Dempsey v Langford

The footage we're really missing is Dempsey against Wills and Greb :yep

 

I don't see what the problem is with the quality of the footage to be honest?? Most of the footage I have of Dempsey is absolute fine? It's not like Johnson footage where you get loads of missing frames and those chumley Warner moments where you miss punches altogether but you see the effects of then haha - it's not exactly jitter bug stuff the Dempsey footage? I think it's very clear and Dempsey translates very well from it - the Willard footage especially the close up in-ring stuff is awesome as is the carp footage from the in close cameras? And some the sparring footage especially the stuff against Big Bill Tate prior to the Willard fight is amazing stuff too?

 

Footage of Dempsey Greb did exist once!

 

Burt,
It goes a little further than Ali v Holmes.

Just last night, i turned the TV on and there was a round or two of Ali v Frazier III. Sure Joe was bobbing and throwing left hooks, and Ali was landing at range. But to be perfectly honest, there is no way you could look at those two guys and rule out the chances of guys like Klitchsko. In fact, you couldnt even really say that someone like Chris Byrd or Eddie Chambers or even David Haye would be completely out of their depth. I suppose, in reality, each of the above would have a chance agaisnt these versions of the two ATGs.

 

Well stated B. There are two ways to look at a great fighter's place in history I believe.
1- How would this fighter at his peak [not only what film remains] and how would said fighter do H2H against any other fighters in his weight class
at THEIR peak ?...
2- The depth of opposition they fought and the AMOUNT of fights they fought in their career with winning records...
So by my reasoning I have Jack Dempsey's place in history so high was that he started to peak just when he hooked up with Jack Kearns, ate properly ,trained properly and rampaged through the heavyweight ranks,
in matches unfilmed sadly, but REPORTED by hardened boxing scribes of that time. He was far away rhe best heavyweight until 1923, when he split from his conniving mgr Jack Kearns. Yes he went Hollywood,refusing to fight as Kearns would have still received his large cut of the purse. And in my eyes if I were in Dempsey's shoes ,fighting since the age of 14 in mining camps, I too, with all this in mind, wealthy, handsome and catnip to all the Hollywood sexy sirens, give in to the La Dolce Vita life, and do my share of banging...Who could blame Dempsey ? He wasn't thinking of what posters eighty five years later would think of his legacy ,I am sure...
So B,m to conclude we should rate the merits of great fighters WHEN they were at their primes, and NOT what we see only on existing films...Cheers.
P.S. A perfect example of this is when Fitz is shown on fairly good film being stopped by Bill Lang in 1909. Sure he doesn't look impressive, but for gosh sakes Fitz was FORTY SIX years of age....

 

Luf, Dempsey was a "banger", and a banger bangs. Look how far Joe Frazier went who was far less mobile on his feet than Dempsey was. Look how far Joe Louis went, or a Mike Tyson ,both who weren't as elusive as Dempsey was ,who was able to circle around his prey via faster legs....Dempsey at his best was very spry on his legs,who attacked his opponents with superior hand speed and viciousness...Willie Pep, he wasn't, as that was not his forte...At his best, he beat whoever he fought, and was good enough to beat a Tommy Gibbons at Gibbons own game...

 

I love Sam Langford, one of my favorites but I will not fall into the undermining of JD that is a trend on ESB, Dempsey had power and speed and was one tough cookie. Sam always dangerous but Jack carried lead in his hands and while we are at it was the bigger man and if we are going to make Sam unbeatable then what about his many losses....I will have to go with a Dempsey win

 

Dempsey said that when he was coming off his fight with John Lester Johnson,and was still learning his trade in 1916...Langford at 33 was still a potent force,whilst Dempsey before he hooked up with Jack Kearns was nowhere the fighter he became later on with Kearns'
Besides Sam Langford was quoted as saying when Dempsey and Harry Wills signed for their "aborted" bout that "when they [Dempsey and Wills] fight, my money will be on Jack, as he is the best heavyweight I ever saw ",unquote !...

 

Dempsey said several times that he wasnt sure he could EVER beat Langford. Including his interview with Peter Heller for the book In This Corner.

 

If Dempsey had his doubts, then he was probably right in saying in his own autobiography that Langford was the only man he outright ducked. That being said I think it would have been one helluva fight had it of gone down, but whether Dempsey could have won or not is a whole other discussion. The Langford that was available to him was half blind, and that was the version he ducked. I do believe Dempsey would have beaten Harry Wills, because all Wills was, was a big strong man who came forward and threw essentially an overhand right. Guys like that Dempsey destroyed. Langford is an entirely different ball of wax though.