his people) didn't want the fight to happen.

So **** on that "they were black, it couldn't happen" talk. The pattern here is these guys were serious challanges to Dempsey, not their colour.

Dempsey never fought a fighter in his class while he was champion.

These men are ALL in his class. And Dempsey doesn't fight them...for a variety of reasons supposedly but only one reason really.

Either way, I don't care, fight the best or live with a weakened legacy, one that can't possibly see you in the top 5, all time for your weight class.

 

Just about? Yeah, probably that's fair. Just about. Almost, not quite...he "almost" fought some of the best fighters of his era, and didn't fight the very best. Fair?

[qote]And I don’t think Wills resume is really that much better than Dempsey’s.[/quote]

That's a mighty lonely opinion you hold. Wills only has Ali for competition in terms of win resume in my view. Dempsey is not in that company.

.

My understanding - Miske was ill when he fought Dempsey and went on to recover. I am not an expert on Miske, if someone can show me otherwise I will be happy to revise my opinin, which currently is - no credit.

It's nice that Dempsey's biggest fan. I'll roll with the details as set forth by the New York commisin at the time. If your (or Nat's) versin is true, Demspey is perhaps the unluckiest champion of all time in terms of being allowed to take on the best.

Max, this is all just air. "As a human"? You want to appraise him as a human? I'm interested in his legacy and all time standing as a fighter. I don't care about his humanity, really. I want to measure who he fought and beat and how he did it versus the other fighters in his class, the best. He does not measure up well. He avoided the best of his generation. Bottom line. The rest is an air and noise.

Head to head, he is a monster in my view. The only fighter I make a heavy favourite against him is Ali. I would possibly make him favourite to beat a couple of guys I rate ahead of him including Marciano and Wills.

However, all the Heavies in my top 15 rate highly head to head.

Outside of Wills and Greb??? Is this a joke? OUtside of his number one contender and a WHITE fighter who bossed him in training? These are MASSIVE holes in his resme, not small ones, the two fighters with the biggest chance of beating him with whom he shared an era, probably.

I would hav liked for him to have fought Langford in 1921, or perhaps even as his first defence having (justifiably) ducked him earlier in his career and having admitted to beng frightened of him (which impressed me - in terms of his humanity).

Max, I like Jack Dempsey. I really do. I watch Dempsey-Firpo quite a bit and I like what I understand of the man. And as PP says, I give him credit as one of the most exciting fighters of all time. But he is overated by many including your good self.

If prime Ali or prime Louis lost in these circumstances, there would be trouble. And here is a fighter that Jack struggled with on mulitple occasions that Greb dominated. More evidence that Jack may have struggled with Harry, had Demspey had the guts to insist on taking him on.


Dempsey failed to fight

His #1 contender, the best paper HW of his era.

A man he ducked and and admitted to be frightened off.

A man who bested him in sparring and had a better HW resume than most of the guys Dempsey DID fight.


Not good enough. And sure as **** not good enough for top 3. Or top 5. IN my view, top 10.

 

Purely in the terms you describe, I agree. I'd add Wills. What about Jackson and Jeffries? Your opinion?

 

Of course, but you would hope that the choices of the more informed posters would reflect logic as based in reality as opposed to favourites, which, for me, is the only way you can place Dempsey in the five.


Rating him above Jack Johnson or Rocky Marciano seems pretty illogicial to me.

 

I have Jeffries above Dempsey - interesting though, noted.

Robinson does for me. It's of deep concern to me. However, there are differences - first of all, Robinson was an ambitious and active boxer who fought and beat many great fighters and champions.

But there are parallels. Both failed to take on the best of their era, for example. The biggest differenc though - Dempsey's Kid Gavilan (Tunney), beat him. Twice.