Dempsey VS Sharkey appreciation thread

When I watch Dempsey on film, he needs work on defense. Puzzling since he could move well. - Mendoza

Did you watch the films?

Carpenter has no problems landed and seems to have stung Dempsey.

Brennan, not a skill guy was actually in the lead in one fight until Dempsey turned the tides late.

Firpo was a wild type of slugger, he floored Dempsey.

The two best boxers Dempsey fought on film, Sharkey and Tunney really made him look bad.

See what I mean, Jack could move well, he just did not have good defense.

 

Context seems to be a concept that you selectively struggle with!

 

The major fighting was done on the inside and most of what Carpentier does seem to land doesn't land cleanly. He was fighting to survive. Dempsey was stung for a moment. Happens to fighters all the time, if you want to start detracting everyone you come across for getting stung briefly then you're going to have nobody left.

What film are you watching to say that Brennan was not skilled? He was not in the lead at all during the fight we have on film and the newspaper report says that Dempsey won nearly every round. Brennan gave him a tough fight but that doesn't mean he nearly won.

Joe Louis was floored by Galento, Wlad was floored 3x by Peter, Ali was floored by Cooper, Tyson by Douglas, Holmes was nearly stopped by Shavers, Lewis by McCall, etc. the list goes on. Everyone gets floored. Firpo had a hellavua right hand and Dempsey went right at him and annihilated him. Don't forget that Firpo was down like 7 times in the first round too. When fighting a war like that **** is bound to happen.

Gibbons was better than Sharkey p4p. Dempsey was past prime and inactive for 3 years when he fought them.

A pressure fighter is going to get hit. Dempsey proved his chin and defense in all of his fights there's even highlights of his defensive ability. I really don't get how you can't see good defense from him. Watch pretty much any fight of his and it's plain to see. The Carpentier fight is probably the only exception because Carpentier was pot shotting the entire time and didn't commit really to any punches except for the right hand that staggered Dempsey and a few others.

 

Great Post

 

Brennan didn’t even deserve a title shot, he lost 5 times to Harry Greb! Greb, of course, never received a title shot

Gibbons, another man who lost badly to Greb twice in a row. Gibbons gets the title shot instead.


So Dempsey continues fighting Greb leftovers and not Greb...and of course not fighting Harry Wills..

The problem is the only first class boxers fought, sharkey and Tunney, exposed a number of flaws in Dempsey’s game. And Dempsey never fought the two best of his era while he was still in his prime, Wills and Greb. Dempsey fought mostly second raters and leftovers.

So we will never know how great jack Dempsey really was

 

I don't think that anybody at the time was in much doubt!

 

Besides Dempsey, The three best heavyweights of the era were Tunney Greb and Wills. Dempsey didn’t record a single victory over any of them.

That right their is proof in the pudding.

 

The three best heavyweights of Wlad's era, were Vitally, Fury, and Joshua!

He didn't record a single victory over any of them!

We can play this game all night, or we can try to establish the truth!

 

Wlads era was 2006-2015. Fury Ok. I'll give you him. But name me another world champion who fought his brother in a title unification match and I'll say you have a valid argument. As for Joshua, he was absolutely not part of Wlad's era. He was in the next generation. The best heavyweights during Wlads era were Vitali*, Fury, Byrd, Haye, Povetkin, Pulev, Chagaev, and Ibragimov. Wlad beat 3 guys rated number 1 in the world at the time the fight took place...Byrd, Povetkin, Pulev. Chagaev and Haye were rated top 3 in the world. There is no comparison Wlad fought the best of his era and didn't lose until age 39 to a 6'9 250lb switch hitting fighter. Dempsey only fought men whom lost badly to 160lb Harry Greb, and avoided his number 1 contender for a record 7 straight years. He also sat on his reign for 3 years without defending. He lost badly, at age 31-32 to a 195lb Gene Tunney.

How many number 1 contenders did Dempsey defeat? 0

 

Good.

You don't get a pass for having a moral reason not to take the fight.

You either took it or you didn't!

Dempsey might have had a moral reason for not taking the fight with Wills, because it could have caused race riots, but he still didn't take it!

There were no rankings at the time, so it is rather hard to say.

Fulton obviously.

Firpo perhaps.

 

Ok you be that guy who holds it against a champion for not wanting to punch his brother in the face. Gotcha.

How many number 1 contenders during Dempseys title reign did he defeat? Firpo was definitely not number 1. No way.

Wlad defended his title 3 times against number 1 contenders and outside of Vitali, fought the best of his era.

There is no comparison between Wlads and Dempseys reign. One guy sought out number 1 contenders and fought the best. The other guy fought leftovers from a middleweight, ducked his number 1 hall of fame contender for 7 straight years, and didn't defend his title for 3 years.

 

How is that Dempsey's problem?

How is that Dempsey's problem? Your analysis of the 4 fights between Greb and Gibbons is completely off. Gibbons won the first two and Greb won the second two. The first fight is described as Gibbons winning all but one rounds. The second is described as "Greb 'took the licking of his life.'". The third was a contest but Greb was the clear winner. The fourth was supposedly so boring that people watching thought both would get whooped by Dempsey easily although Greb had the better of the action it was a close fight.

How is that Dempsey's problem?

False. Gibbons was a first class boxer and Dempsey dominated him. He fought Sharkey and Tunney when he was 31, 32, and 32. He hadn't fought for 3 years either.

If I have to keep saying that Dempsey wasn't close to prime for those fights then not only do you not know **** about boxing but your just annoyingly letting your bias get in the way of getting any sort of enjoyment out of the sport.

At the end of the day this is a problem between you and a man that has been dead for 40 years. The dead man is winning.

 

Not at all to those who saw them all. DEMPSEY VOTED BEST FIGHTER OF THE FIRST 50 years of the 20th century.
As for greb, in 65 yrs, reading everything I could find written I never once saw Grebit mentioned as a heavyweight contender to Dempsey until his buddy Compton. There are quotes of greb himself saying hed like to fight Dempsey "but only for 6 rds after that he'd kill me".KO The greb as heavyweight contender is revisionist crap 100 yrs later by an author with an agenda and his alcolyte followers

 

It's Dempsey's problem because he wasn't taking on the best in the division. Unless you think it's acceptable for a champion to avoid his clear cut top 2 contenders an entire title reign?

No problem with Dempsey the man, just his pathetic title reign, drawing of the color line, choice of opposition, and record setting duck of Wills.

 

Dempsey wasn't a matchmaker and had nothing to do with choosing an opponent. He signed on the dotted line or ****ed off. You're thinking in terms of match making in the modern era where the fighters can hype up the fights and have more of a say in things. Overall I just think you're incredibly unfamiliar with how fights are made in general. For the most part a fighter fights whose put in front of them. This fantasy that Dempsey would literally fight anyone is just banter mean't to express his eagerness to prove he's the best and that he thinks he could whoop anyone. It doesn't mean he can go and arrange fights with whomever he wants.

Yes you do. Don't lie man. There's nothing wrong with not liking Dempsey. You say at every turn that he got made a coward, ran out of the ring, etc. So cut the bull**** and give it straight up.