Could Jack Dempsey Knock Out Sonny Liston?

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by spittle8

Maybe because.... white people played sports more back then? Lots have changed in sports. In some sports there is significant prejudice against white athletes, like in basketball and the skills positions in football. As Janitor already pointed out, the ghettoes were chock full of whites back then, which resulted in a greater number of white athletes with the necessary temperament. This isn't very hard to understand.

It's not like every major sport is played in a ghetto. And it's funny how the "lessened participation of whites" as you call it coincided with the lessening of segregation. In HW boxing the change is very aligned with Joe Louis getting broad popular acception as a black champion, and in baseball I wouldn't be surprised if you can note a change after Jackie Robinson broke the colour line. Isn't that a nice coincidence?

Changing socioeconomic conditions can probably explain a part as to why blacks came to totally dominate the HW division from about 1960 to 2000, but it cannot explain the very rapid change that happened in the 1940's. Before WW2 a grand total of three title shots at been given to black fighters (two on American soil). The same number of title shots black fighters got in the latter half of the 1940's alone. Black fighters who started out their careers before WWII.

This isn't really rocket science. America was a racist society and the opportunities for success was very limited for blacks in ANY field, in and out of sports, but boxing would be the sole exception you mean? When the statistics clearly show otherwise? No one of sound intellect can seriously believe this.

[round15]

Maybe if he used the same gloves that he used against Jess Willard?!

[Ted Spoon]

Of course Jack could knock 'Sonny' out. When you can slug like that it could be curtains at any time.

What a great fight it would be. Liston's heavy jab was one heck a tool, but one that Dempsey's sweeping head would likely escape most of the time. One of Dempsey's best talents, slipping and ducking straight shots, and that's where he weaved out and would come back with some hell. Would be very interesting to see how Liston handled it - a full swing would likely stagger the man whom is mostly thought to be the sturdier of the two.

Liston checked himself nicely with forearms and elbows in tight up close, which would be vital in absorbing the assaults and countering with short hooks. This would be a mid-range bombing session after Dempsey made a sucker out of the jab. Dempsey was easier to 'move', so to speak, but then he was so very quick and resilient - hurt him and he'd fire back with interest.

The way Ted Spoon looks at it, Dempsey is a roaring blaze so Liston will have to be the best damn fireman on the night. It would be very hard to set Dempsey up, or control him to any degree. The way Dempsey is going is if Liston keeps everything nice and tight and waits for Dempsey's style to fall over itself, leaving the chin out for too long.

If not, Liston is unable to time him for the hammers and Dempsey persistently finds the target when Liston feels more compelled to impose himself, walking into plenty.

Tyson would likely be in better stead to contend with Dempsey because he could cut out more favourable angles and could pull the trigger quicker. The manner in which Liston conducted himself; exclusive with the jab, fairly straight-up posture helps Dempsey work a groove into him.

[janitor]

[quote]
[quote=Bokaj;4377730]

Originally Posted by janitor

Willard didn't prove his chin against anyone even remotely close to Lewis in terms of power and precision.

I think it is debatable to what extent Vitally Klitschko proved his chin against Lewis.

He did get stopped inside a few rounds after all.

I don't think as highly of his power as you do.

Well he hit hard enough to break a fighters neck with a single uppercut.

Bull Young was about the samne size as Willard acording to some acounts incidentaly.

And his skills, as shown against Dempsey, are very unimpressive.

Perhaps if you viewed some of the time adjusted footage of the fight that has become available recently you would view it differently.

Either way you dont judge a fighters skills on a bout where he is blown out early. For example you would not asess Michael Spinks primarily on the Tyson fight. The Johnson Moran and Firpo fights would be a much better measure.

Nothing is dubios about that KO except for some unsubstianted rumblings

That is generaly accepted as grounds for a fight being dubious.

There is more evidence for Dempsey Flynn being not on the level than Clay Liston II.

In practicality you could say he was KO'd by Firpo as well.

On what basis?

[janitor]

[quote]
[quote=bokaj;4378384]

Originally Posted by janitor

to put it politely, this is bull.

To start with the fighters of the 40's and early 50's got into boxing before wwii. And even during the 40's and 50's guys like walcott and moore had a very hard way getting title shots, and burley etc didn't even get them. You think they would have these problems being white?

most of them would not have had these problems had they been white but these men could clearly make far more money boxing than they could doing anything else. They could also progres further in boxing than any other sport.

The reality is that although black fighters have always been able to climb to the top of the rankings the majority of the ranked fighters have been white in many eras.

Simply put most of the top contenders were white with some dramatic exceptions.

in the 20's there was a clearly stated colour line in the hw division, the us was a very racist society, which was mirrored in every major sport (basketball, baseball and football), but this somehow wouldn't be reflected in the hw rankings? Ridicolous.

again a black athlete would not have been able to make more money outside of boxing or progress further in any other sport.

If he was a heavyweight he would never fight for the title but he copuld make enough money to retire on.

If he was a welterweight he could get multiple title shots if he needed them.

There are reasons why black fighters did not come to dominate in the 20s and it is not just related to the colour line.

And if racism wasn't rife in sports, why was all the other major sports being totally dominated by whites, which they aren't today? Isn't it a pretty solid guess to say that boxing have had similar trajectory in racial terms to all other main american sports, or is it especially open minded?

Put it this way.

Baseball was desegregated in the late 40s.

George Dixon was Featherweight champion in the 19thy century.

[Bokaj]

[quote=janitor;4383647]

most of them would not have had these problems had they been white but these men could clearly make far more money boxing than they could doing anything else. They could also progres further in boxing than any other sport.

The reality is that although black fighters have always been able to climb to the top of the rankings the majority of the ranked fighters have been white in many eras.

Simply put most of the top contenders were white with some dramatic exceptions.

Don't really know what you want to say here. Sure, it was not impossible for a black fighter to climb the rankings, but he'd would have an easier time if he was white. And getting a title shot was virtually impossible for a black fighter for a long time. The playing field was not level. The difficulties extremely talented black fighters encountered even decades after Dempsey is one testament to this.

again a black athlete would not have been able to make more money outside of boxing or progress further in any other sport.

If he was a heavyweight he would never fight for the title but he copuld make enough money to retire on.

If he was a welterweight he could get multiple title shots if he needed them.

Perhaps other sports were even more segragated, but it doesn't mean that boxing wasn't. It was.

There are reasons why black fighters did not come to dominate in the 20s and it is not just related to the colour line.

It was very much down to the colour line, which is shown by how very quickly things changed when the colour line started to dissipate. But I don't say the colour line was the only factor - reality is often more complex than that. But, again, it was a very important one.

Put it this way.

Baseball was desegregated in the late 40s.

George Dixon was Featherweight champion in the 19thy century.

Again, perhaps baseball was even more segregated, but it doesn't mean boxing wasn't.

There was after all a clearly stated colour line. And blacks started to become much more prominent in the rankings and getting many more title shots in a very short when this line started to dissipate.

Again: Black HWs had gotten a grand total of three title shots before WWII, and they got as many in the latter half of the 40's alone. Actually, if we (with a bit of speculation) use Louis' destruction of Schemling as the point where he, as the first black champion, got almost universal acceptance, then blacks had gotten only two title shots before that point, but got four in the following decade.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by janitor

I think it is debatable to what extent Vitally Klitschko proved his chin against Lewis.

He did get stopped inside a few rounds after all.

Yeah, by a cut. He took some hellacious shots without going down.

Willard was also KO'd by Firpo, and stopped by Joe Cox. And in general he met men far smaller than Vitaly's opponents. If Vitaly mostly had proved his chin against LHWs, no one would be that impressed.

Well he hit hard enough to break a fighters neck with a single uppercut.

Bull Young was about the samne size as Willard acording to some acounts incidentaly.

Yeah, that says something.

Perhaps if you viewed some of the time adjusted footage of the fight that has become available recently you would view it differently.

Either way you dont judge a fighters skills on a bout where he is blown out early. For example you would not asess Michael Spinks primarily on the Tyson fight. The Johnson Moran and Firpo fights would be a much better measure.

You have a point here. But Willard didn't have that many victories over really good opposition. He has his win over a shot Johnson, but other than that Gunboat Smith should be his best opponent (after Dempsey), and he lost to him.

It should also be noted that Willard was almost 38 and had been inactive for 3 years when facing Dempsey. He probably was, by any reckoning, quite close to being shot.

That is generaly accepted as grounds for a fight being dubious.

Not by me. Certainly not when it concerns someone so shrouded in legend as Dempsey. It's telling that there are two different excuses for this loss: Dempsey not eating nor preparing properly, and him throwing the fight. This doesn't have the feel of seriousness. Certainly not when neither claim is backed up by ringside reports.

There is more evidence for Dempsey Flynn being not on the level than Clay Liston II.

I think Ali-Liston II gets dismissed as a fix a little to easily, but I still disagree here. The immediate reaction from many at ringside was to scream "fix", and even Ali screamed for Liston to get up. The footage of Liston rolling around on the canvas is not convincing either.

When it comes to Dempsey-Flynn the ringside reports show none of this. Two articles actually reports that Dempsey is gone for a minute and then is so confused and groggy that he tries to slug his handlers when they help him to his feet.

I think that Willard's victory over Johnson is more suspect if anything.

On what basis?

On the basis that he was hepled back into the ring illegaly. If he hadn't been it may very well have been KO, and as it was it should possibly be a DQ.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

Don't really know what you want to say here. Sure, it was not impossible for a black fighter to climb the rankings, but he'd would have an easier time if he was white. And getting a title shot was virtually impossible for a black fighter for a long time. The playing field was not level. The difficulties extremely talented black fighters encountered even decades after Dempsey is one testament to this.

I can certainly understand why you have issues with the social circumstances of this period.

I personaly did not become obsessed with Peter Jackson, George Dixon and Barbados Joe Walcott by watching their career boxed sets or knockout reels on youtube.

I do however think thatthe proportion of black fighters in the sport at the time broadly reflected the level of talent. Bobby Dobb is an all time great lightweight and he is not discussed on this site but he was part of the piucture.

Perhaps other sports were even more segragated, but it doesn't mean that boxing wasn't. It was.

I don't want to defend the way that black fighters of that era were treated on any level. But I have to say that virtualy all black contenders managed to establish a big money fight with a top white contender or indeed a top black contender.

Therfore the number of black fighters in the sport broadly reflected the talent pool.

It was very much down to the colour line, which is shown by how very quickly things changed when the colour line started to dissipate. But I don't say the colour line was the only factor - reality is often more complex than that. But, again, it was a very important one.

Nothing I can disagree with here.

I think that some eras were wrecked by the colour line and that the 20s wasnt one of them.

Compare the 20s to the Jack Johnson era or even the Louis era and you will see that the number of quality black contenders was in a bit of a dip.

Again: Black HWs had gotten a grand total of three title shots before WWII, and they got as many in the latter half of the 40's alone. Actually, if we (with a bit of speculation) use Louis' destruction of Schemling as the point where he, as the first black champion, got almost universal acceptance, then blacks had gotten only two title shots before that point, but got four in the following decade.

Compare the rankings before Louis went into the army to the rankings after Louis came out of the army.

Socio economic factors pushed the jewish/irish/ italian comunity away from boxing.

There was a sharp rise in living standards in the post war era and I think that black America got a small slice of it.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by janitor

I can certainly understand why you have issues with the social circumstances of this period.

I personaly did not become obsessed with Peter Jackson, George Dixon and Barbados Joe Walcott by watching their career boxed sets or knockout reels on youtube.

I do however think thatthe proportion of black fighters in the sport at the time broadly reflected the level of talent. Bobby Dobb is an all time great lightweight and he is not discussed on this site but he was part of the piucture.

I don't want to defend the way that black fighters of that era were treated on any level. But I have to say that virtualy all black contenders managed to establish a big money fight with a top white contender or indeed a top black contender.

Therfore the number of black fighters in the sport broadly reflected the talent pool.

But there's so much we don't know. How many didn't even get to a contender level because of the conditions of the time? How many Walcotts were there who never got that second chance? We can never know for sure, but we can say with near certainity that white fighters in general had an easier time getting the right manager, the right fights, the right conditions for training and preparation etc than blacks. We know that the playing field wasn't level and this should in all likelihood have been reflected in the rankings.

Nothing I can disagree with here.

I think that some eras were wrecked by the colour line and that the 20s wasnt one of them.

Compare the 20s to the Jack Johnson era or even the Louis era and you will see that the number of quality black contenders was in a bit of a dip.

Well, was it? Louis was more or less the only elite black fighter of the 30's (and perhaps John Henry Lewis should get a mention). The 20's had both Wills and Godfrey. Sure, in the period 1905-1915 there seem to have been a surge in black talent (Johnson, Langford, McVey etc), but in the preceeding generation there was only Peter Jackson more or less. At HW that is.

Anyhow, my point that the playing field wasn't level still stands.

EDIT: In the late 40's you have all of a sudden (besides Joe Louis) guys like Bivins, Murray, Ray, Franklin, Bobo and of course Walcott and Charles. For me that's because of the colour line dissipating since they all started out before the end of the war more or less (see below).

Compare the rankings before Louis went into the army to the rankings after Louis came out of the army.

Socio economic factors pushed the jewish/irish/ italian comunity away from boxing.

There was a sharp rise in living standards in the post war era and I think that black America got a small slice of it.

Since almost all of the fighters active in the 40's and many of those active in the early 50's had started out in boxing before this rise in living standards, I don't think it had had that impact by then. Rather the change was a reflection of how Louis had increased the acceptance of black fighters on an elite level. I also think that the horrors of WWII had made outright discrimation that much more untenable. Jackie Robinson broke the colour barrier in baseball in 1947.

However, I do think that the changing socio-economic conditions was part of the reason as to why the sport started being totally dominated by blacks (and then also hispanics in the lower divisions) from the late 50's, early 60's onwards. It was a mix of both IMO.

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by Ted Spoon

The way Ted Spoon looks at it, Dempsey is a roaring blaze so Liston will have to be the best damn fireman on the night.

Someone make the appropriate pun here. I'm not gonna do it.

[spittle8]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

It's not like every major sport is played in a ghetto. And it's funny how the "lessened participation of whites" as you call it coincided with the lessening of segregation. In HW boxing the change is very aligned with Joe Louis getting broad popular acception as a black champion, and in baseball I wouldn't be surprised if you can note a change after Jackie Robinson broke the colour line. Isn't that a nice coincidence?

Changing socioeconomic conditions can probably explain a part as to why blacks came to totally dominate the HW division from about 1960 to 2000, but it cannot explain the very rapid change that happened in the 1940's. Before WW2 a grand total of three title shots at been given to black fighters (two on American soil). The same number of title shots black fighters got in the latter half of the 1940's alone. Black fighters who started out their careers before WWII.

This isn't really rocket science. America was a racist society and the opportunities for success was very limited for blacks in ANY field, in and out of sports, but boxing would be the sole exception you mean? When the statistics clearly show otherwise? No one of sound intellect can seriously believe this.

Let me break this bitch down for you.

Blacks don't even account for 9% of MLB players today. Are they inferior baseball players? No. But they don't fucking play baseball. Not many white people play basketball. I've lived in a Navy town, I've lived in Texas and I've lived in Detroit... you know the difference between white and black basketball players? Aggression. Blacks play ball HARD from childhood, and it develops into a more competitive style. But no, it's genetics...

You know what's interesting? Right around the time that segregation fell, whites left the ghettos. Where I live today, 50 years ago this was a 100% Polish-German neighborhood. Crime was nonexistent, but income was similar to where it is today. Employment was very high and people worked hard for very little. Today, half the neighborhood is on welfare, it's ~90% black and crime is very, very high. White people bettered themselves and left the ghetto. My Uncle was a walkon for the Detroit Tigers, and he never played organized baseball in his life. He played stickball in the streets and baseball with some neighborhood kids when he could, but he was good enough to get a MiLB contract which he turned down. His son skates. Could this be.... a social trend? No, that's dumb...

You're so hungup on racism you can't see the forest for the trees. Are you an American, Bokaj? If not, then please STFU.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by spittle8

Let me break this bitch down for you.

Blacks don't even account for 9% of MLB players today. Are they inferior baseball players? No. But they don't fucking play baseball. Not many white people play basketball. I've lived in a Navy town, I've lived in Texas and I've lived in Detroit... you know the difference between white and black basketball players? Aggression. Blacks play ball HARD from childhood, and it develops into a more competitive style. But no, it's genetics...

You know what's interesting? Right around the time that segregation fell, whites left the ghettos. Where I live today, 50 years ago this was a 100% Polish-German neighborhood. Crime was nonexistent, but income was similar to where it is today. Employment was very high and people worked hard for very little. Today, half the neighborhood is on welfare, it's ~90% black and crime is very, very high. White people bettered themselves and left the ghetto. My Uncle was a walkon for the Detroit Tigers, and he never played organized baseball in his life. He played stickball in the streets and baseball with some neighborhood kids when he could, but he was good enough to get a MiLB contract which he turned down. His son skates. Could this be.... a social trend? No, that's dumb...

You're so hungup on racism you can't see the forest for the trees. Are you an American, Bokaj? If not, then please STFU.

I've adressed this several times, so I'm not going to do it again at any length. In short, I agree that social economic factors played a part, but it changed too quickly (over just a couple of years) for them to explain far from all of it. It's all in my previous posts. Try to read them through for once.

No, I'm not American, but what does that matter? None of us was around in the 20's, American or not, (hell, were you even around in the 80's?), so we can only go by secondary sources anyway. That can be done either side of the Atlantic.

As I said, everything is in my previous posts. I've said my piece, so if you're going to go on rambling, you're on your own.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

But there's so much we don't know. How many didn't even get to a contender level because of the conditions of the time? How many Walcotts were there who never got that second chance? We can never know for sure, but we can say with near certainity that white fighters in general had an easier time getting the right manager, the right fights, the right conditions for training and preparation etc than blacks. We know that the playing field wasn't level and this should in all likelihood have been reflected in the rankings.

Well, was it? Louis was more or less the only elite black fighter of the 30's (and perhaps John Henry Lewis should get a mention). The 20's had both Wills and Godfrey. Sure, in the period 1905-1915 there seem to have been a surge in black talent (Johnson, Langford, McVey etc), but in the preceeding generation there was only Peter Jackson more or less. At HW that is.

Anyhow, my point that the playing field wasn't level still stands.

EDIT: In the late 40's you have all of a sudden (besides Joe Louis) guys like Bivins, Murray, Ray, Franklin, Bobo and of course Walcott and Charles. For me that's because of the colour line dissipating since they all started out before the end of the war more or less (see below).

You have rather made my point for me here.

There was a surge in black talent in the 40s which you atribute to the colour line disipating but then you also have a surge in talenta decade before Dempseys era when the situation for black fighters was even worse.

Dosn't this simply suggest that there were less talented black fighters in Dempsey's era than in the teens before and the 40s after?

Of course you will always get the exception that proves the rule e.g. Harry Wills but the fact is that a great fighter can spring up from any ethnic group or nationality at any time however well or poorly represented it is in the sport. I do not expect that Barbados will produce another pound for pound great but of course it produced Joe Walcott.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by janitor

There was a surge in black talent in the 40s which you atribute to the colour line disipating but then you also have a surge in talenta decade before Dempseys era when the situation for black fighters was even worse.

But what you call "the talent surge in the late 40's" was there to stay, which implies it was more than simply a talent surge. That's the difference. And to explain away that with that the socio-economic shift then took over, is making it a bit simple for oneself considering that we know there was open discrimination and racism in boxing and in society in general.

Even though I respect you and always enjoy discussing with you (FAR more than with the ocassional stray from General) I really feel I've made my point here. We all know that there was a colour line in Dempsey's time and that even extremely talented black fighters (Walcott, Moore, Williams, Burley etc) had trouble getting the right management and the right fights as late as 20 years later. So saying that the playing field wasn't level during Dempsey's era and that this fact had an effect on the competition is for me such a given that it's kind of a waste time arguing about it for too long.

So this is what I'll say about the subject, and then everyone else can make up their own minds.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

But what you call "the talent surge in the late 40's" was there to stay, which implies it was more than simply a talent surge. That's the difference. And to explain away that with that the socio-economic shift then took over, is making it a bit simple for oneself considering that we know there was open discrimination and racism in boxing and in society in general.

Even though I respect you and always enjoy discussing with you (FAR more than with the ocassional stray from General) I really feel I've made my point here. We all know that there was a colour line in Dempsey's time and that even extremely talented black fighters (Walcott, Moore, Williams, Burley etc) had trouble getting the right management and the right fights as late as 20 years later. So saying that the playing field wasn't level during Dempsey's era and that this fact had an effect on the competition is for me such a given that it's kind of a waste time arguing about it for too long.

So this is what I'll say about the subject, and then everyone else can make up their own minds.

Fair call.

I am not saying that you are way out of line here with what you are saying and you always make good points.

One point that I should make is that the black dynamite era before Dempsey was one of the richest eras of black talent that we have ever seen. Whether we are talking about the Jack Johnsons and Sam Langfors of the heavyweight divison, the Jeff Clarks of the middleweight division, The Joe Walcotts and Dixie Kids of th welterweight division or the Joe Gans's Jack Blackburns, Dave Holly's and Bobby Dobbs's of the lightweight division, there was all time great talent at every level.

I don't think that there was that kind of talent in the black divisons of Dempseys era.