Ranking the Nonpareil

Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Welsh Jon
    Interim Champion
    Gold Champion - 500-1,000 posts
    • May 2011
    • 922
    • 72
    • 43
    • 7,717

    #1

    Ranking the Nonpareil

    Like a lot of boxing fans I like trying to put together all-time top10/20 lists for each division. But it is hard to do with some of the oldtimers. For me the hardest to rank is the Nonpareil Jack Dempsey. He is a near unanimous ATG. But it is also near impossible to gauge how good he is from studying his record.

    I am sure that no one who uses boxrec as their only research tool would rank Dempsey very high in their all-time middleweight ranking. But surely it can not be ignored how highly his contemporaries rated him. And it seems to me his influence and legacy suggest a greatness not apparent in his record.

    So what do you guys think. Where does he belong in all-time greatest middleweight lists? Is he not good enough to feature in such lists. Is it impossible to place him in such lists with the limited knowledge we have of him?
  • rightsideup
    Undisputed Champion
    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
    • Mar 2009
    • 2350
    • 42
    • 6
    • 11,349

    #2
    its kinda amazing I did a search and he is not even in the top 25 on this site.

    Comment

    • McGoorty
      Undisputed Champion
      Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
      • Jul 2011
      • 3847
      • 86
      • 54
      • 10,775

      #3
      Originally posted by Welsh Jon
      Like a lot of boxing fans I like trying to put together all-time top10/20 lists for each division. But it is hard to do with some of the oldtimers. For me the hardest to rank is the Nonpareil Jack Dempsey. He is a near unanimous ATG. But it is also near impossible to gauge how good he is from studying his record.

      I am sure that no one who uses boxrec as their only research tool would rank Dempsey very high in their all-time middleweight ranking. But surely it can not be ignored how highly his contemporaries rated him. And it seems to me his influence and legacy suggest a greatness not apparent in his record.

      So what do you guys think. Where does he belong in all-time greatest middleweight lists? Is he not good enough to feature in such lists. Is it impossible to place him in such lists with the limited knowledge we have of him?
      Well I believe the most important thing in rating a fighter is what is written by those who saw them fight, especially true for those with little or no film. I find from my studies that later generations are always biased in favor of their own contemporaries, it is an in built arrogance that I have never understood. As true in cricket, tennis or baseball as it is in boxing. No doubt that the nonpareil would destroy so many of our favourites, no doubt he was awesome and great.

      Comment

      Working...
      TOP