Is Jack Dempsey the most overrated fighter of all time

That's quite a claim!!

 

It is, and there is some hyperbole in it.

My point is that stylistically Patterson is toast.

 

I think todays top light heavies like Bivol or Beterbiev might well beat Dempsey

 

The difference between us is that you still believe in fairy tales. This is a giant LARPing exercise for you. You bring no critical perspective but are merely contented to guard the plate on the mythology that was born from simple shilling for gate receipts and has since been bolstered by charlatans in fedoras.

There needs to be separate boards: one for commenting on the sport of boxing and its history, one for commenting on the mythology that has grown adjacent to that sport.

 

Mythology in the sport tends to have a basis in truth.

You might fool the boxing public with an exciting all action style, but you wouldn't fool the contemporary fighters, trainers, and boxing promotors.

They would see the rot in the edifice.

Was Dempsey overrated?

Yes, for all the reasons that Mike Tyson was overrated in the 00s.

He was still a head to head monster though, and perhaps even one unique in the sports history!

 

He was supposedly a head to head monster who never actually had to prove it head to head. Interesting perspective. Repeating something doesnt make it so.

 

He’s a folk hero, legendary status as a man counts for so much however under the cold eyes of film he does not quite impress me as a H2H threat and his resume is one of the most shallow.

 

OK.

If a fighter beats people who are expected to beat them, then you can hardly deny them credit for it.

If they demolish fighters, who are expected to beat them, then you have to take notice.

If a champion beats the heir to their throne, while well past his best, then you have to suspect that he was pretty dangerous in his prime.

 

Demp

Sharkey was pretty inconsistent and has losses in his prime to guys who even at the time were not held in high regard by the public

 

Who were these men he beat that he wasnt expected to?? The closest odds I can find for him were against Fulton, Sharkey, and Willard. Willard, a sitting champion was basically even money against Dempsey. Hardly the unlooked for win so many have painted it. Fulton was a 10-7 favorite against Dempsey the day of the fight. Again, hardly long odds. And Sharkey was 7-5. All close odds and in the case of Willard nobody had seen him in years otherwise he likely wouldnt have been a favorite and Dempsey beat Sharkey by fouling him after losing every round of that fight. Im not sure the point stands. It certainly doesnt make Dempsey a head to head nightmare against more technically advanced, seasoned, bigger heavyweights who actually went out and fought the best regardless of what excuses there were against them. Again, claiming a guy who avoided his stiffest competition is a head to head nightmare is comical.

 

Neither does underrating or dismissing him .. two men he didn't fight , Wills and Greb .. even you don't go as far as picking Greb over him .. Wills by any stretch is a pick em .. No one hurt Dempsey as a fighter more than the men that helped make him a millionaire , Kearns and Rickard .. I feel he had the talent and the will to be one of the all time top cruisers but to me he gets an incomplete based on post title winning inactivity ..

 

This content is protected

I don’t care what anyone says though Dempsey did not foul Sharkey nor do anything cheap or illegal. Sharkey was a consistent whiner to refs through his career and he got caught when he should have been paying attention off a legal blow no less.

 

The only responce to this post is --- You are an idiot.

 

Youre all worthless and weak, armchair pussies.

 

You're weak.