Where do you rate Jack Dempsey and why?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by bman100, Oct 26, 2010.


  1. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,424
    26,900
    Feb 15, 2006
    Well I havve a much easier time defending Johnsons resume against his critics than I do defending Dempseys resume, for whatever that is worth.
     
  2. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    27,967
    12,809
    Jan 4, 2008
    Johnson's vulnerability lies in his title reign. Dempsey's was better, but Johnson had an even more impressive run before that (mainly as coloured champion). It depends on how much weight you attach to either part.

    By the way, great thanks to you and Boilermaker for trying to asses which of Johnson's opponents could be considered as ranked contenders.
     
  3. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    The Cotto Pac beat was a better fighter than the Mosley Mayweather beat.
     
  4. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    261
    Jul 22, 2004
    What about Corbett and Johnson
     
  5. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,424
    26,900
    Feb 15, 2006
    Both ocasionaly drew criticism for winning by decision.
     
  6. Swarmer

    Swarmer Patrick Full Member

    19,654
    52
    Jan 19, 2010
    That's part of the reason why I voted why I did. And the rationale for placing emphasis on a KO isn't necessarily faulty in my mind; disabling your opponent physically is arguably a greater demonstration of boxing as a martial art than winning a decision.
     
  7. Pachilles

    Pachilles Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,294
    27
    Nov 15, 2009
    Jack Dempsey still looks like ****. But on the subject of whats more impressive, on a basic level, whilst your opponent is still conscious he has a chance to land that one punch at the very least, so if it goes the distance you are exposed to 20 mintues more of danger and hundreds of opportunities for him to knock you out.

    On a basic combat level a KO is efficient and ideal. I guess its debatable with rules, but i just wanted to chirp that **** in, yo
     
  8. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,639
    Dec 31, 2009
    pp. wills was more Willard’s challenger if anything, by the time Dempsey was a champ wills drew with jacks sparring partner bill Tate and struggling on points with Dempsey’s KO victim firpo. Im not saying wills was in his prime at 37, the fact is 37 year old wills was 14-0 in his last 14 in very good company when sharkey aced him. It’s also a fact Lennox Lewis and Walcott are considered at their prime with similar form at a similar age.
    that’s right because when gunboat smith out pointed Langford (a whole year before wills did) it did not mean so much by the time Langford KO'd him in the return. why? because KO's mean more -just as it did when Langford also KO'd wills in their return. nobody is building up gunboat better than he was. wills was young enough to cash in on sams decline. you are the one with the agenda, building up wills better than he was.
     
  9. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Yes and no. It certainly is more impressive. But not all fighters have the power to KO someone. I think a dominant win when on points is as impressive as an early KO.
     
  10. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,639
    Dec 31, 2009

    i think a KO or stoppage demonstrates domination on paper more clearly than "newspaper decisions".

    remember ali was not a big hitter but forced good fighters to quit inside the distance.
     
  11. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,561
    Nov 24, 2005
    Personally, I've always held KO wins in higher esteem than decisions, in regards to the majority of cases.

    Most decisions are NOT unanimously declared shut-outs or complete domination, and many are considered "close fights".
    Scoring is subjective, even if that cliche is over-used to defend dodgy decisions.
    And when a fighter says "I dont think I lost", he kind of has a point when he's completed the full distance and he's been in the fight in every round and he's recieved no more damage than his opponent. Even if everyone reckons the other guy won a couple more rounds, on a basic level I can see why a fighter wouldn't really consider that losing a fight.
     
  12. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,561
    Nov 24, 2005
    James J. Corbett knocked out the great John L. Sullivan, and defended the title with a brutal knock out of Charley Mitchell.
     
  13. bman100

    bman100 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,795
    27
    Jan 6, 2010
    funny how ive seen people rate stanley ketchel who really was wild brawler, but not Dempsey who was quite scientific in his fighting and much more skilled technically.
     
  14. bman100

    bman100 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,795
    27
    Jan 6, 2010
    you could say he looks like ****, i doubt everyone that saw him from the 20s onwards couldnt see the crude brawler that many see today. sam langford (regarded as p4p no1 by some, the same langford of whom harry greb said he would get murdered in the ring by, if they were to fight) said Dempsey was the greatest fighter hes ever seen. langford was no fool, he had the boxing brain of ray robinson, over 300 fights against the best of his generation, he could see a good fighter a mile off and im sure its the same of ray arcel, working with the likes of benny leonard, barney ross etc. concerning the opinions of other old timers like bert sugar and nat flaciser i leave them out becasue they are not known as totally reliable. but if you have the likes of langford and arcel saying how good dempsey was, it makes me wonder how people could say he was THAT bad.
     
  15. Peter Brit

    Peter Brit Member Full Member

    468
    0
    Jun 4, 2010
    Great fighter for four years, had a three year holiday and got beat by tunney. He was rated as no 1. in 1962 by boxing writers. I would put him under Joe louis. Not sure tunney would have beaten him three years earlier before he became a party animal.

    I do not know enough about boxers prior to the 1930's so hard for me to gauge. I see joe louis, dempsey and tunney prior to world war 2. Can not rate jack Johnson or people before just almost a different sport.

    He beats everybody up to Ali except Louis and Tunney. A Walcott from 1947 who did not get cocky or careless I feel could beat him if he made no mistakes.

    In a modern era he makes the perfect old cruiserweight division fighter 190. A holyfield dempsey fight would have me queuing up for it for a year. Pre Ali top 5 may be top 3.