Who do you rank higher: Johnson or Dempsey?

I think they rank pretty close, but i'm not sure who should be higher. Let's compare them in a few categories:

Championship reign

​

Both were very active before they won the (linear) title and both had somewhat lack lustre title reigns. Dempsey failed to meet one deserving contender for about six years, Johnson failed to meet three deserving challengers for about seven years. In Johnson's defence, he had already beaten all three of them, but i don't think that's very relevant as they were very green when it happened.

For instance, if Ali didn't exist and Foreman as a champ had knocked out Larry Holmes in '73 but never gave a rematch and ruled until he lost to Greg Page in '81 (that one's for you JT ), then i would hardly say he proved his superiority over Holmes, and should receive full criticism for avoiding a fully developped, win streaking Holmes.

This content is protected

​

Johnson in fighting stance
​

Dempsey's title opponents were also somewhat better than Johnson's in my opinion.


Johnson has:
Burns
O'Brien
Ross (not sure if the title was on the line for this one)
Kaufman
Ketchel
Jeffries (5 years inactive)
Flynn
Johnson (amazing, he drew with himself)
Moran

Dempsey has:
Willard
Miske
Brennan
Carpentier
Darcy
Gibbons
Firpo



Johnson started pretty active, defending his title five times in the first two years as a champ, but after the Jeffries fight he took a two-year break. He had trouble with the law, left the USA and after that fought about once a year.




Losing the title: I think Johnson performed a bit better. From what i've read and the clips that i've seen, he outboxed Willard rather easily for most of the first ~15 rounds. At age 37, it should be no surprise that he was outlasted by the younger, bigger challenger. Johnson didn't lose a boxing match, he was simply outlasted. Dempsey on the other hand, was thoroughly outboxed and lost just about every round of the fight.

Now of course, Tunney was a lot better than Willard, but i think two things should be noted:

a) If Johnson fought Willard over a mere 10 rounds as Dempsey did Tunney, he would've won rather easily
b) Johnson was 37 years old and had been fighting since a teenager. So did Dempsey, but he was only 31 years old when he was dominated by Tunney. Now i know that Swarmers (though Dempsey was more of a puncher in my opinion) in general have a shorter career than pure boxers, but in the end it still counts against his longitivity.
c) I think it goes without saying that Johnson would've won the Willard fight had the fight happened in his prime, whereas opinions are pretty divided on who would win between Dempsey-Tunney, considering how badly he was dominated twice.


Edge: Small edge for Dempsey. I think Dempsey's title opponents were somewhat better and he only avoided one challenger, whereas Johnson missed three. Johnson looking better in defeat and having an a bit longer reign makes it a very close call though.

This content is protected

​

A mature Jack Dempsey​

Pre-title
​

Dempsey faced a fair number of good fighters coming up:
Morris (3x)
Brennan
Miske (2x)
Fulton
Gunboat Smith (2x)
Levinsky

He beat them all although he lost to Flynn by first round knockout (a fluke or a fix, but it happened nonetheless) and a few times to Meehan although those were 4-rounders. He avoided Langford and Jeannette.

Johnson beat:
​

John Haines (3x)
Griffin (drew twice, won once, info on the draws would be appreciated)
Childs (2x, won color title)
Martin (2x)
Mcvey (3x, Mcvey was green)
Jeannette (3x, had a few ND's and one loss, Jeannette was green)
Langford (1x, Langford was still a middleweight)


Johnson lost to Choynski and Childs early on. He lost to Marvin Hart in his prime. This decision is disputed by some, it's hard to say who deserved to win. I've seen newspaper articles for both sides. I've seen claims that Hart's face was battered at the end while Johnson wasn't, but i don't think this is a good argument. If Taylor survived the last round against Chavez, he would've been much more marked up at the end despite winning it. Similarly, McCall looked like he had never boxed after facing Gomez, while Gomez was very marked up... but Gomez still won about 10 of the 12 rounds.


Edge: Even. I can't make my mind up on this one. Johnson pretty much cleaned out the division and was avoided by Jeffries. Dempsey cleaned out the white part of the division before fighting Willard. If i had to pick one, i'd go with Johnson because he fought everyone while Dempsey didn't fight Jeannette and Langford, but it's very close. Also, i think some of Johnson's early black opponents their records are more incomplete than Dempsey's key opponents.

Longetivity
​

No discussion needed here.

Edge: Johnson.

Miscellaneous

​

Dempsey had the more exciting style for sure and scored more knockouts. However, i don't think that's an argument that Dempsey should rank higher. It's about winning fights, not about looking exciting or scoring knockouts.

I think Dempsey has the more modern style and would have less trouble adapting to post-30's fighters, but if we rank on greatness (for their era), then this is an irrelevant point.

Johnson is a bit bigger at 205lbs while Dempsey weighs around 190lbs. Dempsey was more popular for sure (being white). There was the draft dogding thing, but being black (and cocky) was a lot worse. Of course it is not fair, but it is often the case that a popular fighter gets more credit than an unpopular one.



I wanted to add more, but i forgot. Anyway, which Jack takes it for you?