Better resume: Floyd Mayweather Jr or Jack Dempsey?

[travestyny]

There is a reason why no black heavyweight fought a white champion from the sports beginnings to 1937 except Johnson.

Yea. The reason is Dempsey refused to fight Harry Wills.

[Marchegiano]

You're judging men outside of their time, a historical foo-pah.

One doesn't compare Julius Caesar to George S. Patton.

By your standard John L. Sullivan was not a 'world champion' either, having drawn with Charlie Mitchel.

So now we must conclude Mayweather Jr. (and every modern title claimant,) is a greater greater champion then The Great John L.!

It seems there is always a contemporaneous arrogance attached to every generation.

I respect you. It should be said before I attempt to tear this apart. I don't feel like you've hit what you think you're hitting and I am going to prove it to you by shoving it down your throat until you give up.


Why don't you recognize Jem Mace? Why is Sullivan even considered the first Queensberry champion? His fights are hardly QB rules and mostly mixed.

Arbitrary cut-offs and categories given by historians that don't actually fit the bill; John L ISN'T a world champion or even a Queensberry champion.

LPR rules with gloves all of a sudden are now good enough to call QB rules even though they are not QB rules?

How many straight Queensberry rules did John L actually fight? One, two more than Mace?

OOOOOhhhhhh, but, I mustn't re-categorize theses "champions" because in their time they were considered what we call them today.


If that's the case why does CBZ jump from Figg to Pipes?

Sutton was called champion

Whitaker was called champion

Peartree was called champion

Gritton ( Who is NOT Gretting as Gritton would be killed by Whitaker and Gretting would continue fighting)

Gretting was also called champion


I don't think you need me to go through the entire list of champions pointing out the men who got nixed, but I can if you like.

Why are "champions" historically recognized going off those who fit the bill for best of an era rather than simply a chronological listing of claims, meanings, and validates?



I can name several more men who were called champion. Especially since champion doesn't mean greatest of an era for quite a while. Champion means defender of an honor for the longest....and, well, I can find many-uh defenders for ya.

If I say I champion the women's lib movement you'd know I am claiming feminist not the greatest of the women's lib movement but defender of the idealistic poltical movement( I don't, I'm non-political, it's just what came to me for explanation purposes)


Oh but champion, that's one to be judged outside it's time. World however, mustn't re-considered from what was considered the world in the 1870s/80s





Is it really about preserving history as it was or Is it because I lack the credentials to draw an arbitrary line and play semantics?





James Figg the First Champion 1719 1730 retired

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/pipes-tom.htm



Except in 1725 Figg handed his title over to Whitaker and told him to defend England in the first international fight as the what? What's the term Figg himself called Bob? Champion? Ya don't ****in' say... And, what was it his public would use to refer to Bob? Was it champion?

Was Figg probably still the best? Yep.

Was Figg officially retired? Nope.

If we are tracing who has the best claim to being the best of an era it's Figg. I've no issues with that.

If we are tracing who was considered champion by the people paying to watch the fights, the fighters themselves, the organizers themselves, and the promotional **** it's billed for, that man is Robert Whitaker not James Figg.




How is it you take issue with me personally not feeling like less than global infrastructure means less than global champions BUT take no issue with well respected historians re-categorizing history for reasons unknown and perpetuating that re-classification from their respected seat?


Who has the best claim to world titles? Guys who fought the world. Duh.

You can *****, whine, and cry all you like about the arrogance of categorizing but from where I sit that's done and been done since before I was even born.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Just to continue with the theme of the month.

We seem to have come to the conclusion that Jack Sharkey was the best fighter Dempsey beat.

Did Floyd have any wins against a more impressive fighter than Sharkey?

Haha! WHo's "We"!? Who concluded Sharkey?

Usually I see Sharkey being downcast; and history, generally, has been unfavorable to his memory. Don't think I don't mind defending his memory, but Boxing fans tend to be excessively revisionist. Calling him "the best fighter Dempsey beat" is kinda nebulous, definitely misleading, and there was no collective agreement. Whatever your opinion of Sharkey, he definitely met a subpar Dempsey, and still took the licking of his life.

Still, the short and emphatic answer is, "NO". Floyd might technically have more HOF/ATG names on his resume, but he clearly doesn't have a win better than Dempsey's against Sharkey.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Jack's resume is faaaaar better!

That's pretty impressive for Jack, but also damming of Floyd. Depends on your interpretation.

In a dozen years Jack racked up about 20 more fights than Floyd did in TWENTY ONE years! He has almost as many KO's as Mayweather has fights! Mayweather has only 27 KO's!

And I am sure someone will tell us that Dempsey's official record doesn't reflect his earlier career when he was visiting work camps and saloons. But that only strengthens the argument for Dempsey: he fought his way to the top, Floyd was born into a professional Boxing family and needed a lengthy amateur career before launching his professional career.

- Dempsey fought fighters at their peak / Floyd did not.
- Dempsey fought with 4oz. gloves / Floyd, a little guy, fought with 12 oz. gloves.
- Dempsey never demanded special stipulations other than 10 Round fights with Tunney / Floyd almost always did.
- Dempsey didn't build a career beating up on smaller men/ Floyd did.
- Dempsey didn't have an amateur career / Floyd did.
- Dempsey didn't need long training camps, fight footage, doctors-nutritionists-coaches; he just got out there and won / Floyd was made in a lab as much as the gym.
- Dempsey didn't need a new weight class at every 5 pounds to build up his career / Floyd did.
- Dempsey didn't avoid the best fighters of his generation / Floyd did.
- Dempsey fought when being Heavyweight champion was the most coveted position in the world of sports / At only 14 Messi had eclipsed anything Mayweather could ever hope to attain athletically.
- Dempsey advanced Boxing / Mayweather was a pretty good summation of all the skills developed up until when he fought, but didn't advance Boxing at all - you can even argue that his clinch and hold and shelling up was regressive.

[Rusty Tromboni]

With times being so different it's sometimes difficult to compare guys so highly respected and far removed from one another. Then you throw the weight divisional differences in there and it's so many apples vs oranges its really just an exercise for fun...not to be too invested in.

That said, let me try to be different without being ******:


Often in history sections we tend to lean toward the classic character over the history-in-the-making guys and arguments about the '(d)evolution' of boxing tend to focus more on the applied physics of fighters than things like atmosphere or culture. These are okay arguments, but, to be honest, kind of pedestrian. Boxers are products of their times and so it's better to take traits and apply time based techniques to those traits in a given era. IE. it's ****** to think Marciano in 2020 would be a HW let alone box like he did in the 50s.



In the past I've written about how I do not feel like any color line drawing champion can be considered a true world champion because an entire race did not have access to their title.

Similar to that, I believe more modern figures have more claim to world championships.

I want to be clear, this isn't a moral argument. It seems to me I'm pretty much the only person who was ever disappointed by the lack of world in our world champions, but that's really what this boils down to.

In the beginning to be a "world" champion you had to unify the English and American titles. There are a few there at the tail end of LPRR if memory serves. I know Jem Mace did it, but I think someone else did. There were other national titles pretty early. Ireland is in the game before the US, likewise for Italy, and shortly after the US had begun boxing so had Australia and Canada. None of these title made you a world champion though.

You could combine Canada, Australia, Ireland, and Italy under one man, not a world champion. Definitely not a world champion if someone else has the US-ENG combo

Anyway, later you didn't need the English title. Not a lot of people ever talk about it but John L didn't actually beat the English champion. He drew the English champion and that was good enough then.

Then the American age happened. White America owned the title and really you can say "but Burns-n-Fitz doe" but we both know that's a weak argument. They are foreigners who won the American dominated circuit not guys honored from home for whooping the world.

When I was a little guy I believed Ali when he said " I'm the HW champion of the world, do you know what that means? That means i'm the baddest man on the planet. I'm the champion in American, Europe, Russia, China, Africa, anywhere in the the world. " I believed him.

Really until the later 90s there's always something making the old champions less world and more regional champions. Nationalism first, then racism, then economic wars, then finally global boxing is truly born.

Dempsey fought 3 fights that were not against Americans. World champion? Or, US Whites champion?

Floyd Mayweather fought 27 fights that were not against Americans.
He really did give the world an ass kicking.

Something is amiss when **** like skills, resume, and other time-based and culture based issues are used to justify a guy who never fought anyone but American whites as the same kind of "world" champion as a man who literally fought anyone, any race, religion, or nationality.


That said, Floyd fought more champions, former champions, and future champions and Canelo is already better than Sharkey's flash-in-the-pan ass.

And here I thought they had banned lead paint...



Dempsey fought when Boxing was the dominant sport. Baseball and Cricket had their following. But being Heavyweight World Champ was the zenith of sporting achievement.

That's not so today. It hasn't been that way for generations. Look at the late great Carelton Haselrig. He never even bothered with Boxing - because he didnt need to. A few decades earlier and it would have been the only thing he ever knew. We never had Boxing around Pittsburgh. Everyone knew about Boxing and liked it. But guys like Spadafora and Moorer were exceptions. Almost anyone with his head on straight was playing teams sports - and really the goal was to get to college for free and get a good job out of it.

White people haven't cared about Boxing for decades. So being a great Boxer today isn't really that impressive.

I know you're not an athlete and you don't really like history (at least not the kind you haven't invented) so this is all news to you and probably goes over your head. But I just had to correct that idiotic post of yours.


I know COVID has thrown a wrech into things, but what are your plans for school next year? You do plan on finishing High School, right?
Life is gonna suck if you don't finish school. You can't just make-up a paycheck, like these crazy musings you invent here.

[HOUDINI563]

Carpentier was heavyweight champion of Europe when he fought Dempsey.

Putting together an “international” bout in those days was not as easy as the modern era.

The hub of boxing was the US with multiple major boxing gyms in every major city populated by great trainers. Fights with international competitors was less important or necessary. Dempseys bout with Carpentier was highly anticipated when it was first proposed in 1920 as George’s was even at that time internationally known. This type scenario was few and far between however.

[Marchegiano]

And here I thought they had banned lead paint...



Dempsey fought when Boxing was the dominant sport. Baseball and Cricket had their following. But being Heavyweight World Champ was the zenith of sporting achievement.

That's not so today. It hasn't been that way for generations. Look at the late great Carelton Haselrig. He never even bothered with Boxing - because he didnt need to. A few decades earlier and it would have been the only thing he ever knew. We never had Boxing around Pittsburgh. Everyone knew about Boxing and liked it. But guys like Spadafora and Moorer were exceptions. Almost anyone with his head on straight was playing teams sports - and really the goal was to get to college for free and get a good job out of it.

White people haven't cared about Boxing for decades. So being a great Boxer today isn't really that impressive.

I know you're not an athlete and you don't really like history (at least not the kind you haven't invented) so this is all news to you and probably goes over your head. But I just had to correct that idiotic post of yours.


I know COVID has thrown a wrech into things, but what are your plans for school next year? You do plan on finishing High School, right?
Life is gonna suck if you don't finish school. You can't just make-up a paycheck, like these crazy musings you invent here.

yeah, I can see all the historical value in this.


Basic, pedestrian argument brought by a basic ***** what is clearly bitter he never amounted to much.


The **** you think you're teaching here? Boxing was more popular in the US? Gee- wow, gonna tell me about the Gate soon are ya? Willikers, no one's ever heard this **** before.

White people don't care about boxing? Wow. That has something to do with something I said. Gee how will I ever repay this invaluable advice?

I'm probably more athletic currently than you ever were your whole life.

I'm probably more respected academically than you ever were your whole life.

If you want to get personal I am game. I have no reason to be ashamed of myself and I am willing to prove my superiority over a mug like you who is low and dirty enough to make the subject about that **** rather than the history any time.

I'd wager it's you who be embarrassed to show your life's work and how little it amounts to. I am not. Think about that next time you tax that cro-magnon brain of yours and decide you want to go the personal route.


You got a glass house there and I got plenty of bricks.

[Willie Pep 229]

I respect you. It should be said before I attempt to tear this apart. I don't feel like you've hit what you think you're hitting and I am going to prove it to you by shoving it down your throat until you give up.


Why don't you recognize Jem Mace? Why is Sullivan even considered the first Queensberry champion? His fights are hardly QB rules and mostly mixed.

Arbitrary cut-offs and categories given by historians that don't actually fit the bill; John L ISN'T a world champion or even a Queensberry champion.

LPR rules with gloves all of a sudden are now good enough to call QB rules even though they are not QB rules?

How many straight Queensberry rules did John L actually fight? One, two more than Mace?

OOOOOhhhhhh, but, I mustn't re-categorize theses "champions" because in their time they were considered what we call them today.


If that's the case why does CBZ jump from Figg to Pipes?

Sutton was called champion

Whitaker was called champion

Peartree was called champion

Gritton ( Who is NOT Gretting as Gritton would be killed by Whitaker and Gretting would continue fighting)

Gretting was also called champion


I don't think you need me to go through the entire list of champions pointing out the men who got nixed, but I can if you like.

Why are "champions" historically recognized going off those who fit the bill for best of an era rather than simply a chronological listing of claims, meanings, and validates?



I can name several more men who were called champion. Especially since champion doesn't mean greatest of an era for quite a while. Champion means defender of an honor for the longest....and, well, I can find many-uh defenders for ya.

If I say I champion the women's lib movement you'd know I am claiming feminist not the greatest of the women's lib movement but defender of the idealistic poltical movement( I don't, I'm non-political, it's just what came to me for explanation purposes)


Oh but champion, that's one to be judged outside it's time. World however, mustn't re-considered from what was considered the world in the 1870s/80s





Is it really about preserving history as it was or Is it because I lack the credentials to draw an arbitrary line and play semantics?





James Figg the First Champion 1719 1730 retired

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/pipes-tom.htm



Except in 1725 Figg handed his title over to Whitaker and told him to defend England in the first international fight as the what? What's the term Figg himself called Bob? Champion? Ya don't ****in' say... And, what was it his public would use to refer to Bob? Was it champion?

Was Figg probably still the best? Yep.

Was Figg officially retired? Nope.

If we are tracing who has the best claim to being the best of an era it's Figg. I've no issues with that.

If we are tracing who was considered champion by the people paying to watch the fights, the fighters themselves, the organizers themselves, and the promotional **** it's billed for, that man is Robert Whitaker not James Figg.


How is it you take issue with me personally not feeling like less than global infrastructure means less than global champions BUT take no issue with well respected historians re-categorizing history for reasons unknown and perpetuating that re-classification from their respected seat?


Who has the best claim to world titles? Guys who fought the world. Duh.

You can *****, whine, and cry all you like about the arrogance of categorizing but from where I sit that's done and been done since before I was even born.

Why don't you recognize Jem Mace?

I would have had I known of him, now I do, thanks for the education.

How many straight Queensberry rules did John L actually fight? One, two more than Mace?

Actually most of them, his championship fights were bare knuckle, the rest of this fights 30 were gloved and MQB. But that's irreverent, I'm still with you!

OOOOOhhhhhh, but, I mustn't re-categorize theses "champions" because in their time they were considered what we call them today.

Yrs that is exactly the point we are dis*****g. Stop doing that.


Oh but champion, that's one to be judged outside it's time. World however, mustn't re-considered from what was considered the world in the 1870s/80s

No, it is because the man was called 'champion' by his contemporaries and you should respect that. That's the arrogance I complain of.


How is it you take issue with me personally not feeling like less than global infrastructure means less than global champions

Because you are discrediting past men's achievements based on contemporary standards. It is a historical foo-pah!

BUT take no issue with well respected historians re-categorizing history for reasons unknown and perpetuating that re-classification from their respected seat?

Sure I do, and they are not considered 'respected' historians when they do that, just popular magazine writers and forum posers.

But it is all OK . . . there will be payback; your grand children will smirk at, and demean all your achievements as well, and then the past will have gotten even with you!

P.S. Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore the boldface remark above, I didn't understand it.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Carpentier was heavyweight champion of Europe when he fought Dempsey.

Putting together an “international” bout in those days was not as easy as the modern era.

The hub of boxing was the US with multiple major boxing gyms in every major city populated by great trainers. Fights with international competitors was less important or necessary. Dempseys bout with Carpentier was highly anticipated when it was first proposed in 1920 as George’s was even at that time internationally known. This type scenario was few and far between however.

I would actually argue that the world of Boxing was more diverse in the past. Countries like France and Argentina contributed greatly even from the early days of modern Boxing. And you'd see guys like Schmeling* coming out of diverse nations. And while it's accepted that the Anglophone world likes Boxing, you were actually getting a number of great fighters from Australia, Canada, the British Isles in the first decades of the sport; clearly not the case today.

*Probably, if WWII hadn't happened, we would have seen a greater contribution directly from Europe, not only from European immigrants and their children. But about half of those post-WWII fighters from Europe saw their careers restricted to the Amateur ranks, thanks to Communism.

Boxing generally followed the Irish, as it was really their sport. As Irish in American cities moved up, ***s and Italians filled the gyms. After WWII Boxing could have died, but some trainers took a chance on Black fighters (plenty didn't, and just shuttered shop). Thanks to that, Boxing survived. As the world gets smaller, naturally, there's been a proliferation, but almost only to Central America and East Asia. Obviously, the demise of Communism has seen a resurgence in a truly global boxing scene, but that's rather recent, and counter-current to how things had been proceeding for decades up to and including when Floyd was active.

[Rusty Tromboni]

yeah, I can see all the historical value in this.


Basic, pedestrian argument brought by a basic ***** what is clearly bitter he never amounted to much.


The **** you think you're teaching here? Boxing was more popular in the US? Gee- wow, gonna tell me about the Gate soon are ya? Willikers, no one's ever heard this **** before.

White people don't care about boxing? Wow. That has something to do with something I said. Gee how will I ever repay this invaluable advice?

I'm probably more athletic currently than you ever were your whole life.

I'm probably more respected academically than you ever were your whole life.

If you want to get personal I am game. I have no reason to be ashamed of myself and I am willing to prove my superiority over a mug like you who is low and dirty enough to make the subject about that **** rather than the history any time.

I'd wager it's you who be embarrassed to show your life's work and how little it amounts to. I am not. Think about that next time you tax that cro-magnon brain of yours and decide you want to go the personal route.


You got a glass house there and I got plenty of bricks.

Dude, I wrestled in College, was scouted for Baseball, played varsity football my sophmore year of HighSchool. I currently own several properties.

If that's not good enoughfor you, OK.

The point is, you say ****** sh.it. Call if personal or whatever you want, you fill these boards with your crazy aspergersy rants. It's nice you like having weird tangents and conversations with yourself. But you gotta accept that you're gonna get called out.