View Full Version : Grading Dempsey's reign


JAB5239
05-13-2011, 10:48 PM
Just based on his championship reign, what kind of grade would you give for the fighters he fought?

JAB5239
05-13-2011, 11:10 PM
Lets look at who he fought.

Willard-In many people eyes the worst of the heavyweight champions

Billy Miske-Had one win over a top heavyweight (Bill Brennen) and was 3-2-3 in his last 8 fights and had Brights disease which would kill him less than 4 years later. Had Lost to Greb.

Bill Brennen-Hadn't beaten a top fighter in some time and had lost to Greb.

Georges Carpentier-Light heavyweight champion who ducked Greb and hadn't beaten a top heavyweight in years.

Jimmy Darcy-Dempsey's sparring partner who had a career 52-72-42 (16) record.

Tommy Gibbons-Excellent light heavy who had already lost to Greb.

Luis Firpo-Tough, but crude and unskilled.

Gene Tunney-One of the greatest light heavies ever.

8 title fights in 7 years. Blatently ducked both Harry Greb and Harry Wills. Dempsey was a ferocious whirlwind and an icon, but if we judge him on by what we see here how high a grade does he really deserve?

dannyl12345
05-14-2011, 12:10 AM
Lets look at who he fought.

Willard-In many people eyes the worst of the heavyweight champions

Billy Miske-Had one win over a top heavyweight (Bill Brennen) and was 3-2-3 in his last 8 fights and had Brights disease which would kill him less than 4 years later. Had Lost to Greb.

Bill Brennen-Hadn't beaten a top fighter in some time and had lost to Greb.

Georges Carpentier-Light heavyweight champion who ducked Greb and hadn't beaten a top heavyweight in years.

Jimmy Darcy-Dempsey's sparring partner who had a career 52-72-42 (16) record.

Tommy Gibbons-Excellent light heavy who had already lost to Greb.

Luis Firpo-Tough, but crude and unskilled.

Gene Tunney-One of the greatest light heavies ever.

8 title fights in 7 years. Blatently ducked both Harry Greb and Harry Wills. Dempsey was a ferocious whirlwind and an icon, but if we judge him on by what we see here how high a grade does he really deserve?

:You_Rock_

Exactly right.

joseph5620
05-14-2011, 12:28 AM
Lets look at who he fought.

Willard-In many people eyes the worst of the heavyweight champions

Billy Miske-Had one win over a top heavyweight (Bill Brennen) and was 3-2-3 in his last 8 fights and had Brights disease which would kill him less than 4 years later. Had Lost to Greb.

Bill Brennen-Hadn't beaten a top fighter in some time and had lost to Greb.

Georges Carpentier-Light heavyweight champion who ducked Greb and hadn't beaten a top heavyweight in years.

Jimmy Darcy-Dempsey's sparring partner who had a career 52-72-42 (16) record.

Tommy Gibbons-Excellent light heavy who had already lost to Greb.

Luis Firpo-Tough, but crude and unskilled.

Gene Tunney-One of the greatest light heavies ever.

8 title fights in 7 years. Blatently ducked both Harry Greb and Harry Wills. Dempsey was a ferocious whirlwind and an icon, but if we judge him on by what we see here how high a grade does he really deserve?



I think what you said speaks for itself. Dempsey not only ducked the best fighters of his era, but also lost to the best fighter he ever faced. I don't see any justification in grading his reign higher than a C.

$BloodyNate$
05-14-2011, 12:29 AM
I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt because if he would have fought Tunney in this day and age that 2nd fight would have been a KO. His inactivity really did hurt him too, it didn't help him reach the maximum potential he could have reached with his title reign not to mention it cost him against Tunney the 1st time.

I'd give him a B but I'm really being generous. Probably should be a C+ at best.

CarlosG815
05-14-2011, 02:59 AM
I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt because if he would have fought Tunney in this day and age that 2nd fight would have been a KO. His inactivity really did hurt him too, it didn't help him reach the maximum potential he could have reached with his title reign not to mention it cost him against Tunney the 1st time.

I'd give him a B but I'm really being generous. Probably should be a C+ at best.

Tunney was not hurt and had the ref started counting right away instead of sending Dempsey to his corner, he still would have gotten up. It would not have made a difference, Tunney was not dazed and he shot right up, legs fully functional and all.

BigStereotype
05-14-2011, 03:05 AM
I'm interested in seeing the takes on this, there are so many angles you can go with. Personally, I'd give him an A- for his prime. He slaughtered some good fighters but he had some stinkers and avoided some cats in their primes, too. But this should be good.

JAB5239
05-14-2011, 04:38 AM
I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt because if he would have fought Tunney in this day and age that 2nd fight would have been a KO. His inactivity really did hurt him too, it didn't help him reach the maximum potential he could have reached with his title reign not to mention it cost him against Tunney the 1st time.

I'd give him a B but I'm really being generous. Probably should be a C+ at best.

I have to respectfully disagree that he would have stopped Tunney in the 2nd fight. It was Dempsey himself who initiated the neutral corner rule after a knockdown for this fight. The rule today is the same as for that fight, the count cannot start until the other fighter heads to a neutral corner. We can't blame Tunney for taking his time getting up anymore than we could blame Buster Douglas for taking his time getting up against Tyson. A fighter goes only by the refs count.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-OeeCfbahwQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

JAB5239
05-14-2011, 04:48 AM
I'm interested in seeing the takes on this, there are so many angles you can go with. Personally, I'd give him an A- for his prime. He slaughtered some good fighters but he had some stinkers and avoided some cats in their primes, too. But this should be good.

Dempsey was a great fighter, only a fool would argue otherwise. But as you said, he missed the two best fighters outside of Tunney, and his reign is weak and marred by inactivity. Unfortunately his drawing power (the greatest live draw ever) and his status as an icon over shadow this in my opinion.

I believe Jack Johnson's reign to be the same, yet I think his prime competion is better. Once this thread plays out I'll star another for Johnson and than others.

JAB5239
05-14-2011, 04:52 AM
Tunney was not hurt and had the ref started counting right away instead of sending Dempsey to his corner, he still would have gotten up. It would not have made a difference, Tunney was not dazed and he shot right up, legs fully functional and all.

Carlos, how would you rate his championship reign and why? I know you're a big Dempsey fan and Im not trying to belittle him, but Im genuinely curious.

Daddy T
05-14-2011, 05:15 AM
I have to respectfully disagree that he would have stopped Tunney in the 2nd fight. It was Dempsey himself who initiated the neutral corner rule after a knockdown for this fight. The rule today is the same as for that fight, the count cannot start until the other fighter heads to a neutral corner. We can't blame Tunney for taking his time getting up anymore than we could blame Buster Douglas for taking his time getting up against Tyson. A fighter goes only by the refs count.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-OeeCfbahwQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

yeah until walcott made a meal of ali liston 2 - but yeah tunney wasn't hurt that bad

and on the original topic the lack of black fighters is a big stain on dempseys record too so B+

CarlosG815
05-14-2011, 11:39 AM
Carlos, how would you rate his championship reign and why? I know you're a big Dempsey fan and Im not trying to belittle him, but Im genuinely curious.

It's hard to say. I really don't know enough about his reign but I do know that he went Hollywood after the money got to him. I don't think he really cared about fighting. He spent his life fighting to survive, and when he didn't need to fight to survive, he didn't care.

I think Carpentier was a better win than he's getting credit for, as Carpentier may have been a light heavy by today's standards but they were actually very close in size.

I understand why he never fought any black fighters, as the politics were worse then than they are today and if it were up to Jack himself, I am sure he'd have fought them. Nobody liked black people, nobody wanted a black champion, whites had the power and money in boxing, therefore blacks weren't going to get any shots.

There really isn't much to say. His reign had it's share of inactivity, but I think Firpo and Carpentier were good wins, and how he handles them was spectacular. I'd give his reign a B.

BigStereotype
05-14-2011, 12:40 PM
It's hard to say. I really don't know enough about his reign but I do know that he went Hollywood after the money got to him. I don't think he really cared about fighting. He spent his life fighting to survive, and when he didn't need to fight to survive, he didn't care.

I think Carpentier was a better win than he's getting credit for, as Carpentier may have been a light heavy by today's standards but they were actually very close in size.

I understand why he never fought any black fighters, as the politics were worse then than they are today and if it were up to Jack himself, I am sure he'd have fought them. Nobody liked black people, nobody wanted a black champion, whites had the power and money in boxing, therefore blacks weren't going to get any shots.

There really isn't much to say. His reign had it's share of inactivity, but I think Firpo and Carpentier were good wins, and how he handles them was spectacular. I'd give his reign a B.

I definitely agree with that. From what I've read of Carpentier, he was no joke.

IronDanHamza
05-14-2011, 02:21 PM
It's hard to say. I really don't know enough about his reign but I do know that he went Hollywood after the money got to him. I don't think he really cared about fighting. He spent his life fighting to survive, and when he didn't need to fight to survive, he didn't care.

I think Carpentier was a better win than he's getting credit for, as Carpentier may have been a light heavy by today's standards but they were actually very close in size.

I understand why he never fought any black fighters, as the politics were worse then than they are today and if it were up to Jack himself, I am sure he'd have fought them. Nobody liked black people, nobody wanted a black champion, whites had the power and money in boxing, therefore blacks weren't going to get any shots.

There really isn't much to say. His reign had it's share of inactivity, but I think Firpo and Carpentier were good wins, and how he handles them was spectacular. I'd give his reign a B.

I'm in agreement with this.

I believe Dempsey's reign is being a little to nitpicked here.

I give him reign a solid B.

Steak
05-14-2011, 02:57 PM
He didnt beat the best fighters of his era, and his era wasnt that hot to begin with. He defended his title only once a year.

definitely not as good as a number of other Heavyweight champions.

Ill go ahead and say C+. slightly above average, but nothing amazing, and could have been a lot better.

JAB5239
05-14-2011, 04:39 PM
It's hard to say. I really don't know enough about his reign but I do know that he went Hollywood after the money got to him. I don't think he really cared about fighting. He spent his life fighting to survive, and when he didn't need to fight to survive, he didn't care.

I think Carpentier was a better win than he's getting credit for, as Carpentier may have been a light heavy by today's standards but they were actually very close in size.

I understand why he never fought any black fighters, as the politics were worse then than they are today and if it were up to Jack himself, I am sure he'd have fought them. Nobody liked black people, nobody wanted a black champion, whites had the power and money in boxing, therefore blacks weren't going to get any shots.

There really isn't much to say. His reign had it's share of inactivity, but I think Firpo and Carpentier were good wins, and how he handles them was spectacular. I'd give his reign a B.

Fair enough my friend!

The_Demon
05-14-2011, 04:43 PM
A solid B for me,not as good as the nuthuggers would have you believe but not as bad as some people make out,ye you can pick holes in his record but their are very few fighters in history in which you cant,Dempsey was one hell of a fighter and a top 10 ATG at heavyweight for sure

Pastrano
05-14-2011, 05:58 PM
Dempsey's reign is no worse than Tyson's. Who did Tyson beat? Berbick=a pure workhorse with power but very little skill and speed, even his punching power was nothing to brag about. Bonecrusher= he was all about his punching power and reach, didn't even make an effort to beat Tyson. Pinklon Thomas= already faded, was doing well and outjabbing Tyson for four rounds before he was stopped. Tony Tucker= the best win of Tyson's career, but broke his hand in the 4th and before that lifted Tyson off the ground with a punch, was outboxing him too. Larry Holmes= coming off two losses to Spinks and 2 years of inactivity almost, aged 38, was starting to clown around and paid the price. Tubbs= outboxed Tyson before getting caught, always looked out of shape, but a good win. Spinks= was scared as hell and never was a natural hw, looked like a tennis player compared to Tyson. Bruno gave him a good fight, but was never a strong fighter mentally or HOF material.

While Dempsey didn't always fight the best guys as a champion, Carpentier was still one of the best p4p guys at that time and getting up after that monster punch that put him thru the ropes against Firpo took guts, not least stopping Firpo in the next round. Tommy Gibbons was a clever fighter and made Dempsey miss a lot, but still Dempsey knocked him out.

JAB5239
05-14-2011, 06:05 PM
While Dempsey didn't always fight the best guys as a champion, Carpentier was still one of the best p4p guys at that time and getting up after that monster punch that put him thru the ropes against Firpo took guts, not least stopping Firpo in the next round. Tommy Gibbons was a clever fighter and made Dempsey miss a lot, but still Dempsey knocked him out.

Dempsey was pushed through the ropes against Firpo.

RubenSonny
05-14-2011, 07:01 PM
Dempsey didn't knock out Gibbons either.

The_Demon
05-14-2011, 07:06 PM
Dempsey's reign is no worse than Tyson's. Who did Tyson beat? Berbick=a pure workhorse with power but very little skill and speed, even his punching power was nothing to brag about. Bonecrusher= he was all about his punching power and reach, didn't even make an effort to beat Tyson. Pinklon Thomas= already faded, was doing well and outjabbing Tyson for four rounds before he was stopped. Tony Tucker= the best win of Tyson's career, but broke his hand in the 4th and before that lifted Tyson off the ground with a punch, was outboxing him too. Larry Holmes= coming off two losses to Spinks and 2 years of inactivity almost, aged 38, was starting to clown around and paid the price. Tubbs= outboxed Tyson before getting caught, always looked out of shape, but a good win. Spinks= was scared as hell and never was a natural hw, looked like a tennis player compared to Tyson. Bruno gave him a good fight, but was never a strong fighter mentally or HOF material.

While Dempsey didn't always fight the best guys as a champion, Carpentier was still one of the best p4p guys at that time and getting up after that monster punch that put him thru the ropes against Firpo took guts, not least stopping Firpo in the next round. Tommy Gibbons was a clever fighter and made Dempsey miss a lot, but still Dempsey knocked him out.

Tysons 'reign' is distinctly average,not a great comparison

Pastrano
05-14-2011, 07:48 PM
Dempsey didn't knock out Gibbons either.

No he didn't, I mixed that fight up with Tunney-Gibbons.