Dempsey's greatness.

An older post of mine that I am reposting


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 heavyweights.

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 was 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. The hardest place fight is in the clinches. In the clinches, Dempsey was at home. In fact he 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 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. Meehan was a cheese type of fighter who moved, covered up and came back with slapping type of punches.

* 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 special 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.

 

WOW. Where to start? Arcel was one of the best trainers ever, and a very sharp man. His words carry a lot of weight.


Tubbs destroys Demspey? Doubtfull. Demspey wasn't a plodder, and would attack Tubbs. Tubbs could jab and move, but didn't have a lot of power, and did not like pressure. We saw how he folded vs. Tyson. Dempsey was just as agressive, a bit rangier, and had comparable power to Tyson.

 

As mentioned....go ahead and discount two of the greatest fighters and the greatest trainer ever to live...you still have a list a mile long of highly respected professionals that completely disagree with your absurd comments. These people all saw Dempsey in action live from ringside so they must have seen something you can't nor will ever see.

Oh by the way....Jimmy Deforest died penniless in October of 1932 several years before Louis turned pro.

 

Excellent post and analysis by Mendoza. I always felt that Dempsey was one of the champions from the first half of the last century who could do well against future titleholders based on the reasons Mendoza stated. His speed, power and mobility would be problematic for many future champions whether he wins against them or not. Fighting a prime Dempsey would not be a walk in the park for anyone.

 

H, you are NEVER to convert naysayers of Jack Dempsey...THEY 90 years later seem to believe that they know more than myriads of great boxers, trainers, and writer who saw the prime Jack Dempsey annihilate most everyone he fought with the exception of Tommy Gibbons, who was one of the best defensive fighters ever, who was NEVER KO'D in 105 fights until
Gene Tunney stopped the 34 year old Gibbons in Tommy's last bout...
So whatever a Max Schmeling who sparred with Dempsey in Germany
wrote about Dempsey, as" the best by far he ever saw", is not a better opinion than their "agenda", than I say they seem better suited to ther opinion than a Langford, Walker, Tunney, Sharkey, Schmeling, Ray Arcel,
Damon Runyan and other seasoned experts...Let the jury decide. H, cheers for a worthy battle against modern revisionism...:good:good:good

 

Great analysis, Mendoza.

 

Thanks. I have a few articles save on a boxing web site I had that is still up and running. Every now and then I re-post them.

 

My mistake, wrong trainer ... how's this ?

Former Jack Dempsey trainer Teddy Hayes describes how a Dempsey-Louis encounter would develop. Hayes was the trainer of Dempsey for eight years during the period when the Manassa Mauler pounded Fulton, Willard, Brennan, Carpentier, and Firpo.

Hayes declared, Jan 18, 1936 New York Amsterdam News, "Why Kearns and I would never have thought of matching Dempsey with a boxer. We kept putting him in there with those big, slow bums and Dempsey made us all look good. We didn't want any part of that Tommy Gibbons fight, but gave Jack his way. And what happened? The first time Dempsey met a good boxer he was shown up. You know how Gibbons cuffed him around at Shelby: That was the tip-off on Dempsey."

"Dempsey at his best wouldn't last four rounds with Joe Louis", insisted Hayes, "He'd let Dempsey force all the fighting and cut him to ribbons. He'd be stalking Dempsey from the opening bell, backing away, catching Dempsey's shots on his arms and elbows and waiting for the opening to put across that sleep producer."

Now in fairness, I don't know if they had a falling out so the same point holds, you do have to factor each of these quotes ..

 

He was certainly the best fighter of his era. I personally consider him an all-time great, but don't put him anywhere near the top spots.

 

Right..it was Hayes not any other trainer, sparring partner or fighter who saw Dempsey live and in person.

Obviously his comments were highly tainted. Dempsey cuffed Gibbons around not the other way around. in all the rounds I've seen of that bout and I've seen many there was not a single round where Gibbons did anything but cover up and take punishment. I don't think he won a round. At least none that I saw.

Anyone thinking that Louis would ko Dempsey or any other hwt I would have no argument with at all. Fleischer and others felt that Louis being an exceedingly slow starter off the blocks would be where Dempsey gets to him. I can certainly see Louis boxing and counterpunching and beating Dempsey by shear boxing talent and punching power when the moment was there for him.

Dempsey was one of boxings all time talents...right up there with Louis and Ali. Don't listen to me listen to all those that saw him live and in person.

 

Teddy Hayes had some kind of portfolio as a trainer. Among the legends he handled were Mickey Walker, Jack Johnson, Battling Nelson, Ad Wolgast, Joe Gans, Stanley Ketchel, Billy Papke, Tiger Flowers, Jack Britton, Benny Leonard, Freddie Welsh, Johnny Dundee, Pete Herman and Lou Brouillard.

Who did Hayes consider to be the greatest of them all? Jack Dempsey. As early as 1915, Hayes saw the enormous potential that was steadily taking shape. “Dempsey had meanness. He had heart. Anyone who knocked down Dempsey soon discovered they made a mistake. When Jack got up, that always meant his opponent’s doom. Whether he slipped or was hit, he would be up at the count of two with murder on his mind. He was the perfect fighting machine. There were times when he didn’t seem at all human.”

Dempsey, of course was moulded and fired in an astonishingly tough era that bred exceptionally tough men. The good old days? No, we wouldn’t want to see their like again. There were too many injustices, too many illnesses and most people didn’t live to a great age. It is simply a fact of life that hard times represent a fertile soil for producing fighting men. What greater motivation is there than to simply eat? Dempsey and many others knew what it was like to go without a meal.

In his later years, Jack could only guess at how many official and semi-official fights he had between 1911 and 1916. “The record books don’t contain them,” he said, “and I couldn’t name the number or identify all the faces today if my life depended on doing it. I’d guess a hundred. But that’s still a guess.”

Boxing historian Mike Hunnicut, who had many conversations with Teddy Hayes, points out: “Teddy wasn’t a ‘good old days’ guy. He was always looking to tomorrow and the betterment of boxing. But he quite rightly observed that the excellent athletes forged from hunger and poverty began to disappear when life got easier and television helped to kill off the thousands of fight clubs. There were suddenly fewer fights and fewer fighters. As a consequence, there weren’t nearly as many fighters who had that inherent anger and ferocity. Other sports became popular and young men didn’t have to box for a living.

“Going through my notes from my various chats with Teddy, he said that Dempsey was the most perfect puncher with the most perfect hands ever. He was a very fast, instinctive athlete, a great natural fighter with perfect co-ordination and timing.

“He could take a punch – a real punch – and not ever be aware he was hit. He was able to take fighters apart when he was out on his feet – as he was in the first Gunboat Smith fight – like no other fighter ever. His hands were not just huge, they were incredibly strong and the hardest fists Hayes had ever seen. Every fighter has trouble with his hands at some time or another. Dempsey didn’t. They were the perfect weapons.

“Jack Kearns knew Dempsey was a hell of a fighter. He was absolutely certain that nothing could stop Jack after seeing him rally from that big shot from the Gunboat. Kearns saw that there was no quit in Dempsey.

“Teddy Hayes saw these qualities in Dempsey before Kearns did after watching Jack knock out miners and the bully boys of the bar rooms.

 

Louis was a slow starter? He had more first round KO's in title defenses than Dempsey had title defenses. As far as the Gibbons bout, I agree it was one of Jack's best filmed fights but hardly an all time great performance against a 32 year old light heavyweight.

 

Louis, regardless of his early kos, was considered a slow starter off the blocks but the quickest to finish an opponent once he hurt them. Fleischer wrote about this extensively.

The point is Hayes stated that Dempsey was cuffed around by Gibbons....never happened.

 

You're a classic revisionist. Branding Louis a slow starter is hilarious. Love your post ... regardless of his early kos he was a slow starter. That's classic for sure. As far as the Gibbons point it's fairly obvious. Dempsey could not corner or seriously hurt let alone come close to stopping a decent boxer in Gibbons who made a very competitive fight despite giving up age, weight and size. In Dempsey's defense he was highly inactive coming into the fight but perhaps you can point out a Dempsey victory in which he dominates a boxer. Brennan made him look highly beatable. Sharkey did and Tunney did. It wasn't just that he was old against the last two but the fact that he really looks to have no clue in how to attempt to cut off a ring. To me it seems like in his prime he relied on natural ability opposed to learning aspects of the craft that would be exposed against the best of the best let alone talented bigger men with youth, size, speed and conditioning. I have always felt once Kearns entered the picture and later Rickard that a huge part of Dempsey's success and legacy was that he was possibly the best promoted fighter of all time. Well matched, huge PR payroll and charismatic. The ironic factor is that it ruined him as a fighter. He never reached his full potential. Many keep quoting all the praise heaped on him but I ask based on what fight? We have extensive footage of eight of his last nine bouts. Which one shows this all time great fighter? To me he looks possibly potentially like one in the Willard bout but he was facing a highly inactive 37 year old man. Competition has to count for something. Imagine if Mile Tyson fought that Willard?

 

Not a revisionist at all. I condemn what you are doing right now as complete and utter revisionism in it's worst form regarding Dempsey. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Louis being a slow starter is a fact...not revisionism. First it's well documented in Louis prime...do some research. Secondly look at the fighters who
Early on got to Louis....Both Baer brothers, Braddock, Galento, Walcott, Mauriello, Schmeling. Mauriello after he was stopped by Joe, after nearly flooring Louis driving him across the ring with a ring hand stated his plan was to jump on Louis early because Joe is a slow starter. This is no slight towards Louis as I've stated many times he was the most highly skilled hwt who ever lived. I rate him no 2 behind Ali but historical fact is a historical fact. This is one that's well documented.