Dempsey--one man's opinion.

There is no way to accurately gage him .. he did have terrific skills ... fast hands, great power, strength, stamina, killer instinct, heart, chin .. however he was extremely well matched by both Kearns and Rickard. In addition after winning the title he stopped progressing as a fighter ... his opponents were selected for event impact for the bigger bouts. Inactivity really crushed him ...

No matter how it is positioned his refusing to fight Wills is a huge mark against him. The way many shrug it Harry as just another big man made for Dempsey is revisionist history at it's finest. Wills was a much bigger man, highly skilled and had fought and defeated a more accomplished opponent selection. I can understand him not fighting an old Johnson but he really did avoid Langford (even an old Sam), Wills and Greb. We know the fast starting Dempsey could fly out of his corner and crush huge man into pebbles with his speed and power. We do not know how he holds up against the best of the best who might not crumble but actually survive, fight back and force him to take his game in another direction ...

I have read Burts position on old timers who saw him and I appreciate his thoughts on the matter but do not find that open and shut. Dempsey had exceptional handlers in Kearns and Rickard and they were masters at building and protecting their brand. The writers were all in their pockets. In additional they really liked Dempsey who despite the slacker image was a guy's guy ...

I'm not saying Dempsey was not a great fighter. I'm just saying he gets an incomplete from me because I honestly do not know how great he really was. He did not fight the two best challengers of his time in Greb and Wills like a Marciano did. He did not fight often as champ like a Louis, Ali, Holmes or Tyson. I have always said he proved more in outlasting a prime Sharkey and almost flattening a prime Tunney when he was past his own best...still, if we are going to be honest if the Tunney bouts were 15 rounders he would have likely lost both by TKO and that would not have helped either ...

I love what I have seen but have not seen enough to convince me he was a Manny Paq of his day as others have described him ... too much left on the table for me ...

 

Sparring is very different to an actual fight, it depends if you believe Dempsey was trying to take the head off a blown up middleweight in an unpaid sparring match, which would be pretty ungentlemanly. Maybe he was but sparring is practice, it can turn into a real fight but more often than not isn't 1.

I'm not saying Greb wouldn't beat Dempsey its a possibility. Wanting to fight the champ for a career high payday and thinking you'll win doesn't mean you will either.

Its certainly a step in class for Dempsey over the likes of Brennan/Miske.

 

God you are some kinda super Antagonist. Heck who do you even Consider a decent HW, lets hear it from the Horses Mouth.. Please say Norton KO1 Marciano + Dempsey

 

I think I'll limit my comments to this much: If any modern champion had gone 7 years, only defending his title 6 times, sat on the crown for 3 without a single defense, and avoided the best challenger in the world for the better part of a decade, he'd be stripped of both his belt and all credibility.

 

Well, you can be stripped of a belt but not of a championship.

 

Dempsey was stripped of neither.... On the otherhand, Holmes, spinks and Bowe were all stripped of titles and a fair amount of credibility for refusal to face challengers who were in line for their belts only a fraction of the time that Wills was in line for Dempseys. A " championship " is an empty concept when a champion does not fulfill his obligation as champ..

 

I think that you have to take into consideration of the times. Dempsey was the most explosive heavyweight to be champion up until Joe Louis.

The promoters could not make certain matches with the black fighters of the day but Johnson also did not fight any of them as champ. While I feel Dempsey should have fought Wills and could have fought Greb and Langford, he would have beaten all 3, still it is more of the politics of the time and the hand of Tex Richard.

Dempsey was electric, powerful, fast and mean and could punch. He was the Mike Tyson of the 20's and had the 1st million dollar-gate and did not have the benefit of cable or TV for that matter.

The fact that he was such a big star hurt him because of the outside influence but the Long count and the KO over Sharkey by a rusty Jack Dempsey also proved he was no fluke and adds to his spectacular performance over Willard,Firpo,Miske and the others on his way to the title.

There was never as an electrifying Heavyweight Champ up until Dempsey and not until Louis was it matched. If we rate Johnson and Jeffries as top 10 I think you must include Jack. I have him in my top 5, despite weighing all the pro's and cons

 

sounds good to me :good

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Since when was Tyson a swarmer? Not a good post this.

 

If you win the title from a guy the size of Vitally Klitschko, then you are entitled to call yourself the heavyweight champion if you want to.

 

Then why was he a full 7:1 underdog, despite basically drawing with Dempsey a few years earlier? I mean 7:1, that's a HUGE difference. Even Hopkins at 44, whom everyone thought was going to be murdered by Pavlik, was "only" 4:1.

And the clear #3 - Greb.

 

I agree that Wills and Greb are the #2 and #3 of that era respectivley, butt it is not actualy a given that either of them would have got past Willard.