Harold Johnson vs Jack Dempsey

His nine fights were against total nobodies outside of Miske and Miske was a non entity after his loss to Dempsey.

Fleischer SAID he formulated that list AFTER Rickard had died. When it was published it was said that Fleischer asked Rickard to rank the top fighters. Id say it all depends on whether you want to believe Fleischer's story told over a decade later and Fleischer was known to stretch the truth in relation to what he did in regards to boxing. Regardless its the same point, Fleischer was being bankrolled by Rickard and had his office in Rickards building. The point is still the same. The magazine was a promotional shill just like it is now for Golden Boy.

 

Your the guy who makes a big deal about size not mattering, yet when Dempsey knocks out a couple of oversized lushes, you make a big deal about him being a monster finisher. I would be FAR more impressed with him knocking out highly skilled ATG 190lbers than a few unskilled oafs who couldn't hack it in any other era

Willard ducked black fighters. He would not fight 185lbers like Jeanette Langford. Would he have survived getting knocked out by Langford?

Willard did not have any fights against punchers. He only two punchers he fought, knocked him out.

At 37 years old 3 years inactive, it's debatable if he could have beaten anyone in the top 10 anymore. I would pick most 185lb champs to knock out that version of Willard.

29 year old Fred Fulton coming off a 35-1 winning streak was knocked out in one round by 185lb billy Miske. He was known for having a glass jaw.

Firpo didn't fight a whole lot of prime live contenders other than Dempsey and Wills to judge him on. Based on his skill level and non existent defense, I would pick most 185lb champions to stop him inside the distance

 

Back to the original question please!

 

Maybe if Dempsey had fought and taken care of his number 1 most logical, THEN we would give him a pass for fighting someone else.

 

Ok but first answer me why knocking out a few unskilled big men is more impressive than knocking out a highly skilled 190lber?

I would put way more stock into finishing ability if Dempsey finished off a master boxer like Harold Johnson instead of a 37 year old 4 year inactive Willard.

Would you agree?

 

It depends what you mean by impressive.

I would always give somebody more credit for beating a better smaller fighter, but if we are specifically assessing their finishing ability, then the size of their opponents has to be factored in.

There is a reason why nobody else has ever done what Dempsey did here.

 

Notice from Klompton everything related to Dempsey is one huge conspiracy.

No hwt champion, ever, received the acclaim that Dempsey received from the experts that saw him without indeed being an ATG talent. The scenario being portrayed occurred with Jack Dempsey but no other hwt champion? The experts were right with every other ATG hwt champion but wrong concerning Dempsey? Think about it.

 

Well in a way they were. Wills and Greb were so far above the rest of dempseys challengers that victories over both of them would look better than his entire title reign combined

 

Tommy Gibbons may have got a shot at the world heavyweight champion, Jack Dempsey, in Montana because he was from Minnesota. Ever since the fight game opened up again in Montana during the early 1920s, fight people from Montana and Minnesota were in contact with each other on a regular basis.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Who disappeared or moved back?

The only evidence you or anyone else has is Fleischers own word. Thats not evidence. Furthermore my point stands, Fleischer was nothing more than a mouthpiece for Tex Rickard, bankrolled by him and housed in his own office. You might as well argue that Ring magazine is impartial when it is owned by Oscar DLH and features an issue with his picture on the front page, back page, and an article about him despite the fact that he had been well retired by then.

Based on what? But, even if that were true, its ridiculous that he got a shot four years into Dempsey's reign when Dempsey had spent those four years avoiding his top two guys who had been chasing him since BEFORE he won the title. And thats the point. Dont pick a guy who DID NOT deserve it after three gimmes in a row over your top two guys and tell me you are a dominant champion.

When you spend 7+ years ducking them, yes, the argument becomes less about who was a halfway passable challenger and becomes one of "when the **** are you going to defend against the best?!?" Dempsey never did that so that scrutiny and that argument will haunt his legacy.

I didnt make a big issue of it. In fact I dont make much of either of his wins over Norfolk or Carpentier, but those names carried weight and would have influenced someone like Rickard who was writing his own rankings. To the joe on the street Carpentier meant a lot and a win over him would have legitimized his ranking to some. Carpentier had lost to worse people than Tommy by that point so its no surprise to me. Thats the difference though. These same so called experts who laud Dempsey also called Carpentier a master boxer and one of the best they had ever seen for years. Carpentier was no master boxer and he wasnt even close to being one of the best ever. He was never even the best at any weight he fought at during his own lifetime. These guys went on and on about him and again, Id put cash money on the fact that Ive seen more of him than most of those old timers have. When you call a one trick pony like Carpentier whose entire game was predicated on landing one big right hand a "master boxer" then you dont know **** about boxing. When you take a guy who lost to the best guys he faced 30 to 40 pounds below Dempsey and then try to tell me he was a legitimate challenger for Dempsey then we can agree to disagree.

Look the bottom line is what Ive said all along and I dont know how anyone with half a brain can even attempt to deny it. Dempsey was not a dominant champion. Period. You cannot duck your two top rivals for 7+ years and then claim to be a dominant champion while feasting on guys you hand picked.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about. Carpentier was the light hwt champion of the world and just like the lt hwt champions before and after him he got his hwt title shot. Carp was world wide known as a clever boxer with a dynamite right hand and he was just that. No one rated him as the greatest lt hwt but he was for many years considered one of the best fighters out of Europe. (And that is no huge stretch). All championship bouts especially for the hwt title are promoted. Promotions like Dempsey vs Carpentier you can find all through boxing history but just because this promotion involves Dempsey its prime in your mind to be castigated? Such horrific mangling and twisting of boxing history to suit your very slighted agenda!

 

At the end of the day, somebody had to be the third best heavyweight in the world.

There is no such thing as an era with only two contenders.