lmao, the perceptions of Dempsey are quantum in this thread, they are ever changing from one post to the next he comes with a extra aura as history has recorded him with a "Tyson-like" mystique whereby he can overcome all opponents put in front of him because he did it on a WORLD stage at that time in a way that traveled far and fast to many places all over the world in a way that had never been reported on in such a detailed way in mass print before that time,,, naturally the guy is going to grow larger than his reality,,,,
tunney - Dempsey was the perfect blend of boxer and puncher. Arcel - Duran was the closest thing I ever saw to Jack Dempsey. Langford - Dempsey is the greatest hwt I have ever seen. So here you have two of Boxings ATG fighters and probably its best trainer and they all see the same thing. Add to this Bimstein, Stillman, Morgan, Hayes among many others.
I think Dempsey is easily top ten. He is presumed not as good as others because fighters in his day were lighter than they were in later years. He beat good fighters of that day including Sharkey, Firpo, Gibbens and Carpentier. I also am pretty confident that the boxer's in Dempsey's time were in much better condition than today's fighters.
Only a Murican could post such irony, and be completely unaware of it. After reading the first 2,000 posts of yours " talking up " Marciano, most sane people would make an appointment with the dentist for root c**** treatment without anaesthetic. :rofl:rofl
Dempsey came along at a time when sports in America were enjoying a boom. The largest paid attendance prior to the 1920's seems to have been in roughly the 40,000 range. Not only boxing, but other sports saw the roof blown off in terms of popularity and interest. Why? Radio--increasing newsreel coverage of sporting events--increased urbanization--and newspapers which fed into and inflamed this increased interest Dempsey put on a great show in the ring and was also a charismatic man outside the ring, unlike successors like Louis and Marciano. He also aged well and remained in the public spotlight after his career was over. Babe Ruth just got fat, and died young. Dempsey remained the image of the former athlete into old age. He looked the part of the guy who used to be champ and remained a celebrity running one of the must stops for anyone visiting New York. So he remained a front and center celebrity for decades. With time, and the passing of his own generation, it is natural the questions are asked of him which are asked of all champions. Did he fight the best of his time? Did he defeat the best of his time? How good were those guys? For much of his lifetime, many folks--given the racial climate of the time--didn't care that he never fought Wills or other top black fighters. I recall my old history professor commenting on "revisionism" during a lecture many decades ago. He said history is always about revisionism as each generation asks fresh questions of the past and therefore looks at the past differently than previous generations had, with this process unending. History never freezes in place.
It may be valid to say that Jack Dempsey is unduly rated above some of his successors. But he was also more than just a boxer or sports figure. He was in many ways like Muhammad Ali or Michael Jordan in that he was a symbol of a generation and a trail blazer who brought change to his chosen profession. While these things don't necessarily make someone the "best" at what they do, I can certainly see how they'd have bearing on one's perception of them and hence leading to being placed on a higher tier of greatness, rightfully or wrongfully. Sometimes extraordinary people have that impact on history and the public, and Jack Dempsey was extraordinary.
Dempsey like Johnson before him and like Louis, Marciano and Ali after was one of hwt Boxings all time talents. Each of these fighters would stand out in any era. Babe Ruth TODAY is still considered by baseball historians as one of if not the best player of all time. So it's not just the spirit of the roaring 20's that put Dempsey and Ruth's name in the spotlight. Both were all time great athletes within their respective sports. The main reason for historical revisionism is to sell books.
Babe Ruth never had to compete in the professional ranks against black pitchers, other black hitters. The competition was completely watered down. I would not rate Ruth as high as other greats who played in much more competitive eras like Mickey Mantle Willie Mays Ted Williams
Ruth played at least 19 games against what were basically Negro League all star teams. It's a pretty safe bet that those Negro Leaguers felt as if they had something to prove and played as hard as they could. Of the 19 games, we have box scores of sixteen, and these are Ruth's stats: AB - 55 1B - 11 2B - 2 3B - 0 HR - 12 BA - .455 SA - 1.145 Negro League third baseman and Hall of Famer Judy Johnson said, "We could never seem to get him out no matter what we did.
It is like this. Until comparatively recently he was often put forward as the greatest heavyweight of all time, and indeed one of the greatest fighters of all time, and he was over rated then. Today we have a clique of observers who have become so obsessed with certain flaws in his legacy, that they have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, and lost sight of why he gained such esteem in the first place.
Not according to : Nat Fleischer no4 . 1971 Sam Langford no1 Nat Loubet no2 .1975 Charley Rose no3 Monte Cox no5 .1991 Bert Sugar no 1. 1991 Gene Tunney no 1. Ray Arcel joint no1. with Louis ESPN Readers Poll no1. 2007 Nigel Collins 1997.no9 Boxing Insider. no8 John Durant. no3 1976 Bill Brennan WBA President no3. 1978 Big Book Of Boxing Readers Poll no 4.1978 Arthur Harris.Boxing Scene no3.1992 Gilbert Odd no5.1985 Steve Farhood no6.1997 Herb Goldman no7 .1997 BBC Sports no5.2004 IBRO no5.2004 Richard O Brien Senior Editor of SI no6 .2009 Max Schmeling no 1. I expect there are more, but I thought these would do for a start. I'll add one more. Burt Bienstock!
