Jacks Dempsey ranking - arguments

"Johnson was only two years older than Jeffries."

Something is wrong here. Johnson was three years younger than Jeffries, but one year OLDER than Dempsey was in 1926.

I don't know what to make of this argument. I can tell that in the real world, Dempsey laid off three years and did no better against Tunney than Jeffries did against Johnson. Jeff ended up being ko'd because the fight went beyond ten rounds. It is quite possible in my judgement that Jeff would have lasted a scheduled 10 with Johnson to lose a decision, and have at least won a couple of rounds. Dempsey didn't win a round against Tunney and it is doubtful he could have lasted a full 15.

There is no doubt that Dempsey would have had a better chance against Tunney if he had been active. I don't quite know if I should cut him slack because he wasn't active, though. It seems like giving him a pass because he laid off. This might be all right if it was due to factors beyond his control as was the case in the later Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali layoffs. But neither of those men were beaten nearly as badly as Dempsey was either right after their long layoffs or for years afterward.

One issue which complicates everything is that both Tunney and Sharkey appear off their records and off of film to be considerably better than Willard, Brennan, Carpentier, Gibbons, and Firpo. It is hard to tell if Dempsey going back is the key factor, or to what extent just running into more talented opposition is the key factor.

 

my top five in there (primes) louis,rocky,ali,tyson,dempsey,in no certain order-the last 3 in there primes i think were unbeatable

 

It's tough to argue with Old Fogey because od Dempsey's inactivity as champion and not fight Wills ... I disagree with some points but the argument has merrit ...

 

Not sure I agree with you there. fight II, Rounds 2, Tunney tag Dempsey at the end of the round with a clean shot on the chin. Dempsey was stun, and Tunney follow up with more punchings, before bell rang.
Round 4, Middle part of round, Tunney lands a jab on Dempsey's chin. Dempsey is stun once again.

Round ten, Tunney is just landed at will mostly. Dempsey's eye is close.

 

What are you talking about, have you been following the discussion? Poster Mcvey cited Tunney that Dempsey was hard to tag on the chin (which obviously was about the Dempsey-Tunney fights only), and i responded to that. Jeffries being old against Johnson has **** all to do with it, unless Johnson made a statement that Jeffries was very hard to tag on the chin.. which, incidentally, would have similar merit.

 

I am making the observation that you refuse to give Johnson any credit for beating Jeffries because of his layoff but also make little or no alowance for Dempseys layoff when judging his losses to Tunney.

 

Well i think you're pushing the envelop a bit here. Tunney won 19 of 20 rounds against Dempsey, in 10 round fights which favored Dempsey at that point. Sharkey dominated him until he got fouled and then TKO'd/quit. Gibbons lost the vast majority of the rounds. If the Tunney fights were close or even competitive losses, i could see the merit in your point, but Dempsey was dominated, easily. I think there's more to it than just a 3 year lay off, when being only 31 years of age (contrary to Jeffries who was 35). And it's not like Dempsey was fighting on a busy schedule before that either; since he won the championship, he was very well conserved. Of course, this is also true about Jeffries.


As for Miske, he pretty much went even with Dempsey when he was in his prime, and not ill to the degree that he was a 7-to-1 underdog even after going even with him in the past.

Arg!!!!!!!! How can you be this ignorant?!?

Let me repeat it one more time.

Mcvey quoted Tunney as "Dempsey was hard to tag on the chin". This was about the Dempsey-Tunney fights. I then said that film proves otherwise, because Tunney tagged him plenty on the chin. What the HELL does this have to do with making little allowance for a layoff? It's not a career judgment, just an observation! FFS!

 

This is true, but then Jeffries took a 5 year lay-off without (as far as i know) any exhibitions or sparring. In fact, he was around 290 lbs when he entered training camp, Dempsey was trim and in good shape.

How do you know this? You just make up a random, unsubstantial number of 60 extra fights for Dempsey, but only 20 for Jeffries despite Jeffries fighting in a more "obscure" period, reporting wise.

He was terminally ill in the third so we can scrab that one. The first one was a draw, and the second one was only 6 rounds and very close from what i've read. Not exactly convincing stuff.

Speculation.

We don't have to be rude to each other, but i explained nicely twice the circumstances, yet you kept repeating your statement like a blindfolded horse follows it's path. You gotta do something.

 

Sure, but even if he did, the mountain he had to climb to comeback still by far outweighs the one Dempsey climbed.

 

Im repeating what Tunney said I wasnt in there with Jack .So if you disagree, its with Tunney ,not me :good