George Godfrey in 1925 certainly was. He might not have been the top contender, but he would have been a credible contender. There is a point that the color line cut off much of the black talent at the roots. With opportunity walled off, young black men probably spurned boxing for other outlets. If any job at all was available it was probably preferable to getting no training and having to wear the cuffs or take dives against inferior white opponents. As for Dempsey, and also Tunney, they didn't cause this situation but it affects my view of their careers if contrasted with let's say Marciano or Wlad Klitschko, who fought in non-color line eras. Dempsey deserves criticism for fighting no one at all for three years while champion. Jack Renault for one would have been a decent white championship challenger.
Yeah, as a fighter he's not overrated at all because he was really good. Taking his resume into account, he is overrated by some people. His best wins are not extremely impressive and he has a few black holes (like weak defenses and not fighting Wills, even if that's not his fault). I still can't see him below top 20.
All the great heavyweights are overrated - all of them. So relative to each other, probably not, but in boxing, yeah he is.
In his day, he was VASTLY overrated, much like Jeffries. Now days, the pushback from the overrating over the years has leveled things out to where I think he's about right.
He said she said...again nothing tangible to point to. What did John Lester Johnson say...after he broke Dempsey's ribs in New Yorkk and sent him scurrying back home. Where it was safe I guess. Dempsey's record is like dining at a French Restaurant..there is alot fluff, alot of show but you leave a bit hungry.
It kind of depends on how it was meant though. If Langford thinks Dempsey is better than Jeffries, Johnson and Wills, he thinks him the best heavy he saw. And that's valid. Langford was speaking at a time when p4p wasn't as fully realised as it is now. If you were the best you were the best. Langford himself travelled from 140 to HW. In a literal sense, the statement is perfectly defensible.
Well he was struggling very badly with his vision by 1922, certainly. But there's no reason to believe he was blind in 1919, and certainly no evidence of his blindness in 1918.
looking at his resume, not during his rise to the title, but a little for his title reign. He cashed in as a poster boy too much. If he'd been more serious whilst at the top he might have taken Tunney.