The Great Trainers & Fighters on Jack Dempsey

Jeez what is your problem - they fought when they were young (difficult to say with Ali though as he'd just come back from 3 years out - but he was still only 29) - Frazier beat him - that's the fight that matters - you can't say the thrilla 5 years later when they were both knackered and a stone overweight matters more than this fight???

no he fought him with a slipped disc once when Patterson couldn't even stand straight and was in agony all the way through - and Ali was like 22/23 and at his absolute peak - the other fights came when they were both a little older and a little softer and Patterson actually gave him a pretty decent fight as it happens - that must make Patterson a dead cert for the top 10 then??

what PROOF do you have that it wasn't?? You said yourself you couldn't be sure - I'm absolutley 100% sure of all the fights that I'm sure about

that was geniuspriceless

It's not my 'argument' its my frustration atsch PS don't start dropping in insults - I'm doing my best to avoid it myself - apologies if any have sneaked out but please don't call me demented

 

Some posters,avoid facts in this latest debate. To wit.
They bring up Dempsey everytime saying he avoided Harry Wills,even though every
one with eyes can see Dempsey and Wills signing for a fight for promoter Floyd
Fitzimmons,which fell through...These photos of the signing is witness to this FACT.
They dont want to know this as it does not fit their agenda.What other conclusion is there ?
When they bring up the name of Jack Dempsey, it is like flashing a red flag in front of a bull. Dempsey fought whoever was available at the time,aside from the Harry Wills
cancellation,and the great middleweight Harry Greb.. Dempsey i believe in a regular distance fight would have eventually have caught up to Harry and kod him.Dempsey was
not the big slower heavyweights of that time. Greb was quoted as admitting that "Jack
would kill me after a few rounds ".
Whenever they demean the merits of Jack Dempsey, they mention Gene Tunney,who
an old,out of fighting shape,Dempsey who hadn't fought in over three years.Not fair.
It is like 90 years from now seeing film of Ali fighting Spinks, Berbick or Larry Holmes,
and judging Ali on these films,when he was way past his prime...Wrong I say.
Or seeing film of Ray Robinson,taking a severe beating from Ralph Tiger Jones, when
Robinson was past his great peak...Wrong, I say..
And so should Dempsey be judged for his legacy when Jack Dempsey was at HIS
PEAK...Now THAT would be FAIR...
I believe that the Dempsey of Toledo era,for a few years,would have been hell for any heavyweight, because of his rare combo of speed, punching power, viciousness,
along with a will to destroy, seldom seen before or since...
And I am not alone in my thinking, I believe....

 

I haven't ignored the fight I just say the first fight is the one that really matters above all else and the result of that really over rules the second (certainly not the other way round - to suggest such would fly in the face of logic IMO)

Frazier's best was Ali I (Frazier was 205) - for Manila he was officially 215 - OK 10 pounds not far off a stone - anyone can see from looking at the two versions the he was a shadow of the 71' version as was Ali who was exactly a stone over his peak weight at bang on 224 - Ali looked slobbish to me at anything over 215 - Ali arguably should've been retired by the time of the Manila bout - that's how far past it he was - and they were considering a 3rd match with Frazier an easy money match against an old washed up rival - that's how far past it he was.

again circumstances - the versions of Frazier that Ali beat and circumstances he beat them under make them no better than anything Dempsey did IMO

again the versions of Patterson Ali faced (and without any shadow of a doubt the younger version he faced was so badly handicapped at the time) in this case Dempsey had many many many better wins than this - you must be having a laugh if you think all of Dempsey's opponents were worse than a Patterson stooped over in pain unable to do anything???

no the burden is on you - I can already see a dodgy fight when I see one - you are the one who is unsure

you can't seriously claim that the Lewiston maine bout was a good win for Ali can you?? Come on man be real

I was making the point that the vast majority follow the crowd like sheep dogs because they've been spoon fed the usual 70's crap - then you tried to counter that with the above???? You just backed up what I was trying to say - the vast majority rank him either number 1 or number 2 - and that is the problem!!

see the above for proof that the reverse is actually true

 

Of course one result cancel out another - that is ridiculous - if one result doesn't cancel out another then I'll say to hell with it then Ali's losses to Larry Holmes & Trevor Berbick do matter then and none of Ali's great victories when he was at his peak make any difference Ali lost to Holmes and Berbick so that's it they're both better than Ali - one result doesn't cancel out another obviously so.....

In my opinion the first Ali fight is Fraziers best - end of

The only reason Ali beat Frazier in Manila is that he was (only just) marginally less washep up than Frazier - that is not something which should be applauded - they were both washed up - Frazier just a tad more - Ali in my eyes was really shot to peices after the Foreman fight - he never beat a ATG fighter after this point - when Dempsey lost to Tunney Dempsey was a million miles from what he'd been - and Tunney was a great great fighter at his absolute peak - and still Dempsey came close to a KO in their 2nd fight - thats the difference - so even though this is not really a huge factor for me - again i'd say Dempsey impressed me more in that regard

I don't leave anything out - Miske was in remision from Brights and won 24 further fights after Dempsey including some pretty impressive wins - so neither me or you really know his condition for the Dempsey fight - I'd say if someone can have a further 24 wins (and some pretty decent ones at that - then reports about his bad condition at the time of the Dempsey fight have been somewhat overblown) PS is having a loss against Harry Greb a point to prove somebody wasn't a great fighter????

Interestingly you should ask Frazier what he thinks of Jack Dempsey

PS we're not going to drift off into Fraziervs Dempsey subplot now are we??

you think a 37 year old Patterson is a better win than any that Dempsey had??? I don't think even you truely beleive that if you genuienly do beleive that then ooooooooooohh mmmyyyyyyyyyyy goooooooooooood!!?

My own eyes is my evidence You said yourself you couldn't be sure one way or the other earlier - now you seem quite forthright?? Whats changed??

Ranked contenders means nothing - I can't be bothered to look it up I simply go on whether they were any great shakes as a fighter - the likes of Cooper (and Cooper nearly stopped him!!!), London, Williams & Folley when they fought Ali, were not fighters who Ali should've been fighting, Patterson the first time is one of the worst - he could barely actually stand straight that - fight in my mind was a disgrace - Terrell was ordinary -first decent fighter Ali fought in his career was Doug Jones - and looks what happened - tough fight for him - two bogus farces versus Liston - banned from fighting for 3 years comes back at 28 gets his ass kicked by Frazier at aged 29, has to come again gets his ass kicked by someone nobody had even heard of at the time - and was given an extremely tough fight when they rematched - managed to beat Frazier who'd recently had his bubble burst and the stuffing knocked out of him by Foreman in a rematch (which was marred by shenanigans with the referee) - great great great defeat of the monster man Foreman - Ali really showed his true greatness in this one - but then wouldn't give Foreman a return on home soil where Foreman arguably might've had better preparation and a more acceptible altitude for his stamina problem to cope with - then Ali did his own version of the bum of the month club for a bit and along the way got beat by Young, Shavers and Norton but oh it's Ali so we'll overlook that and give him the decisions anyway - he has hell with Frazier in manila when they are both old and fat and then he goes and gets shown up by 6-fight novice Leon Spinks and arguably doesn;t really do a great deal in the return when he was trying to redeem is reputation - but hell he can now say he is a 3-time champion!!! then he retires and then he comes back and gets tortured by Holmes and then he does slightly better against the (luckily) limited Berbick....need I go on

the longevity thing aswell - Ali in my mind was a shot fighter after Foreman - so he was done at 32 which is about the age Dempsey himself was done by so again not a huge difference between them on that either

PPS there is a ranking problem - I was simply stating that it is ridiculous to say the Ali's record was stupendously superior to Dempsey's and to view Ali as far far beyond - head and shoulders above anyone - to the point where fighters who were just as great (are just completely over looked these days - to the detrement of the sports history (and future in my eyes)

 

My argument still stands. Predictably RSN tried, hilariously, to tear apart the best heavyweight record there is instead of giving an argument for Dempsey's not being a long way below what entitles him to the lofty ranking he and burt give him. That old Henry Cooper myth brought out, eh. "Almost knocked out". Up at the count of 3 means "Almost knocked out" now eh? He was hit with a cracking punch as he came off the ropes and he got up then changed gears to stop Cooper in the next round. Why is that not a positive!? Heart, recovery, determination.

Also, burt, would you be so kind as to let me know who is your third best heavyweight? I know the Brown Bomber is second, but I've never seen beyond your top two. I'm just rather interested.

 

PigBearBoy, I wasn't tearing apart Ali's record - I think he was amazing - I rank him 4th in history for christs sake!! I was simply pointing out where people reel out the old statements about the rose tinted 70's and Ali's longevity (done at 32 - that's incredible - nobody was past it at 32 right??) etc and how Ali beat so many greats (2 bogus matches with an old Liston, beat by Frazier in their most important fight, arguably beat twice by Norton, beat by Shavers, beat by Holmes,??? One great win against Foreman for me doesn't add up to an increidble record against great fighters at their best) etc - well he had a great career and was a great fighter but he did have his downsides aswell and the 70's weren't all great just like any other fighter and any other era - it just grates on me that people just assume that Ali was far and away the greatest just because he said he was and he's had the best marketing in history bar none and he's on the front of anything boxing related so the general public doesn't know anything about boxing other than Ali etc etc - i saw a 2011 boxing calender (the other day in town - a veritable rarity of an item) again who was on the front Ali - obviously they couldn't put anyone else on the front because the only boxer worth anything is Ali??

On the Cooper knockdown - Ali was gone - his eyes were in orbit - he was lucky that it happened right at the end of the round really - if it had happened at the start of the round he would've at least had to ship a lot more punishment - not saying Cooper would've finished him by any means but it doesn't bode well does it?? Yeah fair play he did well getting the smelling salts to bring him round and then slightly worsened Coopers already horrendous cut so that the ref would pull the fight - and left Cooper gesturing in absolute frustration that Ali had got away :good

 

It's not a fact at all.
It's an opinion - yours.

Personally I don't see how Dempsey-Sharkey was his career "best win".
It was a controversial win, and did nothing much to truly convince anyone that Dempsey was back to true championship form. Sharkey had him all shook up, and outboxed him for about 6 rounds. Dempsey perhaps got gifted the win by Sharkey's amateurish emotional outburst to Dempsey's alleged fouls.

 

Fair enough request....
In their PRIMES, for that is what we ,or ! am talking about, I have in
historical order Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis,and Sonny Liston,
ahead of Ali...I believe that the Sonny Liston who fought Ali in 1964-65
was much older than his alleged 33 years...He was on the way downhill,
and not the same fighter I saw blasting guys out prior..I also firmly believe
that there was very fishy events involved in those two fights.
I also think that Gene Tunney,when he retired ,had a 50-50 chance of
outthinking and outmaneuvering Ali,for a decision,regardless of Tunney's
unimpressive opposition...So, to sum it up I have Ali about #5-6 IMO.
Not a bad rating for the self acknowledged " greatest ', to be...

 

Dempsey gets criticised on here for not fighting Harry Greb but I do wonder what would be the line on him if he'd actually fought and won against Greb.

Greb was a 5'8" middleweight, 165 pounds or less, who lacked a KO punch. And we'd probably be hearing a lot about that if Dempsey had defended against him.

Jack Johnson gets no credit for fighting Ketchel, who was said to possess a heavyweight punch, and Jeffries gets laughed at by some around here for winning the title from Fitzsimmons, who had a GREAT heavyweight punch.
As great as Greb clearly was, I think the fact that he was small and did NOT possess a big punch would be enough to declare him a pretty awful challenger for Dempsey, almost as bad as Carpentier (who was nowhere near as good but could at least punch), IF Dempsey had fought and beat him.
But as Dempsey did not fight him, Greb gets his just dues as a worthy challenger.

 

McGrain, please don't question my veracity, when I quoted what I READ
many years ago about Greb telling this boxing writer, of his opinion that
"after a couple of rounds, Jack would kill me "...Read this I did...At my
stage of life, I dont have to embellish the truth....The truth of a statement,is more reliable when uttered than 80 years later, when the
source has long died...
If every fact stated 80-90 years ago,has to be proven today,we could
be in a verbal stalemate...The sources of these opinions are gone with the passage of time....But I can assure you, that I read this quote....

 

very true.