Jack Dempseys All time Standing

[Boilermaker]

Where does this board sit on the topic of Jack Dempsey.

For mine he is one of the hardest fighters of all time to rate. Sometimes i feel as if he is vastly underated and capable of beating anyone and others i go with the overating of Jack Dempsey.

At the moment I am leaning towards placing him somewhere around 10th or so. Maybe even a touch lower. More than any other fighter, i find that he climbs up and down my all time ratings depending on the mood. How does the board currently see his legacy?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I'd rate him in the top 100, and just outside the top 10 at heavyweight.

[Vano-irons]

I'm completely the same as the OP on this one. For a long time he was outside my top 10, but after some revision I feel he deserves to be rated 10th or so. He has a fabulous resume, awesome power, and a good chin.

He helped revolutionise the sport in America also.

I now have him scraping my top 10

[Alan Partridge]

#8 HEAVYWEIGHT (post Johnson) and around #35 p4p

He was truly great and Imagine if he was around in the modern days as a CW he would go down as the greatest CW ever. I think he would've destroyed Holyfield with ease.

[Crease]

I would tend to agree with the above statements about Dempsey being difficult to place.

The biggest criticsm of Dempsey that I mostly hear was the fact that he only had seven World Title defences in seven years. And so, he could have been much more active.

Regarding his standard of opposition, I would not describe it as "fabulous", but it is of a good standard.

Betaing: J Sharkey, Gibbons, Firpo, Carpentier, Miske (X2), Willard and Gunboat Smith (X2) (and Smith was as game as they come).

Ultimately the fact that he never fought Harry Wills will always put a big ??? over his career, and critics will certainly jump on this and accuse him of running from Wills.

For my part, I think he would have beaten Wills - so I don't rate the fact they never fought as significant as his critics will.

And the other thing I would add in "The Long Count" - when he had Tuuney down for 13 seconds, that, for me, confirmed him as a great Heavyweight because this was a Dempsey past his prime and he was still able to hurt Tunney - on eof the greatest Light Heavys of all time.

I always tend to rate mt top 10 on who-would beat-who, and in that measurement there aren't many Haveyweights who could have beaten Dempsey, so I ranks him somehwere between 5-7 (alongside Frazier & Johnson)

[Goodnight, Irene]

My #8 all-time Heavy.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

We aren't far off after all of our battles. I think I have him 12.

[raylawpc]

Where does this board sit on the topic of Jack Dempsey.

For mine he is one of the hardest fighters of all time to rate. Sometimes i feel as if he is vastly underated and capable of beating anyone and others i go with the overating of Jack Dempsey.

At the moment I am leaning towards placing him somewhere around 10th or so. Maybe even a touch lower. More than any other fighter, i find that he climbs up and down my all time ratings depending on the mood. How does the board currently see his legacy?

To which Jack Dempsey do you refer? The middleweight or heavyweight? (Boilermaker does like the old, old timers, after all.) One assumes the heavyweight Dempsey, but . . .

Also, head-to-head ranking or historical significance? Or a combination?

[dempseyfire]

Top #5 all time for me. But I can certainly see arguments for him being somewhere in the #6-10 range.

Dempsey is hurt by the poor quality film of the era and that people under-rate the fighters he beat pre-Willard.

[The Great John L]

Top #5 all time for me. But I can certainly see arguments for him being somewhere in the #6-10 range.

Dempsey is hurt by the poor quality film of the era and that people under-rate the fighters he beat pre-Willard.

#5 is where I have him as well, but bottom half of the top 10 seems reasonable as well. When it comes to ATG HWs, it's basically Ali/Louis and then everybody else.

[Bricks]

Where does this board sit on the topic of Jack Dempsey.

For mine he is one of the hardest fighters of all time to rate. Sometimes i feel as if he is vastly underated and capable of beating anyone and others i go with the overating of Jack Dempsey.

At the moment I am leaning towards placing him somewhere around 10th or so. Maybe even a touch lower. More than any other fighter, i find that he climbs up and down my all time ratings depending on the mood. How does the board currently see his legacy?

He's one of the best 5 HWs of all time

[Boilermaker]

Where does this board sit on the topic of Jack Dempsey.

For mine he is one of the hardest fighters of all time to rate. Sometimes i feel as if he is vastly underated and capable of beating anyone and others i go with the overating of Jack Dempsey.

At the moment I am leaning towards placing him somewhere around 10th or so. Maybe even a touch lower. More than any other fighter, i find that he climbs up and down my all time ratings depending on the mood. How does the board currently see his legacy?

To which Jack Dempsey do you refer? The middleweight or heavyweight? (Boilermaker does like the old, old timers, after all.) One assumes the heavyweight Dempsey, but . . .

Also, head-to-head ranking or historical significance? Or a combination?

It is good to see everyone agrees that Fitz beat a Fringe all time top 10 heavyweight contender whilst weighing less than 154 pounds

Maybe I should clarify. I was talking about the World champion Jack Dempsey who lost to the fighting Marine

[Boilermaker]

I would tend to agree with the above statements about Dempsey being difficult to place.

The biggest criticsm of Dempsey that I mostly hear was the fact that he only had seven World Title defences in seven years. And so, he could have been much more active.

Regarding his standard of opposition, I would not describe it as "fabulous", but it is of a good standard.

Betaing: J Sharkey, Gibbons, Firpo, Carpentier, Miske (X2), Willard and Gunboat Smith (X2) (and Smith was as game as they come).

Ultimately the fact that he never fought Harry Wills will always put a big ??? over his career, and critics will certainly jump on this and accuse him of running from Wills.

For my part, I think he would have beaten Wills - so I don't rate the fact they never fought as significant as his critics will.

And the other thing I would add in "The Long Count" - when he had Tuuney down for 13 seconds, that, for me, confirmed him as a great Heavyweight because this was a Dempsey past his prime and he was still able to hurt Tunney - on eof the greatest Light Heavys of all time.

I always tend to rate mt top 10 on who-would beat-who, and in that measurement there aren't many Haveyweights who could have beaten Dempsey, so I ranks him somehwere between 5-7 (alongside Frazier & Johnson)

I agree that i think he would have beaten Wills as well. But it isnt just wills he managed to avoid. Many people will claim he also avoided Greb as well. And ultimately lost to Tunney. Looking back at it I think that Jack Johnson should have been a lot closer than people realise to getting a shot, and you would think that this would have been a huge money fight. Between Wills and Johnson, there is two of the biggest drawing fights you can think of (Wills was the second highest paid and drawing fighter of the era). He did miss quite a few.

On the other hand, he did agree to fight Wills once, Johnson fight may have resulted in the banning of boxing, he was so hated politically, and does anyone really give Greb a serious chance against Johnson?

On the one hand he ripped through his challengers, decimating the two superheavys he faced, showing great chin and boxing ability. ON the other hand, he was Kod in a round by Flynn (some say, i think wrongly) it was a dive.

His punching looks crisp and powerful in Mike tyson type manner sometimes and couldnt be more impressive, yet other times you watch and it looks like he is a wild swinger with no science.

His reign was 7 years with not many defences against fighters who are not the best available and who gave him serious troubles at times, when you look sometimes, yet other times it is a 7 year strong reign against some pretty good opponents who all came to fight and were all comprehensively beaten.

When past his best he KOd Sharkey and had Tunney down for a long count. Yet by the same token he lost all but one round against Tunney, and was losing against Sharkey until landing the KO shot that some say (again, wrongly i think) that he KOd him with a punch to the balls/hook combination.



There is such a wide interpretation on how good or not so good Jack Dempsey really was. In losing 19 out of 20 rounds to Tunney he was comprehensively beaten, yet many people see the fights as evidence that Prime Dempsey beats Tunney. Just so difficult to rank fairly, imo.

[raylawpc]

It is good to see everyone agrees that Fitz beat a Fringe all time top 10 heavyweight contender whilst weighing less than 154 pounds

What the h--- are you talking about?

[Boilermaker]

It is good to see everyone agrees that Fitz beat a Fringe all time top 10 heavyweight contender whilst weighing less than 154 pounds

What the h--- are you talking about?

I was talking about Fitzy's victory over the non Pareil and the Non Pareil's subsequent loss to the fighting Marine George Leblanche. What were you taking about?

[pound per pound]

Where does this board sit on the topic of Jack Dempsey.

For mine he is one of the hardest fighters of all time to rate. Sometimes i feel as if he is vastly underated and capable of beating anyone and others i go with the overating of Jack Dempsey.

At the moment I am leaning towards placing him somewhere around 10th or so. Maybe even a touch lower. More than any other fighter, i find that he climbs up and down my all time ratings depending on the mood. How does the board currently see his legacy?

Welcome to the board Boilermaker. I too would place Dempsey around 10th.

[raylawpc]

It is good to see everyone agrees that Fitz beat a Fringe all time top 10 heavyweight contender whilst weighing less than 154 pounds

What the h--- are you talking about?

I was talking about Fitzy's victory over the non Pareil and the Non Pareil's subsequent loss to the fighting Marine George Leblanche. What were you taking about?

So . . . the Nonpariel was a fringe all-time top 10 heavyweight contender . . . what drugs are you on?

[Boilermaker]

What the h--- are you talking about?

I was talking about Fitzy's victory over the non Pareil and the Non Pareil's subsequent loss to the fighting Marine George Leblanche. What were you taking about?

So . . . the Nonpariel was a fringe all-time top 10 heavyweight contender . . . what drugs are you on?

I think you missed this one or was it his one or this DD or or :( :??

Suppose I better spell it out to avoid confusion. No I dont think the Non Pareil is a top 10 heavyweight. It was a joke based on both Jack Dempseys losing to the Fighting Marine.

In case you are wondering, I also have a little difficulty seeing Joe Walcott last the distance with Joe Louis. How about you?

[Badhusker]

I would put him right behind Gene Tunney.....the guy that beat him twice.

[raylawpc]

I was talking about Fitzy's victory over the non Pareil and the Non Pareil's subsequent loss to the fighting Marine George Leblanche. What were you taking about?

So . . . the Nonpariel was a fringe all-time top 10 heavyweight contender . . . what drugs are you on?

I think you missed this one or was it his one or this DD or or :( :??

Suppose I better spell it out to avoid confusion. No I dont think the Non Pareil is a top 10 heavyweight. It was a joke based on both Jack Dempseys losing to the Fighting Marine.

In case you are wondering, I also have a little difficulty seeing Joe Walcott last the distance with Joe Louis. How about you?

Jokes are supposed to be funny . . .

[thunderfromdownunder]

[quote="Alan PartridgeHe was truly great and Imagine if he was around in the modern days as a CW he would go down as the greatest CW ever. I think he would've destroyed Holyfield with ease.[/quote]

Great fantasy match up!

[Boilermaker]

Where does this board sit on the topic of Jack Dempsey.

For mine he is one of the hardest fighters of all time to rate. Sometimes i feel as if he is vastly underated and capable of beating anyone and others i go with the overating of Jack Dempsey.

At the moment I am leaning towards placing him somewhere around 10th or so. Maybe even a touch lower. More than any other fighter, i find that he climbs up and down my all time ratings depending on the mood. How does the board currently see his legacy?

To which Jack Dempsey do you refer? The middleweight or heavyweight? (Boilermaker does like the old, old timers, after all.) One assumes the heavyweight Dempsey, but . . .

Also, head-to-head ranking or historical significance? Or a combination?

I Thought it started as your joke

[Badhusker]

Well, the guy has to be up there as an ATG. After all, he is the only boxer that I know of that they names a species of fish after. (The Jack Dempsey, a cichlid type of fight that is known to be agressive)

[raylawpc]

Where does this board sit on the topic of Jack Dempsey.

For mine he is one of the hardest fighters of all time to rate. Sometimes i feel as if he is vastly underated and capable of beating anyone and others i go with the overating of Jack Dempsey.

At the moment I am leaning towards placing him somewhere around 10th or so. Maybe even a touch lower. More than any other fighter, i find that he climbs up and down my all time ratings depending on the mood. How does the board currently see his legacy?

To which Jack Dempsey do you refer? The middleweight or heavyweight? (Boilermaker does like the old, old timers, after all.) One assumes the heavyweight Dempsey, but . . .

Also, head-to-head ranking or historical significance? Or a combination?

I Thought it started as your joke

No, I was serious given your stated goal of getting "the board" to accept Fitz as greatest All-Time fighter P4P. That and given your affinity for old time fighters, it seemed reasonable you might be talking about the middleweight Dempsey, especially since Fitz beat that Dempsey for the middleweight title.

Saying someone is the greatest head-to-head is not the same as saying one is the greatest, based on other factors such as historical significance, level of opposition, etc. So I always seek clarification when one asks for these "ATG" rankings.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Well, the guy has to be up there as an ATG. After all, he is the only boxer that I know of that they names a species of fish after. (The Jack Dempsey, a cichlid type of fight that is known to be agressive)

In the same family, theres also the equally-aggressive, 'Oscar.'