Who Do You Rate Higher: Jack Dempsey or Jack Johnson ??

For entertaining fan friendly fights its not even close.Dempsey.

h2h Johnson, imo.

 

I think they both rank near the top.

 

Johnson acheived more, but its an interesting contrast, they were both big in the media for widely differeing reasons.

Johnson would take him H2H if a LH skilled boxer like Tunney tamed him soundly twice.

If only one of them had been born a bit later or sooner, we'd have had a proper battle of the century.

 

I think Dempsey was a bit better. At his peak, he was a genuine destroyer with fast hand, and power in both mitts. Johnson's title matches were mostly jokes, he skirted top level competition as champion, and when he fought guys with some skill who were not old, too light, or too green, he lost ( Klondike, Choynski, Hart, Griffin )


I do think both guys had uneven careers, and from an objective sense that ignores nostalgia, are over rated. Dempsey is still in my top ten. Johnson, is not.

 

For the record.
1.Is it your contention that Johnson was prime when he lost to
Klondike,Choynski,Hart ,and Griffin?


2. I don't think we need to lose any sleep over that.

"He was the greatest catcher of punches that ever lived.
And, he could fight all night.
He was a combination of Jim Corbett ,and Joe Louis,I'm glad I did not have to fight him."

Jack Dempsey ,speaking about Jack Johnson.
Your "opinion " appears to be at variance with those who are considered experts .
Eddie Futch Has Ali, Louis and Johnson as the best 3 of all time. So does Ali himself.

Tracy Callis has Johnson over Ali.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/jack_johnson.html

 

Watching drunken bums fight can be entertaining too. Doesn't mean they are any good.

 

I have Johnson just inside the top ten and Dempsey just outside of it. I'm not too high on either. Both excellent fighters, of course. But when I see them rated number three at heavyweight and even highly on all-time P4P lists, I can only shake my head and say "**** Jose Sulaiman." because like everything that's wrong with boxing, it's his fault.

 

Are you equating Jack Dempsey with the skills level of a drunken bum?:huh


What the f**k is your point?

 

Ok, I’ll play along:




As a group, I would say Choynski, Hart, Klondike, and Griffin were better than most of the fighters Johnson gave title matches to, save perhaps Willard who KO’d Johnson. To answer you question, I think you have to examine wether or not Johnson’s opponents were in their primes too.



1 ) I’m not sure when Klondike’s prime was. His first listed match was 1898, and he Ko’d Johnson in 1899. I would say based on that, Klondike was far more of a novice than Johnson was, though in 1899. Johnson’s first listed fight was 1894. You could say Johnson lacked some top level experience going into this match. Klondike beat Johnson in match for the colored title, when Johnson apparently quit like a dog without injury, and failed to come out next round.



2 ) Choynski produced a ten count. The fight took place in Johnson’s home town, and by 1901, Choysnki’s best days were behind him when the fight took place. For the record, Johnson first recorded match was in 1894. He had 24+ recorded matches before he was sparked in 3 rounds vs. Choynski, so calling Johnson a green novice is a bit of a stretch.



Both Klondike and Choynski had some power. Chins do not improve greatly as a career progresses. Post 1905-1915 did Johnson give a title shot to 175+ pound fighter in his prime or near prime with skills and power? I think not.



3 ) Griffin best days were most certainly behind him in 1901, yet he defeated Johnson, and drew with him.


4) The Hart match in 1905 was a high stakes, elimination match, with the winner being billed for a title shot with Jeffries. Johnson did very little in the 2nd half of the fight, and lost it. Neither guy was pre or post prime here.



Summary: Klondike was green. Choysnki past his best. Griffin way outside of his prime. Hart was in his prime.



And finally, if you think Johnson wasn’t in his prime until post 1905 that is your opinion. Just admit Johnson would not likely to defeat Jeffries when Jeffries was champion from 1899-1905.

 

Both prime?...Dempsey...

 

This content is protected

:hat


Foreman Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooook:rasta


p.s these spanish keyboards are shite.¨:lolÑ

 

I think Dempsey's title reign was better (ignoring the three year hiatus). Johnson's reign was pathetic.

Overall, Johnson ranks higher.

 

If it's so then it's not his fault.

 

Did people actually say Dempsey's title reign or resume were better... What on God's green earth would make people say such things I'll never know and don't wanna know

 

Very close,but I agree with your assessment.