How was Jack Dempsey

Like throwing a red flag in front of a bull ...

 

Amen.

You would think these whippersnappers didn't have a library card to read up on the Manassa Mauler.

 

Amen.

You would think these whippersnappers didn't have a library card to read up on the Manassa Mauler.

 

...the hell is a library? :huh

 

he signed to fight wills twice for gods sake who would of been an easy win. Greb said that'd he'd love to fight Dempsey for four rounds after that he knew he would eventually get KO'd many people think the fireman jim flynn was a fix including myself. Tunney gave old man jack all kinds of hell yet he still almost knocked him out in the 2nd fight (all due respect to the fighting marine) If there is one thing I do hold against dempsey its inactivity during his title reign that makes me mad that he was out partying with movie stars and chasing skirts rather than knocking people out.

 

1)can't give dempsey credit for a wills win when he never managed to fight him despite being #1 contender

2)greb isn't likely to win but again, a top contender dempsey never managed to fight. despite the infamous sparring match

3)flynn may have been a fix but unless proven or clear fight film shows up it's still a loss

4)tunny did not beat a prime dempsey. credit for his dominance but he was past best

5)massive waste of talent during his reign...agree he should have fought and won more

 

Seriously ?

Who is to say how much a fighter is overrated ? Where does this knowledge of where he 'should be' rated come from ?

I don't take these lists and placements even half as seriously as some people around here (ie. I don't consider them very meaningful) and if they are going to exist at all surely a plurality of opinions is better than some orthodoxy or consensus that is 'enforced by ridicule or insults.'

I tend to think your rating of Sonny Liston should raise as many eyebrows than having Dempsey that high, but that's just another opinion. I wouldn't expect to be taken too seriously or given much leeway if I started making my point by making out Liston was always a complete bum, merely a bar room brawler, or that he looks like he can't even fight on film.
There are a few people here who just make negative stuff up about Dempsey and shower **** on him, and twist the facts, and you think that's "natural" because he 'should be' #11 on a list instead of #3 ?

I think Dempsey is way over-scrutinized.
I'd be happy to see him rated #15 or #1 on a list, without having a fit.
On most polls, (I'm guessing now), he tends to fall more towards the #8 - #12 kind of mark, and not top 3 ... so I'm not sure why this "persistent overrating" is considered such a "danger" that it must be attacked with moronic zeal. I'm not sure what the threat is :huh
I don't buy that it is natural.
I don't think it's any different than the few people who turn up on these forums calling Rocky Marciano or (to a lesser extent) Joe Louis "a bum" and showering insults on them.
The only difference seems to be that a few intelligent and mature postors have allied themselves with such silliness in the case of Dempsey, making it acceptable to **** on Dempsey, and being egged on to do it.

A phenomenon that is just plain WEIRD, imo.

 

I wonder if that poll that had Dempsey as the best boxer of the first half century also had Ty Cobb add the best baseball player. It would explain a lot.

 

But there seems to be nothing to backlash against.

burt is from the Joe Louis generation, he was watching fights almost 70 years ago, so it's to be expected that he rates Louis and Dempsey above Muhammad Ali. And is far from a BAD thing that he does.

janitor tends to stick up for Dempsey ... and Jeffries, and Johnson, and Fitzsimmons, Tommy Burns, Stanley Ketchel ... and all fighters from 100 + years ago.

I'm happy to see Dempsey rated up there or down there. I'm less thrilled with the insults and mistruths, and find that bit odd.

Others who rate Dempsey highly mostly freely admit that they admire his style, his punching and his prime head-to-head ability. They are believers, based on what they see or read. That's no different to how other fighters are rated.

I just don't see any rational reason for a "backlash" against a fighter who hasn't fought in over 80 years, and has not widely been considered the greatest heavyweight or greatest fighter in at least the last 40 - 50 years !
He's from way too far back to warrant a backlash now, imo.

Most of us here grew up in the era of Muhammad Ali or later, and had Ali as the greatest instilled in us. Many of us saw the rise of Tyson. Younger members grew up post-Tyson and with Tyson and Ali being the aforementioned heavyweights, with Louis foremost among the pre-Ali names. Jack Johnson has probably stirred more interest than Dempsey in the last 30 or 40 years. I'd described possible swings in Tyson's rating over the last 20 years as being "over-rating"-"backlash"-"rehabilitation". And I'd say Ali stands up well in the face of any embryo of a backlash.
But I don't think the people attacking Dempsey even remember a time when he occupied anything close to centre stage, so I cannot regard it as a backlash.

I think maybe, and unfortunately, somehow, Jack Dempsey has come to represent to these people something of the time that they feel justified in attacking. Namely, racial discrimination and injustice in America.

 

Babe Ruth was top baseball player in that poll.
Cobb was next.

 

Well, some of the posts are quite blatant. They spell it out.

 

Yeah.
But ... (and maybe I'm focussing too much on certain posts, but that's my concern at the moment) ... the high esteem Dempsey was held in bygone years is often put down to "old white men favouring white fighters", like these were all such bigoted men they were unwilling to give black fighters credit as fighters. I doubt that was the case. Fighters were generally revered as boxing greats because they were great.