I do not feel Dempsey is over rated he developed a very unique template for the rough and tumble swarmer type of fighter and at his peak would be dangerous to any fighter. Combined with his life story and fights never recorded Dempsey is without a doubt a top ten Heavyweight ATG. I recommend the books A flame of pure fire and Dempsey in Nevada.
No Dempsey was a great fighter and you must take into perspective the times and the Champions before him. Dempsey was a powerful puncher and Jack Sharkey who is underated can attest to that. He should have fought Wills but i dont think that was his doing..Did he duck Greb, NO in fact he fought the man that soundly beat Greb, Tunney...I think because of his fame he was inactive making movies but when he did fight he was explosive...One thing for sure Dempsey is not overated on this board
what heavyweight champion in his right mind would give a smaller less known scrapper a shot,what did dempsey have to gain against greb-he wins he beats a little guy he loses he lost to a smaller guy and i doubt they would have got a huge payday why the risk?i think jack would eventually have ko,d him in the middle rounds but maybe take a few shots on the way.because of his promoters-management-racial times jack didnt fight enough or who he could have but i dont believe it was his fault.as far as ratings he,s in my top 5 head to head in his prime 1918-1920 and on this forum some are fair to him while others constantly underrate him.i think he should def. be anyones top 10-15
Perhaps he's a tad underrated. If Usain Bolt became a reggae musician tomorrow, it would not diminish his standing one one hundredth of a second. What he did would be there forever, in black and white, or rather HD color, for posterity. There are reasons why Jack Dempsey became a legend: a) His blazing run-up to the title, including five straight kayoes in the first round for an overall 20-1-1 in a year and a half, is extraordinarily prolific and most definitely unheard of today. b) His destruction of a champion who outweighed him by at least 58 pounds, a mere cruiser against a superheavyweight with serious power, would be impressive enough on paper. But the film evidence surpasses fiction. Here, Dempsey proves that once a truly great puncher is in the neighborhood of 180 pounds, his fists are capable of knocking over any man alive. In this case, after displaying nothing less than a perfectly highly developed bob-and-weave prowl, one fist suffices, as Dempsey explodes with a single left hook to floor and essentially defeat the champion then and there. It is patience, pure killer instinct, stamina and power to spare that Dempsey showcases at Toledo, all on the chassis of ring fundamentals for his style that are way ahead of their time, to the point that should any heavyweight today pull of something similar, he would undoubtedly attain a similar adoration as Dempsey and put boxing back on the map. Just look at what was accomplished by young Mike Tyson, speaking of whom, was nuts for Dempsey and is in essence his apprentice. c) I am not troubled by his stinky reign, because I judge fighters on their peak era, even when, as Sam Langford, they may never have become a champion. As far as I'm concerned, any hobo who reaches the top is entitled to milk the title for all its worth, and I doubt he will be bothered by Internet-warrior opinions 90 years later. But, even this rather lousy time is testament to the same foundations Dempsey brought to bear as a hungry challenger. His defenses against Gibbons, Brennan and Firpo, albeit by a past-peak version of himself, show the same great underlying fundamentals. d) It is common fare to read and hear that Jack Dempsey revolutionized boxing. These are the reasons why. He was exciting, dynamic, powerful, technical, even gentlemanly as a true champion should be. The million-dollar gates and the Golden-Era explosion in boxing interest would be quick to follow. The sport would never be the same. e) And, for my money, peak vs. peak, he would have dusted Harry Wills as well as many overly hyped giants. As long as the film is there to give credence, and though his generation has passed, I am certain future fistic generations will continue to learn from and give Dempsey his due.
Good points....he was the greatest that anyone had seen up to that point and until Louis and Dempsey had one of the best Killer instincts ever..he smelled blood like a shark
Greb was pretty much owned by Tunney and Gene was a lightheavy when those fights occured. Greb is my # 1 Middleweight but there is a big difference between the way he started with Tunney and the way he finished. I really am not sure the public would have bought it. As far as sparring, I have seen middleweights dominate heavyweights because usually a middleweight has a better skill level...I remember a fighter by the name of Tom"the Bomb" Bethea beating Big man Leroy Jones all over the ring in the 28th St. gym in NY and this was just before Jones got a shot with Holmes...Bethea got him on the ropes and gave him an ass whipping...there was a grudge between them and Big Jones was talking...Tom was quiet but they let it go......In the ring however with top Class championship level fighter...Dempsey being a cut and ripped 197lbs, I think the public would buy a Wild Bull Firpo over a Harry Greb a great but not really a powerfull fighter........and the public loved Dempsey 1st million dollar gate....the boxing fans loved Joe Louis....and everyone loved/hated Ali
Bummy no one is considering Jones an all time great. Greb was calling out Dempsey prior to Jack fighting Willard. Their sparring matches were in 1919 and 1920. Yes by the end of the Tunney series Tunney, the younger man, was past Greb but Greb was basically past his best , period ... There is no way to tell how great Dempsey might have been because of the following: 1. He stopped being an active fighter in 1921. 2. He ducked his number 1 contender, Wills, who was a far more proven commodity in an era dominated by the color line. The rest on him is an incomplete picture filled with speculation ...
The only fight that should have been made was against Harry Wills and I dont blame Dempsey for that, he genuinely wanted to fight Wills. Langford was too old and Greb wasnt a legitimate challenger at heavyweight.
Wills was his top comtender for almost his whole reign and had fought and defeated much better competition. Greb was a completely worthy contender but why let facts stand in the way of myth ?
I'd like to caution against the tendency to equate resume with greatness. Logically, there's nothing contradictory about the possibility of the greatest heavyweight coming along during a poor era. Great opponents are an opportunity to demonstrate greatness; but greatness can also be demonstrated against lesser opponents by treating them as a great boxer would be expected to treat them. To paraphrase something TEDSPOON once posted, you have to look at quality of performance in light of quality of opposition. That being said, not fighting the best available opposition -- whether due to inactivity, drawing a color-line, ect. -- does, in a sense, mark down greatness. In Aristotelean terms, it's like not making ones first actuality clear by fully engaging in second actuality, eg, not making ones ability to speak French (first actuality) clear by speaking (second actuality) especially challenging French. The person may speak less challenging French in a manner that inclines us to believe he or she can handle the most challenging French; but it becomes more clear when the person actually suceeds (or fails) in doing so. he grant more or less said what I said, but a lot more concisely:thumbsup; although I probably don't think the picture on Dempsey is quite so blurry; just not so crisp as it could have been.
It depends on where you rate him and how you rate him. I based my ratings of fighters on the quality of their opposition, how dominant they are, and how they look on film. I tend not to rationalize on the assumed progressive development of the sport, since I regard boxers today as less capable than during the 1960s-80s; however, it is obvious that boxing in Dempsey's day was not as advanced as it was in the 1970s in the heavyweight division. One can see that from the film. Some say that Dempsey was great in his day. This is not my approach. I am unimpressed with Dempsey's competition. The best fighter he faced beat him twice. So if you rate Dempsey highly, then he is overrated. He's not in the top 10 or 12.
