Dempsey's greatness.

Since Don's last name gets ****, I just going to call him Don lol.
Yeah Dempsey and Louis would have taken Don out faster than Rocky did, but its really a style thing, They would blast you out if you got hurt, were after the Walcott fight, Marciano just punch you out as he did vs Don and Moore.

If Rocky lands a right shot, he could take any man out, So would Dempsey or Louis for that matter. And about Marciano missing half his shots, do you think that had more to do with Walcott, Charles and Moore than Marciano being a bad aim? The 3 are class A boxers. Moore could make many people miss on the ropes. He was talent at that skill. I not sure if Dempsey would land as many blows on Walcott as he did Firpo. Firpo was master defense. Or Willard for that regard.

 

When they saw him, the MDQ rules had been used for 30 years or so. They didn't exactly have a large sample size. He was a terror of the white ring, yes. And he certainly was.

History is constantly being re-written as understanding of the context of a given situation expands in hindsight. Henry Ford was a great industrialist and humanitarian in 1930. Now, we understand he was also a guy who stole his best ideas, was a devout anti-semite, a union buster and Hitler-phile. I suppose I should revert to 1950's grade school instruction of how he merely "built a better mousetrap" tho.

A) Anyone who saw both Dempsey and Louis, examined their accomplishments and film with an unbiased eye and found the Dempsey the better should be disqualified from any discussion of boxing ever.

B) I have an article from 1962 wherein Fleicher rates Dempsey 4th behind Johnson, Fitz and Jeffries. So, yes, Fitz over Louis. Fitz and Tunney over Marciano. So much for wizened experts from days of yore.

No, it's actually nothing like this. Law is a concept stretching back to the beginning of human development. Judeo Christian concepts of justice go back thousands of years. Marquis de Queensbury boxing as a decider for the heavyweight championship was accepted in 1892. Someone making an estimation in 1920 is doing so with only 28 years of this ruleset in this arena for context. Furthermore, the "judges" in this case are largely bought-and-paid-for writers of dubious intelligence, ethic-less promoters and drunkards, not muliple degreed, bar passed judges who have operated at the highest level for decades.

Established opinion in 1930 was the Henry Ford was a great American and leading light of financial and political progress. Established opinion in 1945 and 1948 was that Uncle Joe deserved a Nobel Peace Prize. Established opinion in schoolbooks well into the 1970's was that Andrew Jackson was a great president of the US, one to be admired and honored. I guess because I was not alive in these times, my opinion can not vary.

If the basis of the game under which a predecessor played is proven to be wholly inadequate (the color line) by future generations, the predecessor's worth declines intrinsically in comparison.

Dempsey had a lazy title reign, drew the color line and avoided his best two challengers. That's pretty damning stuff. All that said, I have him #12 last I did a list. So, not that far off your suggestion.

I am in absolute agreement. However, one thing Rocky could say that Dempsey couldn't was that Rocky met the best of his (short) career.

Dempsey is no Foreman and Dempsey didn't like the smaller foes. Frazier is also much more disciplined and refined on tape. I would favor Frazier in this one by KO, in a brutal war. Dempsey never beat a fighter near as good as Frazier. Frazier beat a fighter far better than Dempsey.

 

Has Houdini cut and paste exactly the same post as he did last week? I look forward to reading it again next Tuesday....then the following Saturday.

 

:huh

Well, they've seen a lot more modern boxing than those who were long dead. I hate to tell you this, but no one at ringside for Dempsey fights were likely at ringside for Lennox Lewis vs Holyfield, etc.

 

Really? So, you didn't read Fleischer after him rating Fitzsimmons the 3rd best heavyweight of all-time? Of course, you did- this hardly bothered you at all I bet. Goldman's rating, although proving to be a wrong-un, was made after Kalambay if I recall...and in a list where fighter who he'd rated in other divisions didn't feature (e.g Sugar Ray, Griffith) whereas, Fleischer thought Fitz was still 3rd best as recently in the early 1970s.

 

True, no one today saw Jack DEMPSEY FIGHT RINGSIDE, But a Ray Arcel, a Max Schmeling SAW Jack Dempsey fight ringside and every other top heavyweight up until 1994....So do you not consider these two worthies at least on a par with you and others boxing "experts" on ESB ? I ,who saw most every top fighter of the 1940s ringside DO NOT consider myself an expert, but an ardent observer of talent. I AM CERTAIN that by and large the talent pool of great fighters were so much superior to today's alphabet champions who have 15-25 bouts and fight for a title. Tell me sir, who today can compare with the 1940s fighters such as Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Ezzard Charles, Ike Williams, Archie Moore, Beau Jack, Jake LaMotta,
Charley Burley, Sammy Angott, Sandy Saddler, Marcel Cerdan, Kid Gavilan s fighters why not realize that and a host of other great fighters who had over 100 bouts fighting 15 times a year average against the cream of the crop ? If these great fighters were better than today's fighters by and large, why not a Joe Louis, a Jack Dempsey, a Jersey Joe Walcott' as well?
But today on ESB the past is inferior to yesterdays more competitive
fighters, according to some experts mainly on ESB who are obsessed with
their less informed opinions, than a Ray Arcel and others of yesterday.

 

Sorry that my sentences is out of synch, but my darn laptop is on the fritz...

 

Out of interest, which fighters did Arcel see at ringside in the 1990s? I'd like to know. Do you know? I doubt Ray went to many as he was well into his 90s. Also, how many of Jack's fights did Ray see at ringside that weren't filmed and what we have access to today do you think? Not many I bet...maybe a few at best? And not likely as many as Fleischer, who rated Johnson higher...so why isn't Nat right on this one?

Like I said, after Ray's work with Holmes I doubt he attended many fights, although I don't know this, but he was getting on a bit. Of course, he may have watched Tyson and co on TV, maybe, so his opinion counts; yet if someone younger watches Dempsey on film...that means **** all, we all had to be at ringside to have an opinion, apparently. :!:

Also, how many fighs are you at ringside today too? Of course, the likes of me can't comment on the fighters you mention as I only have TV footage and you seem to be inferring that this isn't enough? :huh Yet, seemingly you can comment on today's fighters despite obviously not being at ringside very often, if ever? You can't have it both ways- just like those who rate Johnson talk about his style, his ability, his defence, etc, when this is questioned, they say the film is bad...Charlie Chaplin and other nonsense... yet, this was the key source of their rating in the first place.


I rate great fighters based on their era, not on head-to-head. For the latter I go by my own viewpoint, not someone else's...if I went on theirs then boxing would have peaked in the early 1900s, this is extremely doubtful, especially when Queensberry Rules were in their infancy....this didn't happen. The same people are the type who say there's never been anyone to match a baseball/basketball/football player from the same era- which clearly doesn't make much sense at all. Anyone not blinded by nostalgia can see this.


My uncle was a professional footballer (soccer) and when comparing a player from his prime- the 1960s- and one today, I am more of an authority then he. Why? Because i'm more interested in his era, then he is in today's game. When it comes to being there and competing with players such as Alan Ball and Bobby Charlton (names that will mean nothing to you) he trumps me...I can't compare with that, but he simply doesn't watch the sport today and as I am more interested in his era, then he is in mine, then I can speak about both eras better than he can...as i'm equally as interested in them, he isn't, so why would he know? He doesn't. And in soccer the same crap is written about old timers, which (so often) simply isn't backed up by footage... or statistics. Sometimes it is, and we give credit where its due.

I don't know what you'd think I am biased to today's fighters, I'm not. I need filmed footage when comparing two fighters in a head-to-head sense, to examine styles and stats, relative ability and, sometimes, measurement- then i can give my own opinion.


For the record, I think the 1940s was a splendid decade...and one when boxing really took off...great champs in almost every division...starting in the late 1930s after the lull of the early part of the decade. A vast improvement on 20/30 years previously.

Also, am I allowed to say Ali is the best heavyweight or not? Or do I have to seek the words of Ray Arcel and the like- and listen only to them (even though they have different opinions). And, FYI, I'm more than well-read on the opinions of legends of the sport.

 

Ray Arcel died in 1994.He was active in his beloved sport close to the end.
Yes Nat Fleischer and others had Jack Johnson as #1.
I have never seen Jack Dempsey fight. I have never seen Sam Langford fight. I have never seen Harry Greb fight [my dad did]. I have never seen Benny Leonard fight, nor Mickey Walker, nor hundreds of the oldtime great fighters, but I READ boxing history avidly since I was a youngster in the 1940s, and I trust the considered judgment of professional boxing writers and historians who wrote about the prime Dempsey a hell of a lot more than you or I for that matter...I have watched ringside tons of bouts since
the early 1940s in MSG and many small boxing arenas that dotted New York City those days, and I know what I saw then and I know what I see NOW...I feel strongly that in the 1920s til the 1940s, that there were 3 times as much pro fighters fighting often in so many boxing arenas honing their craft and fighting monthly the best opponents the public demanded
and by common sense and observation the top fighters because of their
overcoming the top contenders of that time HAD to be better. Of course there are modern fighters I loved, as Alexis Arguello, Roy Jones, Israel Vasquez, Roberto Duran, Ray Leonard, Gennady Golovkin, Hagler and others who would fit in well in the 1940s, but in general I believe the larger the pool of top boxers ,the better the Champion who survives the
best talent and prospers..Call me an oldtimer if you wish. I wear that mantle proudly...Cheers.

 

He is truly a proponent of quantity over quality.

 

Nat was an old codger who was extremely biased towards a certain era. So no, it didn't bother me. At least Nat and I could agree that Fitz was an ATG.

Goldman, who was no old codger, placed Nunn, who was nowhere close to being an ATG, in the top 10 of a division that is stacked with ATGs. I found this to be far more jaw-dropping than any ranking of Fleischer's.

 

Arcel was an all time trainer while Fleischer was a writer/historian so they watched fighters through somewhat different eyes. Fleischer was at ringside for every Dempsey bout from Willard on at the very least. Arcel knew prime Dempsey and watched him train many times and attended at least both Tunney bouts as well as Firpo.

 

Outside of one fight, We do have Dempsey's entire title rein on film, Its not like Joe Gans or Benny Leonard were 1 or 2 fights made it today.

From Willard to Tunney II, PLUS his post title fights bouts he did in the 1930's, should give us a good view how Dempsey fought. He was clever and pace himself like he did vs Gibbions, but can also go wild like Firpo or when he hurt Willard for the first knock down. I would agree Dempsey CAN fight and would give any one a hard fight, but he is not head and shoulders above other greats imo. Johnson, Louis, Ali, Marciano, the other Lewis, and soon Wlad when he retires might have a stronger say. Wlad is not having a number 1 guy wait for years on end(In this alpha title era that is, his bro doesnt count) winning fights and hopeing for a title shot like Harry Wills did. I am iffy on Greb, yeah Greb was beating the heavyweights and had a good arguement for a number 2 heavyweight ranked, but people claim its a lose lose with Dempsey, if Dempsey could have pick on little George, and make a million at the gate, I dont see with the right selling tactics, why that fight cant make a million either. Greb was a top draw in his day.

Any way while the other guys clean out there eras, Dempsey was marring hollywood actress, staring in movies and living on broadway lol.

 

I challenge that from several standpoints. Most of the early champions when they won the title used that title in aspects other than defending their title. Corbett went into acting as an example while others appeared in vaudeville. The new media was the movies in Dempseys time and like most of his predecessors he used his title to make money.

Here are the champions prior to Dempsey...years as champion and title fights after winning the championship.....

Corbett. 4.5 years. 2 title fights
Fitz. 2 years. 1 title fight
Jeffries. 6 years. 7 title fights
Burns. 3 years. 12 title fights
Johnson. 7 years. 7 title fights
Willard. 4 years. 2 title fights

Compare to Dempsey....
Dempsey. 7 years. 6 title fights

Aside from Burns who was the exception where does Dempsey fall short? Don't come back with Wills since it's well known he pursued a bout with him and signed to fight him twice. In terms of the amount of times he put his title on the line as champion Dempsey is right there with everyone else with Burns being the exception vs all others.

 

You cite that Dempsey" could go wild " as when he at the opening bell tore into Firpo, stumbled into a right hand on Dempsey's jaw..Yes that happens with any swarmer at times. But he recovered and dropped the
Wild bull of the Pampas [I like that name] , 7 times in the first round and finished him off in the 2nd rd, with a devastating one-two combination.
It took 12 rounds for Harry Wills to win a 12 round decision over Firpo. So
what is your beef ? Dempsey was tagged by Firpo ? The man was a
great puncher who was the greatest ring attraction in history, not because he was a fancy Dan, but he was a great crowd pleaser who when he had to
could be cautious as he was circling the 70 pound heavier Jess Willard
for almost a minute before he exploded a monster of a left hook shot
UPWARDS on Jess Willard's chin dropping the giant for the first time in his career....Why the heck don't critics like you give credit where credit is due ?
Give me anyone of your "modern" favorite heavyweights and I can nitpick
on any one of your favorites. Til my last breath I believe the imperfect Jack Dempsey had a unique combination of panther like quickness, and two handed punching, mixed in with a kill or be killed attitude, seldom seen before and since...And I go along with the thousands of boxing experts who saw him in his prime and lauded him as a great alltime natural fighter and
a one in a lifetime ring attraction..Sue Me....