Most overrated old-timer?

It should be noted that Rickard feared Willard would actually kill Dempsey. He was a great promoter, but was he a great judge of boxing talent?

By the way, concerning Rickard. Did he ever actually see Fitz? at least near his prime? Rickard was in Texas, Alaska, and South Africa prior to 1906. When did he see Jeffries? other than at Reno in 1910? And what about that performance convinced him that Jeff could handle Dempsey?

 

It's jack dempsey for me, i mean he usually gets ranked above tyson. IMO, tyson had the better title run, beat more contenders and is just flat out better than him.

 

..Zippy..easy set-up. But, if you insist...there was a thread here a little while back that said "tell be bout Jimmy Bivins" which several of us did, so our friend robbiboy can check that out.

Alas, though, all this is really redundant, as Bivins' record speaks for itself.

 

Only one I disagree with strongly is Ketchel. He beat best lightheavy of his time, knocked down Jack Johnson, beat all his competion, and was conidered greatest by old timers.

 

I think Dempsey is underated by too many here, I consider him one of top three, maybe even number one.

 

Dempsey #1? Get real. :huh

 

Head to head he might just have been.

Would you want money down against him at his peak?

 

A 185 lb man is not the head-to-head best of all-time and that's that. He is in your little small fry world I know that already. And yes I'd bet a shitload of money on a fair few fighters mashing him at his best. Most, if not all, of the top 10.

 

Yep. I'll go against him even money vs Ali, Lewis, Marciano, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Louis, Frazier and Liston. I'm winning a helluva more than i'm losing. I favour every one of those, some very minorly some a lot. Quick cash.

 

Even money? I'd go odds of about 10-1 on most of them . Dempsey was purely a product of his era, his fame far outweighed his talent. Most of his reputation is built up by American and unfortunatley most fight fans have been brought up reading their literature. He only didn't lose the title sooner because he rarely defended it, and when he did it was against has-beens, big useless lummoxes and light heavies.

 

This seems to be about the bredth and depth of your analysis.

 

I would expect you to make a net loss.

 

lol Dempsey is overated? Atleast not on here the basic argument is size. Just like wise men 50 years later would be claiming Ali and Foreman were far too small to compete with the modern giant sized heavyweights.
He is one of the most criticised fighters on the forum and that hardly means over rated.

Secondly to whichever idiot that said Dempsey did not lose the title earlier because he defended less is utter stupidity. He was the best from 18-23, atleast head to head and thats that

 

To be honest I can't understand all the Dempsey hate on this forum. I never see any older fighter criticised like Dempsey.

 

dead right