Is Jack Dempsey the most overrated fighter of all time

..Pro Fighters have a policy never fight for free..
When they do its only for an exhibition light sparring etc..Like when Tyson sparred with Sanders Not trying to hurt each other and surely not try to knock the other guy out Yet if someones gonna try to turn it into a fight see it as their big chance.. Especially the ones promoting an exhibition( i believe it was supposed to be an exhibition )
well i bet Kearns and Dempsey felt there was some behind the some trickery involved..Unfortunately we weren't there and Newspaper accounts of any event are the most biased reporting there is..(Suzi dear I'm sure you might think only the truth gets printed and Fox news always gets it right but don't believe everything you read)

 

Andrew Jackson was considered a great man for many generations, also.

We now know better.

 

Dempsey was a real talent. However, his title run and certainly is title reign was more smoke and mirrors courtesy of Rickard and Kearns than reality.

He was a great event.

 

Why don't you find out why the black promoters back then
why didn't they promote a Wills Dempsey fight

Why is it Ricard's responsibility to make sure Harry gets a chance to..so he's supposed to give Wills a handout
Johnson figured out how to get a title shot without making it someone
else's responsibility on figuring out that solution .So Ricard's supposed to hold Harrys hand to as he's walking toward the ring..T

 

Jacksons not great because he didn't allow a central bank back then..We know now Central Banks are the best way to go?

 

Why don't we make a list of the high powered Black promoters from back then who had the power and pull to stage a heavyweight fight.

You go first.

 

My point exactly So he couldn't have ducked Wills if no high powered promoter
will promote it

 

There were plenty of promoters and plenty of countries to host it.

Dempsey and Company had a case of Yellow Fever.

****, they wouldn't even match up with lil' Harry Greb.

The reign was a farce.

 

Its about time for you to roll out the stories of Dempsey being a professional ****** and white slaver in brothels isn't it?

 

If Tex Rickard was such a genius and intent on protecting Dempsey, how do we explain him matching Dempsey with Gene Tunney ?

Dempsey would have had a much much better chance against the old washed-up Wills.

 

The world is full of dreamers.

 

"Dempsy would have had a much much better chance against the old washed-up Wills."

I remember an article by Jack Kearns much later (probably the late fifties or sixties) where he made this very point--that if Kearns had been calling the shots in 1926 he would have had Dempsey fight Wills and avoid Tunney.

Why did Rickard choose Tunney? Like a lot of modern folks on this board, he saw nothing but size. He thought the likes of Willard or Firpo (or the old and slipping Wills) because of their size were more dangerous for Dempsey than a lighter, faster, and more elusive opponent like Tunney.

Rickard also thought to the end of his life that the big Jeffries would have been too much for Dempsey.

 

Well, you could argue this but it would be a weak argument considering two months later Wills took part in a title elimination promoted by Rickard against Norfolk (who had beaten Tate) and knocked him out in 2 rounds. So, if you want to split the difference you can say that MAYBE for two months in 1922 Wills wasnt the top contender, but then he was again.

The problem with people harping on Greb losing twice to Tommy is that its not "what have you done for me?" but "What have you dont for me LATELY?" Greb beat Gibbons in their last two matches (1920 and 1922) and the last one was a title eliminator and the only fight to a decision they had. Why would anyone looking at logical challengers for Dempsey ignore the guy who had just won the title eliminator and look back two and 7 years for Gibbons wins? Sounds like someone is trying real hard to establish Gibbons as a legitimate challenger and he really wasnt. Maybe if Gibbons had fought Dempsey sometime inside the two months between his last win over Greb and his first loss to him instead of Dempsey facing the terminally ill Miske who Gibbons owned but Dempsey didnt and neither did Gibbons and that short window closed on him and after that he was never better than third best.

Yeah when you sit idle for three years doing nothing while everyone else is fighting each other the boxing landscape changes quite a bit doesnt it. And yet there was Wills, still the top guy.

Well, clearly Rickard thought of Tunney as the lesser threat. He stated as much to Dempsey in order to get Dempsey to sign for the fight. All of that is matter of record if you choose to look for it but Dempsey fans never want to dig too deep into their hero lest he start looking less imposing.

 

I'm not even sure Dempsey's resume eclipses Floyd Patterson's to be honest. Floyd was an olympic gold medalist, youngest heavyweight champion, first man to regain the title and boasts wins over Moore, Johanson, Machen, and Bonavena among others. He also won more title fights within a five year period than Dempsey did in 7 and was never beaten by someone like Willie Meehan or Fireman Flynn. So what's the argument in favor of Dempsey? That he was the first man to earn a million dollars? That he slept with famous actresses? That he looked vicious at dethroning a champion who hadn't fought in three years and spent his down time working for a rodeo? Sorry I just don't see the mystique in Dempsey. I think over the past 90 years he's grown into more of a folklore figure of mythical proportions rather than a legitimate measuring stick for true greatness, such as Muhammad Ali. If Dempsey were to start his career today with the benefits of modern training and even bulked up with the help of anabolic steroids, what you'd then have is a 6'0", 215 lbs musclular crude brawler who'd still get his butt kicked by someone like Povetkin.