Dempsey's vaunted run to the Title

[lufcrazy]

And what is with all the hate towards Seamus? He's posted facts in order to generate a debate about one of boxing's classic heroes. Is that not the purpose of this forum?

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Tbh it's a pretty good run to the title and not really worse than many of his peers. It was top class match making that led to the huge hype surrounding him. He justified that hype by destroying Flynn in the rematch and destroying highly ranked contenders like Brennan, levinsky and Fulton and then going on to destroy the champion who had a reputation for being durable if nothing else.

This pre title run isn't anything to be criticised really, it was a mixture of great matchmaking against faded name opponents and Dempsey maintaining his destructive shows of dominance when he stepped up in class.

The thing to be held against Dempsey is his failure to fight wills and Greb, instead retiring to Hollywood. Personally it might have been a good choice as he was able to make risk free money and get laid with many a beauty, but boxing wise it leaves him open to criticism.

Especially because these are two guys who aren't filmed so we can't even analyse how a fight might have gone between these two. Langford seemed confident Jack would win but without seeing Wills or Greb myself I can't share that confidence.

Back to the thread though, his pre title run isn't what I'd call particularly great but it is devastating and justified his status as top contender.

good, objective post but top contender status, both of dempsey and the men he beat, is only as good as the fighters themselves are. fulton was ok but tony thompson was a top contender to wlad and richard hall was a top contender to roy jones. the status doesn't mean much unless you beat the best and quality fighters to earn it.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by Synthetic Decay

I'm guessing not that well.

agreed. BUT put tyson in the roaring 20s, with only newspapers and accounts of his most famous exploits and have descriptions of the legends he beat (marvis frazier was 12 feet tall and made of iron) passed down the generations and watch his legend grow!

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

good, objective post but top contender status, both of dempsey and the men he beat, is only as good as the fighters themselves are. fulton was ok but tony thompson was a top contender to wlad and richard hall was a top contender to roy jones. the status doesn't mean much unless you beat the best and quality fighters to earn it.

Of course being the top contender is a relative status, but it is the goal of any pre title run and Dempsey did achieve that goal in a way that say him pick up a lot of hype. as I say there isn't really much to criticise for me.

Foe instance some of the best pre title runs in hw history are Lewis, Louis, Johnson and Liston.

Are any of those significantly better than Dempsey's?

I think Lewis has perhaps the best pre title (up until the unification fight with holyfield) run in history.

Johnson has a great resume with hindsight in terms of name but plenty of those names were far from peak so i wouldn't say that's much better.

Louis beat up former champs in devastating fashion plus a lot of faded contenders is his run much better?

Liston gets massive praise for his pre title run, and does that rank significantly higher than Dempsey's?

If you take out the filler fights he still has dominations over Levinsky, Morris, Fulton, Flynn, Brennan and a points victory over Miske. That's a fair share of the best contenders and solidified his position as best contender which, as i said earlier, is the point of any pre title run.

[LittleRed]

Dempsey! Dempsey! Dempsey!

[RockysSplitNose]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Of course being the top contender is a relative status, but it is the goal of any pre title run and Dempsey did achieve that goal in a way that say him pick up a lot of hype. as I say there isn't really much to criticise for me.

Foe instance some of the best pre title runs in hw history are Lewis, Louis, Johnson and Liston.

Are any of those significantly better than Dempsey's?

I think Lewis has perhaps the best pre title (up until the unification fight with holyfield) run in history.

Johnson has a great resume with hindsight in terms of name but plenty of those names were far from peak so i wouldn't say that's much better.

Louis beat up former champs in devastating fashion plus a lot of faded contenders is his run much better?

Liston gets massive praise for his pre title run, and does that rank significantly higher than Dempsey's?

If you take out the filler fights he still has dominations over Levinsky, Morris, Fulton, Flynn, Brennan and a points victory over Miske. That's a fair share of the best contenders and solidified his position as best contender which, as i said earlier, is the point of any pre title run.

Were you even around in Lewis' fighting days?? Lewis' pre-title run?? Up to Holyfield!!!???? Hahaha that wasn't pre-title!?? Hahahaha Holy was virtually at the end of his career - Infact I would say Lewis was past his prime by Holy hahahaha Lewis pre-title run ended with Razor Ruddock??

[prime]

Dempsey's legacy--as a fighter--is secure.

Revisionists will never be satisfied, revisionism is endless fun, but--unless we throw out several generations' opinion--it will never prevail.

The three solid legs on this stool:

a) the consensus of the generations from 1919 to well past 1950: fighters, trainers, writers, fans, by and large pointed to Jack Dempsey as the greatest fighter ever witnessed, pound for pound. Disregard of this is dangerous: it is to ignore history, plain and simple.

b) the endorsement of Sam Langford, just three years removed from Toledo: "Well if he (Harry Wills) ever fights Dempsey, my money will be on the present champion. Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen. He hits twice as hard as Jim Jeffries and is as fast in the ring as James J. Corbett."

c) the available film. Making the effort to get past the jerky sepia, Dempsey's speed, movement, punching form, one-punch power and savageness are there. His little-man-sicced-on-a-big-man destruction of the iron-chinned Wlllard, which started with a one-punch perfect left-hook knockdown is amazing. The Firpo fight shows a champion, outweighed by over 25 pounds, going to war against a powerful puncher, surmounting an out-of-the-ring knockdown, to prevail by clean 2nd-round kayo.

In the end, only the truly great win over the non-fans. In my time, young Mike Tyson and Manny Pacquiao won over the mainstream, where others didn't. And rightfully so. Greatness always begets legend. Blind men extolling the virtues of the great Jack Dempsey is merely a tribute. No blind men will ever wax poetic about Lennox Lewis. Rightfully so.

Greatness is a rare thing, and no amount of revisionism will touch it.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by RockysSplitNose

Were you even around in Lewis' fighting days?? Lewis' pre-title run?? Up to Holyfield!!!???? Hahaha that wasn't pre-title!?? Hahahaha Holy was virtually at the end of his career - Infact I would say Lewis was past his prime by Holy hahahaha Lewis pre-title run ended with Razor Ruddock??

Yeah I was actually I remember back then when boxing was still a mainstream sport. I'd be discussing the big fights in class at school. Good times.

If we're comparing cross era I can't in good conscience class alpha belts the same as undisputed championships. Holy was the number 1 hw in the world after his destructions of Tyson and moorer. So until Lewis beat him I see it as pre title.

[RockysSplitNose]

Yeah but Bowe was undisputed champ after dethroning Holyfield - but then he refused to fight Lewis and forfeited the belt to Lewis rather than face him so that's the point Lewis takes up the belt?? Or did I miss something? Lewis then lost the title to Oliver McCall - who in turn lost it to Frank Bruno who then got smashed to defeat and dethroned by the returning Mike Tyson and the rest is history

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by RockysSplitNose

Yeah but Bowe was undisputed champ after dethroning Holyfield - but then he refused to fight Lewis and forfeited the belt to Lewis rather than face him so that's the point Lewis takes up the belt?? Or did I miss something? Lewis then lost the title to Oliver McCall - who in turn lost it to Frank Bruno who then got smashed to defeat and dethroned by the returning Mike Tyson and the rest is history

Bowe never seemed scared of Lewis but his management did. I do think a fight would have happened though had Lewis not lost.

Either way Lewis didn't gain recognition as a true champion until the Holy fight. Same way Johnson didnt gain recognition as true champ until the Burns fight.

[ETM]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Bowe never seemed scared of Lewis but his management did. I do think a fight would have happened though had Lewis not lost.

I do think Bowe had a little fear in him of Lewis just enough that he wouldve trained his ass off had they fought. Agree that his management sabotaged his career to a certained degree.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by ETM

I do think Bowe had a little fear in him of Lewis just enough that he wouldve trained his ass off had they fought. Agree that his management sabotaged his career to a certained degree.

Yeah I agree there. I don't think Bowe ran from the fight, just that his management steered him away from it. The fight would have come off eventually had Lewis bit lost and I think Bowe would have done him at that point.

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by prime

Dempsey's legacy--as a fighter--is secure.

Revisionists will never be satisfied, revisionism is endless fun, but--unless we throw out several generations' opinion--it will never prevail.

The three solid legs on this stool:

a) the consensus of the generations from 1919 to well past 1950: fighters, trainers, writers, fans, by and large pointed to Jack Dempsey as the greatest fighter ever witnessed, pound for pound. Disregard of this is dangerous: it is to ignore history, plain and simple.

b) the endorsement of Sam Langford, just three years removed from Toledo: "Well if he (Harry Wills) ever fights Dempsey, my money will be on the present champion. Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen. He hits twice as hard as Jim Jeffries and is as fast in the ring as James J. Corbett."

c) the available film. Making the effort to get past the jerky sepia, Dempsey's speed, movement, punching form, one-punch power and savageness are there. His little-man-sicced-on-a-big-man destruction of the iron-chinned Wlllard, which started with a one-punch perfect left-hook knockdown is amazing. The Firpo fight shows a champion, outweighed by over 25 pounds, going to war against a powerful puncher, surmounting an out-of-the-ring knockdown, to prevail by clean 2nd-round kayo.

In the end, only the truly great win over the non-fans. In my time, young Mike Tyson and Manny Pacquiao won over the mainstream, where others didn't. And rightfully so. Greatness always begets legend. Blind men extolling the virtues of the great Jack Dempsey is merely a tribute. No blind men will ever wax poetic about Lennox Lewis. Rightfully so.

Greatness is a rare thing, and no amount of revisionism will touch it.

Bravo Prime, as you stated, Dempsey's place is cemented in history by
all of his generation up to Ray Arcel. His likes we will never see again..

[janitor]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Yes. And 2-0 when Greb and Levinsky were both trying to make fights with Jack.

But this isn't strictly the case though is it.

Some people thought Levinsky beat Greb.

Dempsey's early destruction of Levinsky, would certainly have looked a lot better than a debatable decision win.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by prime

Dempsey's legacy--as a fighter--is secure.

Revisionists will never be satisfied, revisionism is endless fun, but--unless we throw out several generations' opinion--it will never prevail.

So, we should throw out any new information we have regarding, say, the Colonization of Africa, the taming of the American West or the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson? Should we just stick to the texts and narratives that immediately followed these historical phenomena? I'm a big fan of Roman History. Should I just stick to Polybius and Livy and forget the following 2 millennia of research, interpretation and analysis?

Originally Posted by prime

The three solid legs on this stool:

a) the consensus of the generations from 1919 to well past 1950: fighters, trainers, writers, fans, by and large pointed to Jack Dempsey as the greatest fighter ever witnessed, pound for pound. Disregard of this is dangerous: it is to ignore history, plain and simple.

So, all evaluation of the heavyweight division stops in 1950? 60+ more years of perspective, unearthing of interviews and biographical information, of deconstructing the myths and chicanery perpetuated by Rickard and Kearns, and most importantly of seeing the modernization of the division that followed served to moderate Dempsey's legacy. He was a heavyweight in only the third decade of the sport in any manner of which we know it. He was the first superstar, followed an international massacre spree and came to prominence during an incredible expansion of media and time of affluence. It was a perfect storm to magnify his talents and abilities. People wanted his product and for the first time were able to receive it via radio, via incredibly large gates and an expansion of the press. 60 more years of persecutive is exactly what was needed to put him in his proper historical context.

Originally Posted by prime

b) the endorsement of Sam Langford, just three years removed from Toledo: "Well if he (Harry Wills) ever fights Dempsey, my money will be on the present champion. Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen. He hits twice as hard as Jim Jeffries and is as fast in the ring as James J. Corbett."

Sam was generous to many white fighters in his estimation. Look, no one is saying Dempsey was a bum. He could punch, he was fast and explosive and aggressive However, he was also reckless, at times undisciplined, ducked the best competition and rested on his laurels for very long stretches.

Originally Posted by prime

c) the available film. Making the effort to get past the jerky sepia, Dempsey's speed, movement, punching form, one-punch power and savageness are there. His little-man-sicced-on-a-big-man destruction of the iron-chinned Wlllard, which started with a one-punch perfect left-hook knockdown is amazing. The Firpo fight shows a champion, outweighed by over 25 pounds, going to war against a powerful puncher, surmounting an out-of-the-ring knockdown, to prevail by clean 2nd-round kayo.

The iron-chinned Willard had fought once in four years, had no semblance of footwork or defense, yet still absorbed a frightful amount of punches from Dempsey. Firpo, a classic Rickard hype-job with that "Wild Bull of the Pampas" was unskilled, relatively untested lug with no science. The fact that Dempsey allowed himself to go life and death with this guy is no kind of endorsement. Again, Dempsey had power and that, along with some press row help back into the ring, saved his title.