Keep the myopia coming. Include 1919 in the argument and it is much clearer. I only used 1920 as a starting point because that was the date of Dempsey's first defense, but obviously not the date when his challengers' worth was based. You are just being dense on this point. Additionally, of the challengers Dempsey & Co. chose, how many were more accomplished at lightheavy than heavy? Gibbons? Miske? Tunney? Carpentier? A bit of a double-standard here?
You stipulated the years I didn't, and now that your argument has been demolished you want to move the goal posts I'm dense ? I'm 3 steps in front of you Sunny Jim.:nono
You are being purposely dense. Dempsey began taking on challengers in 1920 not 1919. Upon which years should we base the worthiness of challengers in 1920? 1974 or 1919 and before. Who was Greb supposed to face to prove to be the best challenger? How about the guy picked in front of him? Oh, he already beat that guy 4 times. And which of the great Dempsey challengers made proved the better part of their pedigree as heavyweights by fighting strictly heavyweights? Certainly not Carpentier or Miske or Gibbons or even Tunney. So, again, you are being intellectually dishonest. You can stand upon a molehill and raise your flag. It doesn't mean you've accomplished what you proclaim.
Boxing classics fantasy fights are about "who would win between two contestants", such as Joe Louis or whoever. ? Not on how often so and so defended his title as opposed to a fighter of a different era?. Though Jack Dempsey did not fight as often in his career as you would want him to have , you are dead wrong in your belittling his great offensive prowess in his prime as attested to by multitudes of the great boxing public who saw him at his best and considered him as one of the greatest heavyweights ever and their acclaim made Jack Dempsey the greatest ring attraction of alltime for a good reason, he was a helluva fighter for darn sure....And no matter how often you disregard the fact that Harry Wills and Dempsey did sign once for a bout which was canceled because the Michigan promoter could not come up with the contracted funds and they did not fight. This is a FACT in spite of you overlooking this fact of history. And one other thing you conveniently forget S, in 1950 there was a poll of veteran boxing scribes who saw Dempsey ringside and voted Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight til then, by a large margin. Why is your expertize 90 years after Dempsey fought MORE VALID than the boxing veterans who saw him fight ringside ???
Funny thing, there are loads of people currently boosting Andre Ward as a "pound for pound" fighter. RING magazine have installed him as #2 behind Roman Gonzalez, on their "pound for pound" rankings. Despite the fact that he hasn't beat a notable fighter in over 3 years, and has only fought twice in that time. Yet a lot of moden fans act outraged and bemused by the fact that Jack Dempsey could "get away with" similar stuff in his day and still retain his status and reputation.
What I'd like to know is this: Was this the first such poll - or do we know of similar polls conducted earlier? Say a couple of decades before, around 1930, when Dempsey's career was over. How did veteran boxing people (who had seen Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries, etc. ringside) rate him back THEN?
I've made my case you are just a hater, your statement was false and I proved it.Now you're boring me..:hi:
Mcvey, Please read the below. Its excellent, and you'll have a chance to retract or change your opinion after reading it. At least two posters here are featured. A few passages [url]http://www.boxing.com/dempseys_bloodhound.html[/url]
B, this poll in 1950 was amongst veteran boxing writers I recall who saw Dempsey before his going Hollywood in 1923. Most were in their sixties or more. I doubt that many saw Fitz or Corbett fight, but Nat Fleischer who saw most everyone since 1905 or so chose Jack Johnson as the best heavyweight he had seen. Nat had jim Jeffries as the second best HW. The point is that Jack Dempsey though not as active as some ESB posters would prefer, was considered along with Joe Louis the most destructive heavyweight along with Old Fitz ever, and the vast majority of veteran pollsters had him as #1 heavyweight they had seen. Taut, swift and powerful he became the greatest boxing attraction ever for a good reason and Sam Langford, Gene Tunney, Mickey Walker, Jack Sharkey, Max Schmeling, Ray Arcel all who saw all the best heavyweights decades later had him as the best they had seen...
No offense but boxing.com is only for people that live in a different reality than the rest of us. They live in a world where everything that happened before 1925 is better than now. A world where boxing is the only sport on the planet where pre-1925 athletes are in better shape than in 2015 . A world where ANYONE from pre-1925 and could KO ANYONE now in the ring. The article you mention was written by Matt McGrain, who is a good writer and not always in the crazy old timers camp. I call it YeOldeBoxing.com.
BECAUSE they [the boxing fraternity] were so won over by the past fistic abilities of Jack Dempsey, that though they would have loved to have seen him fight more often, there was no won on the horizon that they thought would have much of a chance to beat him. Plus I believe the fact that there were so many pro fighters in the 1920s fighting often in hundreds of local fight clubs across the nation that boxing fans had their own loical hero's to root for.As I have posted in my youth in NYC there were at LEAST one boxing card every night of the week supplying we boxing fans all the action we wanted. And in the 1920s there were even more fight clubs operating to give my dad's generation of fight fans all the action they wanted...
But that is EXACTLY my point! Those veteran boxing writers who took part in that 1950 poll, must have been young men when Dempsey destroyed Willard! So isn't it a no-brainer that they, 30 years later, would pick Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight they ever saw? That's why it would be interesting to se the result of a similar poll, conducted shortly after Dempsey's retirement - involving fight people, who first took an interest in boxing during the Corbett/Fitz/Jeffries era. Would Dempsey come out on top in such a poll - or would the seasoned veterans back then go for the earlier champions? That is what I want to know! Look, Burt... you were born in 1927, and I was born in 1952. You grew up with Joe Louis, and I grew up with Clay/Ali. What does this mean? Well, it clearly means that you are certain, there is no way Ali could have survived 15 rounds against Louis - whereas I believe, he would have made Louis look like a complete clown! There is no "right" or "wrong" here, as we of course will never know... but I think it's obvious, that the way we look at things is heavily influenced by experiences in our youth. And another thing: when it comes to Dempsey, shouldn't we (for obvious reasons!) take what Tunney says with a pinch of salt? The same can of course be said of Sharkey. And how many of Dempsey's fights did Schmeling watch to qualify as an authority on the Manassa Mauler? Also, did Langford really see all the best heavyweights in the decades following Dempsey's reign? I don't think so! As for Arcel... well, having read what he had to say about Dempsey, I wouldn't exactly call him an "unbiased witness"!
B, you bring up good points no doubt.But if I fervently believe the Joe Louis of the Max Baer fight would have dealt out a beating to Clay/Ali, I have given serious thought of this match for a long time...Louis was a nightmare to fight at his best and I see in my mind the powerful combos that would eventually land on Ali and stop him. B. if it is just nostalgia on my part wouldn't I also say that Max Baer, Max Schmeling, Jack Sharkey etc also have beaten Ali ? So this is my studied opinion and having watched boxing since the 1940s, my opinions might have some merit, wouldn't a fair minded ESB poster agree ?.
