Dempsey's greatness.

Sounds like you have secret tapes or something. :rofl

Seriously, how is believing everything allegedly said or written that puts Dempsey in a bad light any more credible than believing everything that makes him out to be a noble hero ?

I smell bull**** on both sides.

 

Difference is I don't give a rats ass for heroes. I do care when bad history is being portrayed as fact. You don't have as many great boxing minds calling a fighter great unless he was...period. if it were just Arcel or a handful I would agree but too any of the experts from that time consider Dempsey a unique talent. You find that level of praise where else in hwt boxing history? Ali, Louis, Johnson, ......but with Dempsey the experts were wrong?

 

I kind of agree, but several here will tell you Jack Johnson wasn't great either, to be fair.

 

But wrong is wrong. A black man dominating as boxing champion in those days....that alone says plenty. The mans skills speak for themselves.

 

Hell some people are convinced Ali was all hype and never beat a good fighter. That his whole career was illegitimate. It's the internet. It cuts every which way.

 

Untrue...we are talking credible expert opinion. You can find writers who will write anything to make a buck.

 

Dec 8 1951 the times news

Even today you read that Louis was ready to meet all comers but that Dempsey studiously avoided wills. Jim Farley then boxing commissioner barred Dempsey from fighting in NY until he would fight Wills. However this was done to influence the Harlem vote as Farley was in the process of building up the National democrat party. Dempsey gave an interview that offered shattering proof that far from ducking Wills he actually preferred to fight him over Tunney and was upset that Rickard refused to go along. Dempsey was coming back after years in Hollywood and needed the dough and Contrary to popular Belief he did not underrate Tunney but did not fear him. Wills was slow and Dempsey felt he would be easier than the younger faster Tunney especially for his first comeback fight. He wanted Wills in June and Tunney in September. There is no way to tell what would have happened if Dempsey had his way. There is reason to believe he would have stopped Wills as by the time Wills got a chance at the big time vs Sharkey he was exposed as what he had always been...a plodding, Earnest second rater more vulnerable then ever.

 

So, Wills was "exposed" at 37 years old and 75 (recorded) fights into his career?

No subtext here from the enlightened 1950's.

What utter ****.

 

Yeah, it's ridiculous.

 

Jess Willard got similar treatment. Still does. He seems to be judged off the Dempsey fight more than anything. When he was an old rusty fighter. OK, he doesn't have the distinguished career of Wills behind him, but it's still wrong.

In a way, Wills WAS exposed. Exposed as a has-been in 1926. Unfortunately, people were taking far less notice of him when he was actually in his prime 10 years earlier.

 

I hold Dempsey in very high regard and it was not Dempsey who wouldn't fight black fighters, he was more than willing to do so and he did so early in his career. In fact a fiht between Dempsey and Wills had been scheduled to take place in 1924 and a ticket was actually made. Politicians stopped the fight from happening.

 

Welcome Oldtimer, and prepare for the onslaught....
P.S. A tip for you. Never post anything favorable to Jack Dempsey. You will
pay a price...I have.:good

 

Man Jack gets a negative lookback from most Eastsiders (as Burt said). Bottom line, a great infighter, a tremendous left hook, great speed at his best and footwork that was perfect for his style, a tiger of a fighter and the guy knew how to hit. You would never find a sane heavyweight in history who would diss this great champion the way the armchairs do.

 

"watched him fight from ringside"

Yeah, one side of the ring. They had a one side perspective also.

The difference with a film is that it can be blown up and the fighters brought closer. I saw the Dempsey films on the big screen in a theatre back in the sixties. (I still see them on HD today) On a big screen Dempsey is maybe 40 feet high, much bigger than he would be in real life--and with a DVD the film can be watched and studied over and over again.

Now you are telling me that the opinions of experts or just fans watching these films today should not count against the opinions of old-timers who may or may not have been at this or that fight, may or may not have had good "ringside" seats, saw the fight or any event in the fight only in the moment it actually occurred, and are trying to remember it after thirty or forty years.

We are supposed to yield our own judgement, and ignore what clearly in the record book, for that?

You are welcome to do it, but speak not for me.

"I know more about these films than ANYONE"

This line does speak for itself.