Jack Dempsey's best wins?

[billeau2]

I happen to think highly of Dempsey's skills myself.

But none of what you typed gives him a good resume.

Compared to whom? What heavyweight aside from Ali had a good resume?

Would Louis, who defended the title a fantastic amount of times have a better resume? How about Johnson? Marciano? considering WHEN he fought whom he fought, and other factors? How about Liston? Tyson? Lewis?

"Good" is a relative term and cannot be applied uniformly the same way in all divisions. One thing that made Ali so great was his ability to have fellow ATG's in his midst. By and large the heavyweight division operates differently than other divisions with regard to competition.

[travestyny]

Compared to whom? What heavyweight aside from Ali had a good resume?

Would Louis, who defended the title a fantastic amount of times have a better resume? How about Johnson? Marciano? considering WHEN he fought whom he fought, and other factors? How about Liston? Tyson? Lewis?

"Good" is a relative term and cannot be applied uniformly the same way in all divisions. One thing that made Ali so great was his ability to have fellow ATG's in his midst. By and large the heavyweight division operates differently than other divisions with regard to competition.

What do you think of Harry Wills' resume?

[ShoulderRoll]

Compared to whom? What heavyweight aside from Ali had a good resume?

Would Louis, who defended the title a fantastic amount of times have a better resume? How about Johnson? Marciano? considering WHEN he fought whom he fought, and other factors? How about Liston? Tyson? Lewis?

"Good" is a relative term and cannot be applied uniformly the same way in all divisions. One thing that made Ali so great was his ability to have fellow ATG's in his midst. By and large the heavyweight division operates differently than other divisions with regard to competition.

You keep saying that but you're just clutching at straws.

There's no ambiguity or "relative to" when it comes to resume. Either there are impressive fighters on it or there aren't.

That's the bottom line.

You can say that a particular fighter was blessed or cursed to fight in a specific era. One would hope he at least fought the best who were around at the time. But at the end of the day did he beat anybody good or not? It ain't hard to tell.

[Anthony342]

Compared to whom? What heavyweight aside from Ali had a good resume?

Would Louis, who defended the title a fantastic amount of times have a better resume? How about Johnson? Marciano? considering WHEN he fought whom he fought, and other factors? How about Liston? Tyson? Lewis?

"Good" is a relative term and cannot be applied uniformly the same way in all divisions. One thing that made Ali so great was his ability to have fellow ATG's in his midst. By and large the heavyweight division operates differently than other divisions with regard to competition.

So Lewis doesn't have a good resume? He didn't fight the best available opponents to him? Didn't Marciano also fight everyone he could in the heavyweight division at the time?

[Marchegiano]

Compared to whom? What heavyweight aside from Ali had a good resume?

Would Louis, who defended the title a fantastic amount of times have a better resume? How about Johnson? Marciano? considering WHEN he fought whom he fought, and other factors? How about Liston? Tyson? Lewis?

"Good" is a relative term and cannot be applied uniformly the same way in all divisions. One thing that made Ali so great was his ability to have fellow ATG's in his midst. By and large the heavyweight division operates differently than other divisions with regard to competition.

Um, compared to Louis, Johnson, and Marciano, yeah, Dempsey's resume is ****.

Dempsey is 2 and 2 with current, former, or soon to be champions.

Louis is 10-3

Marciano is 4-0

Johnson is 3-1

Louis and Marciano were both much more dominant champions with no names to mention as people they ducked. If they did not fight them they fought the man who beat them. Dempsey can not claim this. As I've pointed out, most of Jack's wins are over guys who did not fight blacks or lost to them.

Marciano took on the former-former, the former, the current, the LHW, the British, the Euro champions and won. He also beat up a man with a 55+ win streak, the fella Ring backed for the next HW champion, and the guy who first used the ropes and his elbows to steal power from punches

You can say they both came from weak eras. You can say they both could have better resumes, you can't tell me a guy whose record is full of contenders coming off loses to men that champion avoided has the same level resume as a true takes on all challengers champion.

Names? Johnson's Fitz and Burns are better than anyone Jack ever beat and you know it, let alone the plethora of colored champions he toppled that Dempsey avoided.

Ezzard, Matthews, Walcott, Dempsey's wins are more akin to ****ell or Savold. Decent HWs of the era, but clearly subpar compared to the tops of the field.

Louis? Schmeling, Primo, Walcott, Conn, Bivins, Mauriello.


Jack Dempsey, Champion
Harry Wills
Tommy Gibbons
Charley Weinert
Quintin Romero Rojas
Jack Renault
Luis Angel Firpo
George Godfrey
Jim Maloney
Erminio Spalla

Fought Firpo and Gibbons


Rocky Marciano, Champion

Nino Valdes
Ezzard Charles
Dan Bucceroni
Roland LaStarza
Earl Walls
Don ****ell
Clarence Henry
Tommy Harrison
Bob Satterfield
Coley Wallace

****ell, LaStarza, and Charles. Nino lost to Archie who Marciano fought too.


Joe Louis, Champion

Max Baer
Arturo Godoy
Red Burman
Abe Simon
Buddy Walker
Buddy Baer
Pat Comiskey
Lee Savold
Otis Thomas
Lem Franklin

Savold, BBear, Godoy all took Ls


No matter how you cut it Dempsey ends up looking weaker. All anyone can say about his scalps is they like them more. There is no metric where Jack wins outside of personal bias.

No I do not think Jack's resume is very good.

Burns is better

Hart has better wins

Jeffries absolutely destroy's Jack in terms of resume.

Fitzs was the destroyer Dempsey's promoted as being and it's cruel that to this day his two times as champion are reduced to a single only due to semantics. Dude did beat a if not the top HW outside of Corbett when Corbett was retired then whooped Corbett himself. More than what Jack ever did.

Sullivan and Corbett are kind of weak, but at least they beat men who beat, not lost to, the major rival colored champions of their eras.

The day Tommy ****ing Gibbons equals an Ezzard Charles is the same day angels go down to hell for a christmas party my man.

Would Rocky Marciano have fought Wills? Bet yer ****ing ass he would have. Who did Marciano not fight? He'd've fought Langford, Jeanette, and Norfolk too. Joe Louis's willingness to mix it up is questionable?

Johnson was a punk ass like Dempsey, he'd probably mirror Dempsey's path because that is where the money is.

Marciano was famously unconcerned with maximizing his financial gains. No point in his career does he ever pull that the money isn't there excuse to duck bull****. Dempsey ain't fit to be compared to The Rock.

5 international opponents to Jack's 2

5 black opponents to Jack's 1 and Jack lost that fight.

Where the hell are they comparable? Marciano steamrolls Dempsey. Louis clearly had a better career in terms of resume and dominance, and, even if Johnson was a bit of a **** he still did more than beat a sad fat man who never did anything but beat up an old man.

The one, single, name on Jack's resume comparable to Burns, Fitzs, Charles, Walcott, Smchelling, or Carnera is Sharkey. Everything else is a huge meh on those resumes. Gibbons wouldn't even be a stand out for Marciano.

No, I don't think Jack's up to snuff, I think he's close to Sullivan than Marciano.

[billeau2]

What do you think of Harry Wills' resume?

Thats a good question! If he was on the general circuit it would be commensurate, but he fought fellow great Black fighters, many of whom were ATG's.

I think that the circuit for Black fighters definitely had some of the most talented fighters... Murderer's row, Burley, Marshall, etc another example of this...

Two comments: By fighting each other extensively some of the way competition is evaluated has to account for this.

We also have to be careful how we look at comparisons: Langford Jeanette, McVea all talented... no question about it. Jeanette, a true heavyweight, Langford, a guy who was able to fight up... McVea's size alludes me...

We must keep in mind these guys fought often, which has an affect on how we evaluate them as comp... not necessarily a valued judgement, just a consideration.

I have no problem saying Wills had a better resume talent wise than Dempsey.

[billeau2]

You keep saying that but you're just clutching at straws.

There's no ambiguity or "relative to" when it comes to resume. Either there are impressive fighters on it or there aren't.

That's the bottom line.

You can say that a particular fighter was blessed or cursed to fight in a specific era. One would hope he at least fought the best who were around at the time. But at the end of the day did he beat anybody good or not? It ain't hard to tell.

Good is relative because fighters of that era were more workman like... They had a general level of talent, hard scrabble which like a tide, rised all boats. It also holds true for the division as a whole... so there is nothing particularly bad about Dempsey's resume.

Again. Look at de facto how many heavyweights were "blessed" as you say... I think the general level of comp was better, most fighting men had to be able to do more things and started learning at a much earlier age.

We will have to agree to disagree on this point T. Unless you can show me where Johnson, for example, one of the most impressive fighters, had a steller resume, or Liston, a man who had incredible talents, or virtually any heavyweight not named "Ali" had a resume with anything more than comp we can judge by a general standard.

[billeau2]

You keep saying that but you're just clutching at straws.

There's no ambiguity or "relative to" when it comes to resume. Either there are impressive fighters on it or there aren't.

That's the bottom line.

You can say that a particular fighter was blessed or cursed to fight in a specific era. One would hope he at least fought the best who were around at the time. But at the end of the day did he beat anybody good or not? It ain't hard to tell.

Good is relative because fighters of that era were more workman like... They had a general level of talent, hard scrabble which like a tide, rised all boats. It also holds true for the division as a whole... so there is nothing particularly bad about Dempsey's resume.

Again. Look at de facto how many heavyweights were "blessed" as you say... I think the general level of comp was better, most fighting men had to be able to do more things and started learning at a much earlier age.

We will have to agree to disagree on this point. Unless you can show me where Johnson, for example, one of the most impressive fighters, had a steller resume, or Liston, a man who had incredible talents, or virtually any heavyweight not named "Ali" had a resume with anything more than comp we can judge by a general standard.

[billeau2]

So Lewis doesn't have a good resume? He didn't fight the best available opponents to him? Didn't Marciano also fight everyone he could in the heavyweight division at the time?

Actually I am of the opinion that Lewis has an exceptional resume for a heavyweight. marciano fought the best, most of whom were in their twilight, or were coming up to challenge (Moore/Charles). Neither being an ATG heavyweight.

I am struggling here: Obviously either I am missing something... Im not critisizing anyone here... Shoulder Roll thinks I am sleighting Mayweather, and you think my point is related to a heavyweight not fighting the best they could... This really is a misunderstanding, not what I am trying to say.

All I am saying is that if you want to compare competition, look at differences that are material to each division. Its not about any particular heavyweight here, it is about the averages and how rare it is for a gaggle of ATG's to be fighting each other such as Ali experienced... lewis also beat a lot of fighters that were considered more than generally excellent fighters... But if you look at the competition great heavies fought.... you will see that there is relatively little great competition vis a vis fellow all time greats.

Louis accomplished an incredible record... who did he beat that was a fellow ATG? ditto for Liston? Johnson (at prime?) Sullivan? Dempsey? Paterson? Tyson? Holly might be another exception.

The law of human physiology says that in a group of 100 men, if we find 10 talented fighters, virtually all of them will not weigh over 180 pounds... So, ultimately a heavyweight division will have less ATG fighters which are rare to begin with. Other factors are important: Not getting one punched like Lewis did, and the general level of skills fighters had in different eras, etc.

[billeau2]

Um, compared to Louis, Johnson, and Marciano, yeah, Dempsey's resume is ****.

Dempsey is 2 and 2 with current, former, or soon to be champions.

Louis is 10-3

Marciano is 4-0

Johnson is 3-1

Louis and Marciano were both much more dominant champions with no names to mention as people they ducked. If they did not fight them they fought the man who beat them. Dempsey can not claim this. As I've pointed out, most of Jack's wins are over guys who did not fight blacks or lost to them.

Marciano took on the former-former, the former, the current, the LHW, the British, the Euro champions and won. He also beat up a man with a 55+ win streak, the fella Ring backed for the next HW champion, and the guy who first used the ropes and his elbows to steal power from punches

You can say they both came from weak eras. You can say they both could have better resumes, you can't tell me a guy whose record is full of contenders coming off loses to men that champion avoided has the same level resume as a true takes on all challengers champion.

Names? Johnson's Fitz and Burns are better than anyone Jack ever beat and you know it, let alone the plethora of colored champions he toppled that Dempsey avoided.

Ezzard, Matthews, Walcott, Dempsey's wins are more akin to ****ell or Savold. Decent HWs of the era, but clearly subpar compared to the tops of the field.

Louis? Schmeling, Primo, Walcott, Conn, Bivins, Mauriello.


Jack Dempsey, Champion
Harry Wills
Tommy Gibbons
Charley Weinert
Quintin Romero Rojas
Jack Renault
Luis Angel Firpo
George Godfrey
Jim Maloney
Erminio Spalla

Fought Firpo and Gibbons


Rocky Marciano, Champion

Nino Valdes
Ezzard Charles
Dan Bucceroni
Roland LaStarza
Earl Walls
Don ****ell
Clarence Henry
Tommy Harrison
Bob Satterfield
Coley Wallace

****ell, LaStarza, and Charles. Nino lost to Archie who Marciano fought too.


Joe Louis, Champion

Max Baer
Arturo Godoy
Red Burman
Abe Simon
Buddy Walker
Buddy Baer
Pat Comiskey
Lee Savold
Otis Thomas
Lem Franklin

Savold, BBear, Godoy all took Ls


No matter how you cut it Dempsey ends up looking weaker. All anyone can say about his scalps is they like them more. There is no metric where Jack wins outside of personal bias.

No I do not think Jack's resume is very good.

Burns is better

Hart has better wins

Jeffries absolutely destroy's Jack in terms of resume.

Fitzs was the destroyer Dempsey's promoted as being and it's cruel that to this day his two times as champion are reduced to a single only due to semantics. Dude did beat a if not the top HW outside of Corbett when Corbett was retired then whooped Corbett himself. More than what Jack ever did.

Sullivan and Corbett are kind of weak, but at least they beat men who beat, not lost to, the major rival colored champions of their eras.

The day Tommy ****ing Gibbons equals an Ezzard Charles is the same day angels go down to hell for a christmas party my man.

Would Rocky Marciano have fought Wills? Bet yer ****ing ass he would have. Who did Marciano not fight? He'd've fought Langford, Jeanette, and Norfolk too. Joe Louis's willingness to mix it up is questionable?

Johnson was a punk ass like Dempsey, he'd probably mirror Dempsey's path because that is where the money is.

Marciano was famously unconcerned with maximizing his financial gains. No point in his career does he ever pull that the money isn't there excuse to duck bull****. Dempsey ain't fit to be compared to The Rock.

5 international opponents to Jack's 2

5 black opponents to Jack's 1 and Jack lost that fight.

Where the hell are they comparable? Marciano steamrolls Dempsey. Louis clearly had a better career in terms of resume and dominance, and, even if Johnson was a bit of a **** he still did more than beat a sad fat man who never did anything but beat up an old man.

The one, single, name on Jack's resume comparable to Burns, Fitzs, Charles, Walcott, Smchelling, or Carnera is Sharkey. Everything else is a huge meh on those resumes. Gibbons wouldn't even be a stand out for Marciano.

No, I don't think Jack's up to snuff, I think he's close to Sullivan than Marciano.

So what you have done is set up a comparison between fellow heavyweights... I have no problem with looking at that, it does not address the point I am making in this case. You are making a case based on specific fighters, who was a champion at the time, etc... But what about ATG fighters? how many of them are we talking about here? with the notable exception of Ali.

What if Robinson never beat a fellow ATG fighter? at his weight class? And who did Louis beat that was a fellow ATG heavyweight? I can answer that if you like...

Virtually all the great welter weight fighters, light weight fighters fought fellow ATG's at prime... Not happening in the heavyweight division. And champions are relative... Charley Burley never won a championship, but could beat the bejusus out of many welter weight champs...

Mayweather had a chance and never challenged a fellow ATG fighter at prime. That stands out for his legacy. We can certainly argue Dempsey's resume, but he beat fighters that we can compare to...oh lets say Liston. We can compare the level of talent he fought to the guys louis and Johnson fought...

the one caveat to this is something T has mentioned, and you have taken up... The talented black fighters that were not allowed to compete... it is a valid point IMO. No argument there, unless you want to say Wills would beat Dempsey because of it, or, unless you want to say Dempsey's comp was substandard to the degree that it defies comparison with other heavy weights.