**jack dempsey lists the greatest fighters**

I may take the opinions of contemporaries of fighters of yesteryear who saw these men { I plead guilty ], while you on the other hand disregard
historians who observed them, and in your infinite wisdom, somehow know better...Hmmmm, somehow i think I'm closer to the truth...:hi:

 

Jeffries is underacted but so are most as time goes by, people find a reason. He obviously had many strengths just looking at the way he fought Johnson at 36 with almost 6 years out of the game losing much weight and no tune-up fight...must have been a strong strong guy

 

What are you rambling about now you absolutely horrible psycho?

 

Rocky, thanks for enlightening me. I will now burn all my boxing books,
as they are of no use today, being now replaced by today's gurus of boxing knowledge.
P.S. Rocky, even when I don't voice my opinion on a thread, I get lambasted...Cheers R...

 

I never once mentioned my 'beliefs'. What the hell are you both on about? I was pointing out an inconsistency in Burt's way of ranking fighters. He uses 'expert's opinions' to fit his agenda on Dempsey, yet doesn't use expert opinion to judge Jim Jeffries.

Also, what the **** set of criteria is your list again RSN? You have one of the most shocking Heavyweight lists this side of Frankenfrank.

 

BB, for what it's worth historical perspective matters.

In the 1950 AP poll Dempsey was voted as the greatest fighter in ring history.

These votes were take by people who personally saw Jack Johnson fight, Joe Louis fight, Jim Jeffries fight, etc.

So why would their opinions mean nothing?

It seems to me that this should be a very good starting point and any modifications should be justified.

How can you approach this any other way?

 

If you got to the complete opposite of the spectrum you get something along these lines, (an article written by Mark D. Hauser called "The 25 Greatest Heavyweight Boxers of All Time.")


Dempsey, who did not make my top 10, I consider not only the most overrated heavyweight of all-time (someone has to be), but also the most overrated boxer of all-time (especially before 1963). Throughout most of Dempsey’s lifetime he was considered the greatest heavyweight champion of all-time (why he was rated higher than Louis by people who saw them both fight is mind boggling). In the 1950 AP Poll he was voted the greatest fighter (any weight class) ever! In a 1962 Ring magazine poll of 40 boxing experts Dempsey was named the greatest heavyweight of all-time. (I wonder if all or only 99 % of these so-called boxing experts in these two polls were older white guys.) However, in December 1999, Ring Magazine ranked Dempsey only 10th among the heavyweights (Ali was first, Louis was second), dropping behind Louis, Marciano, and Johnson despite the fact that none of them has fought since 1962. Hmm.

Perhaps Dempsey was finally getting punished for not giving any of the great black heavyweights of his time, particularly Harry Wills (16th in Ring's latest poll), a shot at his title. Dempsey only weighed 188 pounds in his prime and would have trouble against the larger heavyweights above, however, on the basis of his knockout power, I will place him 11th (although I am not convinced he would have beaten the 6'3" 210-215 lb. Wills if they had fought).

In the beginning of his prime years he lost 3 fights, twice to a (good, but not great) fat boxer named Willie Meehan (whom Wills beat) and was knocked out in the 1st round by a journeyman, Fireman Jim Flynn (some claim this was a fix -- Dempsey says he did not throw the fight).

When Jack Dempsey finally became the heavyweight champion, beating a 37 year-old, rusty (he had not fought in over 3 years) stiff, Jess Willard, Dempsey would not fight any of the black heavyweights. Dempsey blamed his manager, however, a few days after he won the heavyweight crown, he was quoted in the New York Times as saying he would "draw the colour line and pay no attention to negro challengers." As a result, Wills, the number one contender and World Colored Heavyweight Champ, Langford, and Sam McVea (although the latter two were both past their prime when Dempsey won the crown; Joe Jeannette was at the end of his career), never got shots at the heavyweight crown.

In the 7 years he held the title he only defended it successfully 5 times (twice against light heavyweights) and went 3 three years without defending it. Then he lost twice to Tunney, who, while a great fighter, spent almost all of his career as a light-heavyweight. In addition, Dempsey never beat a great heavyweight in his entire boxing career. He beat an excellent fighter, Frenchman Georges Carpentier, however, he was a light-heavyweight and at 172 lbs. was 16 pounds lighter than Dempsey when they fought. He also knocked out future heavyweight champ Jack Sharkey (between Tunney fights), however, he is not considered one of the 25 greatest heavyweights of all-time and it would be 5 years before Sharkey won the heavyweight title and presumably in his prime. In addition, Dempsey was behind on points when Sharkey turned to the referee to complain about a low blow and Dempsey punched an unguarded Sharkey.

Even Dempsey's title defenses were not impressive: he beat a past-his-prime 187 lb Billy Miske; was losing on points to Bill Brennan after 10 rounds; then he beat 2 light-heavyweights -- Carpentier and Tommy Gibbons (Givvons); then was knocked down twice by the huge, but raw Luis Angel Firpo -- the second time Dempsey was floored he went sailing head first through the ring ropes, and pushed back into the ring by reporters which was against the rules. One source claims it took more than the ten seconds stipulated by the rules for Dempsey to get back in the ring, but it doesn't appear that way in the film. Dempsey's fan claim it was a push, but it was not ruled that way. (It appears to me to be a solid punch with a push at the end of the punch.) I wonder that if Dempsey had not a very popular champion at the time, that Demsey would have been ruled knocked-out.

As for Demspey's second loss to Tunney and "the long count", if you watch the film, it seems pretty clear Tunney could have gotten up earlier, he was merely listening to the referee's count to buy time (Buster Douglas did the same thing against Tyson years later). It was Dempsey's fault he did not go a neutral corner (as was now required after a knockdown) -- not Tunney's. Ironically, the Dempsey camp requested the new neutral corner rule (which was not yet universal). Which I find interesting because when Dempsey won the title from Willard -- he did not even let Willard stand-up all the way before he started pummeling him again.

Because of his knock-out power and exciting, swarming style, along with his immense popularity, the facts have sometimes gotten lost. I rate Dempsey one slot lower than any list I have seen (everyone else has him in the top 10), so I am expecting criticism. ( However, I have good reasons, so come get me Dempsey fans.) I would favor Tyson of 1989 over Dempsey of 1919 and he lost to Tunney twice, so I cannot put him in my top 10.

 

Van,what you write is logical and makes sense. As i have posted the great boxing experts in the 1950 poll were men who saw Dempsey in his prime, BEFORE his Hollywood 3 year layoff. They also saw Joe Louis in his devastating prime, and yet voted by a vast majority, Dempsey as the best
fighter in ring history. So why today on ESB, are there posters who hold Dempsey in such contempt, ignoring what eyewitnesses of Dempsey wrote about him in their 1950 poll,and disregard these historians.? Who can say? But they EIGHTY years later, somehow know about the Manassa Mauler MORE
than the men who SAW him, defy's logic....It is said that there is none so blind as those that have eyes, but cannot see...Cheers V.:good

 

I am not suggesting that people should rank Dempsey or Jeffries based on what contemporaries thought of him, but I am absolutely suggesting that people should take note of those oppinions.

Nobody generates an aura of invincibility during their title reign without having something exceptional.

In Jeffries case, he was able to beat the best fighters in the world with only a few profesional fights, based on raw talent, and he got better with every year that went by after that. By the time he retired, it looked like nobody could beat him without a baseball bat.

The weaknesses in Dempseys resume, were missed because he was such a spectacular finisher. Perhaps the best heavyweight in history at choping down bigger opponents. He wasn't greater than other great heavyweights, he was just more lethal, and that is what people saw.