Jack Dempsey's Ranking

I doubt you have seen these articles to know how relevant they are. From the top of my head, New York Evening Journal printed a few write-ups on how to fight by Sullivan, Corbett and McCoy in early 1898. Have you seen them?

 

I have read many articles written by Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Jeffries regarding how to train along with how to box. None of these match in terms of modern relevance Dempseys books on these subjects.

 

Dempsey couldn't do it himself though, whatever advice he was giving in the books. When he attempted to box more scientifically in Tunney bout, his boxing was very poor and ineffective as compared to his usual wild, brawling style.

 

Again you spout ****. All total ****.

Being able to pick winners correctly does not mean you don't know a great fighter when you see one! The experts on the stock market can't predict the future. Experts on baseball can't always pick the winner of games. However they can look at an athletes skills and determine their level of expertise. Arcel, Tunney, Langford were all time experts and they all attest to Dempseys extreme level of greatness as a fighter. That's just THREE expert opinions but experts at the highest level. You have an entire generation and multiple generations of experts who felt the same way. You reveal your ineptitude and immaturity by trying to downplay known and very well understood history.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Very wrong. You need to understand what great boxing is all about and then sit down and really watch Dempsey fight. Dempsey technically fought at a very high level of skill. The feints, slipping of punches, bobbing and weaving, short punches....Unmatch skills.

 

Just because he could not outbox a Tunney does not mean he lacked skills. Dempsey was a highly skilled fighter. This is why Arcel, Tunney and Langford felt he was THAT great.

 

Clem Johnson was 10-11-2, including newspaper dec's, coming in. Wills had stopped Clem in 6rds the year before. This clem fight was for the "World 'colored' heavyweight title claim". Seems Wills was not all that to the fan's also. Seems Wills was fighting turkeys too.

 

I posted this several times before. A write-up shortly before the 1st Tunney fight (Sep 12, 1926).

DEMPSEY EARLY TARGET PRACTICE NOT IMPRESSIVE
------
Has Some Old Punching Power But Lacks Old Art of Concentration and Murderous Instinct That Wins
------
DEMPSEY OF TODAY
MAN HE WAS IN 1923
------
BY FRANK G. MENKE

Jack Dempsey's target practice during his first week in Atlantic City was not impressive. The likelihood is that he will improve tremendously before the 23rd of this particular month. But if he doesn't--well, he's no 2 to 1 shot in any fight.

Dempsey has the same old punching power, but just now he lacks the old art of concentration. The murderous fighting instict that was Dempsey's of yore, and that whipped men even as they saw it flame, is not conflagrating so brilliantly; Dempsey is easier to hit than was once the case, when he was weaving, shifting, ducking, bobbing, instead of attempting the orthodox ring defense.

Of course, all these things are happenings in his opposition to sparring partners. He naturally would show a bit indifferent against them, for the simple reason that he must go easy and not try to commit too many assassinations. In his first few days at Saratoga, he did pug the boys rather viciously and dropped some of them, whereupon, they showed heap much fear and sort of served the ultimatum:

"You killer, we quitter."

So Dempsey pulled up somewhat in his punching.

But in the face of the fact that Dempsey is pulling his punches, it is still obvious that the Dempsey of just now isn't quite the Dempsey of 1923. He's become sort of tame, civilized. No longer is he so fiercely savage. No longer relentless, coldly merciless. No longer does he tip and tear and whirl and dash in and upon his foeman and smother them with the very ferocity of his attack.

His stance has changed. He does not weave and bob as he once did. Rather, he is attempting the average ringman's pose of left arm forward for jabbing purposes. And he's cultivated a jab--a really new asset. But he assumes such a pose rather awkwardly, with the result that he is neither as he was, nor is he converted into an orthodox swarsmith in the matter of boxing position.

The very change of that style makes Dempsey easier to clip with a right hand: for, in the extension of that left hand, he holds it low--drops it on an angle below his shoulder. The result is that his chin is wider open than usual for wallops. Being new in the use of something to protect his chin, he does not accomplish it well. He usually pulls his guard up far too late to avoid being smitten upon the smile department of his preface.

Placed in such a position Dempsey is not the free, two-handed hitter that he used to be. For, naturally, his left is not constantly ready for a swishing left hook. He must shift to get it into driving action with that left. And generally before he can do it, the opportunity to hit is gone.

When you take away, or minimize the punching worth of Dempsey's left hand, you are deducting about 60 per cent from his walloping assets. For Dempsey is naturally left handed, gets terrific power into drives with his left, and has scored more than half his greatest triumphs with his paralyzing left hook.

When Dempsey hits these days he doesn't follow up. He steps back. Maybe it's because he has promised his partners not to follow up, so as to save them from being clubbed to the ground. On the other hand, maybe Dempsey has come to believe that men ought to fall each time he hits and he steps back so as not to impede them in their collapse. Which is a bad idea.

For men do not always collapse when hit, and if Dempsey steps back to watch Tunney fall, and Tunney doesn't happen to do that obliging thing with the first few punches, the champion may find himself the victim of a surprise attack.

It may be that Dempsey, up to now, has been trying out a new style of attack and defense so as to "cross" Tunney. He may succeed. But as between his old style of facing straight on at his foeman, in position to hit with both hands from any angle, and this new position that almost all other fighters assume--well, Dempsey's sensible move is to go back to the old way.

Of course, what Dempsey has been doing in the first week of training at the seashore is not definite criticism of what he'll do in later training--or what he will do in the ring. He may go back to his old way of attack, or he may, before he is through here, perfect a far better defense, plus an attack equal to that of the old days. Certainly he seems to be working out some new idea, which may make him a greater defensive warrior than ever before.

But at this moment, it seems that the experiment of the champion has fliwed; it has made him an easier target than before and forced him to sacrifice fast and accurate punching. For Dempsey, through the first week, was not landing with great violence, or jolting force, because he was hitting from a position which made it rather impossible.

--------

So Dempsey, at this particular moment of his training, while in perfect physical condition, isn't in anything closely allied to perfect punching or defensive position.

Copyright 1926, Ring Features Syndicate, Inc.)

 

My "ineptitude" by choosing to rate fighters based on their ACTUAL FIGHTS and not on fantasy matchups like you?

And you're trying to sell Dempsey over Louis based on the opinion of a guy (Ray Arcel) who was wrong like 93% of the time when picking winners over Louis.

In 13 fights against Louis, Arcel picked the winner once. (And who knows who he picked to beat Louis when he wasn't involved in the fights. That would be interesting to see.)

When it came to Joe Louis, Ray Arcel clearly didn't know who or what it took to beat him. Because he personally worked the corners of 12 guys who didn't have a clue. (And Jack Dempsey and Ezzard Charles weren't ANYTHING alike.)



And, AGAIN, OPINIONS don't matter. Results do. You keep talking in circles ... BECAUSE Dempsey doesn't have the actual wins to put him at the top of any lists.

So you have to insult people who just want to know WHO DEMPSEY BEAT TO PUT HIM ON TOP?

How on earth is that an immature or inept question? Who did he ACTUALLY beat to put him on top? (Not who 'experts' thought he might beat if they had ever fought ... who did he actually beat to put him on top?) What is so freaking outrageous about that?

Your problem is Dempsey didn't beat anyone to deserve a top rating all-time, so you have to insult people raising the question and hope they go away.

 

Please, help me understand why one man's opinion carries more weight then another's opinion?

They are all opinions, that's all. Maybe those guys didn't know Dempsey hadn't fought in a while and was fighting an active, speedy boxer-puncher. Anybody with any boxing sense will tell you a long layoff will affect the fighters performance duh!!

 

Thank you Senya, I like that you post an article and don't editorialize. You let us think about it and form our own opinion unlike others who tell you what to think.