Dempsey v Langford

"but Dempsey was quoting his thoughts of the time his then manager John the Barber wanted to throw young Dempsey to the wolves to fight the feared seasoned Sam Langford. This was when he fought John Lester Johnson in NY, when Dempsey was half the fighter he was two years later when Jack Kearns became his manager...This Dempsey of 1916 was not the Manassa Mauler of the Willard fight and his soon prime,1919-23."

Burt, just a quick note to say that I finally understand your line of thinking on the Dempsey quote after reading above. I'm not so sure that it was only his thought at that time but at least I get where you're coming from now. As mentioned previously, Gunboat Smith, a man who fought both of them, said Dempsey against Langford would have been bad news for Dempsey. Irregardless it's all speculation. And, although I'm obviously a bigger fan of Langford, I'm an admirer or Dempsey as well.

I'm presently reading a 1938 book by Paul Gallico titled 'Farewell to Sport' that contains some interesting observations of Dempsey on his part. I'll try and post some of them soon.

 

This is more like it, and harder to refute.:good

"Kearns took care of his end of the business-making sure that the referee would be sympathetic to Dempsey."

"Kearns choice for referee for the Miske fight was James F Daugherty, the Leiperville ,Pennyslavia promoter who had been responsible for the Sun Shipbuilding Comapany in Chester hiring Dempsey in 1917."
"Kearns rationale was simple Daugherty had helped keep Dempsey out of the war, and he would protect the champion as much as possible within the ring."

" Problems arose when Chairman Thomas Bigger of the Michigan State Athletic Commision refuswed to grant Daugherty a referee's license.
Instead several days before the fight Bigger named Al Day of Detroit as referee.
Kearns was enraged and informed Bigger , Fitzsimmons, and the general public that either Daugherty refereed the bout ,or the contest was off".

" Day indicated he would withdraw in favour of Daugherty.
Finally after hours of discussion .Bigger relented and granted Daugherty a license." " Jack Dempsey," Randy Roberts .

 

Going back over the next day reports on this fight, it is funny how incredibly negative the opinion was of Dempsey's performance while in these parts we been giving Jack a lot of credit for this performance. We must remember that the real love affair with Dempsey began with the Tnney fights. Sure, people paid to see him but he incurred a lot of negative press.

 

I mentioned a book I was reading titled 'Farewell to Sport' by Paul Gallico. Gallico was a novice reporter when he was sent to Dempsey's training camp in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. to write stories about his training for his upcoming title defense against Luis Firpo, and covered much of his training camps and fights thereafter. Here is part of what Gallico wrote about him in his book:

"He was, as fighters go, a pretty good performer, though not nearly as good as legend and kindled imaginations pictured him. He had great truculence, pugnacity, and aggressiveness, a valuable and unlimited fund of natural cruelty, tremendous courage, speed and determination, and good though actually, not extraordinary, hitting powers. He was never a good boxer and little or no defense. His protection was aggression. He was not, for instance, ever as good a fighter and boxer as the Negro Joe Louis is today, not withstanding Louis's defeat by Schmeling. Dempsey's entire reputation was based, actually, on two fights, the one in which he knocked out gigantic Jess Willard at Toledo, to win his championship, and the thrilling, atavistic brawl with Luis Angel Firpo, the big Argentine, at the Polo Grounds in New York, September 23, 1923. But they were sufficient, for they marked Dempsey as a giant-killer, a slayer of ogres."

And,
"But Dempsey was a picture-book fighter. By all the sons of Mars, he looked the part. He had dark eyes, blue-black hair, and the most beautifully proportioned body ever seen in any ring. He had the wide but sharply sloping shoulders of the puncher, a slim waist, and fine, symmetrical legs. His weaving, shuffling style of approach was drama in itself and suggested the stalking of a jungle animal. He had a smoldering truculence on his face and hatred in his eyes. His gorge lay close to the surface. He was utterly without mercy or pity, asked no quarter, gave none. He would do anything he could get away with,fair or foul, to win. This was definately a part of the man, but was also a result of his early life and schooling in the hobo jungles, bar-rooms, and mining camps of the West. Where Dempsey learned to fight, there were no rounds, rest intervals, gloves, referees or attending seconds. There are no draws and no decisions in rough and tumble fighting. You had to win. Dempsey, more often than not, in his early days as hobo, saloon bouncer, or roustabout, fought to survive. I always had the feeling that he carried that into the rinig with him, that he was impatient of rules and restrictions and niceties of conduct, impatient even of the leather that bound his knuckles.

But all of these characteristics added to the picture of a man who could swing his fists and slug bigger, heavier, stronger men into unconsciousness. It crystallized something that all of us at one time or another long for - to be able to "up" to someone, a giant, a bully, a tough guy, without qualm or tremor, and let him have it."

Further,
"Dempsey is accused by many of having been a foul fighter, and the same is fervently denied by Dempseymaniacs. Dempsey, himself never denied it, to my knowledge. In point of fact, under the strict interpretation of the modern rules of ring combat, he was a foul fighter, rough, anxious to hurt, and careless of his punches. But psychically Dempsey actually never was a foul fighter, because in his simple way he recognized no deadlines on the body of his opponent and certainly asked for none to be enforced upon his. He also knew that such smug and arbitrary divisions as "fair" and "foul" cannot be made of hte word "fight," nor are they properly applicable as adjectives. The word stands all by itself and complete in its meaning, not to be tampered with, increased or diminished, like "love" or "red." You either do or you don't. It either is or it isn't, And either it was a fight or it wasn't. He had no advantage of protective armor that was denied his opponent. He was equally vulnerable. He was not a deliberately low puncher, though sometimes, with a touch of macabre humor, he liked to test out the courage and disposition of his opponent with a few low ones, but he was simply unconcerned with such niceties and obvious decadencies as a belt lnie. After all, wasn't it sufficient that when he got his man down he refraine from putting the boots to him?"

 

This is almost exactly how I see Demspey.

 

Clay, I remember reading "Farewell to Sport" by Paul Gallico, so many moons ago. If i recall, as a cub reporter Gallico got in the ring with Dempsey so Gallico could write a "first' hand experience about boxing with
Jack Dempsey. Well Dempsey being Dempsey, flattened young Gallico and
I am sure this experience didn't endear Jack Dempsey to young Gallico.
Dempsey was a slam bang tornado in the ring and his style was not
to be compared to a Benny Leonard nor Willie Pep. But it only required
Dempsey to persevere in his pursuit of his opponent and ending the affair
whilst not always looking beautiful all the time...As to who would have prevailed in my dream match between Dempsey and Louis both at their best ? Gallico chose Louis, whilst a Schmeling, Sharkey, Arcel, Lou Stillman
and the great British boxing writer James Butler chose the faster starting
Dempsey...My two favorite heavyweights, both swift and deadly...:good

 

nice post burt :good to this day, a well done dempsey roll is one of the most beautiful things to see in the ring

 

True. Watching old boxing films that were hand cranked is like peering through dirty eyeglasses while driving your auto with a dirty front windshield...

 

Carpentier certainly caught him in the second round. If Langford lands that punch the fight is over.