Dempsey critics you have a new weapon if you can find it.

You're in the wrong place.

 

Personally, I like the adversity. No, I don't want to insult anyone nor be insulted, but the heated debates are what keep the forum interesting and they also force us to do our homework in an effort to combat our adversaries, hence making us more knowledgable. Think of it in the same sense as boxers who have to polish their skills and stay active to beat other good fighters.

 

Well, so far this thread is the wrong place because it's a typical example of nothing being said that hasn't been said already.
The sad part is that janitor claimed to have FOUND SOME NEW INFO but has totally failed so far to share that info (perhaps he's just forgotten about this thread and will get back to it soon, I dont know). It might be the case that janitor keeps silent so as not to "aid the other side", that's almost how it sounds. Anyway.
Jack Dempsey, blah, blah, blah.

 

Yeah, but it's largely contrived. Exaggerating differences of opinion, latching on to the "overrated" and "underrated" themes. Arguing the toss over "all-time lists", none of which have anu real basis in reality. The lists are really just tributes to past fighters. Arguing over the order is a mental exercise, and should never be taken as arguments over realities. Yeah the heated debates and demonstration of prowess in argument and reasoning is good. That's all good. But if people come to hold back potentially interesting "new" information just for the sake of holding onto a position in the battlefield of debate, that's kinda absurd IMO.

 

If withholding information from adversaries was his intention, he never would have mentioned that he " found something " in the first place. He simply wants to hold posters in suspense, but I'm sure the answer will surface soon.

This is what its all about my friend.

 

As a friendly observation, I think you're taking this a tad too seriously. This is a past time... An outlet for relaxation if you will. It has nothing to do with improving our lives, making a living or family life. As an added benefit, we often acquire interesting trivia information, but it shouldn't be looked at as anything more.

 

Time to open the curtains, janitor.

 

Let us say gold is still $1000 an oz, so he was use to getting his fair share of 50,000 $20 gold pieces,($1,000,000 divide by 20 dollar gold piece) and was willing to wait til the pot was right.
$50,000,000 a fight was his price in today's money. If the price was not right, then he didnt' fight....no big deal....if your guy was not worth getting up that sort of money he definatly wasn't much of a contender.

You expect a Leiws vs a prime Tyson to get in the ring for chump change?

 

I think Dempsey got caught in a picture with Hoover in the FBI building at 3 in the morning wearing Little Bo Peep outfits......

 

Lewis went in the ring with Golota, Klitschko, Grant and others who were among the most dangerous heavyweights in the world (especially considering his so called glass chin) yet weren't the biggest paydays. They were high-risk-low-reward fights and he took them. Dempsey didn't fight Harry Wills when the man was the clear-cut #1 for over 7 years time.

 

Lewis was forced to...Dempsey wasn't forced too.
No where was there any rule that said he had to fight some one in this or that time frame. When the money was right and the fans clammored for a fight with a true contender the fight was made.

Most of the previouse Heavy Champs also didn't fight much...or if they did like Johnson, he fought a some chumps for eating money.
Burns though fought lots of "chumps" too, on his world tour. He had to pay for his world tour out of his own pocket.

It was quite normal in Dempsey's time not to fight that often....look at the men before him. Not the men after him, who had rules saying they must fight and this or that man.


Aboput Wills, Wills's check bounced. Willis had to put up $5,000 or it could have been $25,000 I am fuzzy in I've not read on the subject in the last four years.
The check bounced so Dempsey had no earnest money up front. Willis and his camp was a therefore a fourflusher, and not to be taken seriously.

Earnest money up front, Dempsey had to pay for his training camp, and in case Wills pulled out, Dempsey would not be out any money.

I know you are pretty sharp, but please list when and why Willis was supposed to be number 1 chalanger for 7 years? Gibson and a couple of others were rightfully fought over Wills. Willis was big at 212..I bring this up becasue he beat some 184 pounders.
1920 a good win KO Big Fred Fulton then 62-7-1, '21 Old..Gunboat Smith 81-44-14, '23 Homer Smith 45-17-3, '24 was a good win too over Big Fripo 29-3-0, '25 vs tough Weinert 64-17-2 also a light heavy.

26 beaten by Sharkey...Those are the white guys he fought over those years with any name, and two were good wins, Fulton and Fripo..

.the rest of the round robin black fighters had gotten old since Jack Johnsons time, Martin, Jennette, McVey, Langford.... Norfork a lt heavy, Then the new batch of bum of the month black fighters.....Clark, Tate, and he fougtht Thompson every other week. he was fighting these same folks 5 or ten times a piece or more.
So if he could only fight two good white men( five name whites in all, three over the hill, including Homer who never quite was...)...all the other white guys were dodging him too, and he could not be rated number one....perhpas number 5....

But it was his own fault his check bounced.....Dempsey took that check to the bank himself....So Dempsey was ready to fight him...

 

Is it about Miske's opponents taking a dive in the latter stages of his career because he was sick?

 

Has someone gone all coy :hey

 

You do know that dempsey was tysons hero,he copied a lot of what jack did,i had a old BBC vid and he was talking about dempseya nd different boxers,he said he would have been a great and a champin any era,i agree totaly,funny enough he thought jack johnson was awful

 

I know the answer

Jack Dempsey was once defeated by a woman