Where do you rate Jack Dempsey and why?

So basically you say that its impossible to prove the 'progress' of boxers of boxers physically but because there has been progress in other sports then circumstantially we can speculate that boxers have improved?
First off,this is a very tenous assumption given that boxing is radically different from track and field and many other sports which are technically much different. Second,the physicality required in boxing is multi-faceted and not just how much weight you can olympic lift,or your BF%.
Finally,most of the outstanding modern guys with tremendous stamina or even speed still train old school. (jones,calzaghe,leonard,camacho,etc.)
I dont know why people assert that boxing has improved physically,when visually it doesnt look that way.

 

/63+

Facts
Ring rankings came into existence in 1924 (reflecting 1923), so we can say without doubt that Tunney, Gibbons and Firpo were ranked. Since Gibbons and Firpo had lost to Dempsey at this point, it is fair to say that they would have been ranked when they met him. Gibbons would have been No2.

Speculation
From here it is based on interpretation, and with a strong asumption aginst the challengers.

Bill Brenann I

Brennan would almost certainly have been ranked at this stage.

Billy Miske I

Miske would probably have been ranked. They drew in their first fight (Dempsey might well have lost).

Fred Fulton

Fulton was almost certainly seen as the oustanding challenger.

Bat Levinsky

Had sustained two losses but had a long winning streak before that with some key names. I say lower half of top ten.

Billy Miske II

Hard to say. Miske had a good streak but had just lost to Greb. Probably lower half of the top 10.

Carl Morris

A bit like Sam Peter right now. A guy who had been big but had fallen onto a loosing streak. Lower top 10 again.

Jess Willard

Champion.

Billy Miske III

Absurd as it may sound, Miske might have broken the rankind with his suicidal quest to hel his family before he died.



I will continue tomorrow, when I can do mor research.

 

Yes, how can you possibly conclusively prove either progress or decline when there are very little in the way of stats to compare?

We can very clearly say that the top HWs have gotten bigger, though.

That's why it isn't conclusive evidence, just circumstancial. But there are clear indications that modern training has enhanced perfomances in such diverse sports as football and golf.

Where are your "proof" that no improvements have taken place?

I would be surprised if they don't use supplements and diets devised after scientific knowledge, though. I would also be surprised if they haven't taken advantage of today's superior methods of monitoring the body's progress during training etc.

This is a matter of opinion, and that opinion differ.

 

And during his pre-title run?

 

Ok,lets get real here. With tiger woods and NFL you can see the physical progress.
With sprinting and track and field you can see the physical progress.
Now outside of some of top heavies being bigger where is the physical progress? (and most are bigger by virue of being fatter,discounting the supplement and conditioning theories.)
Do these bigger heavies have more stamina,power or speed than previous heavies?
Do the other weight classes have improvements in stamina,speed and power?
If its all subjective then kindly desist from claiming as a bona fide fact that boxing has improved physically.

 

Boxing is not track and field. It's a martial art.

Thinking about it as such is necessary. To be a great martial artist, you need a great teacher and great artists to test yourself against frequently. There's not a lot of that in boxing right now. I don't think anyone would argue that Kung Fu, Fencing, Muay Thai, or Jujitsu are at their practical or competitive peaks due to sports science. But for some reason, boxing is different?

 

I haven't claimed it as bonafide fact since (as I've said) conclusive evidence is nigh impossible. What I have said is that, aside from subjective judgement, there is circumstancial evidence:

1. Most of today's top fighters have embraced modern methods in some form. Not all lift weights, but the use of modern knowledge in terms of nutrition and supplements is very widespread I'd say (illegal drugs are, unfortunately, also used at least by some).

2. In other sports one can link the use of these modern methods with improved results. Even in sports that are very multi-dimensional, and are about much more than only athletic ability.

But we're digressing from Dempsey, and he's what's important here right?

 

Thank you PP. And Yeah, I´am football fan. Palmeiras is my team !!

 

Ok. Thanks. That's not bad, especially considering how many of those wins came about. For me, he's battling it out with Liston and Tyson in the lower end or right outside of the top 10.

 

wills did not clearly beat firpo. It was oficially a NC. Wills blew his chance to compare with dempsey, he was on great form at the time. firpo was on his way out, coming off a shattering 9 knockdown loss to dempsey, firpo and wills angered the 60,000 crowd with a boring display with no oficial winner.

wills did not KO Meehan either. gibbons did KO meehan, he got the shot at dempsey.

but dempsey was coming off a loss when he KO'd sharkey. wills was coming off 14 straight wins including a good KO over charlie weinert who twice beat sharkey so wills should have beat sharkey if anything!

but langford still knocked wills out twice in the first 5. the points fights they had were all close, my point is langford was the only one scoring KO wins in the series untill he got too old. wills had 20 pounds and 4 inches on old sam. If all their fights were close apart from the ones where wills was knocked out and wills only knocked out sam when he was old what does that tell you?

 

Where is the evidence that it made the fighters better?

Yes, using scientific methos improved the average athleticism somewhat. But did it make them better fighters? And another thing. With the improved athleticism and the science in boxing, there is a developement that makes this the focus in training. Not technique is trained mainly, not stamina. Those things are done but in the focus, the main event in training became training your athleticism, your strength. Style won over substance. That´s what I see today.

 

#6


Incredible power

Versatility

Intimidation


"But Jack Dempsey more than anyone. All these guys let you know they wanted to murder you, and they'd take shots from you, over and over and over, get beat senseless, just so they could get theirs in. Sugar Ray maybe most of all. But Jack Dempsey? He wanted to maim you. He didn't want you dead. He wanted you to suffer. He wanted to shatter your eye socket, destroy your cheeks, your chinbone. That's what I learned from Mr. Dempsey, and I believe I learned it well"

- Mike Tyson

 

Which may be or not be right, but is just about impossible to prove. That's why you shouldn't be calling on others to give evidence when you yourself can't. That was my message to Enquirer.

 

Levinsky was actually washed-up and coming off a loss to Clay Turner when he faced Dempsey.
Dempsey was the first to KO Levinsky, so that's an achievement, but Levinsky wasn't a serious contender at all.

 

In all I would estimate that Dempsey would have beaten at least a dozen ranked contenders had rankings existed throughout his career.

Ironicaly he is probably in about the same balpark as Mike Tyson depth wise.