Where do you rank Jack Dempsey??

Who? Who would've been worth the effort financially? Greb, great as he was, was undersized and wouldn't have made Dempsey a lot of money for the risk. We've established that the "coin" heavily influenced Dempsey's career. Greb is a HUGE risk, for a fight where Dempsey would be heavily expected to win anyways.

Tiger Woods had a $50 million dollar endorsement deal with Nike before he won his first Grand Slam. LeBron had a $90 million dollar shoe deal before he ever played a professional game. The difference between then and now, and how much success an athlete could have is monumental.

If you weren't HW champ, forget making a lot of money in boxing - especially if you weren't a HW to begin with. Without that HW title, you better believe Dempsey's financial opportunity is severly affected. It's not like he could go out and get a commercial deal for Hanes underwear after his career was over. Holding the belt equaled money; not having held it or being expected to hold it. Not in those days.

De La Hoya has fought 11 times in the last 7 years. Not even an average of two fights per year, which is near average nowadays. Why? Because he could sit and wait for the next big payday to show.

All these guys have something in common with Dempsey - once they started making money, they fought less frequently. That's why you aim for the titles - the money, and the freedom to fight when you want, not at the whim of keeping yourself noticed to garner a title fight. Dempsey is an aggrevated version of that, but it's the same thing.

That's why I said, "But it's not..."

Of course. But ranking these guys, is subjective in every way. We know Wills and Langford were great, but how great? We can't really be sure. It's not their fault they didn't get the chance to fight Dempsey, but who's to say that Dempsey doesn't just dispatch of them easily and make the argument moot? It's possible.

I rank Wills 13th and Langford 15th - because of what they did regarding the colored title. But, I favor Dempsey's style to beat them. So I rank him higher.

Of course.

 

I understand some people do not rate him, but that sort of placing is an insult

 

I'm not saying it's okay - I'm just saying that some people value money, others value legacy and competetive virtue and some value both. I think that once Dempsey tasted the good life, it affected in what direction his career went.

I place a great deal of value on head-to-head with these rankings. So, I'm going to rank Dempsey high. So, while I do agree he must be "punished" for how his career went following his obtaining the title, it's not as marked as it would be for you or somebody else.

Holyfield fought EVERYBODY, but he also lost a lot of those fights - whereas Dempsey didn't do the fighting, but only lost to Tunney and Miske once he became the established fighter we think of him as. Does Holy get more credit for taking the fights and losing than Dempsey for not taking them at all?

I would defer to you on that, but the point is the opportunity was there for him to earn it. Nobody was gonna pay a million dollars to Dempsey if he became world champ. The money offers only came once he won it and for as long as he kept it.

Absolutely - but then we're back in the waters of subjectivity and personal inclination.

Then why even worry about negotiating money matters? Take $5 million a fight, no matter what. It's an assload of money. And why do it on Pay-Per-View.... isn't a legacy enhanced if people can see you perform at a high level? There's no doubt legacy and competetiveness plays an important part for De La Hoya, but for a guy who doesn't need the cash, he sure makes an effort to optimize his ability to get every last penny he can get.

I can't fault you for sympathizing with Wills plight; I'm only attempting to give an understanding to why Dempsey chose the things he did do... or didn't. It's just not enough for me to overlook how good, in a pure boxing sense, Dempsey was.

:good Mine too.

 

Accomplishments are not simply titles but more importantly beating great fighters. Wills and Langford would have both been champs if given equal opportunities.

Who are Dempseys wins that rank him so high? He simply hasn't beaten great fighters and didn't face the best of his time

Dempsey looks great on film and was very skillfull, head to head he probably ranks higher. But because he didn't face the best even this is hard to be sure of

 

Definitely.

While I'm bothered by the "what-if's" that Dempsey created for himself and his legacy, I'm reminded that this guy lived an extremely meager existence for a large part of his early life. I can only surmise, having never been there myself, that being that poor has a huge affect on how you view the world and what you value most. We can't forget that these guys are human, in a brutal sport where most fighters never reach enough success to live comfortably, at least. That's why a Joe Louis can do what he did and still end up a greeter at a casino in Las Vegas.

I give Holyfield credit for losing tough to Bowe and Lewis; as I do for Dempsey, being out of shape and doing what he did against Tunney in the rematch - against a tough stylistic matchup. A loss is a loss, but there's good and bad losses. Holyfield's got some doozy "good losses", which helps him.

While not deserving as much, Dempsey still gets credit for the manner in which he won as champion. Look at Hagler; he beat Duran, without great difficulty, but he was supposed to demolish him and he didn't, so it gets held against him. But beating Duran, under any circumstance, is an accomplishment because he's that damn good.

Brennan, Gibbons, Carpentier and Miske are not Wills, but they aren't meat. Dempsey was supposed to trump them and he did. There's something to be said for doing what you're supposed to do.

I think De La Hoya will be sufficiently satisfied 20 years from now; he's too smart to not realize exactly what he does and how it's measured in all ways.

Family always comes first.:good

 

Just because sombody dosn't fight the best available challenger dosn't mean that their resume is necisarily worse than that of sombody who did.

Dempsey beat a prety deep body of opposition.

 

15 years into Holyfield's career, and at the age of 37 (past his best, methinks) the only people to beat Holyfield were Bowe, Moorer and Lewis.
That's not "a lot" of losses.

Moorer was the weakest name of the three, but he was an undefeated southpaw, and the fight was VERY CLOSE.

Lennox Lewis was a great fighter.

Riddick Bowe was a real quality young strong undefeated fighter. You'd be hard-pressed to find many challengers as good as a 1992 Bowe who were defeated by any of the great champions.

Bowe was still young and undefeated in 1993 when Holyfield outboxed him.

Holyfield was competitive in both his losing efforts with Bowe, and certainly in the 2nd fight with Lewis. The Moorer loss was razor-close.

Holyfield was good enough to beat Bowe and Moorer while they were still top-level contenders/champions.

These are the facts.

Well, I ask myself : would I rate Holyfield higher if he had failed to face Bowe, and Lewis and had just racked up a string of wins over lesser fighters ?
Answer : No, I'd rate him lower.

Therefore, Holyfield gets more credit.

 

Dempsey might not have faced his Lennox Lewis but he anihilated his Michael Moorer.

 

Probably.

I believe that Fulton, Brennan and Miske all would've been the HW champion if Dempsey wasn't in their way. Were they "great" in the sense that Wills, Langford or Dempsey are? No. But they were very good. Of the white HW's, they were the best.

Yes, it is. But we can assume, which is the lynchpin of all these rankings, and I assume in favor of Dempsey.

I don't disregard anyone else for thinking otherwise.

But it does make for good debate.:good

 

So, by your definition, HH... the HW division is now better than it's ever been?

I mean, if it "gets better over time" and all that.