Dempsey's greatness.

I ignored Goldman for years after he put Michael Nunn on his top 10 greatest middleweights list. I like the man and have recently allowed myself to start reading and enjoying his old writings again. But that one was something of a credibility killer for me at the time. It still blows my mind.

 

We're talking about Bert Sugar .. absolutely no disrespect meant ... :good

 

Nat Loubet took over from Fleischer and some changes were made but initially but nothing huge. Jeffries was given the top spot, Johnson no 2, Schmeling and Langford were removed and Ali and Frazier add...9th and 10th.

Several years later Louis was elevated to No 1, Dempsey was made higher on the list as Johnson and Jeffries lowered.

 

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.

 

H, seriously your analysis can hardly be topped....What an ego one must have today on ESB to deny the hard nosed opinions of Dempsey and Louis's era ! What do these esteemed "experts" know today 90 years later ,that
the great ex fighters, trainers, writers of the 1920s,up to the time of Ray Arcel's death, DIDN'T KNOW ?
I saw Ray Robinson in his welterweight prime a few times ringside... Can these same posters know more about the greatness of SRR than my
contemporaries and I do SEVENTY years later ? Great job H...

 

So you agree with Gene Tunney when he said that Dempsey wouldknock out Matthews, Charles, Walcott, and Marciano, on the same night one after the other inside of ten rounds?

 

People are trying to rewrite history for their own personal agendas ? What sort of paranoid, delusional statement is that ?

Go with fact:

He did not fight the number one contender for his entire reign, a larger, stronger man who fought and defeated better opposition than he did.

He fought five times in seven years as champion and looked beatable against Carpentier when he was staggered in the second, against Brennan when he was staggered multiple times and almost stopped and against Firpo where he himself was dropped three times ... he looked decent against Gibbons but not great ... we have no film of Miske 3, what "might" have been his best bout ...

What else do you have to go on other than speculation ? Answer: Denial and conspiracy theories.

 

He....your completely lost and incredibly biased. Mountain of evidence that Dempsey did everything he could to make the fight happen with Wills. Into his old age Dempsey swore that he tried his best to make it happen and wanted to fight Wills. He told this in private conversations to my father back in the 50s.

Having tough fights and coming back to win is a sign of all time greatness. Dempsey came back to knock out for a 10 count Brennen. Miske was destroyed in quick fashion. Very tough challenger who beat many top contenders after losing to Dempsey. Some call Miske an uncrowned champion. Carpentier was considered one of the greatest fighters in the world when Dempsey fought him in 21. The fight was no contest save a couple of right hands from the challenger that rocked Dempsey but he was in no danger of losing which you always try to imply. Firpo was the Foreman of his day...hugely powerful and without fear. Again Dempsey was rocked but came back to ko for a ten count the. Challenger.

Do you honestly realize how intellectually inaccurate it is to try to change well observed, well documented written history? There is 90 years of history written by experts and eye witnesses that overwhelmingly say the exact sam thing...and YOU think it's all wrong and YOU are right?

 

What did it for me was when he went back and started awarding titles retroactively like when he called Joe Choynski the LHW champion when no such title existed for Choynski. He started creating all of these crazy lineages. The guy went off the rails and the fact that he snuck that garbage by Bert Sugar is the greatest proof that Sugar was no historian but a ****** who played a reporter and simply aped the old stories he had heard ad naseum.

 

Burt was a hell of a character and a terrific self promoter but there is a lot of truth to this point. I got to spend a lot of time w Burt and liked him a lot but felt he had a bit of hot air along with a lot of good stuff as well.

 

OF COURSE NOT D !!!!! You know perfectly well this statement was hyperbole on Tunney's part. How many times you or I have said "so and so would "kill him" ? Or he" wouldn't lay a glove on him " ? Our emotions sometimes get ahead of our descriptions many times leading to emotional exaggeration ...

 

Mendoza... The pre 1954 Marciano was not an attrition puncher. Marciano had more one punch knockouts than Dempsey

 

Wladinir is a top 5 heavyweight of all time...better than vitali

 

My old adversary! Dempsey had about 25 one round kos. Can you prove your statement that Marciano had MORE 1 punch kos ? Of course not SQ.
And what does having one punch better kos mean in a quality sense ? Zilch. Bob Satterfield in the LHs and Ernie Shavers both had one-punch devastating power but they were not nearly as good as their superior opponents. Julian Jackson hit harder with one punch than Ray Robinson but would be kod by the faster more versatile punching SRR...And yes Rocky Marciano was by and large an attrition puncher who missed half of his punches, but was so strong he hurt his opponents even if he hit them on the arms or shoulders...But could you envision a prime Jack Dempsey hit a Don ****ell with every punch for NINE rounds before the referee would stop the fight ? Hell No, Dempsey at his best hit so much faster, so much more accurate than Rocky did, and he would have taken out ****ell in a few rounds...Or Joe Louis for that matter...These two favorite's of mine needed but 6 inches to flatten a man....

 

P.S. why is Don ****ell's name not allowed on my post ?