Question to those who rank Dempsey high

Chris, what i don't get is that u continually refer to Dempsey as if everyone is rating him high, yet people here pick the likes of Floyd Patterson and Michael Spinks to beat him, claim that he had a "crappy" chin based on one ko loss, and criticise him for fighting Willard even though to win the title u have to fight who the champion is. So why even bother with these threads when alot of people have a lower opinion on Dempsey then u do? Dempsey is proabably the most criticised fighter on the forum, quiet often there are criticisms of him in three to four threads at one time. He is even accused of having "loaded gloves" by some here.

 

I don't think one can conclude that Dempsey's opponnents were not very good. Miske had good wins following the Dempsey fight and was one of the top contenders of the era, this is a very good win for Dempsey. Gibbons fought some top guys as well, this seems like a good win.

 

Gibbons lost nearly every time he stepped up? It doesn't look that way to me. Gibbons lost to Greb but Greb was capable of beating good heavyweights despite his size.

 

Jeanette was out of contention during Dempsey's prime. Dempsey would have had no reason to fight him.

 

:good

 

I wish you wouldnt give other people credit for my exploits.

 

Well it certainly shows who knows their ****, and who don't - emphatically.

 

Many of the people pushing the anti Dempsey bandwagon here seem to lack basic knowledge of the era like thge time scale between Dempsey and fighters from adjacent areas, and the relative standing of certain fighters within the era.

Hardly the basis for a festival of self congratulation.

 

Sorry, but i'm not talking Dempsey. I'm talking Foster

 

I would like to see a link to all of those 3 accusations. I have not seen anyone blaming Dempsey for fighting Willard in all the time i've been posting here. Neither have i seen anyone claim that Patterson or Spinks would beat Dempsey, the only thing i saw is that someone claimed Spinks could go the distance with Dempsey, which is not all that unreasonable considering lesser fighters went 12 and 15 with Dempsey as well.
In case you were referring to me about criticising him for fighting Willard, i merely stated that his ranking seems to skyrocket because the brutality of the win, while most people don't know how horribly bad Willard was.

I think this is the first time Dempsey is criticised widely within more than a years time. Hey - it happens, this is a forum. There was a time when there were 4 "Quitali Quitschko is a *****" threads on the front page for a week. At least my threads and posts are of constructive nature. Holmes has had a shitload of criticism, too. Not to mention Marciano and Lewis.

 

Look, all i'm saying is that even great trainers can have very flawed judgement. There are other great trainers (forgot their names at the moment) who had Ken Norton, and believe it or, Earnie Shavers in their top10 list.

Okay, how about this. Dempsey takes half a minute to stay on the outside, then comes inside, eats a huge uppercut and contrary to the wild swinging Firpo (the only puncher that landed on Dempsey), Foreman has pretty good accuracy and will finish him sooner or later.

 

Dempsey would destroy Foster in one round.

That is about as far as Foster is relevant to this thread.

 

I'm not so sure. Foster was black, and could fight a bit. Like Wills. I'm betting the fight wouldn't have happened

:good