Floyd - Paq proves something about Dempsey ..

To my knowledge there is only one as close as accurate copy of Dempsey Tunny 1 available on the Internet. All others you cannot be sure what round you are watching. If you watch the complete version there are times during the early rounds it appears Tunney is having issues handling Dempsey. I also disagree that Dempsey won only one round out of twenty against Tunney.

 

Very well put and very correct.

 

I'd say floyd pac says more about floyd and Pac than it does about Dempsey.

 

Pacquiao is a better fighter pound for pound than Dempsey, in my view. Inactive or not, he should have beaten Tunney -- a smaller boxer moving up against a fast destroyer with fast legs, agility and combinations.

 

Pacquiao aint beating no Tunney. You crazy.

 

Here's an ****ysis of Dempsey by Frank Lotierzo due to it's length I've removed some of the parts.

But the whole article can be found here.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/dempsey_fl.html

This article is not concerned with Jack Dempsey the myth or the legend, but rather what can be seen about Dempsey the fighter through close observation of the available films of his fights.

Dempsey's record cannot be ignored. His 25 first round knockouts are tops amongst all the heavyweight champions.

There has been talk that Dempsey ducked or avoided black fighters. Let's set the record straight. There was really only one black heavyweight worthy of a title shot during Dempsey's championship years, and that was Harry Wills. Dempsey did not duck Wills. Nor do I believe he feared losing to him, hence he did agree to fight the black contender. It was promoter Tex Rickard, who promoted the Jack Johnson – Jim Jeffries fiasco who wouldn't make the fight. It was too soon after Johnson, who was perceived as a threat to white America with his loud mouth and the supposed flaunting of his white women that challenged the white man's ***uality.

All things highlighted in this article are based solely on observations made watching the available footage of Jack Dempsey. Perhaps it is not fair to say with impunity how great he may or may not have been, based on a mere seven fights of a career that spanned 83 pro-bouts, but there is enough footage to draw some conclusions based on the available films.


First Sophisticated Swarmer/Attacker

The thing that Dempsey should be most credited with, but seldom is, is the fact that he was the first sophisticated pressure fighter. Since Dempsey, there have been three great heavyweight swarmers, Rocky Marciano, Joe Frazier, and Mike Tyson. Yes, all four pushed the fight, however they weren't the same as to the manner in which they utilized their aggression.

Dempsey's fighting mindset was to apply pressure trying to force his opponent into making mistakes in order to create openings, as he was trying to get inside to land his two-handed assault to the head and body. He was extraordinarily refined in his side-to-side movement, bobbing and weaving while his upper-body was in constant motion: he moved forward better than any fighter who came before him fighting as the attacker. The swarmers who'd come before Dempsey, like "Sailor" Tom Sharkey, Marvin Hart, and Tommy Burns, were much more crude in their pursuit.

If an opponent came to fight him, Dempsey was practically unbeatable. For his time, he really was the baddest man around. Jack was an exceptional two-handed puncher. His left-hook had one punch knockout power, and his right hand was straight and powerful, usually thrown with his full weight behind it. He had fast hands, and was at his brilliant best fighting as the aggressor. But it must also be said that Dempsey wasn't always on the attack, and would routinely step back to draw an elusive opponent to him, looking to counter-- a tactic he implemented due to his ineffectiveness at cornering a mover, or when he was unable to impose himself on the opponent, physically. If the opponent was an experienced mover/boxer, Dempsey wasn't a life-taker.

For the record, Dempsey wasn't a boxer/counter-puncher; he was an attacker, who sometimes stepped back as he looked to set the opponent up for a knockout blow.

Based on the available fight footage, most of his finishing punches thrown are looped. Sure, he threw some nice straight short shots versus Luis Firpo, and knocked out Jack Sharkey with a short left-hook. However, that doesn't identify him or his style.

In spite of Dempsey being the first true great attacker/swarmer, he's not the most effective heavyweight great in that mold. He didn't apply constant pressure, nor did he cut the ring off particularly well when he was confronted by an upper-tier boxer who used his legs and utilized steady movement as a form of defense.



Troubled By Boxers/Movers



When the just turned 28 year-old Dempsey defended his heavyweight title against light heavyweight, Tommy Gibbons, who he outweighed by 12 pounds, Gibbons was sixteen months removed from getting worked over by Harry Greb, who Gibbons out-weighed by 7 pounds. Greb wasn't bothered by Gibbons’ movement and landed with regularity. The same cannot be said for Dempsey. Gibbons’ movement and sudden stopping to throw quick one-twos disrupted Dempsey's attack. While Gibbons was on the move, often during the fight Dempsey was forced to reach and lunge. Because of his inability to cut off the ring and take away Gibbon's space and force him to have to fight and trade, Dempsey would move back and attempt to get Gibbons to go to him, hoping to land his counter attack. The simple truth is Dempsey was nothing close to superb at cutting off the ring during the bout with Gibbons. And because of that, Dempsey didn't force Gibbons to have to run or fight for his life. The extra time enabled Gibbons to time Jack on the way in, so he could tie up his hands.

Dempsey won the fight clearly, but I do not see Gibbons having the same success against a pressure fighter who could cut the ring and force him to fight. Unlike Dempsey, Joe Frazier was nearly impossible to tie up. Gibbons would not go 15 rounds against Joe Frazier.

The lesson from the Gene Tunney fights is not that Dempsey was older at 31 and 32, inactive or suffering from rust, all of which no doubt is true, and it was Dempsey's third fight in a year, it's the fact that he was inept as to how to cut the ring off on Tunney in either fight. When I walk my dog and dangle a biscuit in front of him, I can make him go anywhere I want to. This is what Tunney does with Dempsey in both fights. Dempsey merely follows Tunney around the ring and never steps to cut him off. Not in two fights. Tunney beat Dempsey virtually 19 rounds to 1 for the simple fact of Jack just following him around the ring, allowing Gene to box and pick his spots, without having to fight with a sense of urgency.

Against Tunney, Dempsey was troubled when dealing with a clever boxing stylist. Dempsey was unable to cut the ring or apply the type of consistent pressure needed to force Tunney to rush his punches and to keep him from getting set. It is exactly these types of tactics that allowed Harry Greb, who was much smaller than Dempsey and lacked his big punch to defeat Tunney in their first fight and give him several other close fights. Instead Dempsey followed Tunney around in a line instead of blocking him, applying pressure and taking away his space. The problem with Dempsey in this fight is not his lack of conditioning or his age, it was his lack of knowledge in how to deal with a cerebral boxer who used the ring.

This brings up another stylistic point. Dempsey was simply not Dempsey if he was not bringing the fight to you. He was a swarming style aggressive attacking fighter. If he was not coming to you, then he was not Jack Dempsey. That one minute circling against Willard did not make him a boxing stylist.

This brings us to a final point and that is Dempsey’s level of competition. Who did Dempsey beat that Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier or George Foreman would not beat? That argument may work in reverse as well in some cases. The point here is Dempsey’s level of competition was no better than other all time greats.

Some boxing historians seem to view Dempsey as throwing shorter punches and better combinations than Joe Louis, and hitting harder than George Foreman. If that comparison were true then Dempsey may be the greatest fighter of all time after Ray Robinson.

The problem is this simply is not true.

Nowhere in the available films does Dempsey throw shorter punches or demonstrate the varied and accurate punching of Joe Louis. Don't tell me one has to freeze frame the films in order to see these short punches of Dempsey. I don't need to freeze frame Joe Louis films to see his short punches. All one has to do is pick out any knockdown/knockout he scores; the short right hand that sent the giant Buddy Baer spinning 360 degrees to the canvas; the short hook that drops Galento or the combination of short punches that knock out Billy Conn. Could Dempsey throw short punches? Sure, he has that nice short hook against Sharkey, but overall he is not in the class of Louis. This is evident for all to see on the available films. One saying that Dempsey threw shorter and more precise punches than Joe Louis is asinine.

Does Dempsey hit harder than George Foreman? Based on what evidence? Foreman lifted Joe Frazier off his feet with an uppercut. I have not seen the film of Dempsey lifting a man who weighs over 200 pounds off his feet and then bouncing him like a basketball off the canvas. Dempsey did not hit harder than Foreman.

Jess Willard was 37 years old and had not fought in three years when Dempsey clobbered him. And just because Dempsey doesn't come right out and go for the kill versus Willard, that doesn't equate to him being thought of as a fighter who didn't have to push the fight to be effective.

No doubt that this is a good tactic against a much larger opponent. However, that does not mean the same tactic would work against a fighter who is hell bent on taking the fight to a smaller man. It would not work against George Foreman. George would not stand there waiting for Dempsey to move in.

Based on the observable evidence Dempsey simply does not compare to technicians like Gene Tunney and Joe Louis, nor is he as effective a swarmer as Joe Frazier at cutting the ring and fighting against a boxer/mover. The reality is all of these men were simply better boxers than Dempsey and should be ranked ahead of him.

In conclusion Jack Dempsey is a fighter whose myth and legend gives him a lot of romanticized abilities that are simply not evident in his films.

 

That article is the biggest load of **** I have ever read. One misstatement of fact after another.

 

Frazier was a one handed hwt. That alone allows Dempsey to be rated above him but there are 10 or more reasons he should.

 

I'd have to watch the fights to say one way or other, but he is a fairly respect boxing historian and according to him, it was all based on the footage available.

Now the site is called Cox's Corner and it's a pretty damn good site as far as I'm concerned, and they have 3-4 other articles about Dempsey which lean more towards him being an ATG, but I posted his one, specifically because it referenced films of Dempsey and his ability, or lack thereof, to cut off the ring.

It's not uncommon for fighters to have trouble with certain styles.

 

If every Heavyweight since Dempsey was allowed to stand over an opponent who was down, and hit him again as soon hands and knees left the canvas I dare say we would have had some different world champions, and a lot more early KO's too.

.

He did what he always does. Hit and not get hit. That is a masterclass. He established the jab in the 5th, by the 7th he was dropping his hands, and he had Pac afraid to charge in for fear of getting hit with right hand leads.

It doesn't get much more masterful than that.

 

Here is the problem that author has to answer. Throughout history the experts of the time knew who the great fighters were. Willard, Sharkey, Schmeling, Baer, Carnera, Braddock... None of these hwts were considered ATG during their time by the experts of their time. Louis was, Charles and Walcott were not but guess what Marciano was. Just like Louis and Marciano Dempsey was also considered an ATG in his time by the experts of his time. Just like Louis and Marciano Dempsey was a very special fighter. He was considered the greatest hwt champion by the great trainers of the time. Sam Langford who universally is considered to this day one of the greatest fighters ever to live stated "Dempsey is the greatest hwt I have ever seen". All of this and in 2015 nearly 100 years after he won the championship with everyone who saw him fight long dead we need to debate if he was an ATG? It's not a debatable subject. History has already been written!

 

Where I would disagree is that Mayweather has always fought like this. When he came back in 2009 to enjoy his 'A-side' status Floyd began to fight very economically for two reasons - it limits the chance of freak shots and puts less miles on the clock. His business sense contaminated his fighting.

Floyd's reluctance to give the fans what they want in the last round is a prime example of this. When fights are wrapped up he starts moving/running. The final round in Maidana II was shameless running as he spied the clock. At the end of the De La Hoya fight he traded because he was literally fighting his way into a position that he has since abused.

 

Perry, you hit the nail on the head...to think that some egotists
mainly on ESB, 90 years after Dempsey fought, KNOW more of
the great abilities and place in the boxing pantheon than the thousands of contemporary fighters, trainers, great boxing writers of that long ago time, is the height of silliness...Today
I cannot understand their reasoning, but I assume they think of the Jack Dempsey NOT of his prime 1918-1923, but of the Dempsey of 1926-7 who foolishly returned to the ring after a THREE year layoff, and with nary a TUNE-UP fight took on a razor sharp Gene Tunney who PLANNED for this event for years in his mind...This rusty version of Dempsey was no more the Dempsey of his great prime days than Ray Robinson, who after a 3 year layoff, took to the ring again and with only one tuneup bout against a Joe Rindone took on a good journeyman Ralph Tiger Jones and was battered pretty bad...But Robbie the best fighter I ever saw at WW get's a pass but Jack Dempsey get's the shaft...
We need Sigmund Freud today to ponder WHY...:good

 

I felt Pacquaio turned in his warrior card after taking a few of those counter right hands.

There comes a time when a swarmer's fire just isn't the same and they just are not willing to " Take 2 to land one ".

If a swarmer losses his legs, or stamina, he's in trouble as his style demands both.

 

Actually given Pac's style, he had a pretty long career. Generally speaking swarmer's are done by their early 30's. Frazier, Marciano, Dempsey, all done by their early 30's. Tyson was finished even earlier due to his specific circumstances.