"Swifter than the chair, quicker than the hempen noose. Only the guillotine can match him as a killer. The chair takes four minutes to finish a man, the noose longer. Even lightning must bow to Louis, because it only strikes once. He struck a dozen times. Each blow took its toll, and the toll was a heavy one. The final one sent Schmeling pitching forward on his face. His only sign of life, as the referee counted over him, was a twitching of his feet. Schmeling's defeat was not something one would like to see again. The utter disintegration of an athlete is painful to watch, even when it takes years. Schmeling's disintegration, from a superb physical specimen to a helpless, hopeless, bleeding object required just two minutes and four seconds. One moment the spotlights picked him out and accentuated the brightness of his eyes, the rhythm of his muscles, the eager life of him. In little more time than a breath is held, those same spotlights picked him out - picked him out on the floor, and not standing up. He lay sprawled face down. His arms dangled. He quivered as a beaten, hurt body quivers. One moment a sculptor's model, the next something that had to be carried away." Henry McLemore (penned after the second Schmeling fight)
Wonderful. However if this had been written about Dempsey many on here would be calling this discription an exaggeration by a fanboy writer.
Because Dempsey didnt really give a performance matching Louis' that deserves a writeup like this Schmelling knocked him out previously and was a very good fighter, Louis dominated him and blasted him out in 1 Alot talk about Dempseys performance against Willard, but Willard was 3 years out and Dempsey stopped him in 3 with Willard retiring in his corner His fights with Miske were hardly awe inspiring enough for a writeup like this and in their last where he KOd him he had Brights disease Brennan was hardly a great heavyweight and while their first fight sounds like Dempsey did really well (stopping Brennan in 6 is hardly akin to stopping Schmelling in 1) in their second Brennan won alot of their fight and Dempsey looked pretty ordinary a lot of the way and had to come from behind to win Carpentier was able to land a big right and shake up Dempsey, even if Jack was carrying him for a bit he shouldnt have been tagged like that, and even if he had blasted him out in a round that win dosent deserve a writeup like Louis got for Schmelling, Carpentier wasnt as good a heavyweight as Schmelling Gibbons lasted the distance in an uninspiring fight Sloppy crude Firpo knocked him down in the first few seconds of the fight and had Dempsey grabbing onto him to stay off his knees, knocked him down again when Dempsey was trying to get him out wildly and Firpo landed some good shots before he sent him through the ropes In his comeback he was able to get Tunney down once but couldnt follow up and just followed him around the ring, Gene dominated him and Sharkey made him look bad as well and landed good shots before Dempsey took him out The reason people would call a writeup like this for Dempsey a fanboy exaggeration is because he dosent have too much that compares to what Louis did for this type of writeup.
A lot of malarkey you utter to justify your post sir. There is not one major fighter YOU can name that I cannot find 'flaws" to degrade their record as you do with Dempsey....NOT ONE sir... According to neophytes like you and some others mainly on this site if you like YOUR favorite fighter, well you are a boxing fan... If I or others have great respect for Jack Dempsey, well we are called FANBOYS...I'm too old not to see through this bias B.S.
Harry Greb I dont have any problem with people liking Dempsey I dont like it when he gets overrated through peoples liking of him though I made this post because Perry said if Dempsey got this writeup Louis got people would say it was an exaggeration from a fanboy But I wrote that maybe theyd call it an exaggeration since the win Louis had over Schmelling was very impressive and Dempsey dosent have that type of win to compare it to and thats why it would be called an exaggeration instead of it just having to do with people not liking Dempsey Honestly thought I was pretty even headed in my evaluation there, no need to be ****ed off or annoyed by it
Burt is one of those fanboys Perry was referring to so unless you are swinging from Dempsey's jockstrap and writing about how the sun shines out his ass hes going to ****ed at anything written about his hero.
Actually it does sound like a fanboy exageration. And I shuffle big Joe between 1 and 2 as much as Gans/Leonard.
Any negative thing you say about me sir I consider a compliment...You are but a pimple in evaluating Jack Dempsey's place in history relative as to his ability,compared to the multitudes of boxing persona who saw him at his best...I try to stay away from arguing with you, but you truly are a bitter man, not only for your opinions, but how you go about expressing yourself and ripping apart posters who differ from you... And if thinking Jack Dempsey was a great fighter in his prime bestows upon me the mantle of FANBOY, well I'm in better company than from the likes of you...
Disagree. It is the manner in which that article was written that's the point of contention. It injects colorful wording exemplifying an excellent writer into a Louis performance. I have no issue with it whatsoever. It's a wonderfully written piece. The problem I have is very similar wonderfully written articles with colorful wording were published regarding Dempsey. Some pass these articles off as hyperbole by writers, just because they wrote about Dempsey who in truth was an ATG just like Joe Louis with his own technical abilities just as great as Joe Louis. Dempseys greatness all time was written in stone back in his time just like and no different than Louis some 20 years later. Boxing writers, trainers and historians were just as adept in understanding boxing greatness in 1920 as they were in 1938.