cleaned out the heavyweight division fighting at 180 during the golden age of boxing. With mostly first round knockouts. GOAT.

cleaned out the heavyweight division fighting at 180 during the golden age of boxing. With mostly first round knockouts. GOAT.
He beats...

Fitzsimmons
L.Sullivan
Corbett
Jeffries
Braddock
Johnson
Sharkey
Schmelling
Baer
Carnero
Patterson
Johanson
Dokes
Weaver
Tubbs
Page
Ruiz
Byrd
Rahman
Chagaev
Roy Jones

Loses to


Louis
Ali
Klits
Frazier
Foreman
Holmes
Lewis
Tyson
Holyfield
Bowe
Marciano (so so close)

Anyway you can see the pattern..

50/50 matches..

Vs Bruno, Walcott, Liston, Norton, Charles, McCall, Mercer..

http://pro.corbis.com/images/U173158INP.jpg?size=67&uid=4457d65b-f1a7-460a-8630-7b6546608d58&uniqID=ba42085e-79de-4d78-903a-e6b2a1103351

Should've gotten the shot at Willard instead of Dempsey.

Number 1 contender for Dempsey's title for 6 years.

http://pro.corbis.com/images/U173158INP.jpg?size=67&uid=4457d65b-f1a7-460a-8630-7b6546608d58&uniqID=ba42085e-79de-4d78-903a-e6b2a1103351

Should've gotten the shot at Willard instead of Dempsey.

Number 1 contender for Dempsey's title for 6 years.

Blame Kearns and Rickard for that, not Dempsey.

I think as time has underated Dempsey's opponents it has overated Wills.

Good boxer

dirty. beat sharkey on a nice combo of 4 nut punches and a left hook and all the time shots after the bell.

id rate him at about 5 heavy weights 13 all time

He beats...


Loses to


Louis
Ali
Klits
Frazier
Foreman
Holmes
Lewis
Tyson
Holyfield
Bowe
Marciano (so so close)



Vs Bruno, Walcott, Liston, Norton, Charles, McCall, Mercer..


I have to disagree man. Jack Dempsey is one of the greatest fighters ever. Beat both the 1st and 2nd in the heavyweight devision by 1st round KO to get a shot at the title. Was knocked out ONCE...he hadn't eaten in four days...

TOP3 HEAVYWEIGHTS are Joe Louis, Muhammid Ali and Jack Dempsey.

Ps. this is not including John L. Sullivan, but there is no real record or proof of his brilliance.

Blame Kearns and Rickard for that, not Dempsey.

I think as time has underated Dempsey's opponents it has overated Wills.

Not even Wills blamed Dempsey. But it's impossible to call a man the greatest who supposedly "cleaned out the division" if he never even faced his number 1 contender for 6 years.

The opposition Wills fought is still underrated. No one ranks him close to top 10 even though he could arguably belong there based on his resume.

Wins over

Sam Langford
Joe Jeannette
Sam McVea
Kid Norfolk
Jeff Clark
Fred Fulton
Luis Firpo
Charley Weinert
Willie Meehan
Tut Jackson

against

Wins over

Jack Sharkey
Jess Willard
Tommy Gibbons
Billy Miske
Fred Fulton
Luis Firpo
Georges Carpentier
Bill Brennan
Battling Levinsky

Love the guy, hes a legend. But flawed!

Not the greatest of all time, not in legacy and unlikely in terms of physical attributes.

'The Golden Age of Boxing' is an expression that is bandied about. But frankly Jack only defended his title a mere five or six times in seven years (POOR), and none of his contenders were beat in the first round!

He didn't defend against Wills and drew the colour line.

With a few exceptions on both lists, Mickey's list isn't far from where I stand too. Good, pretty comprehensive and well thought out.

I'd have to draw up my own ATG heavyweight top 20 to see where I place him, despite what I've said I'm very much a fan of Dempsey. I just think that there are more deserving candidates for GOAT.

1st HEAVYWEIGHT contender : 18 seconds
2nd HEAVYWEIGHT contender: 14 seconds

Willard beat JACK JOHNSON! He had killed a man. He was 6ft6. Dempsey broke his jaw in 7 places...Also k****ed him down 7 times in the first round.

cleaned out the heavyweight division fighting at 180 during the golden age of boxing. With mostly first round knockouts. GOAT.

You cannot be the greatest of all time when you duck your most dangerous opponent and not defend the title for several years.

IMO he would have beaten wills think he was made for dempsy

Nice info on the no1 and no2 contenders Don. But the results and the fact that their names dont spring to my geeky mind says much for their competence or the health of the division. If it were the 'Golden age' fighters would surely be better matched. Thats why the late 1980s isn't classed as a golden age, because Tyson just about walked through everyone!

As for the Johnson vs Willard fight, have you ever watched it? I have, and Jess was clearly outboxed by an old (37) Johnson. Willard landed a fine right hand in something like the 26th round in the Cuban heat!

Now Johnson wasn't a destroyer like Dempsey, he could punch but many of his fights went into the late rounds. He liked to clinch, coast and showboat, so comparing an old Johnson to a young hungry Dempsey is not a viable comparison.

Nor is comparing the Willard that beat Johnson in 1915 to the inactive, podgy guy that showed up to defend against Dempsey in 1919! Dempsey never damaged anybody quite like he damaged Willard ever again did he? Smashed eye sockets!!! Willard always maintained that Dempsey had a tool that was used to tighten ring ropes packed inside his glove. There were rumours of plaster of Paris in Dempsey's gloves too. I'd like to think these rumours are not true but he didn't get Gibbons or Brennan in anything like that state!

Not even Wills blamed Dempsey. But it's impossible to call a man the greatest who supposedly "cleaned out the division" if he never even faced his number 1 contender for 6 years.

The opposition Wills fought is still underrated. No one ranks him close to top 10 even though he could arguably belong there based on his resume.

Wins over

Sam Langford
Joe Jeannette
Sam McVea
Kid Norfolk
Jeff Clark
Fred Fulton
Luis Firpo
Charley Weinert
Willie Meehan
Tut Jackson

against

Wins over

Jack Sharkey
Jess Willard
Tommy Gibbons
Billy Miske
Fred Fulton
Luis Firpo
Georges Carpentier
Bill Brennan
Battling Levinsky

I wouldn't call Dempsey the greatest either though, I'd say he's top ten but not top three.
I just think he gets a lot of stick because he never defended against a black fighter, which wasn't his fault since he was willing to defend against Wills but the powers that be wouldn't have it.

Shame Jack Johnson never seems to get called on his open drawing of the colour line having never defended against a black fighter. On winning the title "I'm not going to be fighting any of those colored chaps anymore"

Johnson was simply after the cash (much more of this from defending against a white guy!). No one was baying for Johnson to defend against the leading black fighters of the day (he'd beaten them all for a pittance anyway!), fans just wanted him to be whupped by a white boy!

Johnson had got his title shot the hard way (he chased Tommy Burns all over the world!), as a youth he engaged in Battle Royales (where a bunch of black men, sometimes blindfolded were jammed in a ring........expected to fight their kinfolk until only one was left standing. While white men flipped coins in for the eventual winner to collect). Dehumanising acts like this no doubt shaped Johnson into a guy that no doubt didn't want to fight black men once he didn't have to.

I think Dempsey was great, but back then, my grandmother wasn't even planned yet :P so I can't say for sure. What I do know is that he worked his way up a tall ladder and was probably one of the greatest entertainers of all times. Jack Dempsey/Gene Tunney II had more than 100 000 spectaters and an estimated 60 000 000 people tuned in over the radio.

Ps. interesting fact: Johnson died after being denied at a diner for being black. He sped of and crashed into a pole. People said: "Today Jack Johnson crossed his last white line". Hope all of you get the world play. That breaks my heart. Atleast he's remembered positively now.

cleaned out the heavyweight division fighting at 180 during the golden age of boxing. With mostly first round knockouts. GOAT.
almost all the great boxing historians also say Dempsey was the greatest of all times, Jack Sharkey who passed away in 1996 said, Dempsey would have beaten Ali, Louis, Tyson and every other claiment to the heavyweight title... Tyson who himself has an incredible knowledge of boxing history also claims Dempsey was the greatest ever.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In the two fights with Tunney (10 rounds each), Dempsey only won 1 of the 20 rounds....

But anyway. What I like about him is he's got that something few fighters have...that X-factor...Ali was big, tall and fast. Tyson is brutal and tough. Braddock had alot to fight for...but Dempsey was just simply damn good. You can't REALLY tell why...he just is. For some reason he can kick your @$$ and you can't kick his.

that's exactly right. You can't figure out by looking at him, just look at that picture greatA posted on another thread with two of his sparring partners. But he's going to murder you.

I'd like to revise this thread. I got it wrong, Jack Dempsey isn't the GOAT, Harry Wills is. Number 1 contender for the heavyweight crown during the golden age of boxing, denied his shot because he was black. LOL not, Jack Dempsey would have killed him enough with the nonsense.

Johnson was simply after the cash (much more of this from defending against a white guy!). No one was baying for Johnson to defend against the leading black fighters of the day (he'd beaten them all for a pittance anyway!), fans just wanted him to be whupped by a white boy!

Johnson had got his title shot the hard way (he chased Tommy Burns all over the world!), as a youth he engaged in Battle Royales (where a bunch of black men, sometimes blindfolded were jammed in a ring........expected to fight their kinfolk until only one was left standing. While white men flipped coins in for the eventual winner to collect). Dehumanising acts like this no doubt shaped Johnson into a guy that no doubt didn't want to fight black men once he didn't have to.

Johnson sure did get a lot of mileage out of that line, but it wasn't true. Nor is it true that there was no interest in seeing Johnson defend his title against another black fighter. There are numerous well-documented big money offers for Johnson to fight any of Langford, Jeannette and McVea, usually in Britain, France or Australia. Hugh McIntosh made Johnson a series of offers worth from $30,000 to $100,000 - comparable to what he made against Jeffries and Willard - for him to face them in Australia and he turned them all down.

The National Sporting Club in London loaned him the money to chase Burns to Australia, on condition that if he won he would make his first defence against Langford, which he reneged on. There were literally dozens of similar such offers for Johnson to meet his black peers, and he accepted not one of them. Nor did the colour line and apparent lack of money in black vs black title fights didn't stop him defending against the far less dangerous Battling Jim Johnson...

tied the only black guy he fought....who was a journeyman.....

But Johnson had already fought McVey, Jeanette and Langford several times each plus exhibitions with each too, he must have been sick of the sight of them! Most were wins or 'no decisions' from memory but the newspaper writers rarely had Johnson being outfoxed! 'No decisions' were far, far more common than now. Plus he did get pittance for these tough fights!

The general public of the day wanted him to fight white guys even if the likes of McIntosh were offering good money for him to face his old friend Langford. He was much hated by white America at the time as you know.

The first time Johnson knocked down a white guy they stopped the fight and turned off the cameras. Nobody wanted to see a black guy beat up a white guy.

So at a point in time it was kinda hard for him to get a fight.

But Johnson had already fought McVey, Jeanette and Langford several times each plus exhibitions with each too, he must have been sick of the sight of them! Most were wins or 'no decisions' from memory but the newspaper writers rarely had Johnson being outfoxed! 'No decisions' were far, far more common than now. Plus he did get pittance for these tough fights!

The general public of the day wanted him to fight white guys even if the likes of McIntosh were offering good money for him to face his old friend Langford. He was much hated by white America at the time as you know.

I very much doubt Johnson paid much heed to what the general public of the day wanted. Jack Johnson did whatever Jack Johnson wanted to do. Note how most of the big offers were to be held outside of the US - Langford, McVea and Jeannette were all big draws in France and Australia.

Langford was barely a light-middleweight the only time he faced Johnson. He was far more dangerous by the time Johnson won the title, and busy flattening every top heavyweight contender who would face him. Given the substantial sums being offered, I see no reason for Johnson to have turned them down, other than he didn't fancy his chances against Langford.

I very much doubt Johnson paid much heed to what the general public of the day wanted. Jack Johnson did whatever Jack Johnson wanted to do. Note how most of the big offers were to be held outside of the US - Langford, McVea and Jeannette were all big draws in France and Australia.

Langford was barely a light-middleweight the only time he faced Johnson. He was far more dangerous by the time Johnson won the title, and busy flattening every top heavyweight contender who would face him. Given the substantial sums being offered, I see no reason for Johnson to have turned them down, other than he didn't fancy his chances against Langford.

Johnson was probably confident that he could beat any man in the world but he was also smart enough to know that had he fought the best versions of Langford, McVea and Jeannette over and over again (as they fought each other), he would eventually have lost.

He was content on making decent money beating white hopes that had little chance of beating him, thus he remained champion for longer.

In my opinion both Dempsey and Johnson did their best work as contenders rather than champions. Both had rather poor if memorable reigns.

The first time Johnson knocked down a white guy they stopped the fight and turned off the cameras. Nobody wanted to see a black guy beat up a white guy.

So at a point in time it was kinda hard for him to get a fight.

It was the time he fought Tommy Burns, a white champion who gave him a chance. There is controversy over that though, some think that the round in which the cameras were stopped was actually an earlier round and that the filming continued.

I don't know too much about that myself.

I actually came across an interesting quote on another forum that I had previously not read anywhere else. There was some talk about this on the thread about Jack Johnson:

"I have beaten Johnson, a man Jeffries has
been side stepping for months, ..."

-Marvin Hart

Johnson was probably confident that he could beat any man in the world but he was also smart enough to know that had he fought the best versions of Langford, McVea and Jeannette over and over again (as they fought each other), he would eventually have lost.

He was content on making decent money beating white hopes that had little chance of beating him, thus he remained champion for longer.

In my opinion both Dempsey and Johnson did their best work as contenders rather than champions. Both had rather poor if memorable reigns.


But it begs the question: how confident could he really have been to go seven years without once facing any of them? Even most of the white fighters he faced were not up to much. $30,000 was his stated minimum fee for a title defence, and time and again that sum was met only for him to reject it. He wasn't earning those sums against Battling Johnson and Moran.

Dempsey is rightly downgraded for failing to meet the #1 ranked contender for most of his reign, but he did at least attempt to make the fight.

I actually came across an interesting quote on another forum that I had previously not read anywhere else. There was some talk about this on the thread about Jack Johnson:

"I have beaten Johnson, a man Jeffries has
been side stepping for months, ..."

-Marvin Hart

that quote isnt true by marvin hart.

But it begs the question: how confident could he really have been to go seven years without once facing any of them? Even most of the white fighters he faced were not up to much. $30,000 was his stated minimum fee for a title defence, and time and again that sum was met only for him to reject it. He wasn't earning those sums against Battling Johnson and Moran.

Dempsey is rightly downgraded for failing to meet the #1 ranked contender for most of his reign, but he did at least attempt to make the fight.

I'm not trying to justify what Johnson did (as I've said I consider his title reign a poor one compared to his abilities) but I can understand the reasons for it. I still believe that he was confident in his chances of winning but didn't want to risk losing the title. Money was one thing but I think that he simply enjoyed being the champion and the fame he got from it.

I'm pretty sure that Dempsey too once stated that he wanted to reign as long as he could.

Johnson never fought any of them (Langford, McVea, Jeannette) as champion but he did fight them several times early on in his career.

Dempsey agreed to fight Wills but didn't really go to great lengths to make it happen.

I'm not trying to justify what Johnson did (as I've said I consider his title reign a poor one compared to his abilities) but I can understand the reasons for it. I still believe that he was confident in his chances of winning but didn't want to risk losing the title. Money was one thing but I think that he simply enjoyed being the champion and the fame he got from it.

I'm pretty sure that Dempsey too once stated that he wanted to reign as long as he could.

Johnson never fought any of them (Langford, McVea, Jeannette) as champion but he did fight them several times early on in his career.

Dempsey agreed to fight Wills but didn't really go to great lengths to make it happen.
I think that people have to understand the era, a HW title was hard won and once a fighter had it some made it work for them by doing shows/exhibitions etc. Pretty much anything bar defend it with any regularity, Johnson was fairly busy compared with some considering his out of ring problems.

It baffles me how you can call Jack Demspey the best fighter of all time. I feel Dempsey was a great fighter, but to call him the best is madness. His resume of wins and accomplishments just dont' match up with the likes of Robinson, Armstrong, Ali to name a few.

I felt his reign was a solid one at best. He made 5 defences of the title and stopped 4 inside the distance. He had a 7 year reign and spent 3 of those years in Hollywood. Which makes his reign even less impressive.

He oppostion fought while champion was so so, stopping the giant very durable Willard was pretty impressive. Do i feel Willard had really no right being champion as he was just in the right place at the right time beating a washed up Johnson.

He wins over Billy Miske and Bill Brennan arent really that impressive, Middlweight Harry Greb had beat the pair without much trouble before Dempsey had fought them. But yet the two would go on to be granted title shots before Greb. Demspey had also beat the pair before he was champion.

He wins over the much smaller LHW Georges Carpentier was viewed by most as a mismatch, but due to Tex Richard promotion of the fight it was huge. Although Carpentier was on a good run.

His win over Luis Angel Firpo is another decent win at best. Firpo was a strong well built fighter who could punch, but was limted and was promoted well. A 44 year old Jack Johnson had had the better of him before the Dempsey fight aswell in sparring.

I also felt Jack Sharkey was handling Demspey pretty well before Dempsey hit him whilst he wasnt looking for the KO. His losses to Tunney dont mean a huge amount as he had been out for a while and did look rusty. Do Tunney besides the knockdown seemed to handle Dempsey with ease.

His record before champion is pretty good. He beat some good contenders and fighters in Gunboat Smith, once white hope Carl Morris, Fireman Jim Flynn, Bill Brennan, Fred Fulton, and Battling Levinsky.

But there is no hiding the fact that in his reign alot of fighters were dnied chances for the title mainly Harry Willis and Harry Greb. Willis was number #1 contender for years but still was deneid his shot, Greb was beating fighters before they even fought Dempsey and had also had the better of Dempsey in numerous sparring sessions.

A old Sam Langford and Jack Johnson also wanted fights with Demspey but were denied chances.

Looking at his accomplishments and resume. Dempsey was a great fighter who took excitment to another level. But his title reign and resume and is no were near the best and your silly if you say otherwise.

Videos and articles on Dempsey second reply onwards............
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283660

southpaw I've never been impressed with dempsey's title reign. My assessment is based almost entirely on video evidence, which I consider to be far more important than anything else. I've just never seen a fighter combine movement and power as well as dempsey did against willard. Ever.

cleaned out the heavyweight division fighting at 180 during the golden age of boxing. With mostly first round knockouts. GOAT.

here is an interesting video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPiLGbDrGnw&feature=related

Overrated!.... Tunney was a poor mans Ali, & got the better of Dempsey by a country mile.. Ali no2, Tunney no10, Dempsey no 11...
Just the way I see it.... I respect the 'long count'... Bit like Ali Cooper.... But that wasn't Coopers fault, if you get my drift....

Hi Kinetic, your opinion on video is largely the same as my own. I agree its best to judge with video than contempory accounts. I make it a rule to not make a judgement on a fight or fighter I havn't seen.

Dempsey was awesome when he fought Willard. Fast, accurate and powerful, some very nice combinations.

But playing devil's advocate, he was a boxing trainer's nightmare that night too! Hands down, flailing, wide open to possible counter shots, little head movement, little regard for what could come back (that said not much did come back!).

He couldn't attack all the other ATG heavyweights like that and get away with it!

I'm not trying to justify what Johnson did (as I've said I consider his title reign a poor one compared to his abilities) but I can understand the reasons for it. I still believe that he was confident in his chances of winning but didn't want to risk losing the title. Money was one thing but I think that he simply enjoyed being the champion and the fame he got from it.

I'm pretty sure that Dempsey too once stated that he wanted to reign as long as he could.

Johnson never fought any of them (Langford, McVea, Jeannette) as champion but he did fight them several times early on in his career.

Dempsey agreed to fight Wills but didn't really go to great lengths to make it happen.

I agree he wanted to hang onto the title for as long as possible, and fighting the more prime versions of Langford, McVea and Jeannette, or even some of the top white contenders like Smith, Dillon or Carpentier, was obviously not conducive to that.

But as I said before, if he wasn't prepared to even take the risk, how confident could he have been? Even when he was short of money in exile in France, he still opted for lower paying gimme defences against Moran and Johnson, when Langford and co were all in France at the time.

A champion is obligated to meet the best contenders out there and when he reigns for so long without doing that, it just degrades the whole thing. Even in his own day Johnson attracted a lot of criticism for this; it seems that at one point he was stripped of the French version of the world title for exactly that.

Dempsey failed in that obligation too, although imo to a lesser extent than Johnson. It's akin to Patterson fighting Rademacher, Harris, London et al whilst ignoring Liston, Machen, Folley etc, for which Floyd is deservedly criticized, although he ultimately redeemed himself.

Dempsey did sign to fight Wills twice, only for the fight to fall through for reasons outside his control. I don't see what else he could have done.

I'd be silly anyday then. He is near the best and always will be. Very near to it actually. Not THE best...but how can you say he ain't even close?

The number one HW >>> Joe Louis.

I'd be silly anyday then. He is near the best and always will be. Very near to it actually. Not THE best...but how can you say he ain't even close?

The number one HW >>> Joe Louis.
Louis's the man!

Both Johnson and Dempsey are top 10 HW's IMO where you place them is a matter of opinion. Top 10 p4p? I doubt it in all honesty.

southpaw I've never been impressed with dempsey's title reign. My assessment is based almost entirely on video evidence, which I consider to be far more important than anything else. I've just never seen a fighter combine movement and power as well as dempsey did against willard. Ever.

But your whole assessment can't be purely based on footage. You have to look at Demspey's accomplishments, resume of wins and oppostion fought, this is a big factor on judging a fighters legacy and ranking.

And if that is the only way you judge of looking at footage, Ray Robinson, Cassius Clay, Henry Armstrong, Benny Leonard, Willie Pep to name a few I feel all looked better on film than Dempsey as a whole fighter.

This is no disrepect to Dempsey who in his own right is a great fighter. But like I said to call him the best of all time is bogus.

Nope. None of the fighters you mentioned come close to dempsey's pfp power. Robinson had great power and so did armstrong, but not like dempsey.

You can argue, as perhaps you're doing, that as a whole some of those fighters look better. But simply as a combination of movement and power, they don't come close, mainly because of the power. They just don't have anything close to his power pfp.

Nope. None of the fighters you mentioned come close to dempsey's pfp power. Robinson had great power and so did armstrong, but not like dempsey.

You can argue, as perhaps you're doing, that as a whole some of those fighters look better. But simply as a combination of movement and power, they don't come close, mainly because of the power. They just don't have anything close to his power pfp.

So now your saying the reason Dempsey is the best of all time is due to his power and movement, like I said before your whole assessment can't be purely based on Dempseys power and movement. You have to look at Demspey's accomplishments, resume of wins and oppostion fought, this is a big factor on judging a fighters legacy and ranking.

If you don't look at these things, your way of rating is bogus.

Both Johnson and Dempsey are top 10 HW's IMO where you place them is a matter of opinion. Top 10 p4p? I doubt it in all honesty.

Thank you very much. I agree 100%

They can't be compared.

dempsey was the best. ray arcel said so and he trained and or saw them all. knew all of there styles, strenghts, weakness. yes power, moves, and chin

To call Dempsey the best of all time is outragous. He was a great fighter, but no were near the best of all time, to think otherwise is just stupid.

tell that to arcel when alive.