Most overrated old-timer?

yeah more againt the Buster Douglas's

 

Exactly, BIG fast talented hard hitting fighters on the night of their life allied to Tyson being on the slide.

 

One problem with fix talk back concerning boxing in the United States back in the pre-1930 era is that many people wanted boxing banned. It often was in many states. One way of attacking boxing was to claim that fights were usually not on the level. Several San Francisco papers claimed that the Jeffries-Fitzsimmons fight in 1902 was fixed, despite the fact that Jeffries suffered a broken nose and severe cuts over both eyes in that fight.
Generally, I noticed that if you read three or four accounts of any fight you will come upon one in which the reporter implies a fix by claiming the man who was knocked out went down without being hit. Another reporter will report the knockout punches. That is why I personally am very skeptical of fix claims from the past.

 

I looked up the odds printed in The Ring Record Book and Boxing Encylopedia, 1976 edition.

Willard 6-5 over Dempsey

Dempsey 7-1 over Miske

Dempsey 4-1 over Brennan

Dempsey 3-1 over Carpentier

Dempsey 3-1 over Firpo

Dempsey 11-5 over Gibbons

Dempsey 11-5 over Tunney (1926)

Tunney-Dempsey even money (1927)

By the way, someone posted that Dempsey was as dominant prior to winning the championship as Louis or Tyson. I can't imagine either of them going into the Willard fight as the underdog.

 

It is really odd ("haha"...) that Dempsey was the underdog against Willard. I guess the people weren't as impressed by Dempsey's pre-title opposition as some people today. Or perhaps they didn't know Willard's age, his skill level etc. Certainly not imaginable with the limited availability of information back then, compared to today.


Another thing is that 7-1 over Miske and 4-1 over Brennan. Weren't Miske and Brennan his best title challengers?
Either they rated Dempsey all of a sudden very high because of the Willard destruction, or they thought Miske and Brennan were far, far worse than Willard? Or they based it on the fact that he'd already beaten them? Also amazing that a washed up lightheavy light Carpentier was only 3-1, most of those Louis opponents were lucky to be 10-1.


I think these odds reflect how incredibly much fame, recognition and high ranking Dempsey has earned from a win over in my opinion a relatively stiff, old opponent in Willard. His odds skyrocketed. Folklore over substance.

 

The equivalent to this would be John Henry Lewis of course. The odds: 15-1. :good

 

My argument was that all the newspapers at the time reported the punch as good, solid whack. That's all the proof I need and not some re-written version years later. What do you want me to do- make stuff up like Janitor often does?

 

And going by what Futch said Lewis would be substancially better than Carpenter

:hey

 

Actually, I think both Jack Dempeys are a bit overrated.

 

Honestly, if Lennox Lewis's title reign consisted of five successful defences against Miske, Brennan, Firpo, Carpentier and Gibbons, Bert Sugar wouldn't even have him in his top 200, never mind 100.

 

Sugar showing his pissweak bias.

 

You make the asumption here that bookmakers from diferent eras will set similar odds based on a given disparity between fighters.

The amount of capital at their disposal will inevitably effect odds to some extent. No champion in the 20s or 30s would be made a 42/1 favourite over an oponent with two arms for example.

 

Then as now it was dificult to convince people that a 185 lb fighter was going to beat a world class superheavyweight.

You are the evolutionary descendant of the people who made Willard the favourite.

 

Dempsey's prime was a fast and furious display of boxing. The closest thing to Dempsey was Mike Tyson. Tyson used to say he was from Jack Dempsey’s school. 50 years from now, boxing fans will still be talking about Dempsey and Tyson smasing perfomances in the ring. I don't see Dempsey as being over rated.



Lewis had a very long prime, with measured pace and sometimes boring performances. I do think Lewis' legacy will grow a bit in the next ten years.