How was Jack Dempsey

He backs it up with factual statements. ...


"By no means do I mean to overglorify him or above all the first half of this century of boxing.
But the fact is that our fights back then were definitely much tougher, much more brutal.
I was still boxing with only four- and five-ounce gloves, and after two rounds they were mostly already torn apart, with only a few patches of tough leather covering my knuckles. The punches were extremely painful.
Back then, there were also only eight weight categories, in which there was, logically, only a single world champion.
It was extremely difficult to box your way to the top."



.... all of his claims here are mostly true and wholly logical.
This is a man who walked the walk.
And he's not "just another guy claiming things were better in his day."
He's Max Schmeling, talking about his experiences in the ring.
That interests me.

He's certainly not saying everything was better. He does add his voice to the vast majority that know that having forty or fifty or more "world champions" rather than less than a dozen devalues boxing's place among sports.

 

No one here has recounted their experiences of fighting with four- and five-ounce gloves, or sparring with Jack Dempsey, etc.

Which to me is more interesting than all the other posts in this thread -so far - and the majority on this forum, ever.

And I've read that passage from Max Schmeling at least twice before, so it's not even that I'm claiming anything new has arisen or we should all sit up and take notice. I'm just saying it's more interesting.

I'm not sure what insight or enlightenment Seamus or yourself are expecting/looking for. It's all relative after all.

 

And their value still outweighs that of a classic forum post in a Jack Dempsey thread, which have been de-valued to less than nothing.

Is there anything janitor has said on this thread that he (and others) hasn't said numerous times before ?
That's a serious question, and no knock on janitor, who talks sense.

Besides, most of the stuff janitor and everyone else says on that era is gleaned from sources of that era, such as Schmeling et al.

Anyway, all I can say is what interests me. :good

 

Yeah, it's true we've heard it all before and Max Schmeling's statements are by no means unique and are 'unoriginal' or whatever .... but even so, they are more valuable and more interesting than what McGrain, Legend X, Seamus and janitor have to say. Certainly on this thread, and generally for the most.

I can't comment on those things because I don't know what they are.
But I'd be surprised if janitor has said something valuable or interesting that is not based on what others have said.

I tend to get a kick out of the original sources (from the guys who did it) even in the most raw crudest form.
Like an alcholic tramp swigging white spirit.

Maybe you could include some of it in an interesting post or article sometime. It might be a challenge.

 

Hard to argue with this.

 

Mc, if it is factually correct as you state, WHAT is the problem ? What Schmeling wrote in his bio IS insightful for the plain fact that he was in the ring with Dempsey,with Max Baer, with Joe Louis and his experience alone should be of value when he gives his considered opinion...And of course what Schmeling said echo's the opinion of many posters, myself included, for we are all,including you, Seamus and myself, products of what we have read, prior to our own opinions...Either Dempsey is the stiff as an overated
fighter as many posters today regard him, or he was the great heavyweight
that a Langford, Tunney, Walker, Sharkey, Max Schmeling called the best heavyweight that they ever saw at his best...One or the other, and I stick with the latter opinion Mc...Cheers.

 

Why can't he be somewhere in between Burt? Why does it have to be extremes?

He doesn't have the ring record to back up the hype. Do you agree with this?

He doesn't have the defences or 'achievements' a top tier heavyweight champion should have. Do you agree with this?

He failed to meet the two outstanding contenders of his era. Do you agree with this?


These are facts (well, the last one is, the first two can be argued, weakly), so why can't you base a ranking on these facts, rather than clutching at straws and basing your opinions around skewed quotes which are made by fallible persons (peers, people with vested interests, people with generational bias, people who got caught up in the hype)?

He was an exciting fighter who gave the division a kick and inspired future generations of attacking heavyweights who put on a show. The evidence of his supposed greatness is sorely lacking, and in any other field, the ranking of him based on hearsay and 'what ifs' would be laughed at when there are far more deserving fighters who at least look as good as he does in the film available.

You have your favourites, like we all do, but at the end of the day, your rankings are heavily dependant on opinions which is a glaring weakness in my opinion.

 

Dempsey was the greatest up until his time and until Joe Louis, IMO he had the style to beat Wills and although Langford would have been a rugged go I think Sam's style would play into Jacks hands. As far as Tunney and the Sharkey fights, Jack's inactivity and rust were apparent but he caught up to Sharkey and in the Tunney fight he showed a marvelous long count travesty...Tunney was a great fighter with some of the best legs and hands North of Louisville but IMO Dempsey finishes him had he been an active focused fighter.

With killer instinct bar none, fast hands and power, Jack Dempsey would be a force to recon with for anyone...He was a Tyson before his time, Big difference difference is Jack proved he could get off the floor to win, Mike Tyson never did.

Also I hear a lot of chatter that the big men that Jack beat were not so good, well guys like Firpo and Willard may have been a lot better than some of the fighters that Tyson beat.
I picture Dempsey in with the Bowe that Golota fought 2X or even the Bowe that fought Holyfield and there may have been a murder in the ring. Bowe got hit too much to get hit by Dempsey that much

 

^^^ Johnson was the best HW until Louis is how that should read imo

 

true, but those are two of his best wins...compare each fighters top 10 wins and tyson has a clear lead imo