Even if you love Dempsey, it is time for a generation to accept -

I am not sure Jack had a sort of charisma, he sounds like a right boring bastiche every time I seen or read about him. What he does have is a white face, which fits the racist view of what charisma is in some eyes.

 

The made to order claim,,spoken as if there is a shrewd of proof, is crap. Just because he was bigger than Dempsey did not make a Wills a Willard or Firpo. Pure crap. They never fought what would have been a huge money fight because Rickard andvKearns knew he as way to dangerous and hungry for an inactive champion.

 

:huh

What have you read that suggests that he lacked charisma?

 

Dempsey biggest crime like many of his predecessors was inactivity taking 3 years off, Carpentier was on a 25 fight win streak minus a disputed 15 rd decision loss in 1914 to Joe Jennette (who was fighting competitively with the likes of Langford W12 and D10,Sam McVey D10, Harry Wills D10 X2) in that time frame

Firpo had KO Brennan in 12,KO'd Willard 8 and TKO Charlie Weineirt

and coming back after 3 yrs off fought Gene Tunney who gave Greb a 1925 beating, stopped Gibbons and beat Johnny Risko and Tunney supposedly won 8 rds of the 12 against Greb in the 1923 fight, the 1924 fight was called very close D

Dempsey only fought 6 times from Willard 1919 to 1923 (only fought once in 1921 and did not fight in 1922) and then took off 3 years so I think that is his biggest crime but let us remember he was a Big Super star at the time, 1st million dollar gate, show Biz. and Rickard guiding him

1922 -1923 would have been a good year to fight Harry Wills but by 1926 when Dempsey returned it was over for Wills with getting battered by Jack Sharkey and then beaten P UZ and who fought the winner of Sharkey-Wills non other than Jack Dempsey who KO7 Sharkey


Greb would have been a good fight but Tunney was the better choice in 1923 and was also in 1926 when Dempsey returned

I do agree that Greb would have been a tougher fight for Dempsey than Gibbons (who beat Miske) but Greb was also very busy during those years fighting Tunney,Loughran,Norfolk and losing a few from 1923 on (when Dempsey was inactive

I dont think JD was afraid of anyone and he fought the man who beat Greb and then Wills on his return and did fairly well against the men who beat Wills and Greb but by then he payed the price of inactivity

 

Pretty had to debate that .. Solid ...

 

The ironic thing about comparing these two guys is that both Langford and Wills were considered to be past their respective primes in 1918 and 1924. Indeed, Langford was 12 years Dempsey's senior and had to be somewhat shopworn (but still great) by 1918, as can be substantiated by evidence of Sam's rapidly deteriorating eyesight. Despite being 12 years older, shopworn, smaller, and being nearly legally blind, the grifter Doc Kearns STILL turned Langford down in 1918. He said something to him like: "Sam, we need someone easier than you." Dempsey was only a year away from beating Willard for the title at that point. Doc Kearns, for what its worth, was a known degenerate who chased underage girls at a famous swim club in New York City. I believe Dempsey had already severed ties with him by the time he was arrested for those sordid charges.

As for Wills, he was six years older than Dempsey. Also, he was considered to be past his best in 1924 when for some mysterious reason the fight was scrapped by either Kearns or Tex Richard. I think by that time dempsey was making silly movies in Hollywood and married to an actress named Estel taylor, who unbeknownst to Jack at the time, had slept her way into a middling career in Hollywood as an actress. Dempsey was more interested in the movie business and 'dames' than he was in the rigors of boxing by 1924.

What would have happened in these fights is anyone's guess. My inkling is Langford's style could have poison for Dempsey to deal with. Langford was a feared man and Dempsey even admitted he was not eager for that tussle. As for Wills, it is a shame for him because fighting Dempsey would have meant a huge purse as well as a great chance to annex the title. America was too racist then to allow another white icon to be usurped possibly by a black contender. The public was still reeling from Jefferies being played with and humiliated by Lil' Arthur (Jack Johnson) or the Galeveston Giant in 1910.

 

Good, solid, honest post.

 

In 1918 Dempsey knocked out Fred Fulton in less than 25 seconds. Fulton had given Langford a pretty nasty beating the previous year. So, if Kearns said that in 1918, it has to be noted that they did in fact take on Fulton, a higher-rated fighter with a convincing win over Langford.

I agree, Langford might well have flattened Dempsey. Even past his prime, perhaps.

 

In 1918 Langford lost for the second time to Fulton, he had been beaten up by him a year earlier and quit with his eyes badly damaged.
Five months before beating Langford the second time, Fulton was kod in 23 seconds by Dempsey.
What was there for Dempsey to gain in taking on Langford at that point?

Dempsey said he turned down a fight with Langford in 1916 when he was managed by the flesh pedlar John Reisler.

By 1918 he would have been too much for a, "past his sell by date" Langford.
Langford had 13 fights in1918,he won six of them.
I have 3 books on Dempsey, none mention Kearns being arrested on *** charges.
Will you produce a primary source to back up your allegation please?

 

With some unsubstantaited allegations in it.

 

Thanks then I stand corrected then. It was 1916 not 1918 which would indeed make a big difference. In 1916, Dempsey was just a 21-year old pup who would have "fed to wolves" so to speak by being thrown in with the wily old ring veteran Langford.

Jack may have suffered the kind of defeat that ruins a young, up and coming fighter. Or then again, potentially being school by Sam would have made Dempsey better in the long run. Or maybe he would have even won who knows? I think he may have been able battle Langford to a standstill in 1916, which would have been a boon to an already confident young Dempsey.

The Fulton annihilation in 1918 was huge for Dempsey. Not only had he wiped out a fine heavyweight, but also a giant of a man who had defeated the great albeit almost blind, past his prime, and much smaller Langford. This nullified the necessity, as another poster pointed out, the need for Dempsey to give Sam his shot in 1918 or after he beat Willard the following year. By 1919, Dempsey was at his ferocious best and Langford was clearly past it so by then he would have been a prohibited favorite anyway. I'm sure Langford would still have been delighted though to get a shot at Dempsey who obviously was now the heavyweight champ. Dempsey was the more famous fighter with the casual fan or layman. Langford was clearly the greater fighter with a resume' that drawfs Dempsey's.

 

They called him Which?:think

 

Fulton was very highly regarded going into the Dempsey fight, indeed some people saw him as something of an uncrowned champion. When Dempsey annihilated him in 23 seconds, people were like "where the hell did that come from".

 

Dempsey was beaten by John Lester Johnson in1916, I think Sam might have had too much ammo left in his gun for Jack at that stage.

No doubt Langford would have jumped at the chance to fight Dempsey for the title, I think it is a kindness to his memory that he didn't get that chance from1919 onwards.

Langford never earned a fortune from boxing,his biggest purse was against Iron Hague in Covent Garden in1909, $10,000. Woodman, his manager bet the purse on Sam to win so they did ok.
I think Langford's biggest purse in the US was about $3000
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...sLs0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=8oQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5771,160257
Clay Moyle is the man to ask for any additional info, better yet buy his book.

As to who was the greater fighter p4p? Langford .
Greater heavyweight ? I'll go for Dempsey.

 

No need to apologise ,you Foreigner.