Dempsey's greatness.

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by VG_Addict, Aug 16, 2013.


  1. burt bienstock

    burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,285
    394
    Jan 22, 2010
    Two can play this game. My favorite heavyweight was Joe Louis...Growing up in America most everyone loved Joe Louis as much for his graciousness out of the ring as well as in the ring...But to bring up the opinion that Tommy gibbons cuffed Dempsey around in Shelby is a fabrication...True Dempsey didn't ko Tommy Gibbons, who was a great defensive boxer...It is just as TRUE that the great Joe Louis didn't ko Bob Pastor,
    Tommy Farr, Arturo Godoy #1...It is also true that Mike Tyson didn't flatten all his opponents either...Tommy Gibbons was a great fighter whom Dempsey whipped by a large margin in 15 rounds in a 105% Shelby afternoon sun...No ONE ever kod Tommy Gibbons in 105 bouts until his last bout when he was stopped by the much younger Gene Tunney in 1925, when the aged Gibbons was 34 years old...Tell me, what heavyweight champion in history KO'D every opponent ? Answer none...
    Not ONE of us could truly know who was the best heavyweight ever H2H...If I had to
    pick one fighter to bet on I would say that no fighter would beat every other heavyweight
    as styles and strengths come into play...But I love fast hitting power punchers, as a Dempsey, Joe Louis, and young Mike Tyson in their primes...Sue ME...
     
  2. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,261
    9,091
    Jul 15, 2008
    Ashamed of myself ? R u a joke ? I'm still waiting for you to tell me the filmed performance that backs your Dempsey fantasy.

    I openly question your knowledge of the sport. Plain and simple. Your claim of Louis as a documented slow starter is absurd. Louis had twenty KO's in the first or second round. Tell me Jeffries was a slow starter or Marciano or Frazier and I'd agree .. Louis was not balls to the wall like Dempsey out of the gate but not a "documented" slow starter ..

    Both Baer brothers got to Louis early ? Max ? Is this documented as well ? Please pull the fight clip and show me ten secons of that fight that Baer won. He was destroyed.

    Buddy Baer, bigger, stronger, better and as hard a puncher as Firpo did catch Louis in the first round of their first fight ... Joe came back to dominate him in that fight and destroy him in his "slow starting" rematch .. Braddock caught him with a flash knockdown and lost every other second of the fight. Galento hit him for sure but Louis destroyed him in under four rounds, flooring him and stopping him in brutal fashion .. in a fifteen round fight the fourth round is still kind of early ... Tami and Walcott were fighting the post WW2 Louis ... Tami landed one shot and was then destroyed. Walcott, an all time great in his own right and a murderous puncher again fought a past his best Joe.

    Is your point that Louis could and did get hit ? No denying but let's talk Dempsey. Besides the fact he was KO'ed, down for over thirty seconds v.s. Flynn he was rocked out on his feet against Gunboat, stunned clearly by Carpentier, by Brennen multiple times, by Sharkey multiple times, Tunney badly in round one of their first fight and bounced off the floor multiple times by Firpo .. Dempsey was rocked badly and early and often as well ...

    Again, what film backs your claim of Dempsey ?
     
  3. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,261
    9,091
    Jul 15, 2008
    All very solid points Burt .. I happen to believe from all that I've read and the films I've managed to see that Gibbons was extremely talented, almost like a James Toney type of is era with a better punch and Dempsey performed quite well after such a log layoff against such a crafty opponent ..

    I guess my main issues with Dempsey, putting aside his draft dodging which is basically inexcusable, was his inactivity and ducking Wills. Wills would have been the biggest test he could have taken because he did fight all the guys that the color line allowed Dempsey to avoid. Maybe Jack flattens him or maybe he loses but it is a huge blemish that he did not fight the best other fighter of his era and no story of blaming it on Kearns or Rickard can convince me otherwise ... if you read the post I printed by his ex-trained he also said that they did not want Jack to fight Gibbons but "gave in to him" and made the match ... I just don't believe that if Dempsey demanded the match w Wills they would not have made it .

    As far as how great, putting aside all the huge PR of the era and the romanticizing it also stays with me that we do not know because he did not fight ... Houdini can spin Louis tales but Joe fought a ton more championship fights than Dempsey did ... so did Burns, , Ali, Holmes, Patterson, Frazier, Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield, the Klitschko brothers .. even Marciano had seven title bouts in four years for the most part against the best fighters of his age ... the more you fight, the more you hve to get up for it and the more you expose yourself to getting hit ... Dempsey may have been a heavyweight version of a prime Manny Paq for all we know .. he sure looked it against Willard which was his absolute peak although he is reported to look exceptional against Miske in 1920 ... after that , starting w Brennen, he was never the same by his own admittance ... I always write that Dempsey showed flashes of his true potential greatness to me in his last fights, as a semi-shot guy showing such heart, guts, speed and power at half mast against prime, extremely terrific Tunney and Sharkey ...

    I just love the man and the story but give him an incomplete on actual achievement ..
     
  4. HOUDINI

    HOUDINI Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,497
    1,644
    Aug 18, 2012
    Clearly those who actually saw Jack Dempsey fight considered him one of, if not the greatest heavyweight champion of all time. He was every bit the terror of the ring that a young Mike Tyson was. They described him as they saw him. He was fast of hand and foot, could take it, was very quick to recover when hurt and could dish it out with the best. He was also an under-rated boxer as Ray Arcel and Jersey Jones both pointed out. Dempsey, according to eyewitnesses, was highly regarded for his fighting prowess.

    Today, we see a lot of people trying to re-write history for their own personal agenda’s. It is important to consider the established views of those that came before us, who actually saw the fighters they were judging, before forming our own opinion.

    One must consider established opinion when trying to rate the heavyweight greats. As late as 1962, in the Dec 1962 Ring Magazine, a panel of 40 boxing writers tabbed Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight of all time. When considering what has taken place since 1962, just before the Ali era began, one must still consider established opinion when viewing everything that has happened since that time. In other words one must consider the opinions of those who lived in the time and saw those fighters when trying to form a new opinion. Don’t radically alter established opinion, because you are too far removed from that time to change it honestly. That is the essence of “revisionist history.” It is better to consider the opinions of those who saw the fighters prior to the Ali era, and then form new judgments using established opinion as a backdrop.

    It's like the Supreme Court when they decide a case they weigh heavily upon established opinion. Now they do form new opinions, but not without precedent. So to magnify a rating of someone in a time period that you did not live in and to lower someone's stature, which is contrary to established opinion, is just wrong because you were not there, you did not see Dempsey and do not know enough about him to change established opinion. One should consider the actual eyewitness account of what happened and not just stare blindly at a record book. Consider established opinion and then add to it based on what has taken place in the generation one lives in.

    The legal status of the doctrine of joint and several liability isn't going to change over time (or at least it shouldn't). A straight-up opinion as to "who is better than who" must change, by definition, every time something better comes along, but it shouldn't shake up established opinion of fighters whose time has past. If the new guy is proven to be better over time, Ali for example, than he should move ahead, but that shouldn’t change established opinion of previous generations.

    Add in the new but don’t change the order of the old, at least not drastically. Obviously everyone has a different opinion but for instance in the Dec 1962 Ring magazine Jack Dempsey was rated #1, and Joe Louis #2, Jack Johnson #3 and Marciano was a distant #6.

    Today on most lists Ali/Louis are in the top 3, which is not a drastic change, but to leave off Jack Dempsey in the top 10 is just wrong and completely revisionist. Today it is common to see Rocky Marciano high on an all time list and Dempsey not on at all. This is a gross change in established opinion of those who saw them both fight.

    Marciano is rated highly today almost completely because of his undefeated record. Marciano’s record of 49-0 appears impressive at a glance, but his competition is not inspiring. The argument that Rocky beat four Hall of Famer’s is laughable when one considers their ages when he met them, Walcott was 38-39 years old in their fights, Charles was past his peak at 33, and Moore was 42. Moore was older than Holyfield when he lost to Toney but yet he put Marciano down.

    Also consider the fact the "Rocky was floored by the 2 strongest punchers he ever faced, Moore and Walcott, as Joe Louis doesn't count since he had long since lost his once devastating punch" -Nat Fleischer Dec 1955 Ring.

    Virtually no one who saw both Dempsey and Marciano would tab Rocky over Dempsey in a match. Recall, that Marciano finished a distant 6th in the Dec 1962 Ring magazine rating of the all time great heavyweights, far behind #1 Dempsey. Anything Marciano could do, Dempsey could do better. Jack hit just as hard with his right, was a much stronger puncher with his vaunted left, had superior hand speed, was more maneuverable, was a better boxer, had a better jab, and had an equally good chin, and better cut resistance.

    In another comparison of a similar fighter, Jack Dempsey would most likely have little trouble with Joe Frazier. Joe was a much slower starter than Dempsey. Dempsey would beat Frazier because Joe would have taken too long to hurt the Mauler. Frazier warms up to his task before he starts “smokin” and he usually didn’t get to that point before 3-4 rounds. Dempsey was a fast starter. The bell rang and he went to work. He had better hand speed than Frazier and is very similar to Mike Tyson in many respects. Frazier was vulnerable early, he was down in the second round against Mike Bruce, down 2 times in the second round against Oscar Bonavena, destroyed early by George Foreman, and almost dropped by the relatively lighter hitting Muhammad Ali in the second round of their second fight when he was saved by an early bell. Dempsey would explode early against Frazier and end things quickly and he had the speed, power and killer instinct to do it. If Bonavena could down him twice in the second round then Dempsey, one of the greatest finishers in ring history, would certainly do the job.
     
  5. burt bienstock

    burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,285
    394
    Jan 22, 2010
    H, BRAVO for this wonderful post...We Cannot deny the opinions of people who saw Dempsey in real time as opposed to hand cranked camera's.
    As a youngster I would talk with men who saw Dempsey fight, I would read about his greatness in boxing books describing his savagery and sheer toughness written by his contemporaries, and how in 1950 over 200 boxing people chose him as the best heavyweight they saw, by a LARGE margin...
    Only since joining ESB in 2010, have I heard such negativity about Dempsey from guys who disregard the opinions of the past, 90 years after Dempsey became champion. What do they know that all the esteemed boxing men of the 1920s didn't know ? I'll stick with the oldtimers who saw Dempsey with their own peepers...cheers...
     
  6. HOUDINI

    HOUDINI Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,497
    1,644
    Aug 18, 2012
    Unfortunately people like myself who grew up in the 70s are seeing the beginnings of revisionist BS concerning Ali. So I can see plain as day the much more extensive revisionism that has been going on regarding Dempsey. There is noone who saw him live and in person who is living today and in general people are lazy and won't do the research required. Bottom line is you cannot ignore the many decades where all time experts called Dempsey...the best. Not the lay person off the street but boxing experts from that time....trainers, writers, historians. Yes he was that good...no...great.
     
  7. ETM

    ETM I thought I did enough to win. Full Member

    13,169
    11,466
    Mar 19, 2012
    :deal

    Dempsey was good and he had plenty of talent. Truthfully, nostalgia aside he squandered his talent as champion. Inactivity "to rest is to rust"
     
  8. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,261
    9,091
    Jul 15, 2008
    Look, your clearly the type of person that needs to pen the last word and with a lot of time to keep writing and I don't ...

    A.J. Liebling who saw both men in their prime wrote that he believed Marciano takes Dempsey. How's that for starters ? I could continue to surgically dissect your flowery love letters to Dempsey but it gets no where since you deny reality and cherry pick fabrications to underpin this fantasy ... I ask you and Burt to tell me what film on Dempsey you use to support your position ? AS far as revisionism on Ali the huge difference is that Ali FOUGHT the best fighters of his era and those who wish to support him can go to the films and the record and back their arguments ... with Dempsey it is a huge leap of faith backed by romanticism so nothing I write any further can compete with it ... it's like religion to you guys .. blind faith ..
     
  9. burt bienstock

    burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,285
    394
    Jan 22, 2010
    O Ye of Little Faith ! If your intent is to say I have more faith in the
    thousands of boxing people of Jack Dempsey's time in the 1920s til the 1950s, who saw Dempsey ringside, OVER the opinions of a handful of
    ESB posters of today who tear him apart unmercifully, NINETY years later,
    I stand accused ! cheers...
     
  10. HOUDINI

    HOUDINI Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,497
    1,644
    Aug 18, 2012
    Libeling to my knowledge never saw Dempsey in his prime. He also lived in New England and had an obvious "thing" for Rocky. No harm but this is one writer and I can list a dozen boxing trainers and historians who did indeed see both men in their prime that attests that Marciano was only comparable to Dempsey in terms of punching power. You choose to ignore first hand expert testimony which is as wrong as you can be if you want to be historically honest.

    All Dempseys films show his greatness. You just need to know what you are looking at and understand the films are silent movie quality. If you did not realize and obviously you don't when you watch a silent movie people from that time did not move that way...it's a function of the film technology from that time.

    You have a huge chip on your shoulder regarding Dempsey. It's unfortunate since he was one of the more unique talents in hwt history. Many ways revolutionized hwt boxing and up to the advent of Joe Louis was the most gifted of all hwt champions.

    Generally when I read a poster ignores expert eye witness testimony from a time where all people are long dead I understand they are young and inexperienced. Over time I hope you will understand it's the only way to properly determine a fighters greatness from long gone eras.
     
  11. louis54

    louis54 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,187
    1,302
    Mar 20, 2013
    i knew some old pros who saw dempsey fight and/or workout and they thought he was the best heavyweight they saw. he was , as mendoza and others here say, a complete fighter and truly, mentally , a real fighter - i think some people overlook such things. when they spoke about him they just said he was great, really something else and these guys realley got around.
     
  12. My dinner with Conteh

    My dinner with Conteh Tending Bepi Ros' grave again Full Member

    12,059
    3,558
    Dec 18, 2004
    Maybe because they're judging him on film vs fighters they've seen since 1920 and as time goes by and his name isn't quite as famous and he isn't as popular as he once was- he was a fighter wih incredible popularity who would no doubt receive votes on that alone- I was born in the 1970s and I'd heard of "Jack Dempsey" way before i'd heard of "Joe Louis"or "Jack Johnson".

    Nowadays he's been judged more fairly and most of us, rate him lower top 10 at best- which is still excellent and takes into acocunt there's been some pretty good heavyweights since the 1950s. We also know most eye-witness accounts are coloured by nostalgia and friendship and many simply can't be taken as gospel- I watch many an event nowadays- whether boxing, football, whatever and so often it isn't as good as game as I remember when i was younger, where the event and atmosphere makes the occasion- reviewing it objectively, years later, we can realise that it was being there that made it so special.

    Judged more objectively, years later, Joe Louis, for example, generally comes out ahead of Jack...because he looks the better fighter and most certainly was the better fighter. The ****-poor excuse of 'bad cameras' doesn't wash- we can still make out styles/methods/punches thrown by volume and punches landed. Jack looks good enough on film; but hardly the best heavyweight ever and if that's what they thought in the 1950s well, that so often sums up the reluctance many 'critics' have in giving current- or recently retired- fighters their dues...even Ali was losing to Jim Jeffries in 'all time dicussions' in the late 1960s. :!:
     
  13. Stevie G

    Stevie G Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,046
    8,406
    Jul 17, 2009

    Yeah. Ali losing to Jeffries seems quite incredible now,does n't it ? As recently as 1974,an article in Ring Magazine had Ali being stopped by Jack Johnson in four rounds following a one sided beating !!!!!!! I don't have any problem with anyone claiming that Johnson could actually beat Ali - After all,any great fighter would be capable of beating another on a given night,but FOUR ROUNDS ??? Especially when one considers that a rusty past his prime Jeffries took Jack into the late stages of their title fight in 1910.
     
  14. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,261
    9,091
    Jul 15, 2008
    Strong post .. enough w the nostalgia ... bottom line ... a supremely physically gifted fighter who under achieved by peaking at 24 and converting into an exceptionally well packaged and promoted drawing card .. he did not fight his two toughest challengers ( Greb and Wills ) but still profited from exceptional management, promotion and luck. Luck that he was not disqualified against Firpo, luck that he was not disqualified against Sharkey and luck that neither Tunney fight was scheduled for 15 rounds or he would have ended his career by being stopped in two of his last three fights and his legacy would have been terribly different. That being said he is an all time top ten crusier in my book ... at all inclusive heavyweight, no. I don't see him beating Johnson, Langford, Louis, Ali, Holmes, Liston, Foreman, Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield, Vitali and possibly Marciano and Frazier ... there are likely ten challengers or alphabet champs I'd pick over him as well ...
     
  15. ETM

    ETM I thought I did enough to win. Full Member

    13,169
    11,466
    Mar 19, 2012
    You stated it perfectly. :good