Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

Only if you're a bit dense. That you have to beat the best consistently to be called the best is a very simple straight forward principle that applies to everything.

He shouldn't be viewed as the man and he isn't.

I won't view Pac as the best at WW until he beats Floyd, no. Him beating De la Hoya was certainly not enough for him to be called the best WW.

 

Bok, I don't dispute that there were better options for Dempsey to defend against- but if he's still fighting guys who were likely top 3-top 5 contenders at the time, I also don't think that's a far enough drop in opposition quality to necessarily say he's not the best and the man to beat. If Dempsey doesn't have that distinction, I'm figuring you're implying Wills would be considered the best- and how many top 5-ish heavyweights did he beat during Dempsey's reign?

Picture a scenario where a fighter wins the undisputed championship and gets stripped of a couple of the alphabet belts. Then, he defends against his #1 or #2 contender as opposed to taking a unification fight. Is it the best fight available? No. But is it fair to say that that particular fighter isn't the best anymore? I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt until he loses or fights laughably bad competition.

To me, beating Willard combined with acceptable (though not ideal) defenses is enough for me to say Dempsey was the best. It wasn't the best it could've been- but neither was Holmes' reign, and there's little doubt today he was the man in the division.

 

I think Willard was significantly more of an obstacle than a completely shot Ali, personally.
Ali's whole style was rendered useless by his age/inactivity/condition etc.
Willard relied on his size, strength, durability : less effected by age or layoff, I believe. And besides, he peaked at 33 or 34 anyway.
He was in far better shape for Dempsey than he was for Moran.

Anyway, the flipside is :
Why does the Tunney loss mean so much (after Dempsey's 3 year lay-off) but at the same time Willard's own layoff is being emphasized so strongly ?

Tyson was bigger than Spinks. (it's a great win though)
Liston was a lot bigger than Patterson. (it's a great win though)
Dempsey conceded about 60 pounds to Willard.

Before we say it was nothing special, we should consider the questions :

1. How many 187 pound (or less) fighters in history would you be confident would beat the 6'6, 245 pound Willard ?

2. How many 187 pound (or less) fighters in history would you expect to beat him in similar manner to how Dempsey did ?

Also,
3. How many 190 pound fighters in history would you be confident would beat the 190 pound Gene Tunney ?

4. How many 190 pound fighters (or less) in history would you be condident could come off a 3-year lay-off to beat the 190 pound Gene Tunney ?

Again, Frazier was bigger than Ellis. (it's a very good win though)

Holyfield's win over Douglas is VERY underrated, and constantly undermined.
Still, pound-for-pound, I'd probably rate Dempsey's win over Willard as better.

 

Here it could well boil down to semantics. Dempsey and Holmes were perhaps the best, but I just don't think that either proved it well enough. There are differences between them, though. Holmes at least kept busy against fringe contenders and had a much more impressive consistency than anyone else in the division. Dempsey had one outstanding challenger that definitely had an at least comparable run to his, and probably better.

I mean Holmes made 20 defenses over 7 years, Dempsey made 5 during the same period that Wills had 30+ wins, several over good opposition. If for example Page had had a consistency like that while Holmes mostly sat on his ass, his credentials of "being the man" would have been laughable.

To say "Dempsey was the best for 7 years" when he only defended for 4 of these with lapses in between and against the less than best opposition is really giving him the benefit of a doubt. Especially when you had a guy going on a great streak really only interrupted by a DQ loss. Too much I'd say.

In fact, Dempsey's reign is more comparable to Ezzard Charles than Holmes'. The question is if Charles' record at HW isn't about as good as Dempsey's, which of course makes the p4p gulf between them very large indeed.

 

Great post, and thanks for the info. :good

But I'd have to give some credit to the post-Dempsey Miske for beating those guys, and being fairly consistent.

I mean, Harry Wills himself was fighting a similar level of opposition and having mixed performances too, against the 2nd and 3rd tier fighters.. Throughout Dempsey'd reign.

Kid Norfolk (who beat Miske easily once, I know) has a patchy record, yet you seemed to suggest earlier he was a legit contender on a level above what Dempsey would dare to risk his title against.

 

Who says that the Tunney loss mean so much? I mean, if I thought of that as prime Dempsey that Tunney beat, Jack would be lucky to make my top 20 at HW.

I wouldn't really be surprised if several would. He looked awful. But that's just speculation.

And I haven't said it was nothing special. Dempsey took the crown in very impressive fashion, but the question marks about his opponent makes it a bit inconclusive.

See above. I think that's useless speculation.

When I compare fighters HW record, I don't make allowances for the p4p thing.

I wouldn't. Far from it. Douglas was by all accounts closer to his prime and had won the title in much more impressive fashion than Willard.

 

Too put things in perspective, I'd say that Charles' reign as HW champion was probably a bit more impressive than Dempsey´s. The argument can certainly be made anyhow. Agree, disagree?

 

OK.

I believe the men who could beat Willard in similar fashion to Dempsey would be a small and illustrious group.

And they were all be considered ATG p4p by me.
I suspect no one at 190 pounds does well against Tunney after 3 years out.

If it's useless speculation, so be it.
But speculation like "if Haye (or whoever) had Dempsey's opposition he'd look just as great" "dozens of heavyweights could looke great against that opposition" is the same too, but it's being bandied about on this thread enough by those trying to minimize Dempsey's accomplishemnts.

OK.
I do. For the sake of p4p ratings, anyway.

I might agree with you, it's too close for me to call.
The fights are completely different. Douglas may have been better but didn't try as much as Willard.

And the size differences to me matter in the p4p stakes.
But like you say, we use different standards for the p4p thing.

 

Yes, the argument can certainly be made.

 

As I said earlier, p4p Dempsey probably gets ahead of HWs I'd have ahead of him in the HW ranking. That's a complicated one, though.

 

If you noticed, I'd tried to steer clear of such speculation. But what one can say, is that several fighters have looked great against so-so opposition and then seemingly been exposed when matched with the best.

 

LUFCrazy believes Zolt Erdei has ruled Light Heavyweight boxing for the last 7 years, if you try to argue with this stance he will respectfully disagree with you

 

I agree. I shouldn't have attributed others arguments to you. :good

And in regards to that, I guess it depends on to what extent you consider the likes of Willard, Fulton, Gibbons (etc.) sufficient barometers at the time Dempsey faced them ...

 

i love this thread