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

Now you sound uneducated. Charles was 32 when he fought Marciano in June of 1954. So how could he possibly be eighteen months older than a 32 year old Gibbons? :nut


Some Historian/Filmmaker you are

 

It doesn't matter, Sharkey failed to beat the count.
Dempsey was a rough fighter, everyone knew that. Sharkey was a rough fighter too. They were both fighting rough and dirty.

Sharkey's problem was always that he was not cool-headed enough. He unnecessarily left himself open for the hook to the head, and he chose to cry foul instead of trying to get up.

 

Kind of hard to get up in 10 seconds when your balls are on fire, and your in severe agony. How bout I hit you with two uppercuts flush in the nuts, and let's see you get up in 10 seconds. The left hook should never have been allowed to land...the referee completely messed up. Sharkey was on his way down from the ball shots, when Jack hit him with a short devastating hook in a very sly manner. Sharkey wasn't in severe pain from the left hook, he was in severe pain from the uppercuts to the balls, which is why he could be seen grabbing his nuts while laying on the canvas. He was not shaking his head to clear a buzz, his head was fine.

 

Riddick Bowe unnecessarily left himself open for a big hook to the head after golota hit him with a uppercut to the balls....shame on golota for not following up with a big left hook! :roll:

 

I just don't understand your revulsion towards Jack Demposey...It
permeates every sentence of most of your posts, whereas I have nothing
but love, respect and admiration for Joe Louis...
I have nothing but respect for every prominent fighter who had the damn guts to get in the ring, let alone a great heavyweight of the past, as
Jack Dempsey, a hero to millions of Americans, during his prime and
after would attest to...If I error in my assessment of Jack Dempsey's
greatness, then I error with the great mass of boxing experts who saw him
at his best, and I could live with that...

 

Suzie is just calling it how he sees it. He doesn't have any arbitrary grudge toward Dempsey. Why would anyone here? Most of us are probably white, and we all like our classic fighters. Dempsey just gets a lot of sensationalist treatment somewhat similar to the current teenage youtube generation that Mike Tyson gets. And Dempsey for all his glamor never sustained or truly proved that greatness to the degree of what eye-reports or even some old school trainers like Ray Arcel suggest. May have been an ultimate killer from 1918-1919... but the facts are the facts what happened during his title reign. And what's more obvious is the circumstance around him killing the giant in Jess Williard (Old, inactive). Things that can't be denied or glossed over. Yes he was and is a hero, and yes he is a legend... but dare I say romanticized. And not uniquely just him, but just to a higher degree than other classic fighters.

And it's not a question of Dempsey not being a legend or even great. It's just a question that most believe his successors were even greater, and there's really nothing wrong with that. It does, though; conflict heavily with old-time outlook/perception. Boxing experts that saw him and ranked and rate him as highly in the 1950's were those kids that saw their hero in the ring. Boxing polls dramatically altered his as time progressed, somewhat similar to Jeffries. Greatness is largely just a test of time. I like your last three sentences, though, they come from the heart. But you must understand that the other side isn't contained by some grudge or vendetta. The revulsion is not hate, but just a strong argument about how great he truly was. Something not ultimate or definitive.

I agree with Suzie on his regards to the Sharkey-Dempsey fight as well.

 

Ridiculous Bowe unnecessarily nailed Pierre Coetzer in the balls with vicious uppercuts after the powderpuff Boer did not follow suit and fall down after a few rounds. **** happens all around, mate.

 

Love Dempsey. He really should have been more active when he got the title though.

 

You are absolutely right about the merits of the win. I dont count it as adding anything to Dempsey's legacy.
I just dont have much sympathy for Sharkey, who fought rough and dirty too.

Well, Sharkey is quoted as saying, “You came out of a fight with Dempsey full of welts and bruises and every bone aching.”

 

Interesting that you bring up Jeffries. I think Jeffries has been terribly overlooked in all-time lists in recent decades. And I see Jack Johnson fading fast from the top tier too. They have become underrated and dismissed simply becuase they fought so long ago.

Of course there is such a thing as generational bias, but it doesn't just operate in the past. You should also throw the same critique over everyone doing lists now. The majority of current lists usually have Ali at the top, and Holmes very near the top - champions who fought 25 - 40 years ago. Just like Dempsey was usually at the top in the lists of the 1950s and 1960s. We could say it's partly the same factors at work.

It's a testament to Joe Louis that he's still hanging in around the top of lists. His championship record is still a record - 12 years, 25 successful defences - and that keeps people from overlooking him.

I rate Dempsey at or near the top. Maybe there a good arguments to say Dempsey has been over taken by the Alis and the Holmes.
But when more people are rating Sonny Liston near the top than Jack Dempsey, then something's seriously wrong, in my opinion.

 

I think that generation is fading. Jeffries isn't touted about as much, but he had much more of a standing in rankings based on boxing pundits in the 50's and 70's then he does now. He's in interesting case, as he does some to have a bit more depth than it appears by just looking at his record. Not much padding, which is good, but still hard to assess. I also think Dempsey has more luster, due to his style. You know, the original Mike Tyson. The man that made HW boxing awesome... the guy that made Babe Ruth jealous. Jack Dempsey... it almost echoes something particular; an image, a savage fighting machine. He came around at a time where there is some film so we can see that he was indeed a ferocious fighter. In a way, this hurts and helps his mystique (Or at least greatness), I think.

I disagree with your assessment of Dempsey in comparison to 25-40 years. I agree that's there sort of a hot-spot with generational bias, but I do feel like these fighters proved more. Where things get tricky is, we have almost a woeful lack of understanding of the times in which these old-time fighters fought in... which makes it not quite the same. All the more to why lists are a complicated and trivial task. You can almost guess "Maybe if Dempsey had this, or Johnson wasn't black in 1900 he could have been" so and so forth.

I still vehemently believe Ali deserves his spot, and truly truly think he has earned it considering his opposition and what he achieved and did in comparison to other HWs. That record is undeniable. Holmes, is kind of trickier. Good, consistent reign, but not quite the best competition all the time. He had a political reign; a fractured reign. Somewhat similar to looking back and seeing Johnson not rematching black fighters or fighting blacks when champion (Although this comparison might be unreasonable, I admit).

Louis hangs at the top because there is an undeniable foundation. There is undeniable achievement, and undeniable record. There is also loads of film on him... all which seem to justify the legacy. Dempsey, doesn't quite have that. And if he does with fights we don't see (Gunboat, Fulton) then perhaps his prime was incredibly explosive, and we may've missed out on what old-timers recalled as truly special. With his style and fighting, I just don't believe he runs over Marciano, Frazier, Tyson, Lewis, etc. Louis, on the other hand has a more style that lends itself at beating big HWs and agile HWs (Ironic, knowing Dempsey as a giant killer. I mean good big athletes, frankly).

Liston and Dempsey are very comparable in rating. Dempsey has a pretty condemnable and lackluster title reign, but he had a title reign at least. He has some opposition, although it's really not as strong as Liston's is (Patterson, Williams, etc). I think Liston has merits to be ranked over Dempsey, but there achievements and records are relatively close to one another. Personally, if title reigns don't matter much to you than Liston is ahead. If they do, it becomes closer. If you factor H2H well then Liston is probably better.

 

Good post. Dempsey was nowhere near invincible for sure, to say that he knocks out all these guys in two rounds is ridiculous. Another things that is puzzling me is dempseys defensive ability; he was difficult to hit but these guys are making out to be the sweet pea of the heavyweights!

I'm starting to believe that I didn't see the extremely crude Luis Firpo knock him through the ropes :huh.

 

I don't know about that. Over the years I have noticed if you give objective criticism toward one of his favorite fighters, he will switch the topic in the thread and become angry at other fighters he thinks you are a fan of. I have seen him slant the numbers listing a favorable height, weight, and reach of his guy, while understanding others. In short, sometimes his emotions trump his reason.

 

2. So you doubt the source but you can't catergorically deny it either so...?

3. we're in agreement then??

4. Will try to dig it out and let you know - it may have been ghost written anyway - and may be a complete fabrication for all I know - much like those newspaper reports may have been too for that matter??

5. 3 KO's in 61 fights - that's odd when you here all the fighters Dempsey mixed with all rave particularly about his toughness and great chin - yet his record (on BoxRec i assume :roll lists only 3 KO's in 61 (well all I can say is either Boxrec is wrong (which would come as no great surprise) or the other 58 guys must've been seriously seriously tough??

6. Again strangely Flynn's records shows he stops some top names but 37 in 131 is an unusually low KO percentage (but maybe a lot of his non-ko's came earlier in his career during periods when handwraps weren't used so resulting in fighters holding back a little with their power so as not to damage hands etc??

7. My thoughts exactly too - at least we agree on most things

 

Pete, nice to hear from you.You make some good points, but your statement that "most of us are probably white", is puzzling to me and
smacks of political correctness...I can't speak for anyone on ESB but
I have NEVER detected any BIAS on behalf of the posters I have read.
NEVER...As for me you do not know my background at all..
So why bring race into this debate ? It serves no purpose other than
to damn one groupo of posters UNFAIRLY...
As far as Suzie is concerned, he is very informed, no boubt, but whenever
the name Dempsey is mentioned he brings up Harry Wills and race,when
their is ample proof,with photographs showing Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills signing a contract for Floyd Fitzimmons the promoter of the bout.
The fight was cancelled because of several factors, and supposedly
Harry Wills recieved the $50,000 deposit money...My point is Dempsey
was willing to fight Wills, as the contract signing shows, so shouldn't
we put "Dempsey was fearful of Wills" theory to rest, and not always
bringing this up every time we talk about Dempsey...
After all to be fair, Joe Louis did not fight black fighters such as Lee Q Murray, Curtis Sheppard, and as we all know the best fighter I ever saw
Ray Robinson, avoided "murderers row".
Boxing is a business whether we like it or not.And we are all products of our times as well...Nice to hear from you P...