I, also, think that Dempsey's ceiling was never discovered due to his rather lackadaisical attitude toward the championship and his conservative braintrust. I think he beats Wills. I think he has a good, not great chance, to beat Greb if it goes 15. But what I think he "could have done" in no way qualifies to boost his legacy. Oh well, if nothing else, that vaunted string of wins from 1917-19 does well to illustrate the difference between that and later eras.
I saw vaunted run.. as was instantly perplexed.. IMO Dempsey was the biggest beneficiary of the Romanticsm era and it's carried through till today. His run was great.. his level of opposition wasn't great.. yet he was still viewed as the best ever. As I relayed one time.. I used to love hearing my grandfather go on and on about how great dempsey was. How him and the family would gather around the radio and listen to his fights... Guess what.. my grandfather was blind and never actually w him fight. I believe many suffered from the same sensationalized writing of the day and took it to heart. If you believed all that was written in the newspapers you would think dempsey could single handily win the war against Germany using only his fists..
Not really, it would be an exercise in futility. You go ahead ,fill your boots my son.:good ps .I notice your penchant for ****-taking does not apply when directed at yourself.:think
From you, **** on me all you want. I actually respect what you have to say and would like to have your thoughts on this. It's not so much an indictment of Dempsey but a comment on the era and the fabrication of champions... a process that was repeated afterward.
I find it interesting how it is generally accepted that modern fighters records are to be scrutinized and criticized at every possible opportunity, but fighters of past eras should be immune to criticism and their records are to be left alone. This is especially the case if the past fighter has 'legendary' status, deserved or not. I don't have time to look closely, and put it in a historical context, but I don't see why anyone should be immune to criticism. People are too defensive about their favorite fighters, that much I know.
Sam Langford told the Atlanta Consitution newspaper on June 2,1922.."If Dempsey fights Harry Wills,...my money will be on Dempsey...he's the best fighter I've ever seen...he hits harder then Jefferies...and he's just as fast as Corbett"...
Where did Langford see Dempsey fight to reach these conclusions? How in the hell would he know if Dempsey hit harder than Jeffries?
i agree with your assessment Burt but we have to be careful not to assume fighters would've risen to an occasion or beaten others. it's who Dempsey actually beat that matters. Dempsey had great skills but it's hard to argue that he had a great resume in an all time sense
N, I repeatedly have posted that in my opinion Ali had the toughest contenders in his title reign as a whole...But in the course of human history a man transcends his peers for whatever reason unknown to us and would be more than successful in any era...A Caruso in tenors, a Babe Ruth in baseball, a Frank Gotch in wrestling etc. And I believe that a prime Jack Dempsey had special qualities in one package that would make him very very difficult to beat in any era of boxing . I base this evaluation on what contemporaries who saw Dempsey and fighters of later generations, and called him the best heavyweight they had seen, and my seeing certain offensive qualities in his few bouts on film that have impressed me enough to try to defend his legacy from some posters who try to degrade his abilities greatly...Furthermore to try to explain myself better i will use my favorite Heavyweight Joe Louis in this analogy...I believe Ali had better opposition than Louis during their title reigns, but I believe strongly that a prime Louis, beats any version of Clay/Ali ,both at their bests, THOUGH Ali fought a tougher group of heavyweights in the whole... And I say Jack Dempsey was equipped with everything required to make hell for any heavyweight in history, and I am on the side with a Sam Langford, Gene Tunney, Mickey Walker, Max Schmeling, Jack Sharkey, Archie Moore, Ray Arcel, Nat Fleischer, and others who extolled the fighting ability of the Manassa Mauler...He was THAT good, though he didnt meet the best overall opposition......But at the age of 32 ,old and rusty , Dempsey [probably kod Gene Tunney in the "long count", and perservered to ko a young prime Jack Sharkey in 1927...For an old creaky Dempsey, it shows what he must have been in his zenith...Cheers...
Oh i didnt know that we were only supposed to rate fighters on their wins before getting the title... Woops better re think my rankings now
If any modern fighter had that type of record they would be laughed out of town, the double standards on here are laughable. Objectivity. It would be nice to see some.