I see how FAIR you are in evaluating Dempsey, saying he was a close second to Firpo in skill...On the freakin basis of Dempsey flying out of his corner of the opening bell and being tagged by a Firpo right. So on one moment in this fight you judge a great offensive fighter that was skilled enough to easily whip a master boxer like Tommy Gibbons in 15 rounds in a hot Shelby sun...Have you watched the second round of the Firpo bout where Dempsey whips over a one-two on the button so FAST that Firpo was rendered unconscious...The best and most potent left -right with blurring speed I have ever seen on film...Watch this film it might change your obvious bias....If it dosn't try Freud...atsch
Burt, I love your stuff on here. I truly do. But you have never understood a single post I have made. Peace.
Peace you shall have. But pray tell me but WHAT am I missing in your posts ?. My deceased wife was a professional comedian and I more than held my own in subtle humor and wittiness. Are all your posts a put on not to be taken seriously ?. If so I can adjust...But I love the history of boxing seeing my first bouts as a youngster in the 1940s, and not to appreciate the brave men of the ring whom I idolized by trivializing their efforts, to me is blasphemy...But peace nevertheless...:hi:
Dempsey was a beast. It's a shame that the era he fought in denied Wills his rightful opportunity to contend for the title. As years pass it seems this fight or lack there of, is coming to define Dempsey's legacy to the newer generations of boxing fans as opposed to the accomplishments he did achieve. Dempsey had fantastic foot speed in his prime just watch the Willard fight or the sparring session with Bill Tate. Inactivity robbed Jack of his legs, he's a virtual mummy by the time the Tunney fight arrives. Yet he still has enough to be the only man to floor Tunney in the rematch. Jack destroyed Willard, Firpo, Carpentier and even the leg shot older version had enough to defeat prime Sharkey and perhaps Tunney if not for a long count. Dempsey was a gladiator few who saw him would ever underestimate him the way he is today.
How the hell do we end up arguing about Dempsey, in a thread about Jeffries? I am prety sure they never fought!
History just bumped it up to 100lbs because it sounds more dramatic. 80lbs is the accepted number of weight Jeffries shed. He was perhaps half the fighter he once was on that fateful day in Reno. He got in great condition (for his age) but you could also see he looked pretty worn for a chap in his mid-thirties. More importantly there were many layers of technical rust that a couple of tune-up's may have removed. Though older, I've heard the argument that Holmes was better in '92 than '88 due to activity levels.
Stopped reading the article when it said.... "John L. Sullivan save for his title losing fight against Jim Corbett fought as a bare knuckler." As far as I know, that's complete nonsense. Sullivan fought with gloves extensively. Also, I'm not sure I even agree with the value of "dominant champions" versus "non-dominant". Often, when one fighter is able to dominate and reign for a while, it takes a weakness in the opposition to pull it off. Of course this is hard to measure, but generally accepted as part of the equation.
He wasn't as far gone as Jackson,who had no business near a ring and hadn't been in one for many years.
Well that is your opinion and, if there was an iota of worth in it I would give it due consideration.:yep
Its in either his first auto biography or the one he wrote with his Wife.I can't check it at the minute as my library is in storage due to decorating. I know he described the tumble out of the ring as having," torn my backside open". OUCH! He gave judge Kid McPartland a black eye whilst he was out of the ring ,kicking and struggling to right himself . Jack Lawrence one of the journalists ringside described Dempsey as being in an absolute fury. "Get me back in there , I'll kill that SOB".
All very interesting and true but ... no one knows what the Miske fight proved as his condition was questionable, Carpentier is on no ones list of even top ten light heavyweights, he was in a life and death struggle against Brennan, no one's top fifty heavyweight, he looked decent but not all time great against Gibbons and he was dropped three times against Firpo, a fight that legitimately brings the question on how he'd do against bigger, highly skilled fighters with his near kamikaze style of balls to the wall when hit .. ducking Wills, far and away the best "other" fighter of his era hurt as well .. to me it's really the same old story on Dempsey .. putting aside the legend, he is an unknown commodity as to how great he was or might have been because what he proved in the ring and against who leaves a lot of speculation ..
Well, we all have our favourites,and those we aren't so keen on. Live and let live. "And who was wrong? And who was right ? It didn't matter in the thick of the fights" Billy Joel.
What we do know about Miske is his subsequent resume. Twenty four fights over the next three years and only one defeat.
You see, you put words in my mouth and lie. I don't think Jackson was at his best. SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT LIAR. I did say Jackson was in shape, and his people said his form was good. Papers says this. Furthermore Jackson was lively in round one. The fight changed when Jackson could not take Jeffries hook. Stamina or lack there of had little to do with the result. I think Johnson meet the worst version of Jeffries, when he was at his best. The fight if you watch the films was close at times until the later rounds when Jeffries tired. If it were six rounds, you could score a draw as Jeffries was the more active in the first four rounds, and drew first blood.