Is Jack Dempsey a Top 10 Heavyweight All-Time?

More to the point, they are a definite step up from Dempsey's oppostion, except perhaps for Tunney whom Dempsey did not defeat.

 

And Walcott had often been placed in the top 20 all time heavyweights, while Moore and Charles are often rated among the top p4p fighters.

Cockell was a former lightheavy, but then again so were Tunney and Miske, and Gibbons WAS a lightheavy when he stepped into the ring with Dempsey. Carpentier weighted either 172 or 164 depending on source.

 

Hell yeah! not top 5 for me though

 

No one is seriously contending that Marciano's title reign wasn't better than Dempsey's, are they?

For me, no fighter who worked along the colour line for his entire career has any business being in the top 10.

 

Charles and Moore Are p4p prominents ,but at LH! And Dempsey weighed 180 to Willard's 245,though he was listed as 187.Walcott's renaissance is fairly recent , in the 50's and 60's he was cosidered a moderate Champ ,as was Charles,I have Ring and BI magazines from the 50's confirming this.The divide between LH and H during the 20's was less obvious as many heavies were not huge men.Actually I was playing devil's advocate here ,trying in my modest way to illustrate how easy it is to intepret facts to your own point of view.

 

I think Dempsey as a fighter has to be judged rather like Johnson,ie for his career before he became Champion,both Jack's cleared out the division PRIOR to becoming Champion.

 

He cleared out Harry Wills? Marciano certainly cleared out the division more thoroughly than Dempsey did.

 

Charles actually outweighed Marciano in their 2nd fight and Moore was 1/4 lb lighter. Whom did Dempsey fight that anyone would have definitely considered better than Charles or Walcott other than again perhaps Tunney, whom he did not defeat? Willard was about as old as Walcott only he had been inactive for three years. Sharkey was viewed as just as middle-row, if not moreso, than Walcott or Charles.

I don't know exactly why Marciano was dragged into this thread, but my position is that Marciano fought and beat the best of his time while Dempsey did not. To me that gives Marciano an indisputable edge. If not, your position is that a fighter should be rewarded for not fighting the best available opposition, in which case why should anyone ever fight the best opposition.

I would point out that Charles and Moore fought many fights at heavyweight and defeated far more top heavyweights than Carpentier or Gibbons, or even Tunney. Tunney would not have much of a heavyweight resume if Dempsey were not on it.

 

I dragged Marciano into this thread ,I thought I had explained myself ,I was trying to show how facts can be interpreted to suit ones point of view.Willard had been inactive for 3 years? So had Dempsey when he fought Tunney.Since you seem determined to mount a defence of Marciano, and compare it to Dempsey,when none is required , I'll give you your stick to beat Jack with Harry Wills,ok Dempsey didnt fight him,politics kept them apart,personally I think Dempsey knocks him out ,no matter.You have One man you can postulate Dempsey avoided,[though he did sign to fight him] back to Rocky" I fought em all "Marciano,How about Coley Wallace,Clarence Henry,Nino Valdes,Bob Baker?

 

It could be said Dempsey (or his management) avoided Greb as well.

 

The facts are that there were other contenders, such as Harry Greb, Jack Renault, and George Godfrey, that Dempsey did not fight while he took three years off.

Of the men you mention
1. Henry defeated Baker in late 1951 after Marciano ko'd Layne and Louis. Henry then proceeded to lose to Harold Johnson and Moore. He took a year off, beat Baker, but was then beaten by Jimmy Slade and Tommy Jackson. He was simply not a top contender while Marciano was champion and was not as highly rated as men the Marciano was fighting before Marciano won the championship.

2. Baker moved to high in the ratings with wins over a lot of second-tier guys. When he moved up, Henry ko'd him. He stumbled through 1952 in a close series with Gilliam while dropping out of the ratings. Satterfield ko'd him in 1953. Moore in 1954. Baker then launched a comeback, again against largely second-tier fighters, and Al Weill pumped him as a Marciano challenger in 1955, but an outcry from sportswriters and the public for Moore led to the Marciano-Moore fight.

3. Wallace pushed into the ratings in 1952 but was stretched a few weeks before Marciano won the title by Jimmy Bivins. Marciano, from what I have read, really wanted to fight Wallace, but Charles ko'd Wallace and Wallace faded totally from the picture.

4. Valdes--The one man on your list that Marciano could have and probably should have fought in the spring of 1955 instead of Cockell. Valdes, though, blew a elimination fight with Moore and was beaten by Satterfield. He was earlier beaten by Johnson. While I think Marciano should have fought Valdes, Valdes was 13-10 between 1952 and 1956 and doesn't bear comparision to Wills. Dempsey not only did not fight Wills, he did not fight anyone between 1923 and 1926, although Renault and Godfrey also would have been worthy foes.

Bottom line--Tearing down Marciano does not build up Dempsey. If Marciano is not worthy of a top five or top ten sport, then certainly Dempsey is not. Of the five best possible opponents out there, Louis, Charles, Walcott, Moore, and Johnson, Marciano ko'd four. Of his top five potential opponents, Wills, Tunney, Greb, Godfrey, and Sharkey, Dempsey beat only Sharkey.

 

Dempsey beat only Sharkey ,who beat Renault and Godfrey.See how it can work?

 

Fair enough. Sharkey also beat an old Wills. One problem is that a lot of other people beat Sharkey.

Dempsey's win over Sharkey does help his resume a great deal. Without it, I don't know where he would actually rate. Sharkey, as someone else pointed out, is the only top 30 heavyweight Dempsey defeated.

Still leaves the resume a bit thin, though.


About Dempsey, whom this thread is about, I see him a fair candidate for a top 10 spot, aided by his strong performance in 1927. I think top five is definitely undeserved without a win over Wills, the best available opponent out there.


I think most people put Dempsey in the top fifteen, at least. A top fifteen position is probably worth what a top 7 placement would have been in 1950, or a top 10 placement around 1970. There are and have been a lot of good fighters going through the years and the competition becomes ever more stiff. As Mendoza pointed out, Dempsey has been consistently voted in the top five throughout the century, as well as recently.
1980 Boxing Writers of America poll of top heavyweights
1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Marciano
4. Dempsey
5. Johnson

2000 AP panel of experts poll of top heavyweights.
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Marciano
4. Dempsey
5. Johnson

2000 ESPN poll placements of heavyweights in greatest athletes end of century poll
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Marciano
4. Dempsey
5. Johnson

Remarkably consistent.

 

Ali
Johnson
Dempsey
Louis
Holmes

Mine.

 

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Marciano
4. Lewis
5. Holmes

Comment on yours--Okay, but I don't see Dempsey ahead of Louis and Marciano. Too much of a disconnect between accomplishment and placement.