The way he whooped his contenders was impressive. His resume is still a tad overrated for an ATG heavy.
I think saying "Dempsey was the greatest fighter ever" is a far more reasonable statement than saying he "looks **** on film". It's weird how he's become such a target for some people around here. Some people jump in on any thread or post about Dempsey and say something derogatory about him.
This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
Both statements are way off base, greatest of all time is pretty laughable in terms of resume and standards of performances, especially the losing and drawing performances He doesn't look ****, but technically he has many weaknesses, he doesn't have a jab, often jumps in with low hands leaving himself wide open to counters. He's also basically a LHW himself and not very strong. 1 thing he was excellent at was swinging for the fences with plenty of stamina, and as a hooker at mid range he's a very potent fighter To be fair he can get away with these mistakes against many fighters and Ali has technical weaknesses too but he is much harder to outbox
Its only very very occasionally that a movement like that is anything other than reactionary. That is, it is unusual for a group of unconnected individuals to launch a random attack on a fighter from history. I believe that it is a direct reaction of a persistent overating of the fighter, and therefore, natural. That is to say, we still have people on the forum that rate Dempsey as the greatest fighter in history and top 3 at HW. I consider some type of reaction to that is natural. I consider the intensity of that reaction in direct relation to the level to which he is overated.
Yes a Dempsey is being "underated' now as is a Joe Louis who in his time was considered the "greatest" heavyweight ever by many,and today is lucky to get in the "top 10" by many posters who get their kicks deflating historical boxers of the past...Ray Robinson today by many posters who know squat, is relegated to the "overated' status by many posters as well...So it boils down to I believe, the opinions of the consensus of top echelon boxing people who saw those fighters at their best and regardless of naysayers of today I still have Dempsey and Louis as the best two heavyweights on a H2H basis...:hi:
With all due respect Burt, this isnt true. In the Boxing.com poll he was one of only four fighters to rate at #1. If that's underating i shudder to think. And Louis is underated? In what universe? He's almost - almost - universally #1 or #2, more usually #2.
Hasn't it all got out of proportion now? Even the fighters that Dempsey beat are suffering from "skirmish attacks". For example, is Jess Willard attacked for any reason, other than that he is a big heavyweight who Dempsey beat? Colateral damage?
It is reprehensible. Willard was a mountain of a man, a specimen primed and versatile. The fancy set truly predicted murder in this bout and not the way it actually almost happened. Dempsey worked beyond Willard's clever defense and footwork and laid in with a vicious attack against the young King of the Ring. Before Willard could work up his customary lather, 148 bones were broken in his face. But Willard, ever tough, spit out his jaw bone and continued for two more rounds. They just don't make them like that anymore. Can you imagine what this Willard would do to one of these modern softies like a Holmes or a Bowe? Perish the thought.
True I just saw a thread the other day: Does Ray Robinson still deserve the Sugar moniker now Shane Mosley has surpassed him
4 pages....i'm gonna just put dempsey's name into the title of every thread i make and watch the post count fly!
