Heavyweight Champ with Worst Opponents?

With Lewis-Byrd or Ruiz, it can work both ways...if Lewis had refused to fight Tua in November 2000 and given him the IBF title, could Tua have managed to get himself a two or three year title run with the same opponents as Byrd? Pretty possible.

 

I have nothing against Jack Dempsey and I don't want to offend anyone here, but over the past 3 weeks this guy has become drastically overrated on this forum.

I appologize for my bluntness, but that's how I feel.

 

But when i said the public can be decieved, i was not even starting a debate on who has the better resume between the two. All i said was the public can sometimes be decieved and i really don';t see what's who over sensitive about that

 

Well back to topic, maybe Woddy was talking of the point that a guy who won just one of his previous 5 fights (over a guy 3-1-3-2) was considered by the public a deserving challenger. Dempsey had beaten Miske in their previous encounter. Under this criteria where was Meehans rematch?

 

Did Meehan ask for a rematch? Miske did and he got it

 

If you check the New York Times archive, there was talk of a Meehan match to take place in early 1920. It was to be in Newark over 8 rounds or in Reno over 25 rounds! Meehan was supposedly in favor of the 25 round distance.

 

i see, although that seems odd given that he never wanted to fight Dempsey in anything longer then 4 rounds

 

Yeah, there is something fishy about the 25 round talk from Meehan. I don't know if with his paunch he could stay standing for 25 rounds if he were in the ring alone.

 

:good

 

I suggest we let 'amsterdam' arbitrate in the matter of dempseys position among the atgs at heavy...:rasta

 

given that he thinks Barrera would ko saddler in 2 rounds, it would be interesting :good

 

But today he has admitted tommy hearns at 147 (ie all the way back to 1980!) would beat the 2007 world champ paul williams by ko,in the first round no less.....
Maybe tis the season to be jolly?
ps; when is the cut off point from the primitive era to the current 'supernatural' one?

 

I dunno about this stuff about Dempsey being "over-rated" on this forum over the last 3 weeks, I havent been here all that much.But I will say I have ALWAYS rated him very highly.
I put him in the same category as Ali, Louis etc.

All this crap people are coming out with about Dempsey having a weak legacy and facing crappy contenders isn't really being backed up.
Gibbons, Brennan, Miske, Carpentier and Firpo had very respectable records.

Sure, Harry Wills - who he should have fought - was better, and yes Dempsey was inactive. I dont dispute that. He was criticized in his own time on both counts. Fairly.

Someone here claims Dempsey fought nowhere near the number of "ranked contenders" as did Lennox Lewis.
That's silly, since they didn't have RANKINGS until The Ring magazine started them in 1924 or 1925 !

The anti-Dempseys will say anything to discredit him. Sadly, I think they believe every word of it. Proper attention to history is needed, not just selectively picking on a few details, and distorting them if need be. That's bad form, IMO.

 

Frankly, I think too many people get overly emotional everytime anyone has made an attempt to disect and analyze Jack Dempsey's career. They often mistake valid crticisms as " bashing", or whatever term fits the bill. The criticisms that have been made regarding Dempsey are perfectly valid ones, and nor do they reflect ingnorance on the part of the one who makes them. Facts are facts, even if they don't always depict someone in the best light. Ratings or no ratings. Lewis fought a larger volume of world class opponents than Dempsey did. This is not obsurd. Dempsey's defending his title against a man like Billy Miske who had only won maybe 3 out of his previous 7 fights and gave him such a shot out of pure charity, is where the real obsurdity comes into play. If Lewis, Holmes, Tyson, or Klitscko had given a shot to a guy who had such credentials and was suffering from an illness as well, we'd never here the end of it from Dempsey supporters, who are the same people who make comments like " Lewis was knocked out by a limited fighter named McCall, therefore he couldn't possibly beat an all time great. " or " Tyson was beaten by Douglas, imagine what Louis or Dempsey would do to him ".
And of course my all time favorite " Holmes padded his record with pretenders, never unified, never gave ramatches, never fought Greg ****ing Page".

I am a boxing fan from all different angles. I like classical fighters, contemporary fighters, current fights, old fights, etc. Since joining this forum however, I have encountered many of posters and engaged in many debates that had the tendency to take a fighter whom I traditionally loved and made me a hater. Contrary to what many think, the die hard classical advocates have vastly surpassed the contemporary supporters in their idiocy. I have heard some of the worst hypocritical arguments, half truths, falacies, falshoods, and oversimplifications in just the past few months. I publicly called one poster on it, basically saying that he was full of ****, and he put me on his ignore list for being honest. He did both of us a favor as far as I'm concerned. This is an adult forum. If you can't back up your claims without telling lies or providing proof, then you're going to get criticized for it.

......Plain and simple........

 

Well, I advocate a proper historical investigation too, and I'm not one to get emotional.

If there are seriously people without any anti-Dempsey agenda saying that Jack Dempsey faced the worst opposition of all the heavyweight champions, then we can debate that. Or not.

I admit I may be mistaken about what I interpret as "Dempsey bashing".

Still, I am covinced that some people here are vastly UNDER-RATING Dempsey. And I reckon Dempsey belongs in the highest category of greatness.

I dont think Billy Miske's credentials were as bad has you portray. He was a legit contender but no one is building him up as a mighty challenge, he was a respectable opponent.Dempsey dispatched him impressively. It's not like Miske had been losing to unknowns, his spotty record leading up to the fight was mostly draws and a couple of points losses among other top contenders. None of them were knocking Miske out.

To make a comparison, George Chuvalo challenged a PEAK Muhammad Ali coming straight off a loss to a largely forgotten Italian fighter, and he went the full 15. I dont look back and say it was a worthless win for Ali, I dont ignore the positives in Ali's performance or make out that Chuvalo was worse than all the evidence would point to.

The legend of Miske already being near to his death bed needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. A glance at his subsequent record suggests he had plenty of strength and vitality left in him.

I never hear anyone ranting about how a peaking Lennox Lewis fought Tommy Morrison shortly before Tommy was diagnosed with HIV.
I heard that guy Mavrovic never fought again due to serious illness.Lewis isn't admonished for it. Such arguments would be rightly condemned as absurd.

But Dempsey gets called up for this "dying man" Miske legend even though Miske fought again and performed very well afterwards.