How good was Dempsey's title reign?

K, my timetable is working fine, thank you...I am not a historian, but am an avid lover of those days in the heavyweight division...for example in 1941,
Lem Franklin had a reputation as a FEARED puncher. In a span of 3 or 4
months, Lem was on a roll. He flattened Jimmy Bivens, Curtis Sheppard, Tony Musto, and big Abe Simon.His reputation was growing for sure. About this same timeframe Louis, met and kod Red Burman, Gus Dorazio, Abe Simon,
Tony Musto,and Buddy Baer...The scuttlebut those days before Pearl Harbor was that Lem Franklin was becoming very much feared, and on his merits
alone deserved a title shot, over the mediocre fighters Louis fought and kod
then...He deserved the shot but Louis's braintrust chose less dangerous fighters as Burman, Dorazio, Simon,and Tony Musto. Buddy Baer I rate as a
threat to anyone those days,as he could hit as his record shows. But I stand by what I say that a Lem Franklin,by all standards deserved a shot ahead of
tomato cans Louis gave a shot for the title.
P.S. Louis feared no one,as he was unbeatable those halycon days, but his
braintrust protected Louis as a valuable commodity....I still say Franklin
was better than most of Louis's" bum of the month tour ",but never got on the bus...

 

I don't know much about the Mayweather and Roy Jones cases.

But almost all professional boxers (or their managers) make calculations based on risk and reward. And it's always been that way.

I'm not one of those fans to buy into cynical mismatches and hype jobs, but I don't begrudge the fighters and managers for making easy money. If people are willing to buy it.

It's especially ridiculous to expect a fighter who has paid his dues - a man who perhaps started off fighting tough fights for $10 purses - to not exploit his position to make some "easy" money when he is champion.
Of course, we have to strike a balance and if it descends into a farcical circus act we call it what it is.

Dempsey wasn't a "fighting champion", and didn't have a great reign at all, but he defended against some reasonable contenders, in my opinion.

I'm not denying any of that.
I'm just pointing out that it's part of the game.
It's the smart move, not the noble one.

You can say that mentality drags the sport down all you want, but I'm the first to call a fight a joke if that's what I think it is.

I'm not going to sit here and say a BOXER must adhere to a different moral code of commerce because boxing is a "sport" though.
If someone offers me an easier job for better money, I'm taking it.
I don't see why it shouldn't be accepted the same for professional boxers, especially considering the dangerous nature of their work.

 

You have a point, and please understand that i am not arguing that either of the two guys were not the two standout challengers. But firstly, since there were not really official rankings in these days, what did Fulton and Norfolk do to rate above say Greb? for example. This is more a question than anything else, as my timeline might be a little out, without checking on it.

And How many endless eliminators should he be forced to fight? I would say unlimited. That is what he would be expected to do as champion. Why should a challenger be allowed to sit on his position if the champion is not expected to take the same luxury. I dare say that the positions should be reveresed.

I dont think anyone is arguing that Miske and Co cleaned out the division. But When there are no standout challengers, an element of randomness always applies, particular when there is no recognised rating system. You need to be lucky enough to either strike the right marketing angle, find the right backers, hit your KO run at the exact time the champion is fighting and/or in the exact city or state. There can be a number of reasons.

Many people, particularly inside fans believed that Greb and Wills were the best chances to beat Dempsey, but how many out there really believed that they were any chance of beating him. When Jack Johnson won the world title, he had beaten about 7 of the 8 best fighters in the world at that time. How many had Wills beaten. You seem to think it is okay for contenders to just beat also rans, and nowadays everyone seems to think so, but i dont agree.

When Ali retired, he had to beat Quarry and Bonavena to earn a shot at Frazier, and then he had to beat the likes of Ellis, Chuvalo, Quarry, Patterson, Foster, Norton and Frazier before he got a shot at George Foreman. No complaining about being avoided, he simply beat every top challenger around. It would have been very easy for him to be too old by the time he got to Foreman but he refused to give in. You are right when you say that an old Sharkey and Uzcuden got to Wills, and prime for prime it might have been different. But, it is interesting to not that an old Dempsey did what an old Wills couldnt do, and beat Sharkey. To be honest, it is hard to believe even now that either Wills or Greb would have beaten Dempsey if Dempsey were anywhere near best form.

 

Have you seen the Sharkey fight? Do you actually believe an "old Dempsey" (forget that Wills was 36 or 37 years old when he lost to sharkey as opposed to being 30 when he destroyed Fulton...) beat Sharkey? Hitting a guy repeatedly in the nuts, over and over and over while getting dominated is not what I call beating someone. Not in boxing anyway. It certainly wasnt conclusive and only earned him a second dominant ass kicking at the hands of Tunney. Between Tunney, Sharkey, and Tunney again how many rounds do you figure Dempsey actually won? 2? maybe?

 

Do I think Dempsey beat Sharkey? Well he knocked him out and the referee counted to 10. I would have thought that is a victory. I know Dempsey Struggled early but he eventually came back to win. Yes, i know about the fouls, but if you get away with it, you get away with it. I dont know what more a fighter can do than knock out his opponent. Tyson struggled with Botha for a long time, and some say he tried to illegally break his arm, but does anyone seriously suggest that Tyson didnt beat Botha. Same with Dempsey. He knocked the guy out, that is a victory, end of story.

And do you doubt that an old past his best Dempsey did better than an old past his best Wills did against Sharkey. and dont forget that sharkey wills took place a year or so before Sharkey Dempsey did. If Wills was any match for Dempsey at this time, surely he could ahve beaten Sharkey like Dempsey actually did. In fact, when you look at Wills' form against Sharkey in 1926. It really is clear that by 1926, he was too old to face Dempsey, meaning tunney was the better choice of challenger. If he was too old in 1926, you have to start to question and wonder whether wills might have been too old a year or two earlier as well, which starts to cut down the level of time that Wills was the top challenger for Dempseys crown, doesnt it?

 

1)The last shot in question was borderline to even being a low blow, and I've seen it about 50 times.

2)The ending itself was conclusive enough, considering a single left hook took Sharkey off both his feet and out like a light.

3) The fight hadn't even gotten to the halfway point when this happened, and Dempsey was catching up to Sharkey. Discounting the spectacular knockout, I doubt Sharkey lasts the last 8 remaining rounds.

4) Do you discount any of Greb's wins in the same way you just did to Dempsey-Sharkey, where you essentially just treat it as a loss? Just curious.

 

Wait wait wait. Lets back up. Are you seriously going to try to argue that Dempsey was as past his prime as Wills who was at least 4 years older and had been fighting 3 or 4 years longer?

Are you going to seriously compare the stoppage of Dempsey Sharkey with Tyson Botha? After all Botha was knocked out cold by a single legal blow. Whereas Sharkey was counted out while rolling around on the canvas grabbing his nuts. Hardly comparable. I didnt see Botha rolling around on the canvas grasping his arms LOL. The film clearly shows Dempsey repeatedly landing low blow after low blow after low blow (the only strategy he was having any success with). If thats conclusive to you then combined with your feelings on how champions should be allowed to camp on their titles not be forced to face legitimate contenders I wonder why you follow athletics at all.

Seriously, it confounds me the litany of excuses (which fail in the light of the facts) that some of Dempsey's deluded fanboys will come up with on his behalf. I often wonder if they actually believe them or if they simply count on the less informed to believe them.

 

The supposed low blows Dempsey alleged to hit Sharkey, was 'questionable".
I have read different opinions of famous writers in attendance,and there was pro and con opinions. One thing is clear in that bout. Dempsey was a shell of himself speedwise. Slow as hell. He knew that his only chance against the
young prime Boston Gob, was to dig, dig, dig to the body,eventually weakening Sharkey. Slow that Dempsey shows in that fight ,he was so powerful a body puncher still, and eventually wore the tempermental Sharkey down, leading to that SHORT explosive left hook that kod Sharkey'''
P.S. at the end of the bell in a previous round,while walking to thge corner Sharkey RAPPED Dempsey in the head,and the old Manassa Mauler, took it like a man and walked back to his corner.That one scene endeared me to
Jack Dempsey, for there has never been a tougher heavyweight than Dempsey.

 

To what Greb win do you refer. Be specific and Ill answer.

If you consider rolling around on the canvas grasping your nuts "out like a light" then we can agree to disagree.

If you saw anything in the Dempsey-Sharkey fight other than the low blows which changed the course of the bout (which was being dominated by Sharkey) giving you a sign that Dempsey was going to win... Well, we can agree to disagree.

 

Whatever Burt, you may buy into that mythologized bull**** but I sure dont. If Dempsey was so tough he wouldnt have needed to duck his top two contenders, one of which he outweighed 20 to 30 pounds... Have fun worshipping at that altar :-(

 

K, Now you are doing the same thing, U have accused me of. Changing the the thread or conversation about Dempsey fouling Sharkey to inadvertently bringing Harry Greb in the picture ! I know that you have a visceral hatred of Jack Dempsey. It is apparent. That's fine. We all have our favorites and targets we can vent our spleen on. But yes, I am a great admirer of the Jack Dempsey who was overwhelmingly chosen as the greatest fighter by the top boxing people in the 1950s. And oh yes, they knew about Dempsey and Wills,and Dempsey and Greb, NEVER hooking up, they knew of his 3 year layoff from boxing, they saw the 32 year old rusty Dempsey lose to Tunney,saw the long count fight, the Jack Sharkey fight, etc, and YET chose
the prime Manassa Mauler ,they had seen fight, as the greatest ever, even counting Joe Louis.... They saw and knew all the negatives you cite, and still chose him as the best they had seen. K, if I "worship" at Dempsey's "altar", I
have good company, and I could live with that...Cheers...

 

Klompton has absolutely destroyed anyone in this thread, and with it the pathetic arguments that spin the truth to magically turn a terminally ill fighter (who suddenly went from going even with him twice to a 7-1 underdog) into something legit, claim it's okay to give the loser of a title eliminators a title shot, and my personal favorite..... that it's Wills' fault he never got a shot, because he "didn't hold up to his side of the contract". atsch

Then of course you have the usual attempts to somehow create the illusion that the people didn't want to see Dempsey fights Wills or Greb, of course thoroughly disputed by numerous sources.

And when even that doesn't work, I've just seen the new argument that it's somehow okay for a champion to shamelessly duck the opposition for seven straight years. If you somehow hold that opinion, then you're a boxer's fan, not a boxing fan.


And still..... a century later.... the undisputed record holder for largest, longest and most thorough duck of the history, any weight class:

This content is protected

 

So, now people are trying to argue that Dempsey didn't even beat Sharkey ?

 

I didnt really say that. But i suppose it depends what you mean by past prime. Dempsey relied on speed, explosiveness and timing. I would have thought that these things rely more on active training and fighting and are more susceptible to time off and Lacksadaisical training methods, as well as old age. Does it really matter who was the most shot. Both were far removed from their best and Dempsey was in the better condition of the two, and had the two fought each other as the eliminator, Dempsey would have almost certainly stopped Wills at this point.

Are you saying that Wills was an unstoppable monster before Dempsey chose Tunney as a defence and 12 months later he couldnt compete with the younger generation? A younger generation that Dempsey could compete with and actually beat. I am saying that when Dempsey Defended against Tunney, Wills was not in good enough form to beat Dempsey. I do not know your position on this as you seem to be questioning whether Dempsey actually beat Sharkey, or not. Though realistically, I think given Wills next result against Uzcuden it is quite obvious that he was shot and wouldnt have been able to compete with Dempsey.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=239047

Those blows dont really look all that questionable to me. If you have a clearer copy of the fight and can see the blows are definitely lower, then i suppose i would think about changing this opinion but it definitely doesnt look like the blows were all that low to me.

Either way, certainly it was the left hook that did the damage and brought the KO. That bit is not questionable, i dont think.

If you think otherwise, then i think you might even be a fan of the Jack Johnson threw the Willard fight theory. Sharkey might not have been out as cleanly as the Botha example i gave, but he was down for the 10 count, and not getting up.

By the way, the little clip Sharkey gave Dempsey after the bell, that Burt talks about is just before round 7 in part 3 of those you tube clips.

I dont know if i can be described as a Dempsey fanboy. I have already readily admitted that I dont know how to rate him. Some times it is very highly, and other times it is quite low.

Still, since you are such a fan of Harry Wills, tell me, at which point do you think that Harry Wills was not good enough to win the title off Dempsey, or do you suggest that he would ahve always beat Dempsey?

I dont know where this will lead, and feel free to add grebs top scalp but here is a comparison of Dempsey and Wills Competition:

1920
Miske KO3 Langford W 15
Brennan KO12 Fulton KO3
McVey ND

1921
Carpentier KO4 W Tate, Gunboat Smith, ND Langford
1922
Gibbons W15 W Langford, Norfolk
Firpo KO2 L Tate (w/draw)
1923
1924
1925
1926 Tunney L L Sharkey
1927
Sharkey L Uzcuden
Tunney

Okay, i havent had a look at these for a while, what does it tell us. Certainly, when Dempsey was active during his reing it was 1920 to 1922. 1920 was definitely a huge win with Wills victory over old Langford and Fulton. I think he must have been close to in line here. In 1921, Wills beats Tate and Gunboat. Tate is Dempseys sparring partner and Gunboat who had already been knocked down 9 times in a couple of rounds by Dempsey, when closer to prime! Wills is edging up of course, yet he only draws with Langford. Why arent their calls for Lanford to get a a shot at Dempsey, or McVey, who had an NC earlier? 1923 and Dempsey has two wins, while Wills meets Norfolk and Langford which should put him right in contention, but he has his loss two Bill Tate and then couldnt win the rematch with Tate. So this must have hurt his standing a little for at least a short time (Was janitor right on this point, Klompton?)

Anyway, and here is the killer Dempsey then retires for 3 years, 1924, 25 and 26. During this time, he did schedule a fight against Wills, but he ended up fighting no one. By the time he has his next fight, Wills is not on the radar because of his loss to Sharkey. So, the 7 year duck is really only a 2 or 3 year duck it seems. Although i suppose if you want to look at it the other way, for 3 years Dempsey ducked the entire Division!