Just shows how highly people from the past rank Dempsey. It seems he really was a H2H monster. I don't think he gets enough credit from a lot of boxing fans today, I think he really was an innovator and after reading his manual, a better ring tactician than a lot of people give the man credit for.
Who are you to say there's no rationale when he has seen all these fighters in person and studied a lot of these champions? The list was made through H2H and not through record so I don't see why it's irrational for an old timer with this perspective to believe Dempsey was the best in the who beats who realm. That stuff is subjective already.
Damn that would be one hell of a fight! In fact, Dempsey against almost any top 10 ATG heavy would be an exciting fight. Was he ever in a boring one?
Any reason why? I favour Louis but I think Dempsey would be dangerous for him. Louis got decked by plenty of lesser men, like Galento, Braddock etc, and was troubled by movement when employed by a smaller fighter (e.g. Conn). I can see Jack eluding a lot of Joe's output and getting inside the Louis jab. If Louis got hurt against Dempsey, he'd be in a lot more trouble than any other fighter he faced.
Oh I get it now! Being an old timer who saw Jack Demposey fight , spoke to many of his peers, watched young Joe Louis, and Marciano,Charles, Ali,etc,somehow is a negative opinion, because he {oldtimer},watched and digested what he OBSERVED...But the present generation who disregard fistic history,somehow know better because it bolsters their ego's, and proclaim that in essence,"the more you [oldtimers]see, the less you know"...Well I don't buy that for a second... OLTIMER[pardon me]...
burt you can tell me from the front row a turd is a chocolate eclair to suit your agenda. But theres a big screen to substitute for my handicapped-view, and it clearly looks like ****. In HD mother ****er.
i'm fully aware of what a metaphor is im just saying that you're saying nothing. you have no argument besides durp a durp old timers agenda durp