BoxRec

HomicideHenry wrote:2 for Dempsey, 1-1 EVEN between Tunney and Jeffries....

And I agree TheGreat, Sullivan/Dempsey would of made for a more interesting show down

Well I'd have taken Dempsey, but it would be a good style matchup. Sullivan was noted for his quickness and power, especially with the right hand, and Dempsey sometimes fought a bit reckless, making it a possible upset.

My honesty is going to hurt me here, but I think a mistake was made with Tunney-Jeffries back in the 11th round. Only scartissue and I voted for Tunney; dempseyfire, saad, and homocidehenry voted for Jeffries; Jeffries should have won 3-2.

I'm voting for Dempsey KO5 Schaaf.

Dempsey KO9 Schaaf - Ernie did well to get here but Jack is just a bit too much.

Tunney W15 Jeffries - I don't see Gene hurting Jeff, but I do see him boxing very well to a comfortable decision.

Jefferies UD Tunney

Dempsey KO9 Schaff

After careful review.... it is apparent that an error (seems to of been more than a few during this whole tournament) was made in the 11th round of the tournament.... Jeffries had already defeated Tunney.....

Ambling Alp II wrote:My honesty is going to hurt me here, but I think a mistake was made with Tunney-Jeffries back in the 11th round. Only scartissue and I voted for Tunney; dempseyfire, saad, and homocidehenry voted for Jeffries; Jeffries should have won 3-2.

I'm voting for Dempsey KO5 Schaaf.

And.... Alp, when you're right you're right.... Tunney was eliminated in the 11th round....

Therefore........... I think its unaminous........ (I cant see Schaaf moving ahead in this)


Dempsey has defeated Schaaf and will be facing THE BOILERMAKER JAMES JACKSON JEFFRIES IN THE FOURTEENTH AND FINAL ROUND OF THE TOURNAMENT

Dempsey TKO Jeffries

Would have been a brutal fight.
Dempsey TKO 11 Jeffries

The poll numbers have come in @ 5-0

JACK DEMPSEY IS THE BEST WHITE HEAVYWEIGHT OF ALL TIME!!!!

Not a major surprise that Dempsey won; he had to be one of the favorites. Nice to see Ernie Schaaf go so far. You don't hear much about him.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Not a major surprise that Dempsey won; he had to be one of the favorites. Nice to see Ernie Schaaf go so far. You don't hear much about him.

I dont think you will see much of an argument against Dempsey having not only won this tournament, but by being the greatest white heavyweight of all time period. It is interesting, when you compare this tournament with Murray Woroner's 1967 NCR-315 tournament, where the finals was Dempsey vs. Marciano--- where Rocky won. In this tournament, unlike Woroner's, Rocky lost to Gene Tunney, and Gene in return lost to essentially a larger version of The Rock in Jim Jeffries--- and Jeffries and Dempsey, thus were the final two men.

There were some mistakes made in the tournament, after all it is hard for one man to keep track of almost 80 names and verdicts and votes, etc. but I think at the end of the day no one can argue that Dempsey was the best--- nor do I think anyone can argue that the people who won/lost in the tournament from day one, can really be at a higher place than they were. Marciano, seems to be the lone casuality--- losing in his second tournament match--- but he did defeat Jim Corbett who had 2-3 wins in the tournament, so really one can attest that Marciano fits in the same class as someone who happened to have 3-4 wins in the tournament.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Not a major surprise that Dempsey won; he had to be one of the favorites. Nice to see Ernie Schaaf go so far. You don't hear much about him.

I dont think you will see much of an argument against Dempsey having not only won this tournament, but by being the greatest white heavyweight of all time period. It is interesting, when you compare this tournament with Murray Woroner's 1967 NCR-315 tournament, where the finals was Dempsey vs. Marciano--- where Rocky won. In this tournament, unlike Woroner's, Rocky lost to Gene Tunney, and Gene in return lost to essentially a larger version of The Rock in Jim Jeffries--- and Jeffries and Dempsey, thus were the final two men.

There were some mistakes made in the tournament, after all it is hard for one man to keep track of almost 80 names and verdicts and votes, etc. but I think at the end of the day no one can argue that Dempsey was the best--- nor do I think anyone can argue that the people who won/lost in the tournament from day one, can really be at a higher place than they were. Marciano, seems to be the lone casuality--- losing in his second tournament match--- but he did defeat Jim Corbett who had 2-3 wins in the tournament, so really one can attest that Marciano fits in the same class as someone who happened to have 3-4 wins in the tournament.

Henry, special thanks to you for conducting this tourney. Well done. Although I didn't agree with many of the results I think you formulated it well. Now, how about another? Lets say contenders, the division of your choice. I know its on the heels of the white tourney but come on, throw us a bone here, dude.

scartissue wrote:
Henry, special thanks to you for conducting this tourney. Well done. Although I didn't agree with many of the results I think you formulated it well. Now, how about another? Lets say contenders, the division of your choice. I know its on the heels of the white tourney but come on, throw us a bone here, dude.

Lmao, I hope none of that is said in sarcasm.

I would like to run other tournaments; of course, with a smaller list of people. Forty names ought to be sufficient, rather than damn near doing a hundred like this tournament. I'm thinking, possibly, the best fighters from perspective countries--- like best British & Commonwealth champions, best Colored Heavyweight champions, or even best bare knuckle champions, though I don't think there is that many people out there with the knowledge of eras that early on in the sport to do any of those men much justice.

Personally, I think it would be interesting to do tournaments featuring the alleged best to never win a championship---- or to really cause alot of debate, would be the "greatest fighter pound for pound" tournament, where someone's overall achievements, accomplishments in the sport are their defining factors in chosing a winner. I think it would take the vote of the forum, or gather a consensus from the voters of this tournament (Best White Heavyweight of All Time) as to what tournament to do next.

HomicideHenry wrote:

scartissue wrote:
Henry, special thanks to you for conducting this tourney. Well done. Although I didn't agree with many of the results I think you formulated it well. Now, how about another? Lets say contenders, the division of your choice. I know its on the heels of the white tourney but come on, throw us a bone here, dude.

Lmao, I hope none of that is said in sarcasm.

I would like to run other tournaments; of course, with a smaller list of people. Forty names ought to be sufficient, rather than damn near doing a hundred like this tournament. I'm thinking, possibly, the best fighters from perspective countries--- like best British & Commonwealth champions, best Colored Heavyweight champions, or even best bare knuckle champions, though I don't think there is that many people out there with the knowledge of eras that early on in the sport to do any of those men much justice.

Personally, I think it would be interesting to do tournaments featuring the alleged best to never win a championship---- or to really cause alot of debate, would be the "greatest fighter pound for pound" tournament, where someone's overall achievements, accomplishments in the sport are their defining factors in chosing a winner. I think it would take the vote of the forum, or gather a consensus from the voters of this tournament (Best White Heavyweight of All Time) as to what tournament to do next.

I think that's a good idea.

Duch wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:

scartissue wrote:
Henry, special thanks to you for conducting this tourney. Well done. Although I didn't agree with many of the results I think you formulated it well. Now, how about another? Lets say contenders, the division of your choice. I know its on the heels of the white tourney but come on, throw us a bone here, dude.

Lmao, I hope none of that is said in sarcasm.

I would like to run other tournaments; of course, with a smaller list of people. Forty names ought to be sufficient, rather than damn near doing a hundred like this tournament. I'm thinking, possibly, the best fighters from perspective countries--- like best British & Commonwealth champions, best Colored Heavyweight champions, or even best bare knuckle champions, though I don't think there is that many people out there with the knowledge of eras that early on in the sport to do any of those men much justice.

Personally, I think it would be interesting to do tournaments featuring the alleged best to never win a championship---- or to really cause alot of debate, would be the "greatest fighter pound for pound" tournament, where someone's overall achievements, accomplishments in the sport are their defining factors in chosing a winner. I think it would take the vote of the forum, or gather a consensus from the voters of this tournament (Best White Heavyweight of All Time) as to what tournament to do next.

I think that's a good idea.

A subject I've always enjoyed. Of course, we would have to define whether it's contenders or best never to win a championship. Meaning, would that eliminate a fighter such as Fidel laBarba, to use as an example, of being included at 126 because he was flyweight champ or Archie Moore as a heavyweight because he was lt heavyweight champ. And Henry, no sarcasm, I think you did an admirable job which is why I'd like to see you run it again.

YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING COONEY 3-0 , HE NEVER BEAT ANYONE IN THE TOP TEN AND HAD 28 WINS! OH i SEE JERRY QUARRY WHO BEAT MORE TOP TEEN FIGHTER'S THAN ANYONE IN THIS TOURNAMENT, GETS KNOCKED OUT BY FITZIE, KINDA FUNNY QUARRY WAS NEVE "KNOCKED OUT" INCLUDING CHUVALO FIGHT, AND JERRY ONLY HAD 53 WINS!

I think Rocky Marciano takes it.

However, if you are going to include Italians then you should include several Hispanics of white complexion such as John and Andy Ruiz, Jose Roman, Luis Firpo, Artufo Godoy, etc.

This will be fun!!!

What about John "Dino" Dennis? He beat Scott LeDoux.

AntonioMartin wrote: ↑30 Nov 2019, 06:12 I think Rocky Marciano takes it.

However, if you are going to include Italians then you should include several Hispanics of white complexion such as John and Andy Ruiz, Jose Roman, Luis Firpo, Artufo Godoy, etc.

This will be fun!!!

Latinos don't consider themselves white. Italians are white.

Dempsey was tough but no way would he beat Marciano. Most of those old-timers like Sullivan and Corbett wouldn't last through the first round against the bigger faster heavies. Corbett couldn't break an egg and Sullivan was nothing but a tavern brawler. Fitzsimmons was a good middleweight, but he failed twice against Jeffries who was George Chuvalo if Chuvalo never had a decent jab or a right hand. Jack Sharkey would've boxed Jeffries head off in a fifteen round fight, never mind Gene Tunney. Tommy Burns was a great little fighter, but against giants, he wouldn't last.

Dream on.

Next time run the tournament using Title Bout Championship Boxing. Avoid a popularity contest.

clopixolacuphase wrote: ↑01 Dec 2019, 10:43

AntonioMartin wrote: ↑30 Nov 2019, 06:12 I think Rocky Marciano takes it.

However, if you are going to include Italians then you should include several Hispanics of white complexion such as John and Andy Ruiz, Jose Roman, Luis Firpo, Artufo Godoy, etc.

This will be fun!!!

Latinos don't consider themselves white. Italians are white.

You will be surprised, because many Latinos are and do consider themselves White, just like, on the other hand, many Latinos are and do consider themselves Black.

AntonioMartin wrote: ↑01 Dec 2019, 16:10

clopixolacuphase wrote: ↑01 Dec 2019, 10:43
Latinos don't consider themselves white. Italians are white.

You will be surprised, because many Latinos are and do consider themselves White, just like, on the other hand, many Latinos are and do consider themselves Black.

Not any that I know. Personally I think my Cypriot relatives look less 'white' than my Mexican friends and they look f*cking white to me, but they certainly see themselves as 'people of colour'. Sometimes people think I'm an Arab, and I've been told to "fornicate off back to your own country" but I'm pure bred English white.

Just shows you how stupid all that is.

clopixolacuphase wrote: ↑01 Dec 2019, 17:17

AntonioMartin wrote: ↑01 Dec 2019, 16:10
You will be surprised, because many Latinos are and do consider themselves White, just like, on the other hand, many Latinos are and do consider themselves Black.

Not any that I know. Personally I think my Cypriot relatives look less 'white' than my Mexican friends and they look f*cking white to me, but they certainly see themselves as 'people of colour'. Sometimes people think I'm an Arab, and I've been told to "fornicate off back to your own country" but I'm pure bred English white.

Just shows you how stupid all that is.

And how crazy it is...

Well, your Latino friends must be Americans then because even i really don't consider myself White here in the USA, for two things: 1. Comparing my skin to say my friend and brother from another mother Paul.....and second, it may be part of a mentality us US based Latinos have because let me tell you growing up in Puerto Rico I always considered myself a "blanco" and everyone else said I was...+ from watching telenovelaas and other shows, I know that also in Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, Cuba, Panama, Peru, Colombia Brazil etc, people call each other either White or Black, with Brown ("triqueno") or Mestizo also used but not frequently.

Guess it depends on what each person considers it to be.

AntonioMartin wrote: ↑30 Nov 2019, 06:12 I think Rocky Marciano takes it.

However, if you are going to include Italians then you should include several Hispanics of white complexion such as John and Andy Ruiz, Jose Roman, Luis Firpo, Artufo Godoy, etc.

This will be fun!!!

John and Andy Ruiz aren't white.