Dempsey at 16 of the last 80 years. Ahead of Hagler,Chavez,Holmes,Burley and other greats..I find this to be disgusting. Do they have their heads completely up there asses? I know this is the Ring and this is an older list but jesus. Thoughts on this?
In his short prime such as tysons he would have a big chance of beating any heavyweight in history,the power of the best heavys,the speed of a middleweight,the boxing skill(when needed) better than tommy gibbons-i think he would roll over all of todays heavys or cruisers whats disgusting is how many of todays fans neglect the opinions of the greats of yesteryears,and latch on to the slow plodding,overweight,huggers of today,and only slam the greats such as louis,dempsey ,rocky,jeffries,walcott,langford,and so on because of shitty films and because todays heavies have a few more pounds of fat or muscle,with half the aggression and skill
Jack Dempsey was a great fighter. Furthermore he did much for the popularity of the sport. Especially in the Golden Twenties.
I am not saying he should or should not be ranked higher in some absolute, emphatic sense. It is, however, reasonable that he is. Hagler, though I love him, had many off nights and as short a prime as Dempsey. Holmes put together the longest string of no-hopers ever to constitute a title reign. Chavez probably has the best argument of the three but certainly met at least his equal if not better toward the end of his career. Dempsey had the sense to call it a day when his talents were depleted. Again, these are hardly emphatic, overwhelming stances but reasonable ones that cast the whole ranking process in a different light. And by the by, these sorts of lists are ridiculous to begin with.
He has fewer losses than Dempsey, better wins and a much better title reign. Should count for something. So Dempsey's string of no-hopers being shorter should somehow benefit him? By being schooled two times by Tunney? By spending some of his best years in Hollywood instead of in the ring he in a way called it quits before his talents were depleted, actually. That he choose to do this instead of fighting the best out there (Wills, Grebb) not only keeps him outside a reasonable top 20, but perhaps also a reasonable top 100. There is nothing reasonable with them, and if one should bother with a ranking at all it should at least be some thought behind it.
Dempsey is always overrated, he finished 6th in the official end of century vote & Im not talking a HWT poll, Im talking a p4p poll. That is ****ed up. Tunney should always be ahead of Dempsey & 6th is probably too high for Gene, Dempsey at 6 or in this case 16 is wrong, do these guys actually know the meaning of p4p ? :huh
Different eras completely, different rules of ascension. I don't think Hagler ever fought while starving or was thrown to wolves with someone the likes of John Lester Johnson before he was 20. Completely inane comparison. Bagging on Dempsey's reign is a favorite pastime of the revisionists but he fought and beat who he was paid to fight and beat. All were legitimate highly ranked opponents, three of whom ended up in the Hall of Fame. Sure, were it not for the times and his management, it could have been a better run but it was nothing to blithely disregard. I'll take Gibbons and a sick Miske (who was so sick he went on to beat Gibbons, Meehan and Brennan afterwards) over Scott Frank and the like. Tunney is all-time pound for pound great, vastly underrated in my opinion. It is no shame to lose to such a man at the tale end of your career. Despite the distractions and "what if's" and the constraints of his time, Dempsey's career taken at face value is still an immensely impressive thing. I find the top 20 not unreasonable (though I might not put him there). He certainly gains admittance into the top 35. I'm sorry, that many great minds of the sport, who saw Dempsey and the eras that preceded him or followed him, simply can not be wrong.
Sure, there are different eras, but Hagler's record is still superior in every department. It should also be noted that even though Dempsey often fought under bad circumstances, his opponents did as well. And Hagler, unlike Dempsey, fought in an era where blacks were able to compete on equal terms. If they had been afforded this opportunity in Dempsey's time he might not even have become champion. Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't take Firpo and Carpentier over Witherspoon, Norton, Shavers and Weaver, though. And lets' not forget that Holmes was beating world class opposition at an age when Dempsey was ten years into retirement. I agree. But it seemed like you suggested that Dempsey went out on a high note, but going out with two clear losses and a somewhat fortituis win is not my idea of a high note. I think that the distractions in Dempsey's time was fewer than they are today, and the thing is that his career isn't that great when taken at face value. His best wins are over guys like Carpentier, Sharkey and Miske - he has his fair amount of losses and is 0-2 against his best opponent. But even more damaging is that he avoided the best opponents out there. These facts doesn't change just because some "great minds" say so, anymore than the earth becomes flat or was created by God in 7 days just because great minds have claimed so in the past.
Before everyone jumps on it, let's make sure that we're jumping on it for the right reason. Many of these mainstream ratings factor in "impact on the sport" and related irrelevancies in ranking fighters. I've seen a hundred of these ratings that offer this argument in putting Ali at #1. ...Furthermore, anyone putting up a list should really at least sum up how they got there. What are the measures? Head-to-head? Level of Comp? Ability against larger opponents? Longevity?
Dempsey would have a heyday with most of the heavys in your top 20 list,you almost had to be a back peddler to beat dempsey
