Where do you rank Jack Dempsey??

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Bad_Intentions, Jun 17, 2007.

  1. janitor

    janitor VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    71,997
    Likes Received:
    28,006
     
  2. Rattler

    Rattler Middle Aged Man Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,925
    Likes Received:
    21
    If he fights a prime Johnson, he loses. He was big, strong and had a good punch - but his skill level wasn't high. If he had to box, he was in trouble - plus, being big was his defense, which doesn't bode well against champions who can work their offense against size or solid defense.

    Willard won that fight because Johnson didn't have the punch anymore to hurt him enough - not because Willard made a tough fight out of it. It wasn't until Johnson started getting affected by the heat, that Willard was able to start laying in the bodypunches that ultimately won the fight. A trim Johnson easly sails into the middle of the fight, with plenty left to give - and having been more capable of administering more damaging punishment over the preceding rounds.

    Willard won because Johnson couldn't keep up, IMO.

    I think the fact that Johnson, the shape he was in, was able to go into the 20th round well in control of the fight is much more impressive than anything Willard did. Willard had only fought for four years up to that point, so compared to Johnson, he was a newborn.

    It only helped that Johnson was on the run, unable to settle into a familiar regimen that had allowed him to become the champion. He had a hard time finding fights and resorted to wrestling matches to stay in shape. While Willard was living a relatively normal lifestyle, Johnson was all over Europe and dealing with all kinds of issues that affected his ability to ply his trade or prepare for it.

    In short, Willard won because Johnson got old, out of shape and was fighting in less than ideal conditions - kinda like Jeffries against Johnson. Everything was in teh cards for Johnson to lose - and he still outfought Willard for most of the fight, because Willard simply wasn't that great. Just a big bull who could punch a bit - the last thing Johnson needed at that time.
     
  3. Holmes' Jab

    Holmes' Jab Master Jabber Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    5,112
    Likes Received:
    75
    1. Joe Louis
    2. Larry Holmes
    3. Muhammad Ali
    4. Rocky Marciano
    5. Lennox Lewis
    6. Joe Frazier
    7. Jack Dempsey
    8. Evander Holyfield
    9. Mike Tyson
    10. Sonny Liston
     
  4. Dempsey1238

    Dempsey1238 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    12,737
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Johnson needed to have a Dempsey type of punch to ko Willard. Rember, before Dempsey, Willard was never down or stop. Sure a prime Johnson may out point Willard, but I dont think he knock him out. Willard was pretty tought. Also in a 45 round fight, prime or not, a in shape Willard will always give Johnson problems imo. Willard just gets stronger the longer the bout when. Johnson also put on a good showing in that fight. But Willard used his jab, size and stalling to wear Johnson down and out. Willard would be no easy walk though for a prime Johnson.
     
  5. Bad_Intentions

    Bad_Intentions Boxing Addict Full Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    7,367
    Likes Received:
    31
    10 pages in only 2 days? :rofl :rofl
     
  6. Rattler

    Rattler Middle Aged Man Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,925
    Likes Received:
    21
    Yer welcome.
     
  7. Bad_Intentions

    Bad_Intentions Boxing Addict Full Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    7,367
    Likes Received:
    31
    homicidal hank, do you dislike dempsey as a boxer so much??
     
  8. janitor

    janitor VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    71,997
    Likes Received:
    28,006
    Again it comes down to the asumption that decent fighters from one era would beat great fighters feom another era.

    What if that asumption is dramaticaly wrong?

    So far you have given us no justification other than asking us to take your word for it.
     
  9. Bad_Intentions

    Bad_Intentions Boxing Addict Full Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    7,367
    Likes Received:
    31
    oh well.

    everybody is entitled to their own opinion.:roll:
     
  10. janitor

    janitor VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    71,997
    Likes Received:
    28,006
    But you are the worst ofender on this site in this respect.

    You build up the fighters of the 70s to the point that even contenders from that period would beat great fighters from other period. All the effort you put into tearing down the legacies of Dempsey, Louis and Marciano is just colateral damage from your desire to elevate the 70s crew into something they were not.
     
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    114,796
    Likes Received:
    51,822

    I don't worship Dempsey. I find him quite objectionable. But I give him a really good chance against most top drawer heavyweights. He was a horrible fighter all offense and slipping.

    Sometimes I do worry about the stock I put in him after having seen so little, and I think there's a reasomable point to be made about overestamating what is written but I feel I know enough about boxing to make a reasonable jusdgement and I rate him. And I'm unbiased.
     
  12. OLD FOGEY

    OLD FOGEY Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    7,670
    Likes Received:
    99
    "Perhaps that is why I am able to be so objective about him." --Homicidal Hank

    Never buy a used car from anyone named Honest John. Never eat at
    a restaurant named Mom's. And never believe a word from anyone
    who calls himself objective.
     
  13. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    42,723
    Likes Received:
    279
    47 fighters who make a very good argument to be above Sharkey (I wouldn't put them all above Sharkey) or having a good (in no particular order):

    Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Holmes, Mariciano, Charles, Walcott, Louis, Lennox LEwis, Oliver McCall, Holyfield, Tyson, Buster Douglas, Liston, Tunney, Dempsey, Schmelling, Sullivan, Wills, Langford, Jack Johnson, Patterson, M Spinks, Max Baer, Sullivan, Bowe, Johanssen, Buster Douglas, Wlad Klit, Vitali Klit, Ibeauchi, David Tua, Billy Conn, Jeffries, Corbett, Jeanette, Mcvey, Rahman, Bruno, Ruiz, Byrd, Quarry, Young, Fitzssimmons, Shavers
     
  14. janitor

    janitor VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    71,997
    Likes Received:
    28,006
    Beutifull.
     
  15. janitor

    janitor VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    71,997
    Likes Received:
    28,006
    Here are some who should definitely NOT be above Sharkey at heavyweight.