Dempsey wasn't particularly old (32), he didn't have much milage from in the ring, this Dempsey is probably the equivilent of the post exile Ali in terms of past prime. How would Greb know Dempsey was past prime at 32? There was no evidence before hand that Dempsey was past prime but Greb didn't give Dempsey a chance against Tunney because he fought both and knew Tunney to be the much superior boxer
Most here agree that he's in the discussion among top 10 at HW. What's so terrible of being in the company of guys like Tyson, Liston, Frazier, Holyfield etc?
Probably much more footage than 'experts' of the time who didn't have the access to film we have. I've personally seen Tunney 1&2, Willard, Sharkey, Firpo, Brennan, Gibbons, Carpentier off the top of my head. Aside from Tunney, Gibbons and Sharkey none look too impressive. Dempsey himself has plenty of habbits - no jab, low hands, predictable timeable head movement, rushes in with low hands and sometimes quite wide punches. That is pretty exploitable by master boxers with good jabs and thats why Tunney, Miske and Meehan beat him
x2 But it is rude to say this, since so many experts disagree. So let's all pretend that he's an unhittable killing machine that could have flattened all those guys withing 30 seconds if it wasn't for the goodness of his heart.
People just manufacture things that didn't exist on film. He was FAR from technically brilliant. I don't need an old expert to tell me otherwise, I have eyes and 40 years experience in the sport. I've worked with some of the best EVER. I can see if a guy is actually one of the best ever, or if he has lots of flaws. Dempsey has a top 10 resume, and he was the undisputed champion. That cannot be argued, those are facts. But I see most people pretending he looks amazing on film next to heavyweights that followed him. He doesn't. He's a very good fighter, with a ton of talent, a ton of heart, and a big, big left hook. But the next great champ to follow him, Joe Louis, is far his superior when it comes to ring talent. I have eyes.
Yeah, it's clear that Louis is a massive step forward. I actually think this thread is kind of absurd. We are to pretend that we don't see what we see, in order not to be disrespectful to esteemed authorities. I suggest that those who feel that way should attent a church rather than this forum.
These are just subjective arguments, or arguments of personal taste. He looks great on film to me. I have eyes too. So I could easily say "you're PRETENDING he doesn't look amazing on film". We can talk about "technical flaws" of any fighter. But those discussions are always loaded with bias and prejudices from the outset. If phrases like "far superior when it comes to ring talent" are being thrown about then there's no chance of a reasonable discussion. I would say Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey were BOTH great fighters and both phenomenal talents. They were devastating forces in the HW division. Some things Dempsey did better than Louis, and had some attributes that Louis didn't. Some things Louis did better than Dempsey, and had some attributes that Dempsey didn't.
But you were so big on experts' opinions a while back. Wouldn't you say that Magna Nasaki's expertise dwarfs your own?
Who's pretending ? If you think Dempsey looks **** on film, and is a B-grade champion, just say it and stick to it. I absolutely defend your right to those beliefs and statements. But don't delude yourself that you have access to some ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Yours is just another subjective judgement. From my experience, on this forum, those of us who rate Dempsey highly get a tirade of objections and abuse from SOME of those who don't rate him as high. It's funny sometimes, and all part of the game. The "there's no way you can rate Dempsey above ----" stuff comes out thick and fast, along with stupid stuff about "white this, white that", "unskilled bar room brawlers" blah, blah, blah. But I don't see as many Dempsey supporters have spastic fits about other's people choosing not to rate him. The 1950 poll that had Dempsey the greatest fighter of the half-century should NOT be presented as a directive to everyone to rank him high, but it is a very compelling defence of one's opinion against the attacks of the Dempsey-rubbishers. Simply, you make disagree with my ranking and you may well have rational arguments for your own beliefs, but don't make out we are crack pots or intellectually dishonest. Saying Dempsey was one of the greatest has a long traditional in the mainstream of boxing history discussion, it's not some bizarre cult viewpoint or some conspiracy of liars.
Okay, ignoring the flavor of the thread towards the experts tastes, you are absolutely correct. Its all subjective. Thats fair, and I don't mean to discredit your opinion. Its just as valid as mine. I do think Louis' craft is on a whole seperate level to Dempsey's. It'd take me a while to list all the reasons why. You are absolutely correct when you say that they were both devastating forces in the heavyweight division. If Dempsey didn't do what he did-Brutalize Willard, reign as champion, wreck several good fighters, his talent and skills alone dont keep him in the top 10 of heavyweights, is I guess the point Im trying to make. Jack Dempsey is history, and he's an important block in the development of the science of boxing. When you remove filters and take in styles and results, he was the first true wrecker to become heavyweight champion-Dynamite power that could end a fight against elite opposition early AND late. You can see flashes of his left hook in Joe Louis, Frazier, in Cus D'Amato's proteges. But I think they all did it better. Dempsey still gets credit for writing a huge chunk of the book they studied from to learn things he used, but I think they all improved upon his example. This doesnt discredit Jack's legacy as heavyweight champion, but I don't see him beating a great champion that followed him. Didn't mean to come off as an ass. Is that better?
The tone of this thread has very much been that either you blindly accept what the expperts of Dempsey's day said of him, or else you're arrogant and/or have an agenda (a possibly racist one):
It's the MASSIVE CONSENSUS OF OPINION that I think shouldn't be dismissed, the massive consensus on the broad point that Dempsey was one of the greatest and comparable to Louis, Marciano et al. who came after. No. Unless he's 105 years old or has some other amazing revelation. But I don't claim any 'expertise' of my own on this forum either.
And I will always go for what I can see for myself, on film and on record. Luckily enough there have been enough people in history to do this that we today that earth isn't flat and wasn't created by God in six days. But it should be said that many here probably would accept that his qualities was comparable with those of for example Marciano. I personally don't think that's outrageous in any sense. But I don't think we can stretch out too far about what Dempsey hypothetically could do, since in real life he didn't do it. He beat Miske, not the Zivic's and Gavilan's of this world, and we can only go far with that.