Any Jack Dempsey fans here?

I think it's time to get back to the original purpose of this thread. That's a great tribute video of Jack Dempsey, Phenomunon! I thoroughly enjoyed watching it! Thank you for your good work!!! :good

 

Yes, it was a great tribute. Thanks for your hard work. Dempsey was a beast.

 

All smoke and mirrors...... promotional tricks to keep the fansboys thinking that Dempsey isn't avoiding him despite, them not getting in the ring.

Yes, the same Fulton.

 

In Dempseys prime how anyone would be a favorite over him escapes me...Jack had everything ,tremendous two handed puncher, great bobbing and weaving defense, speed movements of a welterweight, and a will to conquer,along with a rough and tough demeanor...
Yes he signed to fight Harry Wills, but money issues with the promoter prevented the actual bout from happening, and Dempsey forfeited a $50,000 deposit to Wills...Too bad this happened as Dempsey's style would have been difficult for the tall standup harry Wills, as sharkey and Paolino Uzcudun would later whip an older Harry Wills...
Harry Wills reminded me of a later day Ernie Terrell,although better than Ernie...
Boxing is first and foremost a business, and virtually all great fighters, fight for the most money, with the least risk...As in the godfather," It's Just Business ".

 

Jack Dempsey was a chav, a cheater and a mafioso. Sorry to shatter your illusions. Go on.

 

How would he remind you of Terrell when you can't have seen Wills fight?

Wills was around 37 when he faced Sharkey and Uzcudun

 

a) Dempsey's reign is crappy. Its saving grace is we are able to see some of the blazing qualities that made him a legend. Dempsey should have fought Wills. Period. But it is misleading to suggest the Mauler was running scared of the Panther. There is no evidence of this. Any fighter is in submission to his management and Kearns as well as promotor Rickard -themselves products of their prejudiced era- were the small-minded men who will be forever guilty of this injustice.

b) However, based on the best evidence available to me, I still favor the best Dempsey over the best Wills as the better fighter, so if, on top of that, Dempsey is considered by the experts as the best fighter of the first half of the 20th century, that does carry weight with me, because:

c) While everything you say about visual testimony's relative unreliability makes sense in a vacuum (or in a trial where a witness claims to have seen me -or someone like me- running by with the loot for a brief second), the AP Poll anointing Dempsey as the best fighter pound-for-pound was taken in 1950, on the heels of the beloved Joe Louis' reign. Yet the Mauler got 251 votes, to Louis' 109 and Henry Armstrong's 13! Ample hindsight and the consensus of many witnesses must be taken seriously, I would say. Nostalgia? White bias? Sure, sure. There were certainly many other great white and Golden Age fighters to be considered in this poll and, on the other hand, by the '70s, Joe Louis -yes, the Negro- had been elevated to the throne of possibly the best heavyweight, with Dempsey (and Ali) close behind, in a typical pattern of belated recognition of greatness. Was this opinion off as well?

d) We're never gonna get Dempsey and Wills in the ring. I've made my peace with this, ranking Wills a full notch below Dempsey's class -based on the evidence I've seen- in the fantasy bout realm. In fact, I believe Sam Langford was better than Wills, sandwiched in between the Panther and the Mauler. Yet, as I've posted above, Langford himself said he'd bet on Dempsey over Wills: "Dempsey is the greatest fighter I've ever seen. He hits twice as hard as Jeffries and is as fast as Corbett." Pretty high praise from a very respectable voice, regardless of color.

e) And you know as well as I that juice in sports today has been more -much more- than speculation, what with Evan Fields (also known as Evander Holyfield), the omnipresence of the stuff and the expertise to use it without detection, baseball's McGwire's disgrace, Bonds' suddenly expanding head, and today's boxers eclipsing the unreal, inspiring '80s physiques of steroided Rocky Balboa, Apollo Creed and Ivan Drago. Sure, just empirical observation, as I can offer no real proof. But sometimes a spade is just a spade.

f) And, yes, I'm a Dempsey fan.

 

Wrong you are, I have seen Harry Wills fight on several occasions..I have seen Wills vs Jack Sharkey and also Harry Wills vs Paolino Uzcudun on film..Wills lost both times and the film clearly shows a tall stand up style,without much mobility by WEills. Deadly style for the Manassa Mauler..
To be technicakl, I also Harry Wills in 1946 standing a few feet away from me in Stillmans Gym,watching the top boxers sparring in the ring..I remember how tall and dignified the 56 year old Wills carried himself...
I'm sure Wills was a great fighter in his day, but common opinion of the day in Dempsey's prime fewlt that Dempsey would have beaten Harry Wills
As I do...Now Jack Johnson's style posed problems for Dempsey, but that is another story...

 

Say what you want...you have never seen a prime harry wills on film so you don't know if dempsey is better or not. What we do know is Wills was just as dominant and beat BETTER competition in the same era as jack dempsey.

 

Wills was well past his prime when both fights took place. This is like saying Jack Dempsey would beat muhammad Ali because of the way Ali looked in the Spinks fights.

I think Harry Wills poses a very good chance against Jack Dempsey. Wills was far better than the white hapless giants dempsey fought.

 

Of course Harry Wills was past his prime when Wills was hbeaten byJack Sharkey and Uzcudun...No question, and I feel for that dignified looking man that I saw at Stillmans gym in 1946.He surely deserved a shot at the title,as did Langford, Charley Burley, Holman Williams, Kid Norfolk,Coco Kid, and so many overlooked fighters in history..Such is boxing, and I still fervently believe that Jack Dempsey at his best had the perfect style to lick the upright slower Harry Wills,were they to have met...
One more point...A fighter can not pick his calibre of opponents in his prime...We are born when we are born...
Example, my favorite heavyweight was Joe Louis...When he was in his very prime his contenders were for the most part as good as Ali's were.
But Louis annihilated his opponents, who were before him, while Ali
squeaked out mnany controversial wins against many of his foes..
Does this mean that Ali would have licked Joe Louis ,head to head because Ali through happenstance faced better opposition ? Hell no I say.
A great fighter should be judged by his dominance over his opponents,
and not be tarnished by suedo calibre of his opponents he had no control over...
Addendum--I meant for the most part Joe Louis's opponents were NOT as good as Ali's opponents were, sorry....

 

So we are going to completely dismiss the facts that:

A. The Ney York State Athletic comission refused to sanction a fight between Dempsey and Wills, then suspended Dempseys boxing liscence for not fighting Wills.

B. Dempsey then signed a second contract to fight Wills and was given a cheque that bounced.

Was this all part of Dempseys smoke and mirrors plan of deception.

 

Why is Jack Dempsey being bashed so ardently 85 years after his last vfight ,not on his merits, but on the fact that circumstances in contracts prevented he and Harry Wills from fightingin Demposeys reign?
While the great joe Louis never tacklked such worthiues as Lee Q Murray, Lem Franklin, Jimmy Bivens, Harry Bobo etc,who certainly deserved a title shot over many of the "bum of the month club", that Louis fought...And not a PEEP from today's Dempsey detractors. Why not criticize Ray Robinson for not giving Charley Burley, Holman Williams, Eddie Booker etc,a money fight with the Sugar man ? What is this constant tirade against Dempsey not applied to other fighters as well ? Boxing is and willalways be a business and no one fighter, such as Jack Dempsey be a constant scapegoat, while other greats of the past are held to a different standard...Not fair to a great fighter of the past Jack Dempsey...

 

I think that Wills was certainly treated outrageously, but Dempsey maybe gets too much of the criticism for it.

In many ways Dempsey broke new ground by acepting the principle that he should meet the top black challenger based on his merits, and trying to organise a match.