Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

I don't want to get between PP and BB, both posters are out of my league ,but Tunney allways claimed he could have gotten up before ten, if it had been necessary, and Dempsey graciously took his word for it. Tunney did state that he wasn't at all sure he would have survived Jack's onslaught once he had done so however.

 

Yes, we all use our eyes to help us make judgments on fights.
I've already said I think Dempsey looks great on film. If I thought he looked abysmal on the film you can be certain I wouldn't rate him as high.
All fighters have technical flaws.

I've noticed that when it comes to Harry Wills you have little problem judging him to be way more skilled than anyone Dempsey beat, the absence of film not being an issue.
In the case of Wills and Greb it seems to be sufficient to "just read the results in the paper" to make judgments on their superior SKILLS. Wholly imagined.

With Dempsey you have both bases covered - you think he sucks on film, and on paper.
But I think the opposite on both scores.
There's nothing to be proved. Just two different perspectives.

Of course, many of them in that poll wouldn't have been greatly knowledgeable or greatly acquainted with all the facts and relevant experiences, but of those 251 who voted for Dempsey there would have been dozens who had better sources to base their opinions on than we can claim to have.
Sorry, I don't care what resources some of you here think you have, men who spent time in the training camps and ringside in the reigns of Dempsey and Louis have some insight we cannot pretend to come close to. That needs to at least be acknowledged. I'm not saying it has to be followed as the be all and end all, but it shouldn't just be brushed off as some collective fantastic delusion.

The 1950 poll is just an example of a wider prevalent feeling that Dempsey was utterly brilliant in his prime.

 

The racist accusations was not from you, I know. I was just trying to highlight the pitch the tone reaches when you contradict the gospel about Dempsey.

But, you're right, Dempsey may well be the most polarising fighter on this forum. The reasons are probably cultural and ideological to a large degree, just as they are about Ali.

For me, there is one aspect of Dempsey's career that I loathe for ideological reasons: and that is that his long standing nr. 1 challenger never got his shot because he was black. No matter if this was Dempsey's, Kearn's or the American society's fault, it is a very black mark (no pun intended) on his reign. I think you have to be kind of dense not to accept this. Or just not feel very bothered by the implications of it.

BUT - I do my very best to asses Dempsey apart from this. And the simple fact remains that his record doesn't substantiante many of the things said about him. He has a good record and is in the discussion for the top 10 at HW, but that's as far as it goes.

 

rankings aside he did have a pretty sweet haircut

better than the grebover i'd say

 

A lie repeated 1000 times is still a lie. I'll give you 1 thing though, if Dempsey was aloud to stand over Tunney and hammer him getting up, he'd have a good chance of the win, although I wouldn't say it would be a given in those circumstances

 

You can ripped just about anyone's record to shreds.

I think the Fred Fulton win gets dismissed too much. Fulton becomes a chinny pretender with the use of hindsight, but that's like what people do with Michael Spinks against Tyson.
Fulton had a good record, beat Langford even - and people here tell me that was on the level - and was rated by many at the time as the #1 heavyweight, the top contender or the uncrowned champion.

Miske's illness I would like to know more about. If his record AFTER losing to Dempsey is on the level, we really have to question what the hell is going on.

Dempsey's 15 round win over Gibbons should be valued in hindsight more than it was valued at the time.
For a man coming off a 2-year layoff Dempsey's showing against a good boxer like Gibbons - winning clearly on points - is pretty good. He shows in that fight that he's not just a short-fight specialist too, showing incredible pace up until the final bell.
This was a rusty, past prime Dempsey proving supremacy against a skillful contender.
If Dempsey was as bad as some people here suggest, he would have lost that fight.

 

I think just about everyone here gives Dempsey his dues for these wins and perfomances, though. I mean being around the top 10 HWs ain't bad at all. I know you don't have Tyson among your top 10, but he also had impressive wins against several solid to decent contenders. Hell, he was 35 when he blew out Golota.

 

B, here we go with the double standard when it pertains to that "terrible. filthy racist "Jack Dempsey. He did SIGN for a fight with Harry Wills. This is a damn FACT. Aside ,the not hooking up with Wills who in tarnation, did Dempsey fearfully avoid ? Langford and Joe Jeannette,were long in the tooth
by then. Why this old tired bromide that the scrawny coward Dempsey avoided VIABLE black contenders of his reign is simply hokum. In Dempsey's training camp he employed several good black fighters as Big Bill Tate,and
the imposing George Godfrey, who Dempsey dropped several times in his training sessions.Which viable black fighter,aside from the aforementioned
Harry Wills did he avoid ?
So to you it doesn't matter if Rickard or other promoters truly feared race riots, that killed many citizens ,following the Johnson/Jeffries fight , not too
long before ! So what you imply. Or Dempsey and Wills did sign to fight for
promoter Floyd Fitzimmons,but the fight was aborted because Fitzimmons
couldn't come up with the money. **** it,it is still Dempsey's fault,is your
reasoning...Yep a double standard perpetuated against a great fighter, and by all accounts, a fine and decent human being. He darn it deserves better!!!
One final thought : When my favorite heavyweight of my time Joe Louis was
Champion, he surely avoided such great black punchers of his time.. He NEVER gave a shot for some real moolah,to such heavyweight bangers as
Lee Q Murray, Harry Bobo, Lem Franklin, Curtis Shepperd, Jimmy Bivens,
who were a Hell of a lot more deserving than most of Louis's white opponents. Of this there can be no doubt. It was stated numerous times,when i was growing up,but it was hushed up by the press who adored Louis, as i had too.But this is a fact. But I suppose it was Dempsey's fault. Everything else is on some ESB posters... So B, in conclusion Dempsey who did not fight Harry Wills, though he SIGNED for the fight with Wills,should be excoriated for this ommission, but a Joe Louis who never tackled many dangerous black fighters in his career, gets a pass. Double standard I say.:good

 

But he wasn't, though. He would have had to beat Wills to get that distinction and he didn't.

And I don't understand this "well, ok, he didn't face Wills, but he would have won anyway". You can't hypothetically earn a win. And Dempsey seems to be the only one around here who gets this benefit of a doubt.

On the flipside a better refereeing perfomance in his fight against Sharkey might have meant he never even got a rematch against Tunney. At least it was Dempsey and not the ref who screwed up concerning the long count.

But again, events are conviently remembered in Dempsey's favour.

 

Yeah, it was Will's fault that fight never happened. Of course. There are always ways to sign papers but not having to fulfill, and this is what actually happened.

There are really three alternatives here:

1. Wills didn't get the shot because he was black.
2. Wills didn't really want the shot, and wriggled out when he could have gotten it.
3. Events just transpired so that Dempsey went for more than half a decade without facing his outstanding contender. Race had nothing at all to do with it, it wouldn't have been any different if Wills had been white.

It doesn't matter for Dempsey's ranking, but it kind of sickens me that you lack the moral fibre to just admit that option 1 is the correct one here.

 

The rankings protect Louis though, they REALLY don't help Dempsey.

Always thought he should have fought Bivins at least though. He would have won too.

Just like Dempsey against Wills.