What is your assessment of Jack Dempsey?

Yes. Before he won the title, when he was at his most hungry, he was a ruthless man, and a truly terrifying fighter. He was perhaps better than Mike Tyson outside the ring, in that he wouldn't hurt somebody who he didn't need to hurt.

His main strength was finishing ability. The smallest mistake could be fatal against him. His main weakness was that his style depended on evading his opponents punches by very narrow margins, so he was always sailing quite close to trouble.

He probably hit as hard as any sub 190lb fighter has ever hit, and even compared to some of the bigger heavyweights, his power would still rate respect.

I would be reluctant to give him a high pound for pound ranking, despite thinking very highly of his ability, because his record doesn't really warrant it.

He probably still ranks high pound for pound among the heavyweights though.

He proved time and again, that he had a style well suited to overcoming a size disadvantage, and was very dominant against the modern sized heavyweights of his day. For this reason I think that he could have had considerable success in later eras.

He was not a wild brawler. Although his style was that of an all out attacker, he did it in a technically exquisite manner.

It would probably be fair to say that he was the best offensive heavyweight before Joe Louis. Add a lot of hype to that, and you have a media sensation.

I think that like most fighters, Johnson tended to rate those with a style similar to his own. He also hoped to get a shot at Dempsey's title, and might have been talking up his chances.

 

It's been a while but let's see if this thing still works...

ED DUNKHORST ALERT! ED DUNKHORST ALERT!

Based on what? Based on beating who? China chinned Fred Fulton? That 38 year old rodeo rider who hadn't been in a real fight in 4 years?

Yes, Gibbons was a great lightheavy. What did he accomplish at heavyweight. Oh, he beat Greb? Well, that's something Dempsey never managed so maybe you have a point.

Stamina is one thing, pacing is another. Even his wife called him a 4 round fighter. And I actually was comparing him Tyson, also.

What made Firpo so good? Rickard's ballyhoo? Is there a worse looking title contender on film than Firpo?

 

I agree with this, his weakness in my opinion was that his time at the top was very short. I recall Ray Arcel say that for about 2 years he was the greatest force at heavyweight he ever saw

 

You mean like all of the good opponents Dempsey had that i listed that you left off? Also Fulton was knocked out in 17 seconds despite coming off a win from Sam Langford who quoted him as the next champ. Fulton was a serious contender.

Which i addressed.

Because his pace was fast??? Yes, his pace was fast. This tires out the opponent too. Not to mention during fights such as willard vs dempsey, it was blazing hot outside (100+F)

Being a 6'3" 215lbs 25-2 contender with thunderous punch power

 

I rate his exactly like I rate Larry Holmes: a great fighter who was not a great champion. He didn't beat his best, and there is no way around that.

Wills, Godfrey, Greb, Siki...even old Johnson or Langford would have been a hell of a feather in his cap.

 

Fulton always claimed he was double-crossed on a deal for the fight to go the distance but whatevs. He was KO'd 11% of the times he stepped into the ring. If you look up Fred Fulton in the latest OED, they have a picture of David Price. He wasn't a SERIOUS contender he was a serious hype job. Dempsey was merely the pin to pop the balloon.

OK, we agree Gibbons had no business vying for the belt.

Now address Carpentier who was even more of a joke as a heavyweight. Zero heavyweight credentials. Some here claim that his amazing performance EIGHT YEARS earlier against Billy Wells, who was KO'd 18% of the times he entered the ring, was sufficient for the 172 pounder to earn a title shot. If that's the bar that is accepted, then this discussion is pure fantasy role playing game and characters are being concocted whole cloth.

He was a great 4 round fighter. As was Tyson.

Rickard himself bragged about his connections and media pull being sufficient to make Firpo accepted as a worthy challenger. Mass media and the publicity machine were new things in their scope and power in that era. The public was naive. Mix in a little of the exotic with a guy who could play the role and that was enough. Forget that he couldn't actually box, that he was too cheap to hire a trainer and generally too lazy, distracted and pigheaded to listen to one and train.

 

Carpentier was a money fight, this is common knowledge

Dempsey knocked out the future HW champ Jack Sharkey, in the Pinnacle of his prime, in the 7th. He was fine in rounds past 4.

Firpo knocked out Willard, the only other person to knock out Willard. His power was legitimate. He also beat the contender Bill Brennan. He was a true contender

 

He was a great fighter for sure, though a touch small for a heavyweight.

It's hard to say just how good he was because his competition was pretty weak, and he deserves critisism for not fighting Wills, and to a lesser extent Greb. He has some respectable wins, but still a weak resume for a top fighter.

Great to watch, exciting as hell, and I can watch him train all day.

This content is protected

I ended up putting him at 15 in my ranking of champions, above Sullivan and Schmeling, and below Liston and Wlad. I think that area is very close and debatable though.

 

Yeah why would a win over an iron chinned aggresive fighter well over 200Ibs be impressive for a middleweight.

 

He was KOed 11 times, but 5 of those were at the end of his career.

Take out his last few fights and out of 101 fights he was KOed just under 6% of the time. Not that this is even very meaningfull.

 

As much as I hate to say it, Liston has a good argument to be placed over Dempsey. Btw why is Sullivan lower than both? He seemed to have a far more dominant reign than both and greater upset defeats

 

I think you misunderstood, possibly my fault.

I have it
13. Wlad
14. Liston
15. Dempsey
16. Sullivan
17. Schmeling

Sullivan was proabably as dominant as any champion, but I think there's too many question marks about his opposition, which does seem to have included a lot of the best avalible, but in a very weak era. The records are so poor it's hard to know for sure, he maybe deserves to be higher. I dunno, I think it's a pretty tight region, there's a case to swap them all about, like none of those guys have a win as good as Schmeling beating Louis, that's what I decided on, my mind will probably change in the future though.

 

Nono you phrased it clearly, I just probably screwed up my own phrasing.

The problem with the poor records is that it was mostly due to unrecorded fights and bareknuckle fighters swapping over to gloved boxing.

Imo Kilrain and Paddy Ryan are good names on his resume.

 

JACK WAS USA ICON WITH RUTH,TILDEN,JONES

 

God Bless his soul but Dunkhorst was an incompetent fighter. Read some of the contemporary reports. He was a human punching bag. Maher and Choynski beat him to a pulp. The Great Joe Butler stopped him cold. His 16 victories were of fighters who had a total of 81 wins. Only 6 of his victims had winning records, 1 of them being 1-0 and another 2-1.

It's not an impressive victory but Classicists grab onto that number of his weight with ferocious intensity because it is a lone pillar constructing their flimsy argument of the relevance yesteryear's beanpoles to today's Adonis specimen heavies.