In Defense of Jack Dempsey {article} + The great trainers and fighters on Dempsey

Firstly, Gibbons ran and held, fought a real safety-first survival fight. Against a rusty Dempsey.
It's not stupid to say better heavyweights who come to fight might not last the distance.

The Sharkey quote is actually "Joe Louis was nothing sensational, being a methodical fighter, but he was a great finisher when he had his man in trouble."
..... a reasonable description of the way Louis fought in a vast number of his fights. Patiently stalking, make no unnecessary movements, waiting to counter ..... methodical but NOT sensational in the sense that a Dempsey was.

Extrapolating a racial angle for his admiration of Marciano and Dempsey is cheap.

 

The Glorification Cox does to Dempsey and his opposition is hilarious, especially when considering he slams Marciano's resume for fighting men past their best (Like Moore being 42. Actually, his age wasn't definite, and he was listed as being 39). The comparison he makes of Moore to a Holyfield that fought Toney and Williard to Vitali is laughable. Moore, was still LHW champion till nearly 1960, and remained a HW contender till he retired. Holyfield, really hasn't done anything of a substance except got robbed against a lumbering giant in Valeuv. Williard being Vitali... well even I don't like Vitali but Cox persists that Williard killed a man so the comparison is perfectly fine. What a crock of ****.

This is just classic fantasy.

 

I dont know if Arcel really said those things about Dempsey or not.
As He Grant said, the source is hard to pin point. Mike Casey and Mike Hunnicutt might be able to shed some light on that.

Dempsey was certainly one of the true heavyweight greats though. In the first half of the 20th century only Jeffries, Johnson and Louis come close. Since then, I guess Marciano, Ali and Holmes can be thrown in there. Perhaps one or two others.

 

I wouldn't accuse Sharkey of any racism, he fought black opponents when it was easy to avoid them and he once called Ray Robinson the best boxer he ever saw. However he might be somewhat biased as a young Louis blew him out when Sharkey was all washed up while he had a memorable fight with Dempsey, which he was winning until a controversial KO. Before his fight with Louis, Sharkey thought he would easily win, but apparently the beating he took did not change his mind on Louis.

 

I have an old HBO documentary where Arcel states in an interview that Dempsey would have had a "picnic" with any modern heavyweight. He seemed to be very high on Dempsey so it would not surprise me.

 

You're right, hiss arguments aren't convincing.

But comparing Willard to Vitali is fair enough. It's not as if Vitali is really great or anything.

 

Jack Sharkey did something Dempsey and Tunney refused to do...take on and beat top black fighters. This may anger some, but it's a fact.

 

I've seen that documentary. It's on youtube. I think he was actually asked about the fighters of "today". It was around 1981.
Holmes was the only guy around. It's not like he was talking about all the modern heavyweights of recent decades.

 

It sure is.

Apparently Dempsey's opposition is better than that of Marciano, Tyson & Louis; I would disagree on all 3 accounts.

 

I disagree. I think there's a lot to compare in terms of ability, whether it be athletic or even non-technical. Vitali has more tools. He's right with the tough "good stamina" and "very durable" comments. But then he starts comparing ability and footwork and it goes all out the window. I don't like Vitali, he does plenty wrong but he manages distance and has many more weapons than Williard would dream of having. He's also more athletic. And I love how he simply manages to just say Williard was "past his prime" Only to knock a real HW champion like Jersey Joe Walcott. Not only was Williard past his prime... he was 3 years inactive!

 

Tell me B beside Gene Tunney at the end of Dempsey's career, who were
the 'FAR Lesser Fighters " that defeated Jack Dempsey ,aside from the Four round dec. loss to Fat Willie Meehan ? Maybe my record book is
defective..Who were they from Meehan ,1918 to nine years later 1927
Gene Tunney who defeated the Manassa Mauler...I'd like to know ! NONE.Bokaj, I love Joe Louis as the greatest two handed puncher who ever lived, and equally as important, as a gentleman...My contention is
not that Jack Dempsey had a greater reign as HW champion, but that
styles make fights, and I believe Dempsey [at his best] had the quickness
and tremendous hitting power, combined with a effective bobbing and
weaving style with his jaw protected by his shoulders, to probably
nullify Louis's,standup punching power, and put Joe away...And most of
the boxing writers who saw them both, would agree...My two very
favorite heavyweights alltime...Keep punching...

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu-ik0eFCLM&feature=related[/ame]

4:00 Arcel talks Dempsey.

 

It goes beyond nostalgia. Cox has an affinity with Dempsey (For reasons I don't know, and to the point of labeling him a "superior" Tyson). And he always tries to glorify and uphold Dempsey's "qualities" and mystique to the point of desecrating other ATG HW's. Look, I respect what Dempsey had and I think he was a revolution for his time. But it's wrong to go to such lengths; and all contemporary criticism or "revisionism" on Dempsey criticizes his resume (And the obvious of avoiding his #1 contender for 7 years and not fighting black men all together). And the only real way to defend Dempsey in this way is to create some imaginary universe to give his opposition perspective. What Cox has done is silly, though. Justifying every loss (Whether exhibition) and determining losses to be indisputable dives (Against Flynn). Without it, it's clear that the glamor and image of Dempsey has some damage and dirt on it... and I'm not talking about the film quality.

 

Willard was a pretty good boxer, using his size and keeping men at arms length. He used a good jab and a good one-two, and punished his man with uppercuts when they got inside. He "controlled distance" (as people here like to say) pretty well. Hammered men on the end of his reach.

Yes, he was 3 years inactive when Dempsey beat him, and everyone should take that into account.
Vitali was four years inactive when he beat Sam Peter up.

 

I couldn't agree with you more !:happy