Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-30-2007, 10:42 AM   #1
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,235
vCash: 1000
Default Why Jack Dempsey should be hightly rated

While it’s true Dempsey lacks a win over another all time great heavyweight, and he has some shady outcomes in some of his most famous matches, I believe he has done enough to rank as a top all time 10 heavyweight.

Here’s why I beleive Dempsey should be highly rated:

*Power. Dempsey was a true two fisted puncher, with knockout power in both the cross and the hook. Many punchers only have fight ending power in one hand. With Dempsey, once he landed his best, the other guy often went down quickly, and shortly after that was O-U-T. Dempsey was not an attrition type of puncher like Marciano or Frazier were in most cases. Dempsey carried his power well into the later rounds too.

*Size and Style. Dempsey was an aggressive swarmer / stalker type who excelled as both an out fighter, and an in-fighter. He worked the head and the body equally well and could string together combinations. At 6’1 1/2”, and 77” of reach, Dempsey was by no means a short or limited reach type of fighter. While a prime Dempsey weighed about 188 pounds in the 1920’s, he had no trouble knocking out modern sized heavyweights, and some of them had top chins. Dempsey had the frame to properly carry about 205-210 pounds.

*Speed, reflexes, and agility. Dempsey had excellent hand speed, good reflexes, and unusually quick feet in comparison to all great heavyweights. He could move forward, backwards, or in a circular motion to get angles on others fighter. Most punchers just aren’t this fast with their hands or their feet, nor can they circle or get angles then attack the way Dempsey could. Dempsey has a speed advantage over most sluggers, a reach and height advantage over most swarmers, and the footwork speed to catch up to the deluxe boxer types. When you combine this with his power and aggressive nature, you have a unique type of fighter.

*Chin. Dempsey has one KO loss in 83 fights. This is very good. Dempsey fought a few good punchers. He survived a chin checking shot vs Fripo, and a pasting from Jack Sharkey. Dempsey was not a chinny puncher at all.

*Heart and will to win. Dempsey proved he had a ton of heart in the Fripo match, and would do what it took to win. In the clinches, Dempsey was pure hell.

* Stamina. A prime Dempsey had true 15 round stamina.

* Defense. Dempsey had a very good slip and duck type of defense, which can be seen on film. Most swarmer types who prefer to attack do not have this good of a defense.

* Ring record. 66-6-11 at Box rec. The losses to Tunney were vs another all time great when Dempsey was past his best. One of those losses to Tunney is marred by “ the long count “, which might have been a KO win for Dempsey if there was no problem with the count. Besides the Tunney losses, Dempsey lost to Flynn. The Flynn loss was was avenged via KO. Dempsey never lost a match scheduled for 6 rounds or more. Had the Meehan fights been 10 round affairs, Dempsey likely wins via TKO late.

* Quality wins. Dempsey holds wins over Fripo, Willard, J. Sharkey, Gibbons, Carpentier, Brennan, Miske, Gunboat Smith, Morris, Levinsky, Fulton, and Pelky. Dempsey owns a KO win over all these ranked fighters, except for Gibbons who ran for 15 rounds.

*Historical opinions. Dempsey is a highly rated fighter to this day. Boxing historians, mangers, referees, promoters, fighters, and fans who saw Dempsey rated him in the top 3 in the 1940’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s and 1970’s. In 2007 the IBRO, a group of boxing historians gave Dempsey their #4 spot in the top 20 among heavyweights. While I think these rating might be a trifle high, they do speak volumes about opinions on Dempsey in multiple decades.

*Film. There is no doubt Dempsey had some speical performances on film in the ring, and in sparring session that live up to his legendary status. Not all old timers perform on film as good as their legend suggests they should have. While the film quality on Dempsey isn’t smooth or crystal clear, we can get a good feel for what he was about.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-30-2007, 10:45 AM   #2
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,119
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Jack Dempsey should be hightly rated

Good post mate. Nice to see someone giving some easy to follow non emotional facts on this one. Excellent work squire

JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 10:48 AM   #3
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,235
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Jack Dempsey should be hightly rated

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1
Good post mate. Nice to see someone giving some easy to follow non emotional facts on this one. Excellent work squire

I rate Dempsey about 7th or 8th. Had he fought and beaten Wills, OR had the count been normal and Dmepsey beaten Tunney, I would move Dempsey up a few spots.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 10:50 AM   #4
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,119
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Jack Dempsey should be hightly rated

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
I rate Dempsey about 7th or 8th. Had he fought and beaten Wills, OR had the count been normal and Dmepsey beaten Tunney, I would move Dempsey up a few spots.
Fair call mate. I at present am not sure he will quite make my 10. I think he will end up sitting between 12 and 15.
JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 10:57 AM   #5
Pete47
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 112
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Jack Dempsey should be hightly rated

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
I rate Dempsey about 7th or 8th. Had he fought and beaten Wills, OR had the count been normal and Dmepsey beaten Tunney, I would move Dempsey up a few spots.
Yes, I agree with You, Mendoza. Dempsey was a great fighter and he contributed much to make boxing very popular in the golden twenties.
Pete47 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 11:00 AM   #6
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,249
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Jack Dempsey should be hightly rated

I like that post Mendoza, but all of these things are relative. It's possible for a person (me) to admire a fighter like Dempsey and still have him outside of their top 10 becuase of how they regard other great fighters.

The difference between 10 and 11 is not big enough that it can ever really be said of a guy approaching the bottom end of a list "he should be in the top 10". 10 is just a number after all.
McGrain is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 11:02 AM   #7
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Jack Dempsey should be hightly rated

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
I rate Dempsey about 7th or 8th. Had he fought and beaten Wills, OR had the count been normal and Dmepsey beaten Tunney, I would move Dempsey up a few spots.
Your initital post was solidly argued. It will be interesting to see the rebuttals, if any.

One thing I would question--I think Tunney would have beaten the count. Also, there are those, and Tunney was the most prominent among them, who thought Dempsey got the benefit of a long count when he was knocked out of the ring by Firpo. There is no way of judging that off the existing film, which is spliced.

I personally think Dempsey is a very strong top ten candidate, but it is a stretch to put him in the top five. Ali, Louis, Marciano, Lewis, and Holmes get my top five positions.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 11:02 AM   #8
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,119
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Jack Dempsey should be hightly rated

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain
I like that post Mendoza, but all of these things are relative. It's possible for a person (me) to admire a fighter like Dempsey and still have him outside of their top 10 becuase of how they regard other great fighters.

The difference between 10 and 11 is not big enough that it can ever really be said of a guy approaching the bottom end of a list "he should be in the top 10". 10 is just a number after all.
He did only say "highly" tho. He said he himself believes he has done enough for the 10. Kudo's to you tho for ranking outside the box.
JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 11:04 AM   #9
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,249
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Jack Dempsey should be hightly rated

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
I believe he has done enough to rank as a top all time 10 heavyweight.

.
This is the line I was referring to JT.

I have Dempsey at 11, between Foreman (12) and Holmes (10)
McGrain is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 11:07 AM   #10
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,235
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Jack Dempsey should be hightly rated

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain
I like that post Mendoza, but all of these things are relative. It's possible for a person (me) to admire a fighter like Dempsey and still have him outside of their top 10 becuase of how they regard other great fighters.

The difference between 10 and 11 is not big enough that it can ever really be said of a guy approaching the bottom end of a list "he should be in the top 10". 10 is just a number after all.
Agreed. There is not much difference between my #7 fighter and my #11 fighter. Much of it is based on a subjective opinion of the given data, with tendencies, strengths, and weaknesses mix into the equations.

My point of this thread was to make a case as to why Dempsey should be considered as a top 10 fighter. I can live with Dempsey as low as say, top 15-20 as long as the person is fair minded explanation.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 11:12 AM   #11
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,235
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Jack Dempsey should be hightly rated

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
Your initital post was solidly argued. It will be interesting to see the rebuttals, if any.

One thing I would question--I think Tunney would have beaten the count. Also, there are those, and Tunney was the most prominent among them, who thought Dempsey got the benefit of a long count when he was knocked out of the ring by Firpo. There is no way of judging that off the existing film, which is spliced.

I personally think Dempsey is a very strong top ten candidate, but it is a stretch to put him in the top five. Ali, Louis, Marciano, Lewis, and Holmes get my top five positions.
In boxing, a fighter " come to " and regain his senses in a matter of seconds. On film, it looks like Tunney " came too " and was ready to get up count of 4-5 ( which was more like 8-9 seconds in the long count ). The question is this. Did the few extra seconds give Tunney the additional time he needed to regains his senses and legs. I lean towards NO, Tunney would have got up A-OK with a normal count, but we can't know for sure.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 11:12 AM   #12
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,119
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Jack Dempsey should be hightly rated

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain
This is the line I was referring to JT.

I have Dempsey at 11, between Foreman (12) and Holmes (10)
You simply have to get Foreman back to 11!!! He beat an actaul great in Frazier via decimation, decimated a Norton not toooo far outside the 10 and won the title back at a ridiculous age in his 40's. George is the man.
JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 11:15 AM   #13
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,249
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Jack Dempsey should be hightly rated

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1
You simply have to get Foreman back to 11!!! He beat an actaul great in Frazier via decimation, decimated a Norton not toooo far outside the 10 and won the title back at a ridiculous age in his 40's. George is the man.
He's hugely flawed. I think that Foreman is slow enough that he could be outpunched, and certainly we've seen he could be outthought. I think there is little doubt he could be outboxed.

Foreman is great, but to be clear, he's a sort of "gatekeeper" type to me, which is to say that all those who are ranked above him represent the absolute cream.

The fact that I have Marciano at 13 is the REAL headache.

I'm almost alone in the world (apart from I Am Legend) in picking Tyson to beat Foreman, too.
McGrain is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 11:17 AM   #14
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,119
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Jack Dempsey should be hightly rated

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain
He's hugely flawed. I think that Foreman is slow enough that he could be outpunched, and certainly we've seen he could be outthought. I think there is little doubt he could be outboxed.

Foreman is great, but to be clear, he's a sort of "gatekeeper" type to me, which is to say that all those who are ranked above him represent the absolute cream.

The fact that I have Marciano at 13 is the REAL headache.

I'm almost alone in the world (apart from I Am Legend) in picking Tyson to beat Foreman, too.
Foreman would utterly cream Dempsey if we speak head to head. Marciano needs to be higher, the man was never beaten. Took on pretty much all comers too. He's got to be ahead of Dempsey for sure and probably Foreman too. When i complete my 10 Rocky will surely be top 7 or 8, possibly even down to 5.
JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 11:19 AM   #15
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Jack Dempsey should be hightly rated

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
In boxing, a fighter " come to " and regain his senses in a matter of seconds. On film, it looks like Tunney " came too " and was ready to get up count of 4-5 ( which was more like 8-9 seconds in the long count ). The question is this. Did the few extra seconds give Tunney the additional time he needed to regains his senses and legs. I lean towards NO, Tunney would have got up A-OK with a normal count, but we can't know for sure.
Agreed.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013