My Dad's Top 10 Heavyweights

We really need this?

 

No need to act like I've insulted your mother.

Look, all I'm saying is that WE see the fight film as well. He saw them live? Well great! But 10 years after that (or 50, for that matter), all it leaves is an emotional imprint. Not a technical one. This is simply how the human brain works. Our memory is not reliable at all.

Apart from that, we can also see that Dempsey either avoided the best fighters of his time (Wills, Greb) or got completely dominated (Tunney), despite the latter moving up in weight.

And you think I haven't studied them? They're still the same fighters after a century. Just because it's on a H2H basis doesn't mean it's immune to criticism or reason.

Hey, i think Butterbean is the #1 heavyweight of all time. Don't jump me, I'm just talking H2H. I've seen the man fight myself damnit, don't doubt my judgment. His losses were fixes and he never avoided anyone, just like Dempsey. I was there. Butterbean would split Tyson's skull open, go to the locker room, take a huge dump, followed by a double whopper, and then proceed to outbox Ali in his next fight that night. Don't doubt my judgment, I WAS THERE AND I SAW THESE FIGHTERS!!

 

It is just a different viewpoint Burt, the younger generation perhaps look for different things in fighters and rankings, and also have different sources to find out about past greats.

I personally dont rate Dempsey very highly, but I can see why he can be ranked highly and have no problem with it.

Burt, ignore him. He just wants to wind you up. I would not take any of his opinions seriously or a representation of anything.

 

burt i think we're on different wave lengths. That was no personal attack on you or your mother, nor were the curse words directly toward you. Nor was it an effort to intimidate any particular generation, All i'm saying is i've seen Dempsey footage and think he looks like ****

 

Chris, I respect your opinion,really do, but you are missing my point...
You or I have never SEEN Jack Dempsey film of him in his prime! The only film of him at his best was the Willard film in 1919, which is herky jerky
and hand cranked, making the fighters look like a Charlie Chaplin film..
Dempsey at that time and before was seen by all the boxing writers as
one of the greatest heavyweights in history...He had 25 or so first round kos against much larger men, and was called a 'giant killer' for good reason...These boxing writers were hardened ,seasoned experts who
later on saw the great Joe Louis and after...In 1950 ,they voted Jack Dempsey as the greatest fighter up til then by a large majority, and I
who have never seen the prime Dempsey on film trust their opinion.
Sadly Dempsey today is judged by the films of him circa Gene Tunney
when a three year Hollywood layoff and age 32,slowed down the once tiger like Dempsey...What we see today on film is a shell of the prime tigerish Dempsey of his peak... What irks me today is when a few posters claim that Dempsey was not in the same "class ",as Joe Louis,defying
the boxing experts who saw them both at their peaks...i find this
mystifying...I loved Joe Louis, my hero when I was a boy, and if posters today proclaimed Joe Louis was overated on the basis of his films with
Walcott, Charles, and Marciano,I would know in my heart they were wrong...That was not the prime Joe Louis, and so with Dempsey of the Tunney fights...Therefore I agree with the boxing writers who saw Dempsey and Louis,in their primes and raved about them..Keep punching.

 

Extraordinary! Like a peek into the time tunnel.

At 42, I am old enough to remember how highly regarded these fighters were, and no amount of Internet keyboard banging from younger fans not fortunate to have grown up under their looming presence will ever dissuade me, for two simple reasons:

a) I too choose to take to heart rather than dismiss altogether the seasoned opinions of those that came before us, which to a man render high praise for Jack Dempsey.

b) The film. That's right. I have never understood it except as biased stubbornness when anyone simply disses the Toledo footage. I don't claim to be a boxing expert, but I know enough about technique in the ring to be sheerly impressed with Dempsey's display in that ring --just in the first 3 minutes!-- as something rarely if ever equalled under heavyweight championship conditions in over 100 years: in defense against a monstrously bigger man; in coolness when challenging for the title; in pure speed, accuracy, killer instinct, power and ability with both hands in a fight.

I'm very glad to see Dempsey beginning to regain his rightful place as one of the very greatest fighters of all time. And this will continue to be --in no small measure-- due to the much appreciated input of gentlemen --treasures-- such as yourself, Burt, John and others, who simply based on your years but also first-hand knowledge, deserve the special respect of everyone privileged to post on this forum.

 

I was actually fairly surprised by that as well. For a man who lived from 1896 - 1978 to have Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, and Sonny Liston all in his top 10 was interesting, especially given that Ali's career was still more or less in progress, while Foreman's had just ended.

 

The term " mother ****er " is not usually applied these days to insult the recipient's mother or any part of their family. Its arbitrarily used in the same sense as calling someone a jerk or an *******, hence insulting the individual. Nevertheless, I agree that name calling has no place on this forum, ( though at times I have been provoked into sinking to the level of others. )

 

Your Dad must have been a very knowledgeable boxing man !

 

I'm 55 years young !! I've been a boxing fan since I was an eleven year old. It was the great Muhammad Ali that got me into it all those years ago. Since then I've read up on the sport in great detail. Personally I'd rate Dempsey around 13th or 14th on my all time great heavyweight list. I can certainly understand why others would rate him higher,though. I'll respect anyone's viewpoint.

 

Likewise, but here are my comments...

I have to disagree here. If anything, the film of him beating up Willard has impressed people, myself included. It may not be Blu-ray quality, but it's good enough to make a judgment of his ability.

Which, considering gloved boxing was some 15 years old, doesn't mean all that much.

Sorry but those 25 victims were relative nobodies. Foreman also has a gigantic amount of early knockouts, similarly against cans, but that is not the reason he should rank highly.

Second, the giants of Dempsey's day were horrible, horrible boxers. Dempsey was a giant slayer in his time, and will always be, but time have changed (if you're talking about fantasy head to head ratings).

Which means those seasoned, hardened experts hadn't done their homework or weren't paying attention to their own time, because Joe Louis' record, pardon my French, pisses all over Dempsey's legacy. Did he set a record time for avoiding the #1 challenger? Did he have a habit to fight the loser of title eliminators in order to avoid an other highly decorated challenger? Did he get completely dominated when he stepped up in class? These are things you have to ask yourself, and see how Joseph Barrow compares.

....in addition to the points I made above.

Plus, Joe Louis at age 30-32 was still knocking out top heavyweights and a future champion. Why should Dempsey get a free pass for being inactive or having a short career? If anything, it counts against his legacy.

Okay, here is what I want you to do. Make a table, with two columns: Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey. Then make rows: "number of title defenses", "Number of years holding the heavyweight title", "20 best opponents beaten", "Opponents lost to", "Number of challengers avoided", "Number of hall-of-famers beaten". Add the numbers up and see for yourself the huge difference between these two men. Perhaps you should also add a row called "Skin color" to see one of the reason why despite all of the above going in his favor, Louis wasn't ranked as high as he objectively should've during the pre-60's.

 

all inclusive vacations

Great list there. I would have changed the order around, but you can not argue with the picks.


:happy
atsch

 

I love this place.

 

I am still concerned with Harry Wills. He beat all these black hall of famers very early in his career, ones which Dempsey should have taken on, but did not fight any of them. I really feel Wills resume is superior to Dempsey's. I just don't know if Dempsey would have beaten Wills without footage of Harry in his prime.

Wills vs Madden 1924 is out there on film