When you consider the state of some of the "names" he beat, it isn't that impressive. His championship reign is a farce, a carefully constructed fiction penned by Rickard and Kearns. They deserve great credit for their management and promotion.
Superb. A good mix of punchers and boxers. A good mixture of size and boxers. If he'd added Greb and Wills (no gimme in either case) I think he'd be a lock for #3 on my own list. As it is, anywhere between three and fifteen is ok by me based upon what he did in the ring.
Please list these good mix of boxers and punchers because outside of Sharkey these guys looked dreadful on film. And make sure you add a asterisk next to the Sharkey win
Mcgrath you talk about size. What does size mean without skill? Wladimir Klitschkos opponents had size but they would have mopped the floor with dempseys big opponents. Povvetkin pulev haye chagaev ibragimov would have boxed the ears off of firpo Fulton 4 years inactive Willard
Nah, i don't think it needs one. The good punchers are Luis Firpo, Jess Willard, Carl Morris, Fred Fulton and I would probably like to add Bill Brennan but I guess people wouldn't like that. The good boxers are Jack Sharkey, Billy Miske, Battling Levinsky, Georges Carpantier (overrated, but I think it's ok to call him a "good boxer) and Tommy Gibbons, who I really really rate as a boxer. Pretty good mix that.
You are correct to identify the wide range of styles of opponent he faced, as one of the key strengths of his resume. Also to identify the fact that he missed a couple of key names, as the main weakness.
When you consider the state of some of the "names" he beat, it isn't that impressive. His championship reign is a farce, a carefully constructed fiction penned by Bernd Bounter and Tom Loafer. They deserve great credit for their management in gaining every advantage. :think
I agree had he defeated Greb and Wills he'd be number 3 on my list as it is I think somewhere between 7 and 12 is fair.
I think Dempsey had a good run up until the title and had a pretty good mix of styles as defenses. Inactivity hurts him 3 year off but that was pretty consistent for the times. Dempsey stood out as electric and powerful and we would not see such another standout until Joe Louis
This is a gross overstatement. You could argue that he should have fought this fighter instead of that fighter, but the guys he fought were legit contenders. In that sense it is like saying that Lennox Lewis's reign was a farce, because he fought Michael Grant and David Tua, instead of Chris Byrd and John Ruiz.
Beating Wills and Greb would have been more impressive than beating all those opponents combined(save Sharkey)
Not necessarily. Neither of them ever held the heavyweight title for a start, and both missed a lot of key contenders, so it is hard to quantify how good they were. I don't think you can just arbitrarily say, that they were better than everybody Dempsey fought put together.
Again, look where these "names" were when Dempsey fought them. Firpo was a complete media fabrication courtesy of Rickard's influence. Who the hell did he beat? A 42 year old Willard? Weinert? Is that all it requires to be a name? The above mentioned Willard had gone 10 middling rounds in 4 years and was 38 when Dempsey got to him. No discredit to Jack, Willard was the man at the time... but who really thinks that version of Jess was any great shakes? Morris was on a horrible slide, losing more than winning when Dempsey met him. The local newspapers weren't even sure he would be showing up such was his reputation at the time. Fulton was dangerous but have proven and would later completely prove to be chinny. In retrospect how impressive was the victory? In the end, the biggest names mentioned with Dempsey are the two guys he avoided and the guy who finished his career. The rest is a bit shallow and contrived.
