The Great Trainers & Fighters on Jack Dempsey

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by RockysSplitNose, Nov 15, 2010.


  1. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,747
    21,593
    Nov 24, 2005
    No one. I agree that based only on that one criterion of "best opponent he holds a win over" it qualifies as his best win.
    But I say that's a very limited and flawed criterion. The nature of the win, the controversy and the dispute, and Dempsey's overall performance conspire against it actually seriously being BEST among his long list of wins.

    I agree with you about the quality of Sharkey though.


    I think it boils down to an individual judgment.
    I mean, I would consider a win in a lesser light if I smell a whiff of dodgyness.
    But if a rumour seems nonsensical and absurd to me it's hard to take it on board at all.

    Maybe I'd say Dempsey-Willard, based on rumours, is 1% more suspect than any other on-the-level fight.
    Clay-Liston is downright suspect, like 90% tainted or something.
     
  2. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    114,853
    51,966
    Mar 21, 2007
    My point.
     
  3. RockysSplitNose

    RockysSplitNose Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,271
    63
    Jul 15, 2007
    Hey everybody I'm getting somewhere!! :happy That almost sounded like an admission of guilt?? :lol:

    Is there a small part of you that thinks there was anything dodgy about the nature of the ending to the first fight aswell?? The dodgy claims about an injured shoulder?? - Liston like a puppet at the post fight press conference?? - do you think the stuff in Clay's/Ali's eyes was a little bit odd?? The over acted hyper craziness of the weigh in and the hyper crazy over acted behaviour of Ali in ring after Liston stayed on his stool?? The uneasy looks on everyone's faces, from Liston himself, his corner men, the comemntators, Joe Louis, everyone at ringside - don't you smell anything??? Anything at all - everytime I watch this fight with any of my mates - they're always saying theres something not quite right about this fight - to a man - you don't even have to know anything about the background of this fight to get a sense that something was not quite right - Liston should've killed Ali in that 5th round no question??? But then again watch this little snippet - Chuvalo thinks this was Ali's best fight so you're in good company

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUl5pL5zqhI[/ame]
     
  4. RockysSplitNose

    RockysSplitNose Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,271
    63
    Jul 15, 2007
    Here's a couple of other bits for everyone to enjoy also - PS Angelo Dundee & Ferdie Pacheco are what we'd call on this side of the pond FULL OF $H1T

    Liston-Clay fight 1 round 5
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5NqG3OFQMg&feature=related[/ame]

    Ali-Liston fight 2

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6yhp93On4I&feature=related[/ame]
     
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    114,853
    51,966
    Mar 21, 2007
    I've been advocating the dive in the first fight since before you joined the forum. It was the first big mantle I really picked up. I've presented, in multiple threads, evidence for the first fight being a fix. It's probably the single most intense area of interest i've shown since I took up an interest in the history. An "admission of guilt"? Are you crazy? Guilt over what?

    What i've asked you for, in this thread, six or seven times without response, is EVIDENCE of the fix that makes you comfortable in tossing out all credit for Ali.

    Yes. I've been saying, for years, literally years, that I think the fight needs to be properly scrutinised, in depth before a person tosses out accusations of a fix.

    Why are the claims dodgy? First Liston's own doctor, then, form memory, six independant doctors (in the form of a single report) confirmed that the injury was bad enough to impair Liston's ability to protect himself.

    Why have you labelled them dodgy?

    What?

    So...Ali celebrating lifting the title wildly and Liston trying to blind Ali help prove the fix how?


    wtf man...seriously.
     
  6. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,747
    21,593
    Nov 24, 2005
    Yes, and it doesn't counteract the argument that he was washed-up over-the-hill against Tunney twice and in the Sharkey fight. He was nowhere near his best, he was marginally better in the Tunney rematch to the first one. He was lucky not have lost to Sharkey.
     
  7. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    114,853
    51,966
    Mar 21, 2007
    Well, again, we're going to disagree here, because we seem to use terms like "washed up" in different ways. It doesn't matter though.
     
  8. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,747
    21,593
    Nov 24, 2005
    :good
     
  9. RockysSplitNose

    RockysSplitNose Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,271
    63
    Jul 15, 2007
    Hope you got my tone in the last post - I am trying to be very tongue in cheek here McGraindon't get overly angry about it - it's only a couple of dodgy old fights anyways - who gives a damn - all I'm saying is boththe fights combined are the two dodgiest (high profile) fights I've ever seen in my short years - my man Jake Lamotta who I met the other week absolutely assured me that both these fights were crooked aswell haha:lol:

    PS some of your responses above suggest you might actually be pretty suspicious of these fights afterall?? :patsch Apologies if I misunderstood LOL - so you agree that the Liston fight's can not be credibly used to support the myth that Ali is the greatest ever period?? Great stuff man:good you had me going there for a minute :lol:
     
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    114,853
    51,966
    Mar 21, 2007
    I don't throw out fights for "suspicion". I need proof. Even the proof for the second fight is incidental, if weighty. There is also incidental evidence in support of the fights being on the level.

    To throw out any and all fights which have a hint of suspicion is to re-write that history. Ambitious to say the least, but you must at least be consistent.
     
  11. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,747
    21,593
    Nov 24, 2005
    I think there's a tipping point of suspicion where fights can be more or less disregarded.
    Clay-Liston is most likely a fix by my judgment. I more or less disregard it, but I dont give Liston any free pass for losing.
     
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    114,853
    51,966
    Mar 21, 2007
    Like a tipping point of circumstantial? I'd be happy with that, if I thought someone had put the work in...when there's a reek of bias or politics it's something else altogether.

    Out of interest, what do you mean about a "free pass for losing"?
     
  13. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,747
    21,593
    Nov 24, 2005
    Yes, a tipping point of circumstantial evidence. Of course it still boils down to individual judgment in the final analysis.


    I mean, even though I believe he didn't try to win, I'm not making that an absolute alibi for losing. His career fizzled out with the Clay fights and I'm not going to assume he could have beaten Clay or perhaps some of the other top contenders at that stage of his career.
     
  14. prime

    prime BOX! Writing Champion Full Member

    2,564
    91
    Feb 27, 2006
    My criterion for ranking greats is head-to-head, comparing relative abilities. The same criterion "experts" use (certainly those in 1950) for the most part when ranking fighters. This is what "experts" (such as Sam Langford and Ray Arcel about Jack Dempsey) have in mind when they say, "So-and-so was the greatest fighter I ever saw."

    Résumé-wise ranking is another, just as valid, criterion. It is much more statistically measurable.

    Based on résumé, Dempsey has no place at or near the top of the heavyweights.

    Based on skills, something any fan worth his salt should be able to defend, Jack Dempsey is certainly in my top five heavyweights of all time.
     
  15. RockysSplitNose

    RockysSplitNose Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,271
    63
    Jul 15, 2007
    I go mainly on head to head and how I think they've performed throughout their careers taking into account circumstances background to the fights age at the time, conditioning at the time etc etc form of oppontent at the time that sort of thing - I also taking into account resume to some extent as far as appreciating the fighters in their own right although some times it does fall down big time - such as if you go by resume then really IMO Floyd Patterson has a greater overall resume than Sonny Liston but then Sonny Liston wiped him out twice in the first round so that kind of renders the resume thing meaningless right there - it's all about the impression you get I suppose - like I know personally that the 2nd Ali-Liston fight was 100% a fix - and all things considered (although I am definately not 100% about their first fight) my gut feeling about the first fight is that something wasn't right with that one either - two much dodginess all round - no other of Ali's fights give me that feeling at all - you can almost smell it from the looks on the faces of everyone involved and the guilty behaviours and responses of everyone involved - I don't get that feeling about any other Ali or Liston fight - I think I have a good eye for spotting when something is fake and I am certain that Liston was acting - can't say for sure how he'd have done mind - had he not been tanking the fights??