90 years ago today, Dempsey vs Carpentier!

Because he was fighting an overrated, predictable, and protected 168 pounder?

 

So he beat what was quite literally a Super Middleweight who fought exclusively in Europe...whilst ducking another Middleweight who was whooping all his title contenders, and ducked black fighters, namely his no.1 contender of 7 years.

And that to you is the glorious pinnacle of the Heavyweight division of which today's Heavyweight division doesnt even come close?

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4lIclazPYw&playnext=1&list=PLB3C32EBC901D24A1[/ame]

Dempsey came out pretty evil in the first round (36:25); I think he let up after that, then really started breaking down Carpentier again in the latter stages of the third round.

 

Thanks for that upload. :good

 

Not to mention he got wobbled pretty good in the second round by that 168 pounder. God forbid a legit, all time great, hard hitting hw land that same punch or this guy who can compete against any HW before or since (who ducked his best competition) might be in serious trouble of denting his reputation (which wasnt exactly earned by sharpening his tools against the best....)

 

Joe Louis was wobbled by Billy Conn, who was the same weight as Carpentier and didn't even punch as hard.
It doesn't mean they won't stand up against bigger, harder puncher men .... and anyway they both did.

 

How do you know he didnt punch as hard? He was certainly a damn sight better than Carpentier.

 

I don't believe he punched as hard. But maybe he did. Carpentier had the better reputation as a puncher, but maybe it was all bull****.

Anyway, if Conn did punch as hard, it didn't help him against Louis any more than Carpentier's brief stunning of Dempsey helped him.
Ultimately they were both crushed.

That would explain why he gave Louis a more competitive fight than Carpentier gave Dempsey.

 

Well there is no deneying the historical importance of this fight.

This fight, perhaps more than any, built boxing into a multi million pound industry. It was also the first fight of the television age to generate interest in both North America and Europe. Withgout this fight there might never have been a Max Schmeling for example.

 

Television age ?

 

Inapropriate choice of words.

I mean in the age when fights were filmed.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4lIclazPYw[/ame]

Round 1
Angle 1 36:29 -- 38:18
Angle 2 38:22 -- 40:47

Angle 2's a bit more complete; from the timings, looks like the film's projected a bit fast.
-------------
round 2
Angle 1 41:20- 43:50
Angle 2 43.51 - 46:21

OK, this I can make sense of .... looks like the fights projection's sped up (2:30 rounds, rather like the Kid Chocolate - Tony Canzoneri youtubes). (I say THE PROJECTION's sped up -- as silent films, there was no need for them to go a standardized be in sync with sound; it's really the projectionists responsibility to come up with the correct projection rate).

Dempsey belted at 42:27; I dunno, looking at his footwork at 42:33 -- that sure doesn't seem to me the footwork of a seriosuly stunned or wobbled fighter. A stung fighter, I'll grant, and physically rocked onto his heels; but not significantly impaired from a psychomotoric standpoint.


Actually, I think towards the end of this round Jack was starting to look to administer the KO drops; I think that's why in the last minute he's getting a bit less body work done. (His body work was still pretty good in the earlier parts of the round, and still getting in shots after Carpentier rocked him.
_____

Round 3

Angle 1 46.43 -- 49:18
Angle 2: 46:19 -- 51:50

Jack is punching more from mid range, looking for a KO; but he still is getting in good body shots when they close. Dempsey's more upright in this fight than in some other fights; I wonder if he felt quicker on his feet that way? Maybe he was willing to conceed some defense for speed, not thinking Carpentier could hurt him? Jack's easier to hit at mid-range, though he's able to roll some with the punches.

---------

Round 4

Mixed Angles 1 52:12-55:23

 

[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Century-Dempsey-Carpentier-Promotion/dp/0313382441/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310900480&sr=1-2"]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Century-Dempsey-Carpentier-Promotion/dp/0313382441/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310900480&sr=1-2[/ame]

This content is protected

Ridiculous price though

 

If ypu want to read a definitive and true account of the Dempsey / Carpentier fight,take hold of a new book "At The Fights" by Kimball@ Schulian. Great read !
Two great American journalists who were at that fight Irvin SW Cobb, and H.L. Mencken
Write their conclusions of that fight.
1-Carpentier never had a chance to win
2- Carpentier who had flattened Billy Wells, Joe Beckett. Battling Levinsky,was a great
right-handed puncher solely and a dead game fighter.
3-Dempsey was ,well Jack Dempsey, tigerish fast, and a relentlessly cruel inside puncher
who methodically tore Carpentier's body apart. Very heavy handed.
4-My take of the fight is that Carpentier had one of the most lethal right hands in history
but Billy Conn was a better all around fighter than Georges Carpentier.
5- Jack Dempsey of this fight ,because of his great speed, kos Billy Conn,in 5-8 rounds...

 

Bert, the article by Mencken was very interesting .. a first hand account of Dempsey at that point in time ... way before he became a legend ... a terrific read ...