BoxRec

Il Duce wrote:Grevan,

You can't only credit the wins, as you must calculate the losses and 'poor' performances, and the 'game playing'.

Key Losses
* Joe Frazier I
* Kenny Norton I

Controversial Wins
* Alonzo Johnson
* Doug Jones
* Henry Cooper I
* Kenny Norton II
* Jimmy Young
* Kenny Norton III

Bizarre Bouts
* Sonny Liston I
* Sonny Liston II

Embarrassments
* Buster Mathis
* Rudi Lubbers

Unworthy Challengers
* Brian London
* George Chuvalo I
* Cleveland Williams
* Chuck Wepner
* Jean-Pierre Coopman
* Alfredo Evangelista

Handicapped Challengers
* Floyd Patterson I
* Ron Lyle
* Joe Frazier III

Upset Special
* Leon Spinks I

Non-Effort Performance
* Trevor Berbick

Scam
*Antonio Inoki

Hoax Perpetuated on the Public
* Larry Holmes

You can produce a similar list of criticisms for just about any fighter that ever lived. Difference is, most of them don't have the wins or achievements that Ali had to counter balance them.

Wills was the best fighter out there and Dempsey never fought him so he never fought the best out there did he. Kid Norfolk was a dangerous fighter, no one knows if Dempsey would've beat him cos he avoided him too. Plus Dempsey was quoted as saying he wouldn't have fought Langford as he was too good, albeit Langford was way past his best at that time.

Controversial wrote:Wills was the best fighter out there and Dempsey never fought him so he never fought the best out there did he. Kid Norfolk was a dangerous fighter, no one knows if Dempsey would've beat him cos he avoided him too. Plus Dempsey was quoted as saying he wouldn't have fought Langford as he was too good, albeit Langford was way past his best at that time.

That's not what I asked. We all know he didn't fight Wills, and I maintain that was more because Tex feared race riots such as happened after Jeffries-Johnson, which he promoted and for which he felt some responsibility.

I asked what black fighters the public was clamoring for Dempsey to fight. I don't recall a clamor for Dempsey as champion to fight either Norfolk or Langford. If the public wasn't clamoring for it and no promoter offered to promote it, what was Dempsey to do?

Also, Dempsey made his comments about fighting Langford back in 1916. Do you really think Dempsey was afraid to fight Langford after 1919?

(Incidentally, Langford was quoted as saying that Dempsey would have defeated Wills, in his opinion.)

Maybe because black people didn't have a voice in those days. My point is you can't rank someone number 1 because they dominated their division when they clearly avoided the best fighter.

Controversial wrote:Maybe because black people didn't have a voice in those days. My point is you can't rank someone number 1 because they dominated their division when they clearly avoided the best fighter.

That's pure speculation. (And in fact there were African-American newspapers like the Chicago Defender, the Kansas City Call, the Pittsburgh Courier, so African-Americans did have a voice.) There was no hue and cry for Dempsey to fight Norfolk or Langford. I think you have to measure each of these claims in their historical context. NO white heavyweight champion following the Jack Johnson era defended his title against an African-American challenger until Jim Braddock did it in 1937. And then Louis himself only defended his title against two fellow African-Americans. Remember, Dempsey followed just 10 to 15 years after the Jeffries-Johnson race riots. I think a lot of people feared a repeat of that. Also, Jack Johnson poisoned a lot of movers and shakers in boxing to want to avoid having another Jack Johnson. You can't look at these things in isolation; you have to consider them in the context of the times.

Dempsey did avoid Harry Wills however, and the whole world was calling for that fight. In the end they basically gave Harry 100k not to fight him.

Il Duce wrote:Grevan,

You can't only credit the wins, as you must calculate the losses and 'poor' performances, and the 'game playing'.

Key Losses
* Joe Frazier I
* Kenny Norton I

Controversial Wins
* Alonzo Johnson
* Doug Jones
* Henry Cooper I
* Kenny Norton II
* Jimmy Young
* Kenny Norton III

Bizarre Bouts
* Sonny Liston I
* Sonny Liston II

Embarrassments
* Buster Mathis
* Rudi Lubbers

Unworthy Challengers
* Brian London
* George Chuvalo I
* Cleveland Williams
* Chuck Wepner
* Jean-Pierre Coopman
* Alfredo Evangelista

Handicapped Challengers
* Floyd Patterson I
* Ron Lyle
* Joe Frazier III

Upset Special
* Leon Spinks I

Non-Effort Performance
* Trevor Berbick

Scam
*Antonio Inoki

Hoax Perpetuated on the Public
* Larry Holmes

Just as you should calculate;

Jack Dempsey not fighting Harry Wills
Joe Louis' bum of the month club
Larry Holmes being beaten twice by a light heavyweight (Holmes was only 36 at the time, two years younger than Ali was when Holmes beat him)
Marciano's biggest wins coming against "old men" and light heavyweights
Jim Jeffries being dropped by Jack Munroe (in your mind anyway)

In all honesty I don't have too much problem with your list, they're great fighters and mostly all belong in a top 10. The problem is that when you go to such lengths to specifically exclude one fighter (who most right minded people have in their top two, let alone top five) you make a farce of your own list.

Wills would've smashed Dempsey. Dempsey and his team knew it

Wills would've smashed Dempsey. Dempsey and his team knew it.

Il Duce wrote:

Controversial wrote:Wills would've smashed Dempsey. Dempsey and his team knew it.

Harry Wills was older than 'J.D.' by 6 years, but if the two had fought a Trilogy' say from 1917 - 1918 - 1919,
I would have to say that Jack would have had a handful.

Harry may just have defeated Jack to earn a Title Bout against Jess Willard.

I don't believe peak Jack Dempsey would be a walk in the park for anybody to beat honestly, but I do figure Harry Wills would've beaten him. George Godfrey probably should've gotten a crack at Dempsey as well, but I don't think he would've beaten him.

Sam Langford said Dempsey would defeat Wills. Who am I to argue with him?

raylawpc wrote:Sam Langford said Dempsey would defeat Wills. Who am I to argue with him?

How would he know he never fought Jack.

gilgamesh wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Sam Langford said Dempsey would defeat Wills. Who am I to argue with him?

How would he know he never fought Jack.

Yeah . . . he didn't know much about boxing . . .

raylawpc wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Sam Langford said Dempsey would defeat Wills. Who am I to argue with him?

How would he know he never fought Jack.

Yeah . . . he didn't know much about boxing . . .

I never said that, but I don't think he would necessarily be the expert on how Wills would fare vs Dempsey. He was certainly an expert on Wills having fought him a sh*tload of times, but he didn't know Dempsey nearly as intimately as he knew Wills.

raylawpc wrote:

Controversial wrote:Maybe because black people didn't have a voice in those days. My point is you can't rank someone number 1 because they dominated their division when they clearly avoided the best fighter.

That's pure speculation. (And in fact there were African-American newspapers like the Chicago Defender, the Kansas City Call, the Pittsburgh Courier, so African-Americans did have a voice.) There was no hue and cry for Dempsey to fight Norfolk or Langford. I think you have to measure each of these claims in their historical context. NO white heavyweight champion following the Jack Johnson era defended his title against an African-American challenger until Jim Braddock did it in 1937. And then Louis himself only defended his title against two fellow African-Americans. Remember, Dempsey followed just 10 to 15 years after the Jeffries-Johnson race riots. I think a lot of people feared a repeat of that. Also, Jack Johnson poisoned a lot of movers and shakers in boxing to want to avoid having another Jack Johnson. You can't look at these things in isolation; you have to consider them in the context of the times.

What's pure speculation? Dempsey never fought a world class black heavyweight, fact. Wills would've beat him and Dempsey's team knew it so they avoided him. Are you saying the African-Amercian newspapers didn't want a black fighter to challenge for a world title?

Controversial wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Controversial wrote:Maybe because black people didn't have a voice in those days. My point is you can't rank someone number 1 because they dominated their division when they clearly avoided the best fighter.

That's pure speculation. (And in fact there were African-American newspapers like the Chicago Defender, the Kansas City Call, the Pittsburgh Courier, so African-Americans did have a voice.) There was no hue and cry for Dempsey to fight Norfolk or Langford. I think you have to measure each of these claims in their historical context. NO white heavyweight champion following the Jack Johnson era defended his title against an African-American challenger until Jim Braddock did it in 1937. And then Louis himself only defended his title against two fellow African-Americans. Remember, Dempsey followed just 10 to 15 years after the Jeffries-Johnson race riots. I think a lot of people feared a repeat of that. Also, Jack Johnson poisoned a lot of movers and shakers in boxing to want to avoid having another Jack Johnson. You can't look at these things in isolation; you have to consider them in the context of the times.

What's pure speculation? Dempsey never fought a world class black heavyweight, fact. Wills would've beat him and Dempsey's team knew it so they avoided him. Are you saying the African-Amercian newspapers didn't want a black fighter to challenge for a world title?

No, I'm saying that African-Americans had a voice (albeit a small voice), through African-American newspapers. Wills would have beat him? Now, THAT's speculation. Dempsey signed to fight Wills twice, and both times the fights fell through for financial reasons. Dempsey wasn't afraid of Wills; he was afraid of fighting and not getting paid for it.

gilgamesh wrote:
I never said that, but I don't think he would necessarily be the expert on how Wills would fare vs Dempsey. He was certainly an expert on Wills having fought him a sh*tload of times, but he didn't know Dempsey nearly as intimately as he knew Wills.

Langford knew both of them a lot more in the ways that matter than you or me or anybody else who contributes on this website.

We will never know. I never said Dempsey was scared of Willis but at the end of the day he never fought him. Wills would've been his hardest fight so for others to call Dempsey the "Greatest Heavyweight Champion" based on his "domination" is laughable when he never fought the best competition. Lets face it the best fighter Dempsey fought was Tunney and he lost to him twice.

Controversial wrote:We will never know. I never said Dempsey was scared of Willis but at the end of the day he never fought him. Wills would've been his hardest fight so for others to call Dempsey the "Greatest Heavyweight Champion" based on his "domination" is laughable when he never fought the best competition. Lets face it the best fighter Dempsey fought was Tunney and he lost to him twice.

Well, it is all speculation, but Sam Langford was quoted in 1922 saying he favored Dempsey. And the only common opponent they shared from Jack's salad days was Luis Firpo. Firpo took Wills 12 rounds, but Dempsey stopped Firpo in two. Wills being Jack's hardest fight is pure speculation. Big slow guys were generally meat to Dempsey.

Il Duce wrote:Next Up

#4 Rocky Marciano

I can hardly wait!

Let the nonsense continue!

raylawpc wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
I never said that, but I don't think he would necessarily be the expert on how Wills would fare vs Dempsey. He was certainly an expert on Wills having fought him a sh*tload of times, but he didn't know Dempsey nearly as intimately as he knew Wills.

Langford knew both of them a lot more in the ways that matter than you or me or anybody else who contributes on this website.

Could be...ultimately we'll never know who would've won between these two guys. I still think it would've been Wills though personally.

gilgamesh wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
I never said that, but I don't think he would necessarily be the expert on how Wills would fare vs Dempsey. He was certainly an expert on Wills having fought him a sh*tload of times, but he didn't know Dempsey nearly as intimately as he knew Wills.

Langford knew both of them a lot more in the ways that matter than you or me or anybody else who contributes on this website.

Could be...ultimately we'll never know who would've won between these two guys. I still think it would've been Wills though personally.

"Could be" that Sam Langford knew more about early 20th century boxing, and Wills and Dempsey as fighters than you and me? Could be?

raylawpc wrote:
"Could be" that Sam Langford knew more about early 20th century boxing, Wills and Dempsey than you and me? Could be?

I would say that's a certainty. Early 20th Century Boxing is certainly not the era of Boxing that I'm most familiar with.

gilgamesh wrote:

raylawpc wrote:
"Could be" that Sam Langford knew more about early 20th century boxing, Wills and Dempsey than you and me? Could be?

I would say that's a certainty. Early 20th Century Boxing is certainly not the era of Boxing that I'm most familiar with.

And yet you discount Langford's opinion. Interesting . . .

He's just being contrarian.

Buy him a beer.....he'll see the light.