My Dad's Top 10 Heavyweights

Very interesting list. Many people of your father's generation have Liston much higher.

 

Oh please. Those came against complete tomato cans. Fighters since then step up in competition quicker, hence this record standing for a time. If Tyson fought 50 cans before he stepped up, I guarantee you that Dempsey's record would be doubled.

Like sitting on the throne for 3 years and denying challengers a title shot?

Just the fact that you say "he jabs", asif that's an accomplishment on it's own tells me enough. He was a brutally primitive, horribly skilled boxer. Just watch the film. It's guys like him who start the stereotype of big boxers being uncoordinated and clumsly.

So if this guy has an iron chin as you or others proclaim, then how come one --- one!---- punch was enough to floor him?

This is hogwash. People DID rate Dempsey as a more accomplished heavyweight than Joe Louis, which is completely ridiculous. Louis' accomplishments are better than Dempsey's in every reasonable way you can look at it.

As for the reference to Ali's record on paper - what the heck are you talking about?? His legacy is filled to the brim with ranked contenders whom he beat. Did he have a habit of setting up title eliminators and then fight the LOSER of those? Did he set a record in ducking the #1 contender for the longest period in history of boxing, for any weight class?

If you can tell me with a straight face that Dempsey is the greater heavyweight than Joe Louis and say you've done your homework, then you're a great liar. Because this is what those so-called experts thought. Remember that film, records and news papers weren't as easily accessible back then as they are now.

And Lennox Lewis thought Vitali Klitschko had no chance against Sam Peter. Your point?

I know. Emotional attachment to fighters you see in a certain period of your life, especially if their style is exciting, is strong. Especially when gloved boxing is only about 10 years old when you see said champion. Many still consider Tyson the greatest fighter they ever saw, today, and he's had 80 years of champions behind him.

 

I don't want to deny Jack Dempsey his rightful dues, but I can't see any rational argument for rating him above or anywhere near Joe Louis. How in the hell does 6 title defenses in 7 years, hold a candle to a reign that lasted over a decade and consisted of 25 title wins, not to mention victories over 6 past, present or future world champs?

 

Does your dad have lots of fight films? What's he got?

 

To all these great experts who like to say Dempsey sat on the title and didnt defend it.You have to realize that was what they did back then.They toured with vaudville shows and circuses.Dempsey was always itching to fight but Doc was the manager and thats how things were done.Same with the Wills bull**** Im always hearing.Dempsey was quoted that he wouldnt have any trouble with him,it was Tex Rickard that wouldnt promote the fight.

 

Id also like to add that I think Dempsey would be all over Louis and stop him in about 8 rds or so.

 

Jack Dempsey was the greatest heavyweight who ever lived.

End thread.

 

Woulda, coulda, shoulda!

Nah, of course you are correct in pointing out the barnstorming nature of many early-round Dempsey kayoes. But the heftiest part of this run includes the destruction of quality fighters such as Brennan, Fulton, Levinsky, Morris and Gunboat Smith, culminating at Toledo.

I have watched the film quite enough. Of course I am not praising Willard's inactivity as champion, but how he began to break into the fight. In no hurry, he was keeping Jack at a distance and tying him up as he came in. He was obviously looking at the long haul, where he could wear out the small coil he had before him. I guess we will have to disagree on how we view the Giant here. Sure, it's not a graceful Ali or fluid Holmes. Willard's style was very different. By the same token, I do see a 6'6", 245lb champion moving, jabbing and clinching -yes, by today's standards included- as well as any quality professional fighter of his dimensions would.

This all ended with the first knockdown! The uncoordination and clumsiness you see are a result of leather from Jack.

Size and weight are worshipped here by some. The fact that scrawny little Jack Dempsey floors a champion 58 pounds heavier, 5 inches taller, who had never been knocked out, with one picture-perfect left hook shatters as well the myth that Dempsey would be too small, too light, too weak, too primitive, to even compete with a Lennox Lewis or either Klitschko.

Friend, the nature of a ranking placing Dempsey over Louis is not a statistical one, but --like the gentleman's father's in this thread-- a head-to-head, best version-against-best version type. This seems to be a major rift around here. Commentators such as the majority who in 1950 saw Dempsey as the greatest fighter ever did so because, in their estimation, he was the best man they ever saw in a ring, not because his title defenses or quality reign was superior to Joe Louis'. By the way, this is the heart of my personal rankings, as well, simply because I've always believed the record you bring into the ring cannot help you if the guy in the other corner manages to intimidate you or outmaneuver you --or plain knock you out cold-- even with an inferior record.

I appreciate a listing based on cold, hard facts. In this sense, Louis' 11 years as champ and 25 defenses blow Dempsey's numbers out of the water. But an actual clash between the two would be much, much more even.

Come on! Lewis was not denied a title shot because of his skin tone. No parallel whatsoever. My point is simple: when experts such as Sam Langford and Mike Tyson hold Dempsey in such high esteem, I will not lie to you and say I do not bask in such respected company, and I am not particularly bothered by the contrary opinions of some on a boxing forum!

Very true. But when Dempsey is placed at the top of such an estimable crop of fighters from all weight classes as the boxers of the first half of the 20th century --unless there was a vast conspiracy to deceitfully elevate rugged-looking, cropped-hair white mediocrities-- I would say it should carry the weight of legitimacy.

And best of luck to your country in the Cup finale!

 

Mine is:

1. Ali
2. Holmes
3. Johnson
4. Louis
5. Lewis
6. Foreman
7. Vitali Klit
8. Evan Holy
9. Mike Tyson
10 Frazier / Marciano (tie)

MR.BILLhat

Note:

Peak "Liston and Wlad Klit" prolly KILL Marciano and Frazier in a time machine.....

 

Vitali Klitschko is **** and horrible.

manbearbig:heyhat

 

At his best,I and so many boxing writers who saw him,louis etc would agree with you...The man was a tiger ,rough and ready, but aside from the herky jerky Willard film,there is no film of him at his best...
I evaluate Dempsey by what the vast majority of his contemporary's wrote about him...Experts who watched him and Louis and after voted him the greatest fighter in 1950...I go with the consensus on that vote..If I am wrong ,I am wrong with the majority, and i can live with that....

 

Jack Dempsey - birth date June 24, 1895
Joe Louis - birth date May 13, 1914




Therefore Jack Dempsey > Joe Louis.

 

I wouldn't bet against the Wladdy Klit from 2006 to the present.....:-(

MR.BILL