Does anyone still have Dempsey as a top ten heavy? Top 15?

I do not rate Dempsey in the top ten. Of the pre-Louis heavies, I rate Johnson, Jeffries, and Tunney above him. Wills and Langford also.

I rate on the basis of accomplishments in the ring, Dempsey didn't beat the top men out there. He didn't fight Wills or Greb. He lost to Tunney.

There have been a lot of quotes about how other boxers said Dempsey was great, although in his own time and for some years later I think he was generally rated behind Jeffries,

but how is his opposition considered? Was anyone he defeated be considered an all time great fighter? Willard? Carpentier?

Gibbons is by some, but he was 32 and coming off a decisive loss to Greb the previous year and was a light-heavyweight.

Sharkey was very in and out.

One can only defeat the guys out there. The problem with Dempsey is he didn't actually do that and so he becomes boxing's hollow man.

On the up side, he was a great attraction and his aggressive style increased boxing's popularity a great deal.

 

It is not so much a case of me being high on Tate, as thinking that he briefly had a good paper claim to a title shot.

I mean if Wills was the standout contender, and Tate beat him albeit on a foul, then drew against him in the rematch, then that must correspond to a high paper ranking for Tate.

 

Let's apply that logic to the last 20 years, and also to Dempsey's career.

Lewis Klitschko was obviously a clash of giants.

More than a decade later Wladamir Klitschko breaks the drought, by fighting Povetkin and Pulev within a year of each other.

This should definitely be noted in Wlad's favor on a side note.

Now Povetkin was a very strong #1 contender, but I submit Pulev was not in a historic sense.

Nearly a decade later the drought is broken by Fury Wilder II, which was arguably a clash of giants, but the rankings were the result of a very bad decision.

Rocky Marciano often fought the #1 twice a year, just to put his career into perspective.

So did Dempsey fight the best guys out there?

I am fairly confident that Fred Fulton would have been the #1 contender, going into his fight with Dempsey, had rankings existed.

His run of form between the Langford fight and the Dempsey fight, might even make him a dominant #1 contender.

Of course Wills beat him.

Willard was of course the champion, and Jack Sharkey was the heir to Dempsey's throne many years later.

Tommy Gibbons held the #2 Ring ranking, and while I don't blame Wills for not fighting him, that meant that Gibbons could only go through Dempsey, who had already beaten him.

I don't think that Wills was necessary the standout contender, from the beating Fulton, to losing to Sharkey, but that still leaves a Wills shaped hole in the legacy.

 

Johnson: Yes
Jeffries: Yes
Tunney: Not a chance
Wills: Arguable
Langford: Arguable

 

Dempsey beat Gibbons a number 2, Fulton a likely 1, Sharkey a future champ, He dropped Tunney - even if Jack was soundly beaten otherwise. You can’t dismiss Dempsey out of hand. He missed Wills but his resume is good. Hall of fame worthy. But it’s been nearly 100 years after his last fight. I got him just outside the top 10 but firmly in top 15. If someone wants to keep him in their top 10 it could be debated. He was great

 

"Tunney: Not a chance"

This is a guy Dempsey did fight and lost to twice. Tunney was only two years younger. There is an excellent complete HD film of the second fight, and what stands out to me is how easily Tunney handles Dempsey with left jabs and right crosses.

 

Hi Buddy.
Interesting post , just having slight reservations about Dempseys resume being Hall Of Fame worthy, leading up to his title fight, the biggest/standout names I would suggest are : Gunboat Smith, Battling Levinsky, Miske, maybe Carl Morris, not awe inspiring on any level , Smith/Levinsky had seen better days I would say, granted he won the title from a fighter immensely bigger than him in all departments, but in Willard we had a ( whilst brave and courageous )a champ that was average to say the least, the following defenses against , Gibbons, Carpentier, Brennan, Miske, Firpo, and Gibbons, were yes, all winning efforts, but as fellow posters have pointed out, Carpentier fought mostly at LHW, Miske ( from articles over the decades ) was unwell, although this has been disputed on here, so may or may not be the case,
Firpo undoubtedly could punch, and was once again a huge adversary somewhat like Willard, and by all accounts was not all that skilled, he took care of Brennan alright fair play, as for Gibbons fine fighter that he was, Greb had previously won convincingly over him, sort of puts Dempseys win in perspective.
I am not down playing Dempsey, for his time he was a formidable fighter, and the poster boy for the roaring 20s, and for what it is worth I also have him teetering on my top ten, it's just that when I think of fighters with excellent resumes, and hall of fame worthy, it would be the likes of Langford/ Greb/ Charles/ SRR, not Dempsey I am afraid..... as always, just my opinion.
stay safe amigo, chat soon.

 

Yes, but Tunney's heavyweight resume, is as thin as Christian charity.

 

Okay. And Tunney having a thin heavyweight resume means what in evaluating Dempsey, who lost twice to him?

It strikes me as odd to argue Tunney doing little at heavyweight is an argument for Dempsey's greatness.

 

Well he wasn't arguing it on behalf of Dempsey's greatness more than he was arguing it on behalf of Tunney's lack of it.

Tunney may have beaten him twice, but Dempsey hadn't fought in over 3 years when he stepped in the ring with him the first time around and was noticeably slower and more crucially imo his reflexes had deteriorated greatly. Tunney made two successful title defenses, one riddled with controversy against an again past prime Dempsey, whom Tunney admitted he didn't know whether he would've survived Dempsey's follow up attack without the extended time to recover, and another against Tom Heeney who'd two fights earlier had drew with a fighter who was coming right off a brutal KO loss to the declined Dempsey.

Ranking Tunney ahead of Dempsey at heavyweight solely because he beat him is quite frankly ridiculous considering he did very little else.

 

That argument would go a bit like this:

Tunney got Dempsey when he was washed up, so their fight has little bearing on what would have happened prime for prime.

Furthermore, Tunney's resume is very heavily dependent on those wins over a past prime Dempsey, so in some ways thsi is more an issue for Tunney than it is for Dempsey.

Don't like that one?

OK, then Tunney retired in the absolute flower of his career, leaving himself with a very thin resume.

Many of his most important fights simply never happened.

While we might speculate that he was somewhat better than said resume suggest, we can only evaluate him based on what he accomplished in the ring.

 

Janitor wasnt suggesting Tunney's thin HW resume means Dempsey was great. He was citing it as the reason for him saying theres not a chance he agreed with you ranking Tunney above Dempsey at HW. To which Tunneys HW resume is most definitely relevant.

Tyson tends to rank above Buster Douglas despite losing to him, for the same reason. And Tyson didnt even have the excuse of being old(ish relative to the era), inactive for 3 years and past prime, that Dempsey has. Tyson/Douglas is an exagerated example relative to Dempsey/Tunney, but hopefully you get the conceptual point that a fighter can rank higher than a boxer he lost to, based on their respective entire career bodies of work.

Tunney beat Dempsey twice and ranks way ahead of him p4p based on their total respective fights in all divisions, imo. Dempsey clearly has a deeper win resume at HW.

 

Excellent post. Even if Tunney beat a prime Dempsey in the exact same manner, Dempsey still ranks higher considering Tunney did very little else.

 

I cannot see my way to rating Dempsey top 10.
Even top 15 is very questionable-unless historical legacy is considered, not purely boxing matters.
Not if head to head is weighted with any significance, since he was basically the size of a modern LHW.

It's all been said here, he missed several of the best & sat on his crown.
Of course Dempsey was easily better than Tunney at HW.
And Tunney was clearly better overall as a boxer, or P4P.
Tunney retired early & could have enhanced his legacy.
But I like that better than being relatively inactive for years, & missing folks like Willis & Greb.