Dempsey's greatness.

"I MAY BE RIGHT"

Of course.

"it is not a mathematical question"

Winning or losing is not what I would call math or stats. I see it as basic to any sport.

"today's doubters"

The Boxing Writers of America voted Marciano over Dempsey in 1980 in the HBO poll. It went Louis, Ali, Marciano, Dempsey, Johnson--so the doubts started a while back.

 

Dempsey is the Pacquiao of his era. Even though Pacquaio is a violent beast, because of one man's cowardice and refusal to fight him, and one man's jealousy that enticed him to roid to his eyeballs, Pacquaio will be remembered as just a brawler.

But those that saw him...they will say damn...that mother ****er could fight.

 

Did the so called HBO poll in 1980 have anyone who saw Dempsey in his prime ? As in a murder scene, the eyewitness accounts hold more "weight" than accounts 50 or more years later, for dang sure...I HAVE SEEN RAY ROBINSON in his welterweight prime several times ringside..It has left an indelible impression on me more valid than today's fans who see a film of
an older SRR as a MW. Wouldn't you think ? And so with a Jack Dempsey...
The further from an event, the less accurate the actual truth of the event...
So with boxing ...I repeat once again. The contemporaries of Dempsey, are closer to the real truth of his ability in the ring, than people 90 years later.
Did he fight the best class of contenders during his prime.? NO. But no man can control when they are born. But what he brought into the ring
was qualities that transcend his era...A BIG earlier version of Roberto Duran, snarl and all...

 

Burt

Would you say that an eyewitness account of a murder would be better than a film of the murder?

"No man can control when he was born"

No, but if one is judging, let's say, the 1940 Chicago Bears against the 1962 Packers, it is valid to bring in that the Packer dominated an integrated era and the Bears a whites only era. Did the Bear players cause this. No. Did the Packer players cause integration? No. But it still weighs in the balance.

**You can't only select oldtimer opinion favorable to Dempsey. Both Nat Fleischer and Tex Rickard, who certainly saw plenty of Dempsey, rated Jeffries above him. Do you rate Jeffries above Dempsey?

****Just stepping out of the argument a moment, I think this old polls favored Dempsey argument would carry more weight if there were not so much film of these men.

"the further from the event, the less accurate the actual truth of the event"

Exactly. Couldn't agree more. And that is why thirty year old memories are not that accurate. Now a film, whatever the flaws, is the actual event caught for all time.

 

i've gotta agree with this, pac benifits from more footage but people that saw his key wins live/near live will never forget how awesome he looked.

 

You didnt trash Dempsey at all. Burt just gets emotional on the subject of Jack Dempsey.

You had a very well thought out view.

 

Good post...for any poll anyone could point out that whatever the year, some of the voters would be too young to have seen Louis/Dempsey/Johnson/Jeffries, etc at ringside. Burt says Ray Arcel said Dempsey is the best as if Ray has carte blanche over this subject and no other boxing figure has any say whatsoever ...but Arcel never saw prime Johnson at ringside...or anybody before him...so if we're going to go on ringside viewing only then the handful of people who saw John L to Joe Louis must be the only ones with any say on the matter pre-WWII. :!:

Of course, but, hey, why let real footage get in the way of a good story, spun on nostaligia and friendship...and don't ask them what great pointers they can show on an old film of a fighter in action...you may as well be put on ignore. :yep

 

sir, with all due respect you are spouting nonsense to buttress your desire to win this debate at any cost...You KNOW more today about the true prowess of Jack Dempsey than thousands of boxing people who saw him in the flesh...Congratulations ! Because of your acumen in ignoring the past history written by people of the time of Dempsey and after, I might as well throw out whatever old boxing books that survived hurricane Sandy...I do not need them now as I can get the truth from someone like you, 90 years later...I bow to you sir !.
P.S. One more thing sir. You write that I post that I said Ray Arcel is the only one I cite who thought so highly of Jack Dempsey ! There are lies, and their are damn lies. This is a blatant fabrication of what I have posted.
I mention Sam Langford, Mickey Walker, Gene Tunney, Jack Sharkey, Ray Arcel, Whitey Bimstein, Max Schmeling, who sparred with Dempsey in Germany when Dempsey was champion...These were a few of the boxing people who strange as it seems knew a hell of a lot than YOU do today NINETY YEARS later...This is what I posted but you chose to mention
only Ray Arcel....Good day ,and think what you may, but I have more faith in the boxing men I mention above, who you conveniently omitted...
Good try, but no cigar....
the names I mention above, who you conveniently omitted. Good try ...

 

Wow, a big load of ex-fighters thought a guy from their era was the best- so what's new? Loads of fighters say the ones they fought were the best- just like they always say the guy they beat hit much harder than the one that knocked them out cold. We know this, we love fighters for their stories, they're always solid entertainment.

My example was about fighters/trainers saying the guy from their era was best, and using Arcel was just an example- that, by your rationale, he can't really have a say about who was best between Johnson and Dempsey, whereas by mine-and most others it seems- he can. A poll in 1960 will feature comments from experts who weren't old enough to see, say, prime Johnson/Corbett at ringside; one in 1980 may be the same for Louis/Dempsey, one in 2013 for Rocky, even prime Ali. Can you not grasp this? I'm sure you can, if you really want to.

A classic example of an old timer, clearly remembering things wrong, was when my great uncle told me about en English footballer called Duncan Edwards, sadly taking from us at such a young age- and him being a
mixture of Pele and Maradona (you may not know much about these but i'm sure there are similar legends in baseball, etc). Apart from this being extremely unlikely, i did some research and a). the stats simply didn't add up- and Edwards belonged in an era where more goals were scored and b). the filmed footage showed me he didn't have anywhere near the skill of thos two.

The harsh truth of the camera eye found him out when compared to better players that followed...just like it does with Dempsey...I don't need to be carrying his spit bucket to know this, the films (sadly, in your case) tell me all I need to know and where he should be ranked- nowadays he's lucky to be top 10...y'see heavyweights got so much better since.

 

Burt , that's great if you leave out the exceptional press machine building him up for years by Rickard and Kearns and the fact that in ninety years there have been many other great heavyweights to choose from ... we have footage of the man in his mid 20's and which of these films back up the claims .. point to them ... the answer is you cannot ..

A twenty second KO over a wek chinned rival is dramatic but nothing like a monster super fight victory ... what have we actually got ?

 

Ooooh Ooooh I can answer this. Lets see, we have...


A three round KO of a 37 year old fighter who hadnt fought in two years. Nope.

A short clip of a three round KO of man who was dying that Dempsey admitted he basically fought for charity's sake. Nope.

A twelve round KO of a guy Dempsey had already defeated once and only took because it would be an easy defense (seeing as how the guy had been dominated by a middleweight 4 times since last they met) instead Dempsey went life and death, was rocked to his heals twice, had his ear nearly knocked off, and had to come from behind to stop him. Nope.

A four round KO of a frail light heavyweight who was more style than substance. A guy who had already been beaten by the best fighters he faced, several of which were welterweights and middleweights. Nope.

A lackluster decision over a light heavyweight who qualified to face Dempsey by losing a title elimination bout. Nope.

A 2 round KO of a unskilled oaf brought to the United States and promoted specifically for the purpose of being a Dempsey foil. Knocked down a few times, knocked out of the ring, possibly illegally helped back, definately illegally scoring several knockdowns using questionable tactics. Nope.

Two one sided ten round decision losses in which Dempsey lost every round with the possible exception of the seventh round in the second fight and even that is debateable. Its just a coincidence that the one guy who dominates Dempsey happens to be the best guy he ever fought. Nope.

A controversial seven round foul/cheap shot KO over Jack Sharkey in a bout he was easily losing. Nope.

A newspaper loss in an exhibition against King Levinsky in a bout designed to test the waters for a possible comeback. Dempsey was battered, and given a boxing lesson. Nope.

Oh, oh, I know! It was his knockout over hapless professional wrestler Cowboy Lutrell! A past his prime Dempsey comes out of retirement for a grudge match with Lutrell, who had taken a swing at him previously. Dempsey shows why he is a legend by knocking Lutrell senseless and sending him out of the ring just like the old days. Thats the one.

 

BRAVO!

A beacon of objective intelligence in a wilderness of blind sentiment.

 

Dempsey was great.

He knocked a lot of mofos out.

 

A lot of them, no one else was knocking out, but Dempsey was knocking 'em cold or bashing them to pieces. Maybe they were all bums, but some of them were durable bums.

 

Somehow I recall he won all these bouts...His was a slam bang style designed not to look like Willie Pep or Willie Pastrano...Please don't bring King Levinsky or Cowboy Lutrell into the mix...Dempsey was retired years before...I can easily defend all the
"stiffs" you mention above, but why try ? I have posted many times before, that Jack Dempsey's title resume doesn't compare with Ali's for sure. But he did beat everyone he fought from the time he hooked up with Jack Kearns til he went to Hollywood...Either
Dempsey was as great in his prime as has been written, or all the boxing people,
trainers , ex boxers of his time ,were on some kind of medication ? Nothing more, nothing less...cheers, and good luck with your long awaited book on my idol...