Tweet
could dempsey be rated over louis, sure. guys like schemling and baer who fought joe and sparred with dempsey thought dempsey would have won, as well as sharkey. louis fought better guys however, but dempsey did defeat some good fighters. i rate louis over dempsey but i could see where someone would pick dempsey. thats how good dempsey was.
-
-
as far as wills-dempsey actually the guy to blame was tex richard as far as why it didnt happen. he told acquaintances he would never promote a heavyweight championship bout with the chance of riots beaking out such as after the jeffries-johnson bout where scores were killed, between a white champ and black challenger. it took mike jacobs to do so.Comment
-
Irish, it is flat ridiculous the way you dismiss the men Dempsey flattened, especially his pre-title foes. That was an excellent run, by any era's standards, Dempsey went on.Comment
-
Fulton=good win.
Brennan=good win
Miske=good win
Meehan=good win, even though Dempsey only beat him once out of what, 5 fights?
well? did he beat anyone else pre-title?Comment
-
Dude, I was laughing at your word choice. I knew you meant non-competitive, but what you said was weak. No one during 1914-1927 was weak. Louis always beats Dempsey in my book, but I wouldn't call the average ****er from the 20's weak.Comment
-
I certainly dont think the average HW from the 1920s is any better than any other era, thats for sure.
and when it gets down to it, Dempsey did not beat that many top opponents. he got the title from someone who hadnt boxed in 3 years, his by far toughest opponent he never fought, and a few of his best wins were over natural light heavyweights.Comment
-
Beginning in 1917, Dempsey cut a swathe through several of the finest in the division --- he bested Meehan, Smith (2x), Morris (3x), Flynn, Brennan, Levinsky & Miske. That is as good a run as had been seen by any eventual HW Champion prior to Dempsey's time, & it should duly rate above the corresponding period of Louis' career, for one.Originally posted by blackirish137 View Post
Some of those men weren't even a match for Dempsey's fury & under-estimated skill-set at the time. Can you name another HW in the world at that time to beat someone like Morris, or for that matter Brennan, in similar fashion? I wager you cannot. No one in Brennan's prime got near to putting him away, sans Dempsey himself (which he would later repeat, only a year or two on). Morris was similarly impervious to some very capable fighters, yet was beaten in every conceivable manner through three fights (out-pointed, frustrated & out-fought to the point of DQ, & flat KO'd).
Regarding your second post, you mentioned Wills was, "by far," Dempsey's toughest contemporary, & he didn't face him.
Wills was, "by far," better than Tunney?
Wills was, "by far," better than Sharkey?
Wills was, "by far," better than Gibbons?
Carpentier?
Firpo?
Brennan?
Meehan?
Morris?Last edited by Wild Blue Yonda; 02-02-2011, 01:45 AM.Comment
-
Whos knows..... its from a biography either dempseys or langfords im not sure.Originally posted by CarlosG815 View Post
though it was june 1916 that dempsey declined a fight with langford and possibly when the quote was first said.Comment
-
Smith, Morris and especialy Flynn were all past prime, and hardly top fighters anymore...at that point they were fodder for other fighters to feed on.Originally posted by Wild Blue Yonda View Post
did Dempsey beat them more impressively than anyone else? definitely. he was the best of that era. but they were still not really top fighters anymore.
As Ive already said, I dont give much credit to Dempsey for the Sharkey win, since Sharkey had the fight in control before the low blow hit on the break combo. Winning fights through illegal blows isnt really my thing.
Yes, I would say that Wills was 'by far' better than everyone but Tunney and Sharkey. He beat Fulton just as good as Dempsey did, and you could even say he beat Firpo more one sidedly than Dempsey did, since he wasnt dropped in the fight and completely dominated him, despite not getting the knockout. And those are two of Dempsey's greatest wins right there.
my point isnt that Wills was better than Dempsey...because I dont think I would even say that. Im saying that Wills was by far better than anyone Dempsey legitimately beat and was the #1 contender for years, above everyone else, and Dempsey never fought him.
Louis had a far better pre-title career than Dempsey. he beat Massera, Ramagex2, Perroni, Brown, Carnera(former champ), King Levinsky, Max Baer(former champ), Retzlaff, Sharkey(past prime), Ettore, and Bob Pastor.
Sure, a loss to Schmeling in there. but Schmeling would hold the HW title, and Dempsey, after all, did get KOed by an old Flynn. Louis pretty obviously had a better pre-title career. even pretending Flynn, Morris and Smith were still top fighters Louis fought the better competition, even beating 3 former HW champs in the process.
I give Dempsey credit for his wins over Willard, Brennan, Fulton, Firpo and Miske. and a little less credit for his wins over Gibbons, Carpentier and Levinsky. and maybe a smidgen of credit for his wins over Meehen(even though that was only one win out of 5 or so fights). and he was the best of his era. but he didnt beat that many good fighters, and didnt fight his best competition.Last edited by Steak; 02-02-2011, 02:51 AM.Comment
-
No, your still missing my point. I didn't mean average fighter. I meant average person. People were generally and genuinely tougher. You can argue it, but it's common knowledge. Ask any old ****er he'll tell you whats up. Bowen vs Burke 1893 will never happen again because no one's bringing that type of constitution. Correct me if i'm off, but didn't they start to limit rounds to 15 until sometime in after Louis vs Simon? To call them weak is ******, and to continue to defend your poor word choice is ******. Like I said I was laughing at the words you chose to express yourself; not the point in said expression. Just because Demspey never went more rounds then allowed today doesn't mean the era didn't.Comment
Comment