BoxRec

Ambling Alp wrote:

Controversial wrote:

Decagon wrote:I personally rank Lewis #10 and Dempsey #11. Here are some reasons why I rank Dempsey as an all-time great:

• He introduced modern combination punching into the heavyweight division.
• His combination punching and punching power would be a problem for nearly any heavyweight who ever lived.
• From 1918 to 1919, he basically cleaned out the heavyweight division.
• In 1923, after a long layoff, he easily knocked out the #1 contender, Luis Angel Firpo. Firpo was a heavyweight of modern proportions who could crack like no one else.
• Dempsey never lost in his prime.
• Dempsey was one of the most active heavyweights of all time, throwing an incredible amount of punches per round.
• Dempsey had an incredible mindset, unlike Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson, for instance.

Surely to rank fighters you base it mainly on who they fought and beat, not on their fighting style, popularity, mood or any other reason. Dempsey never lost in his prime because he didn't fight any of the top black heavyweights. He was beaten twice by the best fighter he fought and wasn't particularly spectectular in his title defences.

To me Dempsey does not have enough good wins over good enough fighters to justify his his ranking. How Bert Sugar rates him as the best heavyweight ever is beyond me.

Often overlooked is his title defense over Billy Miske. Miske was a very good fighter and Dempsey knocked him out.

In his first defense, he faced friend Billy Miske, knocking him out in three rounds. Years after the fight, it was learned Miske accepted the fight while suffering a terminal disease and needed the money to secure his family after death, which occurred to him two years after challenging Dempsey. Dempsey always expressed regret about that fight and declared he would have given Miske the money he needed if he'd only known of Miske's situation.

kick asner wrote:I believe that Bert Sugar had Joe Louis at number one Ali at number two and Dempsey third, but that doesn't detract from your point that Sugar rated Dempsey very high. He did discuss at lengnth about how he perceived Dempsey as an all time great.

Also if you can credit Dempsey with revelutionizing the sport of boxing by taking the combination and expanding on it to the point of perfecting it then you would also have to say that everyone before him was less advanced and or inferior. That the sport was at some type of crude level to the point where fighters were only capable of rudementary technique not yet able to put combinations together properly. That would open up a whole new argument.

No Sugar rated him number one..below is an extract from an interview with him

HOWARD SIROTA: Who is the best heavyweight of all time?
BERT SUGAR: Jack Dempsey, number one. Joe Louis, number two. Muhammad Ali, number three.
HOWARD SIROTA: How could they possibly have beaten Muhammad Ali?
BERT SUGAR: Hit him. Which nobody seemed to be able to. Joe Louis was the fast-- Granted, now. At their peak and all weights equal, because every generation grows bigger, and Muhammad Ali was six-three... and so Jack Dempsey would not have been five-ten. Had he been in the '60s and '70s, his ancestry would've been bigger. He would've hit him, he had 25 first-round knockouts. Joe Louis had faster hands than Ali had feet. I'm not denigrating Ali. And we all grew up with him. I'm just trying to give it a historical perspective.
HOWARD SIROTA: Where do you put Larry Holmes?
BERT SUGAR: Larry had the second-best left jab in the history of the heavyweight division behind Sonny Liston. I have Larry number ten amongst my heavyweight champions. I mean, I have a couple others in there named Tommy, and a couple others in there. But... and Sam Langford, who wasn't even a champion. Larry Holmes was brilliant. The problem is you gain your greatness by rubbing up against other greats. Larry Holmes didn't have that chance. There weren't those greats around for him to rub up against, as there were Ali. As there were Louis. And as there were Dempsey.

Another interview with Sugar he was asked to name the 5 greatest fighters P4P. His list was

1) Sugar Ray Robinson
2) Henry Armstrong
3) Harry Greb
4) Jack Dempsey
5) Benny Leonard

I got my information from the ESPN interview with Brian Kinney. So then I either remembered it wrong or Sugar changed his mind. Sooner or later they will air that segment again. Now I am curious to see it a second time. But whenever Sugar has discussed Dempsey he has done so in the context of imortality.

who ever said dempsey did not lose in his prime is wrong


dempsey lost to willie meehan in 1918, however it was a bad decision and only 4 rounds but dempsey did lose in his prime

Decagon wrote: Lewis was in his prime for both kayo losses.

no
those fights were pretty far apart, 6 years or something i think

Jack Dempsey is considered an all-time great in my book because,

He broke through the market and became an advertisement for boxing into the main-stream, he almost made boxing look glamourous (good-looking man he was, apparently).

As a fighter, yes , it is true that Dempsey had quite a lot short-fights (and only ever went 15 rounds once) however, his punching power was very destrcutive, and will contnued ot be noted up there with the greatest heavyweight punchers in history.

He sparked out Jack Skarkey, (this should be noted, becuase Sharkey was no dosser).

Yes, he was bettered by Tunney on the first fight,
BUt
fight 2, THE LONG COUNT,

need I say more???

>>>Even in his prime, Dempsey was terrified of certain fighters, including Jess Willard. Part of the reason he was such a great heavyweight was that he turned that fear into something positive. He controlled his fear instead of letting it control him<<<

That's just silly...Dempsey was never scared of anyone. If you think he was frightened of Willard, you need to watch the fight a few more times and read all the hoopla surrounding the fight. The only person that was scared for Dempsey against Willard was Tex Rickard, who thought Willard would kill Dempsey, but Dempsey certainly did not fear Willard, as was demonstrated in his brutal demolition of the big man, nor was he afraid of any one else. A fighter with fear simply does not just tear into an opponent, especially in the manner that Dempsey did.

Controversial wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

Controversial wrote: Surely to rank fighters you base it mainly on who they fought and beat, not on their fighting style, popularity, mood or any other reason. Dempsey never lost in his prime because he didn't fight any of the top black heavyweights. He was beaten twice by the best fighter he fought and wasn't particularly spectectular in his title defences.

To me Dempsey does not have enough good wins over good enough fighters to justify his his ranking. How Bert Sugar rates him as the best heavyweight ever is beyond me.

Often overlooked is his title defense over Billy Miske. Miske was a very good fighter and Dempsey knocked him out.

In his first defense, he faced friend Billy Miske, knocking him out in three rounds. Years after the fight, it was learned Miske accepted the fight while suffering a terminal disease and needed the money to secure his family after death, which occurred to him two years after challenging Dempsey. Dempsey always expressed regret about that fight and declared he would have given Miske the money he needed if he'd only known of Miske's situation.

If you mean that Miske was a sick man (as some books say) and wasn't near his best when Dempsey knocked him out, I have always been skeptical of the story that Miske was sick at the time he fought Dempsey in 1923. He went on to fight 23 more fights over the next 3 years after he lost to Dempsey. He beat several good fighters during this time. In fact in his last fight, he knocked out Brennan in 1923.

It doesn't seem that Miske became ill untill well after he lost to Dempsey. I suppose it's possible he was ill against Dempsey, got better soon after, and then the illness came back 3 years later. However, I'm skeptical for this. I give Dempsey full credit for knocking Miske out.

Decagon wrote:Huh? Dempsey signed to fight Harry Wills. I think this is an issue of you not knowing the facts, and trying to cover up what you don't know by spreading what you do know as far as possible, like a middle-aged man combing his hair over his bald spot.

Come on, Dempsey avoided Wills for years - Wills was the logical challenger in the early 1920s but never got a shot - and only when Wills faded did he sign for a fight well knowing that Rickard wouldn't allow this.

Of cours most white heavyweights did this, so Dempsey is no excpetion, but the fact remains that he avoided the cream of black fighters during his reign.

Crease wrote:Jack Dempsey is considered an all-time great in my book because,

He broke through the market and became an advertisement for boxing into the main-stream, he almost made boxing look glamourous (good-looking man he was, apparently).

As a fighter, yes , it is true that Dempsey had quite a lot short-fights (and only ever went 15 rounds once) however, his punching power was very destrcutive, and will contnued ot be noted up there with the greatest heavyweight punchers in history.

He sparked out Jack Skarkey, (this should be noted, becuase Sharkey was no dosser).

Yes, he was bettered by Tunney on the first fight,
BUt
fight 2, THE LONG COUNT,

need I say more???

He only "sparked out" Sharkey because he hit low and when Sharkey lowered the guard to complain to the referee Dempsey exploited that situation. Without Dempsey fouling AND Sharley being dumb Dempsey would have lost horribly that night.

And the impact of the long count is way overhyped. Tunney got up at 9 without difficulty. Fine, this was after 14 seconds because Dempsey didn't go to the neutral corner. But Tunney could have gotten up earlier if needed; even Dempsey admitted that later. No matter how long the referee would have counted, Dempsey would never have had a chance to beat Tunney, in fight 2 as little as in fight 1.

Al this said, Tunney is an evergreat, and Dempsey is still the #2 or #3 heavyweight of the 1920s, and somewhere between #3 and #6 in the 1910s - which makes him a great as well. NOT in the league of Ali or Louis, but in the league of, say, Frazier, or Walcott, or Schmeling. And these are all greats.

P

Ambling Alp wrote:

Controversial wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: Often overlooked is his title defense over Billy Miske. Miske was a very good fighter and Dempsey knocked him out.

In his first defense, he faced friend Billy Miske, knocking him out in three rounds. Years after the fight, it was learned Miske accepted the fight while suffering a terminal disease and needed the money to secure his family after death, which occurred to him two years after challenging Dempsey. Dempsey always expressed regret about that fight and declared he would have given Miske the money he needed if he'd only known of Miske's situation.

If you mean that Miske was a sick man (as some books say) and wasn't near his best when Dempsey knocked him out, I have always been skeptical of the story that Miske was sick at the time he fought Dempsey in 1923. He went on to fight 23 more fights over the next 3 years after he lost to Dempsey. He beat several good fighters during this time. In fact in his last fight, he knocked out Brennan in 1923.

It doesn't seem that Miske became ill untill well after he lost to Dempsey. I suppose it's possible he was ill against Dempsey, got better soon after, and then the illness came back 3 years later. However, I'm skeptical for this. I give Dempsey full credit for knocking Miske out.

Miske was diagnosed with kidney disease in 1920. He took six months off a became a car dealer before resurecting his career. He died a few years after fighting Dempsey.

Decagon wrote:I personally rank Lewis #10 and Dempsey #11. Here are some reasons why I rank Dempsey as an all-time great:

• He introduced modern combination punching into the heavyweight division.

He did?

[*]His combination punching and punching power would be a problem for nearly any heavyweight who ever lived.[/list]

I agree.

[*]From 1918 to 1919, he basically cleaned out the heavyweight division.

The white heavies yes. Never beat Langford, Wills, Norfolk

[*]In 1923, after a long layoff, he easily knocked out the #1 contender, Luis Angel Firpo. Firpo was a heavyweight of modern proportions who could crack like no one else.

Firpo was not the number one contender. Harry Wills was. Firpo was a good puncher, but lumbering, predictable and amtuerish. Let's not inflate his creds. He also almost knocked out Dempsey--not exactly an easy night as you say.

[*]Dempsey never lost in his prime.

No he did not
[*]

Dempsey was one of the most active heavyweights of all time, throwing an incredible amount of punches per round.

He was active in the ring, but once he won the championship he was one of the least active champions we have ever had.
[*]

Dempsey had an incredible mindset, unlike Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson, for instance.

Always admired Jack's tenacity. He was certainly a tiger in the ring. But aren't most true champions made of a similar mindset?

RowanSmith wrote:

Decagon wrote:I personally rank Lewis #10 and Dempsey #11. Here are some reasons why I rank Dempsey as an all-time great:

• He introduced modern combination punching into the heavyweight division.

He did?

[*]His combination punching and punching power would be a problem for nearly any heavyweight who ever lived.[/list]

I agree.

[*]From 1918 to 1919, he basically cleaned out the heavyweight division.

The white heavies yes. Never beat Langford, Wills, Norfolk

[*]In 1923, after a long layoff, he easily knocked out the #1 contender, Luis Angel Firpo. Firpo was a heavyweight of modern proportions who could crack like no one else.

Firpo was not the number one contender. Harry Wills was. Firpo was a good puncher, but lumbering, predictable and amtuerish. Let's not inflate his creds. He also almost knocked out Dempsey--not exactly an easy night as you say.

[*]Dempsey never lost in his prime.

No he did not
[*]

Dempsey was one of the most active heavyweights of all time, throwing an incredible amount of punches per round.

He was active in the ring, but once he won the championship he was one of the least active champions we have ever had.
[*]

Dempsey had an incredible mindset, unlike Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson, for instance.

Always admired Jack's tenacity. He was certainly a tiger in the ring. But aren't most true champions made of a similar mindset?

Thanks for putting this straight.
P

Decagon wrote:Were Langford and Norfolk top heavyweights in 1918 to 1919? Langford was nearly blind and Norfolk was a light heavyweight.

yes they were. kid norfolk was one of the best heavyweights out there. he soundily beat the highly rated heavyweight billy miske YET miske got a title shot and norfolk didnt.


langford even a old far past it blind man was still a force to be reckon with in 1918 and he still was a top dog.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Controversial wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: Often overlooked is his title defense over Billy Miske. Miske was a very good fighter and Dempsey knocked him out.

In his first defense, he faced friend Billy Miske, knocking him out in three rounds. Years after the fight, it was learned Miske accepted the fight while suffering a terminal disease and needed the money to secure his family after death, which occurred to him two years after challenging Dempsey. Dempsey always expressed regret about that fight and declared he would have given Miske the money he needed if he'd only known of Miske's situation.

If you mean that Miske was a sick man (as some books say) and wasn't near his best when Dempsey knocked him out, I have always been skeptical of the story that Miske was sick at the time he fought Dempsey in 1923. He went on to fight 23 more fights over the next 3 years after he lost to Dempsey. He beat several good fighters during this time. In fact in his last fight, he knocked out Brennan in 1923.

It doesn't seem that Miske became ill untill well after he lost to Dempsey. I suppose it's possible he was ill against Dempsey, got better soon after, and then the illness came back 3 years later. However, I'm skeptical for this. I give Dempsey full credit for knocking Miske out.

Misk had a degenerative kidney disease... its not the sort of thing that you 'catch' get over and then catch again...

>>>"I was afraid he was going to kill me. I wasn't just fighting for the championship. I was fighting for my life."<<<>>>Jack Dempsey about Jess Willard<<<

Well, if you think that proves Dempsey was afraid of Willard then you are more simple-minded than I thought you were!

A fighter who is afraid...King Levinsky versus Joe Louis...that is a fighter who is afraid...Bruce Seldon versus Mike Tyson...that is a fighter who is afraid...Jack Dempsey versus Jess Willard...yeah...that is a fighter who is afraid...right!!!!

Most fighters feel fear before the fight but its how they deal with the fear that is important. Dempsey often spoke about feeling fear before fights, as did Ali and many other fighters... the likes of Seldon arent the only fighters to feel fear, but they are amongst the few that can't control it...
Anyone who doesn't feel some fear when they are about to go into toe to toe combat is either very dim or knocked out already...

Dempsey is considered one of the best ever because of the way he cleaned out the division prior to his winning of the title. The best Dempsey was the pre title Dempsey. Fred Fulton, Carl Morris, Bill Brennan, and Billy Miske were all top notch heavyweights and Dempsey disposed of them, often in gruesome fashion.

The reason Dempsey's title reign was unimpressive was because he had already cleaned the division out. Harry Wills being the only obvious exception but Dempsey himself signed for that one and was willing. It's a shame it never happened.

Look to Sonny Liston for another example of a fighter who cleaned out his division prior to winning the title.

Jack Dempsey absolutely deserves a spot somewhere in the top ten. Personally, I can't name ten other heavyweight champions who had better careers.

silkov wrote:Most fighters feel fear before the fight but its how they deal with the fear that is important. Dempsey often spoke about feeling fear before fights, as did Ali and many other fighters... the likes of Seldon arent the only fighters to feel fear, but they are amongst the few that can't control it...
Anyone who doesn't feel some fear when they are about to go into toe to toe combat is either very dim or knocked out already...

When talking about fighters who addmitted to being afraid before a fight, you must mean fighters who talked about the fear once their careers were over, becuase I have never heard a fighter admit to being afraid while still in the game. It was always just the opposite where they would try to portray an air of fearlessness.

One guy who acted totally non afraid was Joe Frazier. Just look at the way he fought against Foreman. I think he might have been better served to have walked into the ring just a bit afraid where it would have caused him to employ a slightly different stratatgy.

kick asner wrote:

silkov wrote:Most fighters feel fear before the fight but its how they deal with the fear that is important. Dempsey often spoke about feeling fear before fights, as did Ali and many other fighters... the likes of Seldon arent the only fighters to feel fear, but they are amongst the few that can't control it...
Anyone who doesn't feel some fear when they are about to go into toe to toe combat is either very dim or knocked out already...

When talking about fighters who addmitted to being afraid before a fight, you must mean fighters who talked about the fear once their careers were over, becuase I have never heard a fighter admit to being afraid while still in the . It was always just the opposite where they would try to portray an air of fearlessness.

One guy who acted totally non afraid was Joe Frazier. Just look at the way he fought against Foreman. I think he might have been better served to have walked into the ring just a bit afraid where it would have caused him to employ a slightly different stratatgy.

You are right about smokin Joe. I read once where Joe said he absolutely loved to fight. A lot of fighters say stuff like that but with Joe it seemed as though he really did.

Joe always had a great attitude about boxing in as much he talked about putting on a show for the crowd. He figured people payed to watch him fight that they deserved to see action.

>>>Riiiight. I'll just be like you. I'll ignore the facts and base things on my own stupid ideas.<<<


Facts...what do you know about facts? When have you ever presented any actual facts to support an argument of yours? All you do is try to present material that other people have researched and brought to light...which as we all have seen is more often wrong than right and which is why most people on this forum laugh at you and never really look to you for anything boxing-wise and exactly why you have no credibility whatsoever...sorry, but's thats the way of the world sometimes! People take your historical view of boxing about as serious as they take your silly, stupid odds that you waste space with!



As to Dempsey and fear...fear is a hell of a lot different than being afraid, or especially terrrified...Dempsey may have had fear, but he damn sure was not terrified of anyone as Decagon stated. That is just ignorant to the point of utter stupidity!

Decagon wrote:I personally rank [Lewis #10 and] Dempsey #11.

Indicentally, this isn't taht different from my #13, but very different from Brockton's #3.

And then you say you agree with basically everything he writes on my rankings?

P

As to Dempsey and fear...fear is a hell of a lot different than being afraid, or especially terrrified...Dempsey may have had fear, but he damn sure was not terrified of anyone as Decagon stated. That is just ignorant to the point of utter stupidity!

Being afraid means feeling fear. Its the same thing. Terrfied is feeling an intense amount of fear. A fighter who is afraid of his opponent like Dempsey was with Willard can effectively use that fear to win. A fighter who is terrified however like Seldon was with Tyson usual freezes and cant preform effectively.
However, Foreman said he was terrified of Frazier. He said he kept staring into Joe's eyes so Frazier wouldnt notice his legs shaking. Alex Stewart was obviously terrified of Foreman and actually fought quite well because of it.
So I guess it all depends on the individual.

Decagon wrote:

pundit wrote:

Decagon wrote:I personally rank [Lewis #10 and] Dempsey #11.

Indicentally, this isn't taht different from my #13, but very different from Brockton's #3.

And then you say you agree with basically everything he writes on my rankings?

P

Everything he said in that post before mine I agreed with. It's ironic, because the two of us rarely agree.

Well, in that post he said I had Dempsey FAR FAR TOO LOW in my rankings. Actually,f for the fun of it here is a comparison how we rank various fighters - I also added in Crease who came up with this own ranking. Here are the average top 20:

AvRank-Pundit-Decagon-Brockton-Crease-Average

1a. Louis 1-2-1-3 AV2
1b. Ali 2-1-2-2 AV2
3. Holmes 3-3-4-10 AV5
4. Foreman 4-7-7-4 AV5
5. Frazier 9-5-8-5 AV7
6. Johnson 8-4-9-7 AV7
7. Marciano 14-9-5-1 AV7
8. Liston 10-6-6-9 AV8
9. Dempsey 13-11-3-6 AV8
10. Tyson 11-12-10-8 AV10
11. Lewis 5-10-15-16 AV11
12. Holyfield 16-8-14-18 AV14
13a. Langford 6-25-12-14 AV14
13b. Jeffries 20-15-11-11 AV14
15. Charles 19-16-13-12 AV15
16. Tunney 7-13-22-21 AV16
17. Walcott 18-17-16-13 AV16
18. Patterson 15-22-18-15 AV17
19. Schmeling 17-19-19-17 AV18
20. Wills 12-29-17-22 AV20

(21: Norton; 22: Sharkey)

Not that I'm fishing for allies or anything, but it seems to me that all of us have fighters where we are out of line with the rest, and our agreements and disagreements with one another are fairly evenly distributed. You for example have Holyfield higher and Langford and Wills lower than everybody else (even though you're probably closest to the average).

P