What is the general consensus on Jack Dempsey in 1926-27?

I don't agree with that . he soundly defeated Brennan before by KO and had an off night .. I think he was no where near the 1920 version but worse is that he was an under achiever who never reached the top of his talent due to inactivity .. the man had a huge heart, killer instinct, stamina, KO power in both hands, a solid chin, terrific recuperative abilities, fast feet and extremely fast hands .. he became an exceptional superstar before he could even peak .. I've always said I think he proved more in the Sharkey and second Tunney fights than he did with any win ..

 

Why is it that Dempsey had an off night in 1920? Why couldnt it be that Brennan had an off night in 1918? Thats my problem with Dempsey, there are always a plethora of excuses for him. More than any fighter I can think of.

I dont think he proved much in either Sharkey or Tunney 2. If getting beaten resoundingly by Sharkey before fouling your way to victory and losing 9 of 10 rounds in lopsided fashion (and most of the 7th as well) proves more than his other fights then he didnt prove much at all in his career.

 

Ted Spoon gets it...The younger Dempsey had much, much better wheels. It's that simple.

 

Well Dempsey still flattened Brennan on Bills best night.

i've watched the Sharkey fight many times very carefully and it was a very competitive fight. The fact that he was fighting that well past his best againstvSharkey on possibly Jacks best night says a lot to me. As far as Tunney, I d nt see him lose no 19 of 20 lopsided. That to me is myth. TheN being the only guy to almost stop Tunney. Again, says a lot to me.

I'm not a guy claim a Dempsey was all that. I view him a myth in many ways but also a shame because he very well may have been the real goods. Well never know for sure.

 

From reading some of these comments one would think Dempsey and Tunney were separated in age by an entire generation.

Just to remind, the actual difference in age was less than 2 years.

 

It's often told of how Dempsey came up the hard way and was fighting just to live. After achieving the goal of the championship, he lived the good life. In living the good life and then having years out of the ring he lost his edge.

He would never be the same physically in 26-27. Along with the physical decline the 'eye of the tiger' was never the same. The edge just wasn't there, he no longer had to fight and win to stay alive.

In later years Tunney and Sharkey all spoke of Dempseys greatness in the ring. Tyson, was never the same fighter after he won his millions. He no longer was willing to put out the effort in the gym, that maintained that edge.

 

I would like to watch the entire film of the world heavyweight title bout between Jack Dempsey and Bill Brennan before deciding if Dempsey was far worse as a fighter six or seven years later. But I will say that Gene Tunney seemly hit Dempsey at will during every round of their first bout. Moreover, I was surprised that Tunney was so dominant in the bout despite the fact that I knew Tunney won in lopsided fashion.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Yes Dempsey was less "effective" against smaller guys who could move ,and Joe Louis was less "effective" against smaller guys as Bob Pastor, and Lee Ramage and Billy Conn, and Clay / Ali had trouble with a Doug Jones, a Ken Norton [several times], a Jimmy Young who could box
but conveniently you, to buttress your dislike for Jack Dempsey overlook "this elephant in the room fact"...Dempsey before his 3 year hiatus beat
a great defensive boxer in Tommy Gibbons by unanimous decision in a blazing afternoon sun in 15 rounds...Gibbons at his best would have done
quite nicely against Gene Tunney both in their primes....IMO. You nor I never saw the Dempsey who flattened Battling Levinsky, Carl Morris,
Fred Fulton, Gunboat Smith, Jess Willard [in regular speed] and others
when at his peak . The difference S between you and I is I believe what
expert and hardened boxers, writers and trainers wrote about his prowess
at his best, more than I do your opinion 90 years later, picking apart the
great Manassa Mauler....cheerio...

 

What rounds did you give Dempsey out of the two Tunney fights and the Sharkey fight?

 

You mean the Levinsky who had won 1 of his last three fights and went into the bout with Dempsey on almost no training in 3 months having been stuck working in the shipyards (you know, something Dempsey was lying about doing at the time)?

You mean the Carl Morris who made such a poor showing that the audience nearly rioted yelling "fix?"

You mean the Gunboat Smith who had only won 2 of his last 12 bouts or worse 5 of his last 22?

How about the Jess Willard who hadnt fought in over 3 years?? (which by the way I have seen in regular speed).

I love how the facts always get completely ignored when discussing the Dempsey narrative.

Eve your comment on the "blazing hot" day Dempsey fought Gibbons. In reality it was 84 degrees that day, yes the weather records survive for 1923. While warm 84 degrees is hardly blazing hot and many (myself included) would consider it a very comfortable July day.

The problem is that while you say that you believe experts of the past over experts of today what you really mean is you only believe those experts that conform to your opinion. Dempsey wasnt exactly universally acclaimed and indeed his reputation increased AFTER his career not during which he had numerous detractors. Even more ridiculous is your slavish devotion to these so called experts who in reality, given the travel constraints of the era and the relative lack of media, saw less of Dempsey than most of us today.

 

They basicaly were.

Two years apart in age, but fighters from tow completely different era's.

Either way, Mike Tyson was younger than Lennox Lewis, if you want to play that game.

 

Larry Gains sparred with Dempsey daily in the run up to the Sharkey fight. For the record he said Dempsey was "sheer murder" to spar with because it never occurred to him to pull a punch. Even when talking up George Godfrey Larry said of George "with the possible exception of Jack Dempsey he was the most dangerous fighter in the world".

 

I agree.:good

 

Jack Dempsey was as "universally acclaimed", during his prime years and after, as any heavyweight fighter who ever lived...There will always be nitpickers who will buck the trend and try to discredit a great fighter, who though not perfect STILL was the greatest crowd pleasing fighter in history
and a helluva fighter to boot...Either he was Svengali whose reputation
was earned by misdirection, or he at his best earned the plaudits of the
masses by his great offensive weapons and toughness in the ring...Did he have the opposition overall that Ali fought ? I think not, but he beat the men he fought usually by sensational kos and he was the most famous fighter of his times...

 

I agree.

Realistically, he was way off his best in both fights. He didn't do himself any favours with the long lay offs, he was on a decline ever since he won the title, due to the usual distractions.