Tweet
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.
-
-
here is an interesting video
Comment
-
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....Comment
-
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!Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
Comment