[RING, Dec. 1962] 40 Experts Pick Greatest Heavyweight (Dempsey wins)

Or how about just looking at their stuff and then politely disagreeing?

 

Nope.When sparring Johnson used to wrap gauze around his ***** to enlarge it,and play on the fears of sexual inferiority of white males .
The book you refer to by Dan McCaffery, is a pile of **** stuffed with inaccuracies, myths, lazily and badly written with no discernible research apparent in its scribblings
I'm not surprised you lapped it up!
ps I gave this pile of trash an absolutely stinking review on Amazon, now it currently sells for 44 UK pence in hard back, or about 30 US cents which is more than it is worth!

 

The problem with that is that if by some quasi-miracle Wider won, this would indeed count as evidence (limited, but significant) that size matters less than is commonly asserted.

It damn sure isn't that Wilder can't hurt Joshua; he just wont get the chance to, barring improbable luck.

 

Wilder was offered $15,000,000 to fight AJ by Hearn yesterday and a further $5000,000 to fight an opponent of his own choosing.Wilder habitually makes about $1000,000 a fight,has never sold out even the 18,000 Barclays Centre.AJ sells out 90,000 arenas, that is unheard of in the US since Joe Louis' time yes?
I don't think Wilder is frightened of AJ but I do believe his team do not want this fight.
Hearn may be happy to let AJ have another couple of defences first, there are plenty of options ,Whyte, Fury,Miller,all will make millions.but AJ wants to unify,he wants Wilder!
AJ will defend against Povetkin no3,Wilder will defend against Breazeale whom AJ beat the **** out of in his 17th fight!
One is a champion one is an fraud and their respective records tell you which one is which!

 

Stop press, Wilder has just publicly turned down the $15M offer from Hearn to fight AJ in April.Wilder's biggest purse to date is $2.5M against Ortiz.QUACK QUACK!!!

 

A sock or gauze. Both could be correct. A better question is why did Jack Johnson want grown men to watch him bathe and do stuff things in his pants?

Sure -- You don't like any book that doesn't suite your agenda, and cherry picks the ones that do.

PS: I don't care how you review things on Amazon, but by telling us, your agenda is showing once again

 

Why is it so crazy to vote Tunney the greatest, but not crazy to vote Dempsey the greatest?

Tunney beat Dempsey twice, and Tunney beat some of the best Dempsey opponents, Gibbons, Carpentier, Levinsky.

Do Dempsey's wins over such as the old Willard or the crude Firpo justify him being above the Tunney who beat him.

Does even Sharkey? If Sharkey loses to Dempsey between Dempsey's losses to Tunney, isn't this a pretty good indication that Sharkey isn't really in Tunney's class? So whom exactly did Dempsey beat to prove himself better than Tunney?

 

On Nat Fleischer

The whole Jack Johnson dressing bit in Paris is a really strange diversion which says more about the guy who posted it than Nat Fleischer.

Although it is posted as an "often" event, the quote seems to imply it happened only in France. Anyway, Johnson's musculature across the chest and down the legs would be visible in a boxing ring.

What is missing is any evidence Fleischer was even present.

As for his rating of Johnson, how is this different from any of his other ratings?

Heavy--Jack Johnson
Lt-heavy--Kid McCoy
Middle---Stanley Ketchel
Welter---Joe Walcott
Lightweight--Joe Gans
Feather----Terry McGovern
Bantam----George Dixon
Flyweight--Jimmy Wilde

All of these men except Wilde peaked before 1910. (There was no flyweight champion before Wilde, who was the first and started his career in 1911, becoming champion in 1916.) Only Wilde, and Ketchel, were not active fighters in the 19th century.

Bias against anyone not a turn of the century fighter is the obvious bias, with sexual insinuations hardly necessary, or anything but bizarre projections which raise more questions for me about those who go there than it raises questions about Nat.

As for Nat being a friend of Johnson, so what. He was a friend of a lot of old-time boxers. I think he was actually closer to Dempsey, who supported The Ring financially at times.

 

As for the poll, two things stand out--

1---These "experts" don't include some of the more famous boxing writers alive at the time--A J Liebling, W C Heinz, Jimmy Cannon, Red Smith, Gilbert Odd, Stanley Weston, nor all kinds of people who might be considered better experts than some of these taking part.

2---I agree with the more than 2/3 majority who did not think Dempsey was the greatest. After all, 27 of the 40 voters voted for someone else. We really don't know how a head to head between Dempsey and Louis or Dempsey and Johnson would have come out. It is possible that the second choice of the Louis voters would have been Johnson and the second choice of the Johnson voters would have been Louis.

*I anticipate a backlash about how can I focus on the guys who didn't vote for Dempsey rather than the guys who did. Isn't this raw bias? Well, it happens all the time when there is an open election. There are six or seven candidates running in the primary, and one candidate with extreme views gets the plurality with the other candidates splitting the vast majority of votes. In the general election with only two candidates, that candidate proves to be not all that popular and loses badly.

I don't know how one on one polls would have gone, but I personally wouldn't draw any big conclusion from this sort of poll as the winner didn't even pull one-third of the votes.

 

I'm wondering if Nat Fleischer ever saw James Corbett fight in person. He would have fainted had he seen those tiny, thong like shorts Corbett wore.

This content is protected

 

Now you're making up categorical claims that no one attributed to you ("will always be determinitive" ) just so you can point out that you never made them. Much easier to hit the ball when you pitch it to yourself, isn't it?

Even so, this could still work if the claim were a logically unavoidable suppressed premise in my comment, but it isn't so it doesn't.

 

There's one old school practice I won't defend. I got nothin'.