Jack Dempsey vs Joe Louis

Fans of Dempsey died ,when he was champ marciano was called a crude version of Dempsey ,now he,s often rated above him,as your fan base goes to that big Square Garden in the sky ,your atg rating takes a hit.

 

All you have to do is read some of that era's newspaper accounts to see that Louis wasn't going to get a fair shake from the white reporters. Johnson, either.

 

Do you really think this would happen? I doubt it myself. Ali's resume is too strong.
Louis overtook Dempsey because his resume was so much stronger. You say that when Dempsey's contemporaries began to die off he began to slip, but Louis' contemporaries have mostly died off also and he has not slipped. The same with Marciano. Their records buoy their ratings. In the long run, the record of what a fighter accomplished endures. I think the bias was in the polls that put Dempsey ahead to begin with. He was an extremely charismatic fighter who was overrated by his own generation. Other generations give him a more studied evaluation and rate him lower accordingly.

 

I think this is a very valid question, one I've often thought about myself. Perhaps not having watched either of the fight the modern boxing historians focus more on actual accomplishments, where as the one's who say both of them fight, may have focused more on a h2h outcome. That's my best guess anyway. Another guess is that the panel in the 1950's may have been all white and biased against blacks, while the current panels are more racially mixed. Perhaps it's a blend of the two.

 

It has nothing to do with the men who saw Dempsey dying. It has everything to do with the fact that Dempsey was overrated because back then, almost no one really saw him except for exhibitions and story telling. He was popular. He was white. He scored knockouts. He did a ton of work that made him popular post-retirement. His record can't hold a candle to Louis' or Marciano's. Never has and never will. But he was not ranked based on that.

 

With all due respect men like Fleischer Arcel did see him. Men like Sharkey and Schmeling shared a ring with both him and Louis. You cannot simply dismis the views of these men as the passing down of legends.

Men from that era who did not see him fight in person might know that they and all their mates expected Fred Fulton to be the next champion going into his title eliminator fight with Dempsey while you would just reel off his record on boxrec.

You have to take acount of contemporary opinion on some level.

 

Right, but you also have to factor in the mainstream bias against black athletes at that time. There's no question that prejudice was a major factor.

America held its nose and cheered for Louis against Schmeling, but propping him above an icon such as Dempsey? No way. Not then.

 

You won't hear any of them speak of the record-setting duck job (that still stands 80 years later today) of Harry Wills. Did they even know or did they not want to let their idol down? What Sharkey says doesn't have much value to me. Of course he's gonna praise him, he got knocked out by him. Praising a popular person always makes yourself more popular. Which is exactly why Foreman calls a local prospect the next unified champ every year.


Fleischer was a biased writer with a ******ed, blinded view on boxing. I don't value his opinion unless he's comparing someone from the 1900's to the 1910's.



And yeah, they "saw" Dempsey. For about a few hours or so, in fights, spread over years. Judgement upon that is totally unreliable. Memory of such a short event (especially when you're in your 20's or older) are being modified, partially lost or otherwise changed by the mind to make them more acceptable. This is natural human behaviour as phychological research has shown. Cus D'Amato himself commented on how he held a fighter from the 20's in really high regard, but was de-illusionised when he saw the actual film again, many decades later. Apparantly he remembered the guts and courage, but was surprised by the technical deficianies of the fighter of which he didn't recall anything.

 

I think Joe Louis's stock has risen since 1950 because it has sunk in that 25 consecutive title defences is a remarkable display of greatness. Most people tend to find it easier to assess a fighter after he's been retired for a few years.

I dont know why Dempsey's stock has fallen. I still think he's in the same category of greatness as Louis.
Most people talking about the weakness of his resume haven't got a great knowledge of the era.

 

I don't know if Dempsey's stock has fallen that much. The AP end of the century poll rated him fourth, behind only Ali, Louis, and Marciano.

 

Yes, how could people think Dempsey's 6 title defenses and 4 year dominance of the division (minus Wills of course) isn't at least as good if not better than Louis' mere 11 year reign and 25 defenses?

atsch

 

Obviously Louis beats Dempsey measured on the bare facts of reign length/title defences.

But Dempsey beats Liston on the same criteria, and I didn't see Dempsey mentioned in your all-time list (whereas Sonny was).
Obviously the bare facts of reign and title defences dont suffice entirely.

 

So where does he make up the difference to be "in the same category of greatness of Louis"? He certainly didn't beat anyone fantastic like an Ali did to gain ground that way.

Well for starters i think Dempsey is massively overrated head to head and would be beaten by my entire top 10.

Secondly i think Patterson would likely beat any guy Dempsey faced.

Thirdly Liston was from most accounts avoided, and beat some of the more dangerous guys Floyd would have had to face. If he got his chance sooner he would have been mopping up the division as a champ instead of a contender chasing his shot.

I think Liston would knock out Dempsey.

I'm not really that impressed with Dempsey's reign at all, missing the likes of Wills and squatting on the title for years.

I think Liston is head to head top 5 and possibly lower, Jack doesn't look like making my 10 in that regard. I think he's been blown out to mythical proportions and some writers of the day would agree. Blame it on the times.