Truly Great Heavyweights

Sorry mate I made a mistake, it was Firpo who sent him out of the ring. Apologies for that mixup, just realized very soon after I'd typed it and corrected the post. Has been a long day at work. Anyway that fight in question was in 1923, four years before his first fight against Tunney so Dempsey couldn't have been that far past his best.

Fair enough about your Johnson points I suppose, I guess we'll never quite know. I just rate Johnson higher as a fighter, from all I've read heard and seen. That's the crux of it.

 

It would be verry hard to produce a top 10 heavyweight list that didnt include Dempsey.

Now if we bring pound for pound issues into the equation then Dempsey is the main winner.

Some posters here probably think that his heavyweight resume is approximately equal to that of Lennox Lewis give or take but of course he is 55 lbs lighter.

 

thats ok mate, my point was all great fighters have had rough moments vs inferior fighters :good

 

Sadly, we have been through the evaluation of Jack Dempsey's resume to the point of beating a dead horse. In fact, I think it was probably the only topic on this forum from about December to February.

Dempsey was a great champion, but I often see a double standard when listening to the posters who point out his positive points, then listen to the same posters who critique the resumes of say Holmes and Patterson. The latter two are often slapped on the hand for failing to face mandatories or other qualified contenders of their given period, while the lesser is often given a pass for going through a three year period without a single defense, nor facing a concensus great fighter of the era. In 5 title defenses over a 7 year period he gave at least 1 or 2 title shots to challengers who could not possibly come close to being valid contenders to a title. While most champions are guilty of doing this, the difference here is that when you only defend a title 5 times in a 7 year period, everyone of those defenses had better count. Holmes certainly fought a few guys like Frank, Ledoux, Bey, etc, but at least he defended his belt 20 times in 7 years, which in my opinion buys him a bit more room for a few flop contenders, as well as a few duckings. Dempsey should have no such luxury. Holmes fighting a 22-0 Scott Frank was surely better than not fighting anyone at all over the duration of a 3 year period. No argument could be manufactured to make me think different. Holmes fails to defend against 1 mandatory despite facing 4 ranked contenders within the same year, and his title is automatically revolked.

 

thats fair enough

but i think Dempsey is equally criticised for not facing top contenders.

 

Sams run would have prolly ended around 1914. Maybe hed lose to another great african fighter and gain it back in a rematch, but yes he would have started fading away after that. If hed still be champ by around say 1916-17, hed lose to White hope Fulton

 

Fair post overall.

 

completely forgot about that atsch But yes probably around 1913, then he may have kayoed Wills in the rematch as he did

Imeagine how fourious Rickard would have been seeing the title in African-American hands