Jack Dempsey as an All Time Heavy?

[rightsideup]

In absolute terms, weight is one of the single most important aspects in a boxing match. It's conclusive statistically. Therefore all else being equal, a heavier win is a better win. This is less meaningful over a single fight. But over a career it is extremely indicative. Of course this has LESS to do when rating ATG which is against the criteria of the era.

However, one would see clearly that Rocky Marciano, who beat up opponents much larger than himself, is much more stunning than someone like Sonny Liston, who loved to outsize his opponents!

But your right, talent and resume is a priority. Many boxers fight a careers worth of heavy opponents but if they're all bums, that's not quality is it.

But both Klits faced exceptional quality of opposition. They faced guys with much better records and on video they seem much better than previous opponents.

But let's not argue this here, this way my opinion which I used to justify Vitali. If you disagree that's fine. I would like to hear why Dempsey is justifiably an ATG top 10?

Are you telling me that you are not going to use any "size" argument to rate Dempsey?

Are you telling me that you are going to rate Dempsey on "resume", "talent" and "quality of opposition"?

yes. He rates lower than Joe Louis and I think it is a shame that Dempsey won boxer of the half century over Joe. I do think Jack was a mythical figure who had trouble with certain styles but who punched extremely hard.

[Scott9945]

In absolute terms, weight is one of the single most important aspects in a boxing match. It's conclusive statistically. Therefore all else being equal, a heavier win is a better win. This is less meaningful over a single fight. But over a career it is extremely indicative. Of course this has LESS to do when rating ATG which is against the criteria of the era.

However, one would see clearly that Rocky Marciano, who beat up opponents much larger than himself, is much more stunning than someone like Sonny Liston, who loved to outsize his opponents!

But your right, talent and resume is a priority. Many boxers fight a careers worth of heavy opponents but if they're all bums, that's not quality is it.

But both Klits faced exceptional quality of opposition. They faced guys with much better records and on video they seem much better than previous opponents.

But let's not argue this here, this way my opinion which I used to justify Vitali. If you disagree that's fine. I would like to hear why Dempsey is justifiably an ATG top 10?

Are you telling me that you are not going to use any "size" argument to rate Dempsey?

Are you telling me that you are going to rate Dempsey on "resume", "talent" and "quality of opposition"?

I'm a fan of theirs and I can't even read that without laughing.

[rightsideup]

I'm a fan of theirs and I can't even read that without laughing.

yes it is possible to be fan of them but they just do not have the quality of opposition to be pushed into the elite class at no fault of there own.

[billeau2]

When the stupid money comes in I am out of here....whoooosh!! I wish I had never turned the internet on in the basement again.

[StarshipTrooper]

Scariest thing about Elroy is that regardless of whatever God forsaken ****hole he hails from he most likely can legally breed and vote. Be afraid for the future of humanity. Be very afraid.

[Elroy1]

Alright, this is about Dempsey as an ATG and I've tried to steer the focus away from K2 or any modern fighter as this is a question of ATG, across eras right.

Without all the insults etc etc, what you are basically assuming here is that Dempsey should rate higher than K2 as ATG's.

So basically your saying..

Sharkey, Firpo, Gibbons, Carpentier, Brennan, Miske, Willard, Gunboat Smith, Levinsky

were better wins than,

Haye, Peter, Ibragimov, Chagaev, Byrd, Chamber, Povetkin, Rahman, Thompson

OR

Johnson, Sanders, Williams, Peter, Arreola, Briggs, Adamek, Chisora, Solis

I don't personally think so, CRAZY as it sounds. And it doesn't matter about weight here or anything like that. The K2 fought relatively and absolutely superior competition to what Dempsey fought.

Surely that cannot be denied here?

Please review the fights and the records first! I realise a lot of you here are very old but come on! It's degrading to compare.

If you cannot see past your prejudices against the recent and current eras, then can any of you please point out any issues with rating some of the other guys on my list higher than Dempsey? Where there shouldn't be so much bias?

[billeau2]

Scariest thing about Elroy is that regardless of whatever God forsaken ****hole he hails from he most likely can legally breed and vote. Be afraid for the future of humanity. Be very afraid.

Hey easy!! How was I to know the condom would burst!!

[billeau2]

Alright, this is about Dempsey as an ATG and I've tried to steer the focus away from K2 or any modern fighter as this is a question of ATG, across eras right.

Without all the insults etc etc, what you are basically assuming here is that Dempsey should rate higher than K2 as ATG's.

So basically your saying..

Sharkey, Firpo, Gibbons, Carpentier, Brennan, Miske, Willard, Gunboat Smith, Levinsky

were better wins than,

Haye, Peter, Ibragimov, Chagaev, Byrd, Chamber, Povetkin, Rahman, Thompson

OR

Johnson, Sanders, Williams, Peter, Arreola, Briggs, Adamek, Chisora, Solis

I don't personally think so, CRAZY as it sounds. And it doesn't matter about weight here or anything like that. The K2 fought relatively and absolutely superior competition to what Dempsey fought.

Surely that cannot be denied here?

Please review the fights and the records first! I realise a lot of you here are very old but come on! It's degrading to compare.

If you cannot see past your prejudices against the recent and current eras, then can any of you please point out any issues with rating some of the other guys on my list higher than Dempsey? Where there shouldn't be so much bias?

When you make a statement about inferior and superior (ask a former real estate appraiser!) you usually say "why." You seem to think its a foregone conclusion, you do this constantly sonny!!!!

In point of fact? the people you mention on both sides of the equation have complexities that make them irreducable to one group being "weak" and another "strong." What most people do say is that as a whole the relative skills, and other factors are such that on the whole, after all the individual complexities are discusses....because there are always exceptions to any generalization....The era of the klits is/was a very weak era for heavyweights.... You dig?

[Elroy1]

Well your comment is simply refuted by actual evidence.

But again, you are skirting the question.

I asked are they better wins of Dempsey than what they had? And all of you have failed to answer?

It doesn't matter how many of you there are, truth is truth. Are they?

Someone please tell me that Dempsey's win over Gunboat Smith was more ATG worth than Wladimir's victory over Ibragimov. I want to hear it from a crazy persons mouth b4 I draw any conclusions

Any rate, you can make a different thread and explain to me WHY the most current era would be weak if you like

[Bundana]

For anybody interested, I found an interesting read on Dempsey,

http://www.boxing.com/jack_dempsey_true_greatness.html

Yes, very interesting - and also very moving!