My Dad's Top 10 Heavyweights

Now i know where all of the vitriol is coming from...All that supressed bile
is finally coming out...I am too old to play that game .I have never hurt you ,so adio to you....

 

please don't turn changes into something so terrible ever again

 

Looks like Pachilles' ******ed kid brother has hacked into his ESB account again.

 

Burt, don't let the periodic and unfortunate heckling out here get you down. They booed Greb too.

 

Burt,

Don't get pissed at me.... I ain't bringing up any charges....

However, it boggles my mind when folks of 2010 (No matter how old they are) rate Jack Dempsey up in the top-3 after they have a HUGE selection to choose from between 1887 thru 2010.....

Hell, even I'm guilty to a degree..... Why? Cuz I rate Jack Johnson in at # 3, and several folks have laughed their ass off because of that ranking...

MR.BILLbbb

 

Thank you for your input Stonehands. I just lost a close relative today,along with the fact that I who has seen so much of life and the ticking clock,will not play the game of racism with one of it's
practitioners...He will not intimidate me as he may have others...
Thanks Stonehands for your understanding..b.b.

 

Okay you make me feel bad now. That was only a joke burt, it was a song by Tupac, reworded. I don't think you're a racist. But a time in which black fighters were refused title shots was a racist time. And so his greatness should be held in contempt for it.

And you've mentioned this intimidation before, im not trying to intimidate you and dont think i intimidate others and i'm also not a racist. I'm just an average young white guy, obsessed with an asian guy, who talks like he's black on the internet, with exceptional hair, and has too much time on his hands.

Sorry if i've offended you, but i do feel like you dismiss our views with as much ignorance as you think we dismiss yours.

 

dempsey has nothing to do with the fact that kearns and the rest of the establishment wouldnt let a black man challenge for the title, period. it really shouldnt affect his standing as a fighter either.

Like i said before, if you have to blame someone for black people not getting a title shot till louis, blame it on

This content is protected

(and of course the whole racism of the era for even creating a situation like this).

 

In the December 1962, Ring Mag. there 40 experts picked Dempsey as #1, with Louis coming in 2nd. Also, in the February issue of Boxing & Wrestling they also had Dempsey as #1, followed by Tunney, Johnson, Louis and Marciano.

I agree with Burt when it comes to Dempsey. I also talked to Arcel and others like him and they all said that Dempsey was the best. I don't think he was, But I do respect the opinions of the oldtimers. In my opinion, Dempsey was an all time Great and deserves to be rated there with the best.

In the Ring Mag. in 1962 here's how they voted.

13 Dempsey
10 Louis
9 Johnson
3 Tunney
2 Langford
2 Jeffries
1 Marciano

February issue of Boxing & Wrestling. They did it by points:

87 Dempsey
84 Tunney
82 Johnson
80 Louis
78 Marciano
76 Liston

I myself rate Ali #1 with Louis 2nd But head to head, I don't know if Louis could have beaten Dempsey.

By the way Burt, I am very sorry for your loss.

 

Thank you hh...

 

Except that the establishment you're talking about openly voted they wanted Dempsey to fight Wills by a 3-to-1 margin to the second best challenger, Greb. Speaking of the second best challenger, Dempsey never fought him either of course, but couldn't hide behind the color line. The "color line" was just a petty excuse to avoid a dangerous fighter and people back then even said so.

 

Harry had more stamina than me!

 

I don't blame Dempsey HIMSELF for not facing the likes of Wills and anyone else in his category, and agree that it was political forces that caused some of those matches to never be made. The problem however, is that beating the very best of one's era has a lot to do with reaching greatness. During the 1980's, Larry Holmes was heavily crticized for ducking certain challengers, and at one point, was even stripped of a title for not signing to fight a man who was only a mandatory for probably 9-10 months. Dempsey's people kept him away from a guy who was a concencus top fighter for several years... Furthermore, Jack went close to 3 years without a single defense against anyone, yet kept his title, whereas Holmes was stripped in 1983, despite facing 4 challengers in less than 12 months.. Now, Holmes may have had some ability to make those bouts occur whereas Dempsey may not have, but make no mistake about it, there was plenty of curruption in the 1980's that was out of Larry's control as well. Its comparisons like these that make it hard for me to give Dempsey any serious rating among the very elite. He may very well have been a nightmare in a head to head sense, but when it comes to legacy that man doesn't make my top 10.

 

My questioning the 1950 poll has been questioned. Well, my opinion is that the opinion of these voters just seems too removed from the record and the facts.

Jan 1950 records:

Joe Louis:

61 Fights-----60 victories-----1 defeat-----0 draws-----51 kos (total winning percentage 98%, ko percentage .836, champion from 1937 to 1949, nearly 12 years. Record in championship fights 26-0)

Jim Jeffries:

23 fights-----20 victories-----1 defeat-----2 draws-----16 kos (total winning percentage 87%, winning percentage in won-lost fights 95%, ko percentage .696, champion from 1899 to 1905. Record in championship fights 7-1)

Jack Dempsey:

83 fights-----65 victories-----6 defeats-----11 draws-----50 ko's (total winning percentage 78%, winning percentage in won-lost fights 92%, ko percentage .602, champion from 1919 to 1926. Record in championship fights 6-2)


My problem is that these records are not even close. And I don't see any good argument that Dempsey faced tougher competition than Louis or Jeffries. It is interesting to note that Jeff's only loss was at 35 and after a six year layoff to an opponent who was almost certainly better than anyone Dempsey ever defeated and probably better than anyone Dempsey ever fought. Schmeling also might be judged better than anyone Dempsey ever defeated. Dempsey simply doesn't have the credentials for me to accept him as being better than these other men.

*I left out Johnson because it would be a discussion of the quality of opposition.

**I personally wouldn't claim to know what happens head to head. And off the mistaken odds in so many major fights over the decades, I don't trust the opinions of the "experts" either.