Well if you talk about the calibre of fighters he was up against, a lot of people on classic say his reign was horrible, one of the worst in HW history. The way he beat contenders was good though. KO'ing his no.1 contender in 18 seconds is no easy feat (Dempsey was in his prime in 1918 and many say he was at his best against Fulton, the fight was filmed too and may show this). His best title defence was against Gibbons, a masterful boxer who he soundly beat (though it shoulda been Greb in that ring.) But there are a lot of people on classic who say he had little skill which makes you wonder why people like D'amato and Tyson had such regard for him as do many top fighters in history like Langford, Ali etc. Because they are clearly seeing something in him that people on the forum supposedly dont.
From a standpoint of pure technique, he was as good as any heavyweight with that particular style. He was probably as good as his physical limitations would have alowed him to be.
D'Amato and Tyson had access to the Jacob's-Cayton film library, and movie film with a projector is considerably superior to videotape, let alone youtube footage. Videotape goes 12 frames per second (and video is what's typically converted to DVD), while movie film more commonly runs at a rate of 24 frames per second, so Tyson grew up with an opportunity to study twice the visual detail a videotape collector would be able to access. Plenty of posters here can appreciate the difference between videotape and inferior youtube clips. D'Amato and Tyson understood exactly what to look for in those films, and could replay, back up, and review in slow motion. Videotape would quickly break if you scrutinized it like that, but movie films are more durable.
While he was no Benny Leonard or Willie Pep, Dempsey was good at his particular style of fighting. He brought a new style of fighting to the HW division. Bob and weave, up on the balls of the feet, letting the hands fly etc..HW boxing was somewhat constipated before Dempsey and still had remnants of the bare knuckled era in it's technique. Dempsey changed that. He was a puncher sure. But he was a crafty puncher who knew the tricks of the trade. I've heard it mentioned before that he was similar to Duran in his technique and I think this is accurate. It's tough to appreciate the subtlties and nuances of the old timers in the existing films of thier respective eras but that doesn't mean that they weren't good at what they did because they were...and Dempsey was certainly good.
Maybe some people on this forum make exaggerated statements to get a point across. And maybe some don't know what the hell they are talking about.
The style was designed for 'rough-n'-tumble' affairs but it had a refined coating. Only Ali had swifter feet, his ability to make you miss (for a come-forward fighter) was probably unmatched, and he had beautifully even two-handed power; the left was his money-maker but that right was no picnic. Dempsey said himself that his styles primary weakness was that it had no reverse gear.
Well said gj.When Dempsey was in his prime he was considered the greatest offensive heavyweight ever, by his peers...I have always felt that Dempsey was an earlier and larger edition of Roberto Duran in his cat-like style and pure primal instincts...Though about 190 pounds in his peak years , from the waist up he was very strong and his habit of lifting a fallen opponent whom he kod by putting his gloved hands under their armpits and lifting them on their feet required a good amount of strength... He beat whoever he was matched with, and it is a shame that his reputation has been stained by the fact that Dempsey and Harry Wills never hooked up together, though they did sign for a bout...Did he in general meet the quality of opponents that Ali met. ? Heck no. But he was the greatest heavyweight of his era, between Jack Johnson and Joe Louis for certain...Cheers...
Ive seen many people say that when watching dempsey-willard in real time speed you come away with a greater appreciation of jack, he is great in that fight in terms of agility, footwork and speed and of course his punching power. That first left hook to start his massacre of willard is thrown with great technique.
Can anyone mention what great technique/skills Dempsey actually used to be shown to have great skill? One person has mentioned how he countered a right over a left in Tunney II to knock him down. Any other examples?
Hard to judge one's skill based on grainy/sped up old footage but Dempsey was skilled and one of the best come-forward fighters of all time with subtle yet effective head movement. Could be wild at times but so is everyone and he was still in a time where boxing was growing though it still changes as eras move on. Lack of footage hurts him but he knew his stuff hence his book.
Amazing footwork. He moves around like Pacquaio. Blistering combinations, counterpunching, and excellent head movement. And he had tricks.
He does a lot of parrying, in a variety of ways and countering over his parry, and does a fair bit of spinning his opponents off balance, herding them around. He had all sorts of tricks. In the old days, different types of parrying was used far more frequently - the small gloves helped. Today, with the pillow gloves, there is a lot less nuance to be applied to parrying. A lot of fights just seem to attempt to block or duck. The old smaller, movable gloves allowed for more technique. In my modest non-expert opinion.
Thanks for all the answers. Interestingly, Ray Arcel said that he trained duran to fight like none other than JACK DEMPSEY. Clearly Arcel saw something in JAck to compare him/ train him like one of the best boxers p4p of all time.
