Dempsey's vaunted run to the Title

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by Shake

Jeebus, I had no idea. That's awful. Great thread, Seamus. I enjoy your snide remarks, but this is actually very illuminating.

Why people want to put him in with Ali I'll never know.

Because there were thousands of fight fans, boxers, trainers, writers who saw the prime Dempsey fight from 1917-23 and were in awe of his power, swiftness and destructive hitting...They saw the man, were in the ring with the man, wrote about his prowess with a tad more insight than you, 85 years later....And a great trainer like Ray Arcel who saw Dempsey up to Ali,
called the Manassa Mauler the greatest, alongst Joe Louis and Ali...Am I to believe your opinion over Ray Arcel's ? Were all the thousands of boxing
fraternity somewhat wrong calling Dempsey truly great and you correct ?
NAY...Put the prime vicious Dempsey in the ring with any heavyweight before him or after him, and he will give ANYONE HELL. Peace...

[Synthetic Decay]

Originally Posted by burt bienstock

Because there were thousands of fight fans, boxers, trainers, writers who saw the prime Dempsey fight from 1917-23 and were in awe of his power, swiftness and destructive hitting...They saw the man, were in the ring with the man, wrote about his prowess with a tad more insight than you, 85 years later....And a great trainer like Ray Arcel who saw Dempsey up to Ali,
called the Manassa Mauler the greatest, alongst Joe Louis and Ali...Am I to believe your opinion over Ray Arcel's ? Were all the thousands of boxing
fraternity somewhat wrong calling Dempsey truly great and you correct ?
NAY...Put the prime vicious Dempsey in the ring with any heavyweight before him or after him, and he will give ANYONE HELL. Peace...

You can find literally thousands of quotes from figures in boxing extolling the virtues of any champion you care to name. It's much easier to assess the visual evidence and the resume or lack there of, than playing pick a quote.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by burt bienstock

Because there were thousands of fight fans, boxers, trainers, writers who saw the prime Dempsey fight from 1917-23 and were in awe of his power, swiftness and destructive hitting...They saw the man, were in the ring with the man, wrote about his prowess with a tad more insight than you, 85 years later....And a great trainer like Ray Arcel who saw Dempsey up to Ali,
called the Manassa Mauler the greatest, alongst Joe Louis and Ali...Am I to believe your opinion over Ray Arcel's ? Were all the thousands of boxing
fraternity somewhat wrong calling Dempsey truly great and you correct ?
NAY...Put the prime vicious Dempsey in the ring with any heavyweight before him or after him, and he will give ANYONE HELL. Peace...

Hardly analytic or critical. Aside from nostalgic claptrap, I see little to rate Dempsey as more than a barnstormer with a punch. Heavyweight boxing was born with Joe Louis.

[HOUDINI]

Originally Posted by Synthetic Decay

You can find literally thousands of quotes from figures in boxing extolling the virtues of any champion you care to name. It's much easier to assess the visual evidence and the resume or lack there of, than playing pick a quote.

WRONG! You dont read Arcel talking very highly of Sharkey, Baer, Schmeling as examples. You do read of him praising as all time greats Dempsey and Louis. One of boxings greatest trainers who saw Dempsey live from ringside. No one here, no one alive today can accurately assess Dempseys abilities and no one potentially ever to live could assess Dempseys abilities more so than one of boxings all time trainers. He was an expert, you are not. He saw Dempsey live from ringside you did not. If Ray Arcel says Dempsey was one of boxings all time greatest right up there with Louis its a statement that can be taken to the bank. Arcel choose his words very carefully and this level of praise from him needs to be looked at as the strongest evidence of Dempseys greatness as a fighter.

[Synthetic Decay]

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

WRONG! You dont read Arcel talking very highly of Sharkey, Baer, Schmeling as examples. You do read of him praising as all time greats Dempsey and Louis. One of boxings greatest trainers who saw Dempsey live from ringside. No one here, no one alive today can accurately assess Dempseys abilities and no one potentially ever to live could assess Dempseys abilities more so than one of boxings all time trainers. He was an expert, you are not. He saw Dempsey live from ringside you did not. If Ray Arcel says Dempsey was one of boxings all time greatest right up there with Louis its a statement that can be taken to the bank. Arcel choose his words very carefully and this level of praise from him needs to be looked at as the strongest evidence of Dempseys greatness as a fighter.

No, you as per usual have no idea what you are talking about, but then this is the same person that thought that heavies wore 8 oz gloves, or that getting hit with a 4 oz bag mitt from the 20's is the same as getting hit with 14 oz sparring gloves of modern construction. Zero first hand experience.

Ray Arcel was a good trainer and he is entitled to his opinion, but at the end of the day he was only a trainer and i don't attach any particular significance to what his opinions might be.

[Bummy Davis]

Originally Posted by Seamus

Absolutely agree about Foreman.

The difference between Ali and Dempsey is that Ali actually had a credible reign as heavyweight champion and as a contender after he was stripped and before he regained the championship. He did not avoid his two greatest challengers. He did not sit on the title. With Dempsey you get neither a great ascendancy to the throne nor a great reign. In fact, it is all a game of shadows and some myth making about a single day in Toledo. Where I come from we call that "All hat and no cattle."

Ali,Louis,Marciano all fought the best of their era's and it would be reaching to state otherwise...Dempsey fought the best of his motley era as did his predecessors (Johnson could have fought more blacks) As champ a fight with Wills would have been a good one in retrospect but there were factors outside of Dempsey that shot the match down, Greb would have created some interest but IMO Dempsey had the style to beat both men and have an easier time beating Wills....In comparison to Dempsey Holmes with his many avoidances and failure to unify with Tate,Dokes,Coeztee,Weaver,Thomas,Page and even gave up a Title($) not to fight Page and failure to rematch tough or controversial fights = Weaver,Norton,Witherspoon,Williams....IMO Holmes takes the cake,and although I think Holmes beats most of these guys I am not certain and I do think he would have lost to at least one of them because of style.

IF we look at Louis rematching the tough Godoy, Walcott,Schmeling,Conn,etc. and any tough fight and Marciano with Charles,Walcott,Lastarza, and Ali vs Norton and Frazier and think these greats set a fine example of how ATG Champions should conduct their business with rematches and being the sole Champion

I like your OHIO saying "All hat and no cattle", in NY we say "all flash and no cash"

[Synthetic Decay]

"All tits and no ass".

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by Bummy Davis

Ali,Louis,Marciano all fought the best of their era's and it would be reaching to state otherwise...Dempsey fought the best of his motley era as did his predecessors (Johnson could have fought more blacks) As champ a fight with Wills would have been a good one in retrospect but there were factors outside of Dempsey that shot the match down, Greb would have created some interest but IMO Dempsey had the style to beat both men and have an easier time beating Wills....In comparison to Dempsey Holmes with his many avoidances and failure to unify with Tate,Dokes,Coeztee,Weaver,Thomas,Page and even gave up a Title($) not to fight Page and failure to rematch tough or controversial fights = Weaver,Norton,Witherspoon,Williams....IMO Holmes takes the cake,and although I think Holmes beats most of these guys I am not certain and I do think he would have lost to at least one of them because of style.

IF we look at Louis rematching the tough Godoy, Walcott,Schmeling,Conn,etc. and any tough fight and Marciano with Charles,Walcott,Lastarza, and Ali vs Norton and Frazier and think these greats set a fine example of how ATG Champions should conduct their business with rematches and being the sole Champion

I like your OHIO saying "All hat and no cattle", in NY we say "all flash and no cash"

Good insight.

The more time goes by, the stronger the case becomes for Joe Louis being the greatest heavyweight champion to date. There ought to be a damn holiday in his honor.

[RockysSplitNose]

Originally Posted by Seamus

Absolutely agree about Foreman.

The difference between Ali and Dempsey is that Ali actually had a credible reign as heavyweight champion and as a contender after he was stripped and before he regained the championship. He did not avoid his two greatest challengers. He did not sit on the title. With Dempsey you get neither a great ascendancy to the throne nor a great reign. In fact, it is all a game of shadows and some myth making about a single day in Toledo. Where I come from we call that "All hat and no cattle."

Credible? Ali and Dempseys reigns were both credible?? Ali's initially winning the title is shrouded in confusion and doubt for me - not really convinced about anything about the Liston fights I'm afraid so if anything I'd say for definate that Dempseys win was without any doubt 100 times more emphatic - then I would say that in his prime years Dempsey never embarrassed the title by fighting anyone who was as big a joke as Brian London!! And Ali never met a pure boxer as good as Tommy Gibbons in his entire career that is for sure - and Dempsey decisioned him. Ali in his prime days should've fought Eddie Machen - I don't penalise him to the extent of lowering my ranking of him because my ranking of him is based on how good I think he is head to head and him having missed Machen is just circumstance - then when he came back he LOST to Frazier and then LOST to Norton so no 'credible' contenders hip there - yes then he did well to get back in frame with my 2nd favourite performance of his career beating norton in the rematch and then produced his most impressive win against Foreman - but then he just drifted back into defending against a shoddy bunch o challengers getting gift decisions against norton Shavers and Young and then losing embarrassingly to 7 fight novice Leon Spinks and the rest is history - whereas Dempsey only had the one reign but didn't lose until he was past it unlike Ali - Dempsey while peak every fight was a HUGE event and every opponent knew they were in real danger every second they were in there with Dempsey again unlike Ali's opponents - Dempsey never coasted to the point where he may have been being reliant on judges who were being impressed upon by the flash - Ali lost and lost again and had to rebuild each time to get back to where he wanted to be - Dempsey just exploded on the scene brutalised the reignin champ to take the title in vicious fashion and then reigned through a series of excited explosive contests and then became past it and lost - he then beat a future champ to earn a rematch and then did himself proud when past it already to come this close to stopping his young prime victor knocking him down for the only time in his career - Dempsey didn't embarrass himself and the title by allowing himself to get bet by a 7-fight novice that's for damn sure - there are pros and cons to boths reigns and careers but its all circumstance - fact is both amazed their generation and many generations following to the point where both were popularly considered to be the best heavyweight of all time going away and to be considered far and away the best heavyweight of all time (and by many the best P4P aswell), as Dempsey was, is not something that people just think of anyone without strong reason for doing so

[HOUDINI]

Arcel saw Dempsey from ringside...... did you? Arcel was one of boxings all time greatest trainers...are you? Rest my case. Your opinion is close to worthless and certainly does not override expert opinion from those with firsthand knowledge.

[Synthetic Decay]

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

Arcel saw Dempsey from ringside...... did you? Arcel was one of boxings all time greatest trainers...are you? Rest my case. Your opinion is close to worthless and certainly does not override expert opinion from those with firsthand knowledge.

No your opinion is worthless, you can't even educate yourself about basic aspects of the sport.

As said trainers opinions mean very little to me. It's not first hand knowledge, that would be actually fighting.

Even then there are scores of ex pro's from any given sport that completely contradict each other with their assertion's.


We will stick to records and visual evidence, it's by far the easiest.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by RockysSplitNose

Credible? Ali and Dempseys reigns were both credible?? Ali's initially winning the title is shrouded in confusion and doubt for me - not really convinced about anything about the Liston fights I'm afraid so if anything I'd say for definate that Dempseys win was without any doubt 100 times more emphatic

Except he should have been disqualified after the first round. Beating an active all time great in Liston is leagues above beating an old cowpoke who had fought once in 4 years. Still, I don't begrudge Dempsey the victory. He fought who he had to fight.

Originally Posted by RockysSplitNose

then I would say that in his prime years Dempsey never embarrassed the title by fighting anyone who was as big a joke as Brian London!!

Apparently you didn't read the list of no-hopers and has-beens that started this thread. I suggest you scroll back and refer to the initial post. Brian London would have been a beacon of excellence in that line-up.

Originally Posted by RockysSplitNose

And Ali never met a pure boxer as good as Tommy Gibbons in his entire career that is for sure - and Dempsey decisioned him. Ali in his prime days should've fought Eddie Machen - I don't penalise him to the extent of lowering my ranking of him because my ranking of him is based on how good I think he is head to head and him having missed Machen is just circumstance

When should he have fought Machen? Somewhere between Machen's losses to Terrell and Mildenberger? Or after his loss to world beater Ramos? That's not a stretch, that's just desperation.

Originally Posted by RockysSplitNose

- then when he came back he LOST to Frazier

Shame on him for fighting the best and most dangerous challenger available. Just like Jack Dem... oh, no. That's right.

Originally Posted by RockysSplitNose

Dempsey just exploded on the scene brutalised the reignin champ to take the title in vicious fashion and then reigned through a series of excited explosive contests and then became past it and lost -

Exciting, yes, but of substance, not really. Miske was a very sick man. Darcy a non-entity. To call Wills' victim Firpo crude is an insult to the word "crude". Carpentier was a walkover and every one knew the score. Gibbons, Darcy, Brennan and Miske were all victims to Greb's fists, but where was Greb on Dempsey's dance card? Had he too much in their sparring? And where was that man Wills', the only other all time great active and prime during Dempsey's reign?

A barnstormer with a punch who became the puppet of conmen.

[HOUDINI]

Ray Arcel and Jack Sharkey on Jack Dempsey:

Did Arcel dwell in the past as an older man? Well, he trained modern fighters like Roberto Duran and saw the vastly underrated Argentine master, Nicolino Locche, and couldn’t speak highly enough of those greats. In the brilliant wizard Locche, Arcel saw a man he described as being even cleverer than Willie Pep.

So how did the great Ray assess Dempsey and the other heavyweights? Mike Hunnicut interviewed Arcel at length on different occasions and picks up the story. “You have to understand,” Mike explains, “that guys like Arcel are very measured and understated in their descriptions of fighters. It takes a lot to impress them, because they get to see and handle so many quality operators. If they tell you a guy was ‘pretty good’, they usually mean ‘excellent’. They may also take some time to warm to you and therefore warm to the subject.

“Arcel was a very quiet and polite man by nature, unbelievably knowledgeable about the fight game, yet never one to brag about how much he knew.

“But when we went deep on Jack Dempsey, Ray’s eyes lit up. For him, there was no other fighter past or present who could compare.”

Arcel’s verdict on the Manassa Mauler was thus: “Dempsey would have absolutely beaten any fighter who came after him – without a doubt. I know all about Joe Louis and how he knocked guys’ teeth out. I have every respect for Joe – I rate him number two. But Dempsey would have killed Louis, George Foreman, any of those guys. What Jack had was God-given – you can’t develop the kind of talent he had.

“Marciano? Same result. Dempsey would have murdered Rocky. I tell you, Jack would have chased everyone out of the ring. I trained Max Baer a couple of times and often got asked how good that booming right of his was and whether it was as good as anything Dempsey had. Are you kidding? It wasn’t even close.

People always asked me what Jack’s weaknesses were. That’s the point – he didn’t have any.”

Former heavyweight champ Jack Sharkey expressed similar sentiments in a 1986 interview. “Jack Dempsey was the best because he was a real fighter, and if he hit you in the shoulder he could dislocate it.

“Ali was a real good boxer but he took too many punches in his training, which he didn’t have to take.

“Joe Louis was nothing sensational, being a methodical fighter, but he was a great finisher when he had his man in trouble.

“Rocky Marciano was very good and I almost put him up there with Dempsey. It would be a tough fight between those two but Dempsey, I’d say, was a better puncher.”

[HOUDINI]

All of Dempseys fights are silient film quality. Its like every 3rd frame is removed and they are grainy/not visually clear. Also add to this that all the films have been heavily edited over time. VERY tough to assess skills. This is why expert opinion/eye witness testimony from the experts from that time weighs heavily as it should. Otherwise you end up with revisionism....total distortion of the truth via looking back on history through todays eyes.

[RockysSplitNose]

Originally Posted by Seamus

Apparently you didn't read the list of no-hopers and has-beens that started this thread. I suggest you scroll back and refer to the initial post. Brian London would have been a beacon of excellence in that line-up.

Just based on this comment you are beyond help if you truly beleive that - Brian London was a joke - even in his home town he was the butt of everyone's jokes - trust me my grandad was from his home town - I guarantee you Brian London wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes with the average fighter on Dempseys record