Dempsey's greatness.

Houdini, I recall a Ring article from the seventies where various scribes deducted the same about Tunney, that he cared little about boxing, but the article refuted this with several quotes from Gene where he said what he wanted to thought of and remembered as was simply a fighter. Because of his demeanor the public made assumptions of his thoughts on boxing. Ray Robinson on the other hand had numerous close friends who say boxing to him was mostly a buisiness.

 

I must say, I feel I have a much better understanding the fighters I've seen in action, live in the flesh, up close ... than if I'd just seen them on the television (and I have a big TV ). It's easier to judge them and appreciate their strengths, or become aware of their weaknesses, when they are there for real in front of you.
TV, even in all its angles and colour and replays, doesn't have the same dimensions at all.

Nevermind grainy rickety old black-and-white footage. I'm sure A LOT gets lost in translation there.

But maybe that's just me ...

 

Try to understand...I know it's tough. Those films were made using inferior technology so called silent film quality. It's as if every third frame is missing. Everyone moves erratically, boxing skills are not as apparent and as with all films they are showing no depth so in of themselves they don't correspond to watching live. Fans opinions watching these films 90 years or more later of course count much less than expert opinion who not only watch Dempsey live and in person but also watched him train, interacted with him etc. This was not just expert opinion but all time great expert opinion. do you think you know more about boxing and the skills thereof than Arcel, Bimstein, Fleischer, Tunney, Langford,Hayes, Stillman....of course you don't in fact very few people who ever lived had there level of expertise. They all saw Dempsey live and all agree to his greatness. You must be missing something or just don't know what you are looking for.

Yes...I've been watching films of Dempsey since the early 70s so very few if any have the level of understanding I have when it comes to these silent era films. Obviously much more so than you I am sorry to inform you.

 

You can see lots of skills when you watch Dempsey fight but because of the nature of the film subtle moves are lost. When I watch Dempsey Firpo as an example I see one great move after another from Dempsey...ultra short punches, feints, 6 inch combination punching...just stuff you see any hwt doing today. fantastic mind blowing skills.

 

Just an observation. I have a hard time remembering Nat Fleischer writing a single piece on boxing until early 1920s when he was at NY Evening Telegram. Before that, for several years in NY Press and NY Morning Sun boxing was written about by anybody but him, even though he was the sporting editor. This may be because his "rivals" were Charles Mathieson and George Underwood, but then even Daniel mentioned boxing from time to time. But not Fleischer.

 

H, so true what you say about Dempsey...How much ego it requires for some ESB posters to deny the greatness and UNIQUE qualities that the masses of boxing writers, trainers and boxers who saw the prime Jack Dempsey fight and raved about.! THEY today think there was a mass conspiracy to befuddle the ESB posters of today...After all they know better than the experts by the thousands who saw him at his best...I never saw Joe Gans fight, I never saw Sam Langford fight, I never saw my idol Harry Greb fight, but I take the words of the hardened boxing historians of their times who saw them fight and wrote about their greatness ,taken in all the pros and cons of their opponents ,their losses, their ages when beat and
formed their opinions....were all these thousands of boxing people less
informed watching these fighters like Dempsey, than today's naysayers and
revisionists are NINETY or so years later ? I say a resounding NO...
To bring up some possible weaknesses they detect on old jumpy hand cranked films of these oldtimers, and particularly Jack Dempsey is
not fair as Dempsey was not perfect. And I can easily do the same nitpicking with any of their favorite fighters...Try me ! I have a theory that might be unpopular on ESB, as to why Dempsey is so singled out though he was the best heavyweight of his times 1919-23...It is a social issue
plain and simple... He did not fight Harry Wills, THOUGH they signed for a bout...No denying this...These posters living in today's times are SURE they would have somehow overturned the fears that permeated the
boxing scene following the race riots and deaths in the USA, after the
Jeffries/Johnson fight in Reno, Nev. So on ESB, of all the older fighters in history, Dempsey gets a target on his back today and is so vilified by
a few posters on mainly ESB...He WAS a product of his times as much as WE are a product of OUR times. No more, no less...cheers H, and continue the good fight.:good

 

40 feet away is fine for me. I get a better perspective watching it live, maybe the changing positioning in the ring, the dimensions, the impact of the punches etc.
I'm the tall bloke standing on a chair.


Anyway, the guys being discussed who saw Dempsey, Greb, whoever, were press and close ringsiders had a real good view. Also, Dempsey looks great on film to me, so there's no mystery as to why they wrote that he looked great in the flesh.

 

I also think it should be taken into account that we are not talking about FRESH ringside memories but an opinion based on memories thirty to forty years old. Memories fail, much more so than film.

 

I also want to make clear that Dempsey was my boyhood idol, and I would not even until I hit adulthood have considered that Louis or Marciano were better.

But watching the films and looking at what is clear in the record book changed my mind.

I wouldn't dispute that Dempsey was "great"

He would be rated by most very high--the top ten or fifteen of all time is a very high rating for a fighter.

 

"Try to understand . . . I know it's tough."

"Very few if any have the level of understanding I have when it comes to these films"

"Obviously much more so than you I am sorry to inform you."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope I never get so insecure that I have to sound this silly and pompous.

Have a good day.

 

Just the truth.

 

What nonsense to say that what made Jack Dempsey so feared and respected in his heyday was written 'thirty or forty years later" . You talk as if Dempsey in his prime fought before NO AUDIENCE...I have read from articles in some boxing magazines from the 1920s, from the greatest boxing minds of the day, extolling the powerful hitting attack of Jack Dempsey...They were at RINGSIDE for his bouts. They were watching
this deadly hitter from a shorter distance than YOU ARE, 90 years later...
Only on ESB folks, only on ESB. NOT 30 years later...At ringside ...atsch

 

I think sometimes people too easily dismiss or under-rate Dempsey's best wins. It's not so much the opposition, but the manner in which he beat them.

 

you also see sloppy footwork, low guards at the wrong times, poor balance and a guy getting unhinged from the game plan against a trumped up foe.