Who was the greater fighter out of Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by KeedCubano, Feb 16, 2021.



  1. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    107,941
    38,327
    Mar 21, 2007
    Yeah, i'm sure that was lovely for him.

    But he spent years trying to get the champ in the ring and couldn't - Dempsey was given the title shot despite an absolutely awful 1917.

    Parties are nice. Preferential (relative to Johnson) treatment in title shots, about 3,000 times better.
     
  2. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,232
    15,916
    Jun 25, 2014
    Johnson got a title shot in fewer fights than Dempsey. And he got to fight a much weaker champ for the belt. And his win was celebrated around the world and in major U.S. citites. I totally acknowledge the racism aspect, but Dempsey had to have more fights, had to fight a tougher champ, and wasn't loved by the masses (of any race) until he lost the title.

    So if people are rating Johnson higher BECAUSE he had it so much harder than Dempsey, they need to check that.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2021
    DanDaly and louis54 like this.
  3. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    107,941
    38,327
    Mar 21, 2007
    Probably not, but we'll never know. That is what boxrec says though.

    Maybe, but i'm not talking about that. What i'm saying is clear.

    Dempsey record for the year two years before he fought for the title was atrocious. He wasn't excluded from a title path. He was fast-tracked.

    Johnson's loss to Hart saw him "eliminated" from title contention for a couple of years. Johnson probably deserved at least a share of that fight but he couldn't get Hart back in the ring. Dempsey was destroyed by Flynn and given an immediate rematch. Dempsey was embarrassed by Willie Meehan, and was given an immediate rematch, which he won.

    If Johnson lost to either Meehan or Flynn, both journeymen, it would have been absolutely devastating for Johnson. He was kept from the very top ring for about 3 years by the Hart loss. Dempsey's far more damaging losses didn't affect him a tenth as much. He actually lost to Meehan again after beating him, too, months before he was allowed to fight for the title.

    The "boxing establishment" clearly, clearly, provided Jack Dempsey far preferential treatment than it did Jack Johnson, and that's pretty much irrefutable, regardless of how many fights Boxrec says they had.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2021
  4. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti Boxing Drunkie Full Member

    8,585
    11,046
    Oct 28, 2017
    That was literally the part I was responding to.

    What was Dempsey's best win?
    You cited a 37 year old Willard that hadn't fought in 3 years.

    His best wins were probably a Light Heavyweight Billy Miske, and Tommy Gibbons. Guys who fought at very similar weights to Tommy Burns, who probably isn't even Johnson's best win.

    What other big opponents to Dempsey beat? Fred Fulton, Carl Morris and Bill Brennan, all of who lost to Billy Miske, Jack Sharkey where Dempsey should have been DQ'd, and Firpo.
     
  5. Mendoza

    Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. banned Full Member

    55,255
    10,263
    Jun 29, 2007
    All ture. Dempsey wasn't perfect, but no way do the likes of Ketchel floor him, O'Brien out box him into a draw, and Jim Battling Johnson come close to knocking him out, with JJ settling for a dubious draw.

    While he did have his ah ha moment vs. Flynn, Johnson had more of them. Since Johnson ducked his best 4-5 as Champion, Dempsey beat better conception as champion too. Those " white hopes " that Johnson fought would be slaughtered had they meet Dempsey. Kaufman and Ross vs Dempsey? No way these guy last the distance,
     
  6. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,232
    15,916
    Jun 25, 2014
    What? Dempsey fought 22 times in 1918 and 1919, culminating in his demolition of Willard ... and out of that 22 ... he lost ONE four-round decision in a benefit for the Army & Navy Physical Education fund. Meehan was a Navy boxing instructor. It was considered simply a fundraiser. Dempsey even floored Meehan. But everyone laughed when Meehan's hand was raised. It was a joke and everyone treated it as such (according to Stanley Weston and Steve Farhood's book Boxing in the 20th Century).

    You think that was for real? A four-round benefit for the Navy Relief fund featuring the Navy instructor vs. the Draft Dodger? That's like Muhammad Ali's loss to the Mayor of Atlanta was a loss.

    That's Dempsey's 'atrocious' record in the two years before his title fight? 22 fights. All knockouts except for Miske. And delivering the worst beating on a heavyweight champion ever. Give me a break.

    Johnson had eight fights in the same time period culminating in his win over Burns.

    And you left out that Tommy Burns was essentially a middleweight who no one thought was a top champion and who everyone expected would lose to Johnson and a lot of guys. While Jess Willard was considered the best heavyweight in the world, the largest champ ever and Willlard was favored to beat him.

    Get it together.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2021
    louis54 likes this.
  7. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    107,941
    38,327
    Mar 21, 2007
    If Jack Johnson fights Jack Dempsey's 1917 in his own timeline, he is beat. He won't get anywhere near a title shot. Losing to really good fighters in questionable circumstances excluded him from title contention for longer than Dempsey was excluded for being knocked out by a journeyman. His loss to Hart in 1905 kept him out of the title ring for years.

    Dempseys far worse losses in 1917 did not affect his run to the title, and he was granted immediate rematches for both. Relative to what happened to Johnson he was shown enormously preferential treatment.

    If you think this is indicative of the "boxnig establishment" favouring Johnson over Dempsey, you're crazy. Very clearly the boxing establishment favoured Dempsey over Johnson.

    Can you really not see this?

    Say Jack Johnson was knocked out in a single round by Charlie Hagey, and then outpointed by Peter Felix in 1906, you really think he'd gave got a title shot in 1908? Impossible.

    It sounds like you think Jack Dempsey was the subject of a questionable decision and it wasn't held against him in obtaining a title match.

    Do you have any idea why Jack Johnson wasn't afforded the same courtesy?

    Two calendar years. 1917, specifically.

    This is absolutely clear as I identified the specific fights I was discussing, which didn't happen in twenty-four months. You're pretending you thought I meant 24 months - OK.

    But you can't do that any more.
     
  8. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,232
    15,916
    Jun 25, 2014
    I'm not pretending anything. I discussed the 22 fights Dempsey had in 1918 and 1919 leading up to his title fight with the man considered the best heavyweight in the whole world ... who Dempsey destroyed.

    Dempsey wasn't "fast tracked. How the hell is having 65 pro fights BEFORE you get a title shot getting fast-tracked? (Christ. LOL) Johnson got a title shot in fewer fights.

    How many heavyweight champions in the whole history of the sport had to rack up more than 65 pro fights before getting a title shot? Maybe Charles and Tunney, but they weren't even heavyweights the whole time. And you think Dempsey was fast-tracked? (LOL)

    Also, again, Dempsey wasn't the "establishment" fighter. He was villified for most of his reign. He was considered a draft dodger. A pimp. A guy who married a *****. He was booed before every defense. His promoter was charged with being a pedophile. He was banned from fighting in New York because he wouldn't fight Wills. Every foreign fighter who came to the U.S. to challenge him was the fan favorite against him ... until he lost his title.

    Where is this preferntial treatment?

    You want to say Johnson had it tougher because of racism, that's difficult to argue sitting in the United States. But Johnson also had more visible support than Dempsey ever had during his reign from his community and around the world where his lifestyle was a part of his celebrity.

    And Dempsey was the better fighter.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2021
    louis54 likes this.
  9. SolomonDeedes

    SolomonDeedes Active Member Full Member

    1,205
    1,584
    Nov 15, 2011
    I don't think there was anything wrong with the decision - the San Francisco Examiner and the Chronicle both said it was fair. As the Examiner put it: "There was no questioning the famed ring arbiter, for Meehan had three of the four rounds to his credit and at the conclusion had the conqueror of Fred Fulton hanging on and satisfied to let matters stand as they were. Jack Kearns uttered a mild protest, but he had no listeners."
     
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    107,941
    38,327
    Mar 21, 2007
    Right, but mistakenly? Now you've been redirected to the discussion to hand, surely you have something to say about that? We misunderstood each other - now we understand each other.

    I'm fitting Dempsey's run to the title to Johnson's (allowing that Johnson's was much longer but still had fewer losses), you see? You get that?

    Well, Christ, LOL, i think i've been pretty explicit from the beginning that I was talking about directly in comparison to Johnson. I said so directly, twice, in order that I wouldn't have to make this exact post later in our discussion. Clearly, that didn't work, but for the third and last time: In comparison to Johnson.

    Yeah, i know that, you've said that, several times, and i've never disputed it and I agree with it.

    I'm just stating, irrefutably, that the "boxing establishment" (your phrase) was far, far kinder to Dempsey than Johnson. I'll also state that he had better management and promotion. The "boxing establishment" was kinder to him, for reasons stated, with which you fail to engage.

    I've already told you, so I'll just copy and paste what i've already written in multiple posts already. I always think it's reached a worrying stage when I have to reply with copying and pasting though :lol: :

    If Jack Johnson fights Jack Dempsey's 1917 in his own timeline, he is beat. He won't get anywhere near a title shot. Losing to really good fighters in questionable circumstances excluded him from title contention for longer than Dempsey was excluded for being knocked out by a journeyman. His loss to Hart in 1905 kept him out of the title ring for years.

    Dempseys far worse losses in 1917 did not affect his run to the title, and he was granted immediate rematches for both. Relative to what happened to Johnson he was shown enormously preferential treatment.

    If you think this is indicative of the "boxnig establishment" favouring Johnson over Dempsey, you're crazy. Very clearly the boxing establishment favoured Dempsey over Johnson.

    Can you really not see this?

    Say Jack Johnson was knocked out in a single round by Charlie Hagey, and then outpointed by Peter Felix in 1906, you really think he'd gave got a title shot in 1908? Impossible.

    Maybe, but if I didn't know either fighter's colour it would still be absolutely apparent that Dempsey received preferential treatment.

    Maybe, but he seems to have lost that 1918 fight to Meehan pretty clean. It would seem Mr.Farhood and Mr.Weston have let you down. It's always dangerous to trust any "General subject" books written about Dempsey. His promotional machine - a part of the "boxing establishment" - was tremendously powerful and repeatedly bent reality. In this case, Dempsey's management absolutely plastered papers with their "account" of the fight, which is now your account of the fight. If I was an ass, I might invite you to "get it together" :lol:

    I have five different accounts, but all those produced the week of the fight say basically the same thing. I'll reproduce two in the hope this satisfies.

    Omaha Daily:
    "Weep for Jack Dempsey. He is done. The hopes we pinned on him are no more...Willie Meehan has a way of getting close and playing his tattoo on his opponent's midriffs, swinging with both hands. These punches have been dubbed "bass drum punches" ...it was these punches that he succeeded in outpoining Dempsey with in three out of the four rounds."

    Ogden Standard:
    "Meehan Outpoints Jack Dempsey
    Willie Meehan, local pugilist, now a seaman in the navy, outpointed Jack Dempsey, claimant to the world’s heavyweight championship, in three of the four rounds of their bout at a patriotic boxing exhibition here tonight. Meehan nearly took the count in the second round, but rallied in the next and blanketed Dempsey with blows to the body. The bout was witnessed by approximately 12,000 persons. It was one of a series of events given to obtain funds to purchase gymnasium equipment for naval training stations. Approximately $18,000 was raised."

    Actually, this is too good from the San Fransisco Examiner:
    "Demspey had the second round by a wide margin, but the third was Willie by so much that the 10,000 fans were on their feet cheering wildly for "Fat Boy"...in the last round Dempsey looked to have stopped trying. He seemed to be hanging on and yet he was not tired, merely puzzled."

    I also found a belting article describing Willard's refusal to fight Dempsey based upon the result and his telegram to meet Meehan. Boxing Establishment seems to have bailed Dempsey out on that one though.

    Don't feel too bad, Kearns has hoodwinked better men than you and I. However, Dubblechin, you insisted that Dempsey was the victim of a robbery and that there for his loss to Meehan ten months before Willard met Willard was of no important. Do these week-of newspaper reports dissuade you from this thinking, and would you agree with me that had Johnson suffered a loss to a fighter named "Fat Boy" ten months before his title fight might have hindered him in meeting Burns?
     
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    107,941
    38,327
    Mar 21, 2007
    His protests went on and on and on once he escaped the arena though. I bet if we really dug, it'd be in the two months prior to his fight with Willard that the narrative started to twist. Kearns was a dedicated public relations man and he was persistent.
     
  12. louis54

    louis54 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,187
    1,295
    Mar 20, 2013
    Good post
     
  13. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,232
    15,916
    Jun 25, 2014
    It was a benefit fight. That's why no one cared about the verdict any more than they cared when Ali got "knocked down" against everyone he ever fought in a benefit fight.

    That's why everyone was laughing when Meehan was named the winner.

    That's why all the talking during the fight "You've got me down, Mr. Dempsey, but not out."

    And "Get me the Kaiser!"

    You guys think that was a real fight? Good Lord. Yes, the four-rounder to benefit the Navy Fund between the Navy Instructor and the Draft Dodger ... where the fat instructor got dropped and proclaimed "I'm going down Mr Dempsey, but I'll be right back up!" ... totally legit. Just like Floyd Mayweather knocked out the Big Show at Wrestlemania.

    Boxing at a benefit for the U.S. Army & Navy Physical Education Fund on September 13, number-one heavyweight contender Jack Dempsey met flabby, 5'9", cauliflower-eared Willie "Phat Boy" Meehan. California rules limited the bout to a total of four rounds.

    Dempsey had scored kayos in 11 of his past 12 bouts, and he dropped Phat Boy with a hook to the belly in the second round. As Meehan slumped to the canvas, however, he told his raging foe, "I'm going down, Mr. Dempsey, but I'll be right back up."

    Meehan indeed did rise, and proceeded to swing wildly. At the end of the fourth round, referee Eddie Graney raised his hand in triumph, and the 10,000 in attendance howled.

    Meehan, a Naval boxing instructor, said,"Now, let me get a crack at the Keiser!"
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2021
  14. DanDaly

    DanDaly Active Member Full Member

    574
    587
    Apr 28, 2020
    Dempsey for me. He had the better competition and dominated in a way that Johnson didn’t. Put Dempsey in with Johnson’s opponents and he probably kills half of them. Burns wouldn’t have made it out of the first round. Even a 1927 Dempsey would beat the version of Willard that Johnson faced.
     
    louis54 likes this.
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    107,941
    38,327
    Mar 21, 2007
    I don't take it any more, or less seriously than the world heavyweight champion.

    "Jess WIllard, heavyweight champion, has officially ostracised Jack Dempsey...declaring he cannot afford to meet a fighter who has suffered defeat in a four round bout at the hands of Willie Meehan..."

    Press reporting from the stadium - not a guy on the internet 100 years later, not an extract form a book written however many decades later, people who were there - took it seriously.

    Jack Kearns took it very seriously, lying about it often like it mattered a great deal.

    Kearns, Willard, the press. I know the position you are taking suits your argument but surely if the heavyweight champion, the press and Jack Dempsey's manager took it seriously when it was happening, that gives you pause?