Why is Jack Dempsey considered a top 10 HW of all time?

[BoxingFan653]

Seriously...he's always rated at #8-9 on most peoples lists including RING magazines. I think sometimes people let sentiment brainwash their views. Watching his highlight reels and fights for years and while I love a guy who goes out to kill and respect his legacy...he is not an elite boxer or fighter. His hands are always down, he swings wildly, his foot work is atrocious.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this but just watch his highlight reel and tell me you don't have at least another 10-15 heavyweights that were greater than this guy. Perfect example of what I mean @1:18-1:27

 

[Seano]

Nostalgia.

Once a guy is considered great, historians are reluctant to adjust their place all time.

I mean, Dempsey was great, he had quality wins, but he's been surpassed may times over.

 

[nac386]

In addition to nostalgia, guys are often assessed by the standard of the time in which they fought. Boxing has evolved since the 1920's, but we can only compare fighters to their contemporaries.

Gentleman Jim Corbett is another example of a guy who is credited for how he progressed the sport, rather than for his ability to compete in a modern era.

 

[Cracky]

Meh.. he had some flaws, but he also was one of the first power punchers to heavily incorperate upper body movement to set up the big punch..

 

[RascalBird]

Dempsey also would have fought in a different weight class today. Tunney, Marciano, and Dempsey would likely be Cruiserweights, and I think they'd still be world class. You think Tony Bellew beats Jack Dempsey or Rocky Marciano?

I don't know if I'd have him in my Top 10 HW's, but he's among the best of all time, yes.

 

[djacobox372]

Athletes should be measured against their contemporaries, it's unfair to compare them straight up.

That said, dempsey defended his title only 6 times in 5 years which, for the time, was an unheard of level of inactivity. He also only won one more fight after losing the title. Considering that, I can't see how he's top 10 all time, but he's a solid top 20.

 

[DiogenesOfSinope]

Seriously...he's always rated at #8-9 on most peoples lists including RING magazines. I think sometimes people let sentiment brainwash their views. Watching his highlight reels and fights for years and while I love a guy who goes out to kill and respect his legacy...he is not an elite boxer or fighter. His hands are always down, he swings wildly, his foot work is atrocious.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this but just watch his highlight reel and tell me you don't have at least another 10-15 heavyweights that were greater than this guy. Perfect example of what I mean @1:18-1:27

Do you think his hands are down because the gloves were smaller and less useful as a shield?

 

[wilddeuces]

I'm a big fan of Dempsey but he definitely was far from a complete fighter. He had some great wins against some of the best of his day. He was also a great puncher, one at a time or in those combinations. He was a good inside fighter - he knew how to use his and his opponent's arms to gain leverage and openings. Great upper body movement and great at closing the distance. Entertaining to watch. Was a huge star. Came out of retirement after three years in Hollywood to go the distance with a peaking Tunney, then to beat down Sharkey in what was a mutually assured messy fight, then nearly got Tunney if it weren't for his old instincts and habits. He defined heavyweight boxing in the 20's and didn't even fight from 23-26 and then retired in 1927.

But he didn't beat Tunney. Nor did he fight Harry Wills (not that it would have been a close fight - big guys with no/slow feet were tailor made for a guy like Dempsey; if he could find you he'd usually beat you). Also he couldn't cut off the ring and he was inactive during years when he could have been galvanizing his legacy. That last criticism is one of the reasons that guys like Ray Leonard get bumped off of lists - inactivity.

I think a top 10 HW list will always be ridiculously subjective so if someone has him on their list makes sense. Some people put Tyson on there's. Or Foreman. Eye of the beholder, I guess. There are worse picks by far.

 

[Seano]

In addition to nostalgia, guys are often assessed by the standard of the time in which they fought. Boxing has evolved since the 1920's, but we can only compare fighters to their contemporaries.

Gentleman Jim Corbett is another example of a guy who is credited for how he progressed the sport, rather than for his ability to compete in a modern era.

I find that people don't do that with more modern fighters. Mike Tyson isn't given leniency for dominating a softer era but Rocky Marciano is still in a lot of people's top 5.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Seriously...he's always rated at #8-9 on most peoples lists including RING magazines. I think sometimes people let sentiment brainwash their views. Watching his highlight reels and fights for years and while I love a guy who goes out to kill and respect his legacy...he is not an elite boxer or fighter. His hands are always down, he swings wildly, his foot work is atrocious.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this but just watch his highlight reel and tell me you don't have at least another 10-15 heavyweights that were greater than this guy. Perfect example of what I mean @1:18-1:27

You have to take the era into account. Didn't watch the video you posted but video from that era wasn't recorded as well as nowadays. Jack Johnson is also a top HW and if you watch the tape you'd probably think most ranked guys would beat him.

 

[nac386]

I find that people don't do that with more modern fighters. Mike Tyson isn't given leniency for dominating a softer era but Rocky Marciano is still in a lot of people's top 5.

That's just pure nostalgia, in my opinion. Rocky Marciano is an icon, like Mickey Mantle and Babe Ruth. There are people who consider Babe Ruth the greatest baseball player to ever live. I don't know a lot about baseball, but I would guess that there are plenty of players that would be picked before Babe Ruth in a pick-up game.

Mike Tyson gets some nostalgia bonus points, but he also loses some because he had a fall from grace. The further back you go, the more people tend to forgive fighters for their personal and professional flaws.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Do you think his hands are down because the gloves were smaller and less useful as a shield?

Your arms and hands are the shield. It was a different era he was swinging for the fences.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I find that people don't do that with more modern fighters. Mike Tyson isn't given leniency for dominating a softer era but Rocky Marciano is still in a lot of people's top 5.

Tyson is still in this era he just didn't have good opponents available. He was maybe a more complete fighter but proved to lack mental fortitude. He's the type of guy you can say in these couple of years he could have beaten anyone but looking at his whole career it's harder to rate him so highly.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

Seriously...he's always rated at #8-9 on most peoples lists including RING magazines. I think sometimes people let sentiment brainwash their views. Watching his highlight reels and fights for years and while I love a guy who goes out to kill and respect his legacy...he is not an elite boxer or fighter. His hands are always down, he swings wildly, his foot work is atrocious.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this but just watch his highlight reel and tell me you don't have at least another 10-15 heavyweights that were greater than this guy. Perfect example of what I mean @1:18-1:27

Dempsey knew a lot about footwork, in fact, several of today's greatest fighters have borrowed from his footwork. Just to name a small handful... Pacquiao, Donaire, Ward, Lomachenko and Pirog (now retired but KO'ed Jacobs back in 2010 with a double shift to right hand counter, the only loss on Jacobs' record to date).

Clearly, he sucked. Google Dempsey's Triple and Dempsey roll. Mike Tyson liked that as well as D'Amato's own shift in his footwork. Tyson studied Dempsey very closely, btw. He took more than just that from Jack but that'll be for another time.

 

[nac386]

Tyson is still in this era he just didn't have good opponents available. He was maybe a more complete fighter but proved to lack mental fortitude. He's the type of guy you can say in these couple of years he could have beaten anyone but looking at his whole career it's harder to rate him so highly.

Tyson had Holyfield, and Holyfield beat him twice. Tyson was still a young man when he got out of prison, he had his chances.

 

[Prime Ang]

Can't compare different era's, same goes for all sports, which is why Russell and Wilt are always in NBA top 10 lists

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Tyson had Holyfield, and Holyfield beat him twice. Tyson was still a young man when he got out of prison, he had his chances.

Nac I think this is the first time I completely disagree with you. Tyson's prime was around the time he beat Berbick to the Spinks fight. By the Bruno to the second Ruddock fight he had already regressed. Tyson after jail was just a shell.

 

[nac386]

Nac I think this is the first time I completely disagree with you. Tyson's prime was around the time he beat Berbick to the Spinks fight. By the Bruno to the second Ruddock fight he had already regressed. Tyson after jail was just a shell.

That is late 86 to mid 88. If he only had 1.5 years of prime, doesn't that responsibility fall on him as a man? He was still in his 20's when he was released from prison, and was in phenomenal physical condition. He had every opportunity to be great still.

Tyson was 30 when he fought Holyfield, that should be a prime heavyweight fighter. He had every opportunity to beat Holyfield, but he did not have the ability to do so (be it a lack of desire or mental stability). There is no reason Tyson should get a pass for being a "shell" at the age of 30.

If Tyson was a shell at 30, then that is who Tyson really is. I just can't say, "If you didn't fight Tyson between 86-88, then you did not fight the real Tyson." That is not fair to the guys like Holyfield.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

That is late 86 to mid 88. If he only had 1.5 years of prime, doesn't that responsibility fall on him as a man? He was still in his 20's when he was released from prison, and was in phenomenal physical condition. He had every opportunity to be great still.

Tyson was 30 when he fought Holyfield, that should be a prime heavyweight fighter. He had every opportunity to beat Holyfield, but he did not have the ability to do so (be it a lack of desire or mental stability). There is no reason Tyson should get a pass for being a "shell" at the age of 30.

If Tyson was a shell at 30, then that is who Tyson really is. I just can't say, "If you didn't fight Tyson between 86-88, then you did not fight the real Tyson." That is not fair to the guys like Holyfield.

Yeah, it was his own fault, like James Toney wasting years. I forget the exact quote but he was one of those guys whose prime burned fast and bright even though those post prison years he was basically fading away.

 

[Seano]

Tyson is still in this era he just didn't have good opponents available. He was maybe a more complete fighter but proved to lack mental fortitude. He's the type of guy you can say in these couple of years he could have beaten anyone but looking at his whole career it's harder to rate him so highly.

Marciano's best opponents were all ancient.