If Dempsey was as good a fighter as Ali...

My grasp of American literature isn't that great, but, from what I can grasp, I agree entirely.

 

P, two fallacy"s you post, that have to be challenged,by someone, and here I am. You imply Dempsey did not dominate his times. Tell that to all the historians of his time, up to today's naysayers. He did beat everyone he fought from Nov,1918 to Sept, 1923 when he retired from the ring for three years and went to Hollywood. Yes I know he did sign to fight Harry Wills to a bout that never occured. I know that he never met the great MW Harry Greb in a bout. He had his reasons . Aside from these two fights that never occured,Dempsey dominated the HW division as much as anyone after, with the exception of Joe Louis, even though for reasons other than fear ,
Joe did not give money bouts to some black heavyweights, other than giving his near blind pal John Henry Lewis, his last money shot in 1939.
Getting back to everyone's whipping boy Dempsey, other than the discussed
Harry Wills non-bout, Sam Langford who was born in 1883,was 37 years old
by the beginning of Dempsey's reign, Joe Jeannette and Sam Mcvey were
about retired or soon to be retired by Dempsey's championship reign.
So aside from the aformentioned Wills ,Dempsey's braintrust Tex Rickard and Jack Kearns truly called the shots for Dempsey,who was as tough and brave in a ring as any heavyweight before or after.
To say Tunney beat Dempsey not because of style, but because Tunney was BETTER. Cute but not accurate. You P know that the Dempsey who fought Tunney,had not FOUGHT for three years, had not had a tune-up
bout in 3 years, had lost his mgr Jack Kearns, and as everyone at that time knew was a SLOW footed SHELL of his tigerish prime. P,to prove a point you ommited these obvious facts. Would you say that Ali lost the Leon Spinks bout, the Larry Holmes bout, and the Trevor Berbick fights,
because each one was a better fighter than Ali,without the added caveat
that these 3 fighters fought and beat a shell of what Ali was in his prime?
No, I think not. I defend Jack Dempsey on ESB from "unfair" posters not because they don't think that he could compete with today's dreadnaughts
but because he above all others has a "target" on his back...Cheers.

 

I'm starting to think Burt is the trustee of the Dempsey estate.. Burt Dempsey got more praise then he should've because he fought in an age where hardly anybody watched the fights and only had the radio or newspaper accounts of the fight. Dempsey enjoyed the benefit of living in a time where romanticsm was the order of the day and his legend grew because of this. NOT because he beat all these great fighters in his day, a big part of it was the era he lived in. My grandfather till the day he died said Dempsey was the best fighter ever.. he recounted listening to his fights on the radio at his parents home in Kentucky. Guess what Burt.. He like MANY people in the U.S. NEVER SAW HIM ACTUALLY FIGHT. Yet he still considered him the best ever. Do you understand the dynamics of the time and how that was possible for him to view Dempsey that way NEVER watching him fight? We don't like in a time where Romaticsm rules the day and thus we can go back and see Dempsey for who he was and who he beat without Dempsey googles on. Guess what happens when we do... He wasn't as good as you and people like my grandfather make him out to be.

 

good post but still Dempsey KO7 Tunney . Just because I ACTUaLLY SAW IT .

 

KuRuPT, excellent job there.

 

The Dempsey of Toledo 1919 was indeed an awesome fighter,Burt. That fight took place one year after my dad was born,but his uncle told him all about it later on. From what I can gather,the Dempsey era was really the start of boxing,as we know it. The style of fighting employed by Jack Johnson and backward,seemed to be a transitional style. Between old time prizefighting and boxing from 1920's onwards.

 

True. A prime Dempsey would see Tunney off by the time that round was over.

 

Imagine if we had no TV or films today, how would we impress upon the following generations how great men like Muhammad Ali, Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Marvin Hagler, Oscar Delahoya, and Roy Jones, were? We would have to describe their abilities and perhaps take a poll of boxing writers to say whom we thought was the best of our time. We would want them to know, for the sake of posterity, who we considered to be the best fighters of our generation. The fans of the future would have to rely on our eyewitness accounts to explain how great Muhammad Ali, Ray Leonard, Marvin Hagler, and Roy Jones were in our time.
With this in mind, let’s take a look at what some expert eyewitnesses said of Jack Dempsey:
Our first eyewitness is Ray Arcel, who was one of the greatest trainers in boxing history working corners from the 20’s to the 80’s. He worked with 18 world champions including Barney Ross, Tony Zale, Ezzard Charles, Roberto Duran, and Larry Holmes. He was in the opposite corner from Joe Louis in 14 of his fights, he knew Benny Leonard, and if anyone knows the strengths and weaknesses of fighters it is Ray Arcel. He has stated that he considered Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey to be the three greatest heavyweights in history and hedged on picking between them, but here is what he said about Dempsey,
“He should’ve been the only heavyweight anybody ever thought of when they thought about the greatest heavyweight champion. I mean he had everything. He could punch, he could box. He was mean and determined.” (Anderson 127)
Our next eyewitness is longtime Ring Magazine correspondent and boxing book author, Gilbert Odd who saw them all from Dempsey to Tyson, he first became a boxing correspondent at age 18 and wrote numerous books about his beloved sport. Odd wrote in 1974,
"Jack had the upper body strength of the old school fighters but could move on his feet like the new. Tipping the scales at 190 pounds, his upper torso was equivalent to that of a 220-pound man. He was lean and mean with the skill and the will..." (Odd 25)
Our third eyewitness is Jersey Jones, another longtime Ring Magazine correspondent,
“At his peak Jack Dempsey was the most dynamic and devastating heavyweight this commentator has ever seen…Manassa Jack had speed, strength, better than average boxing skills, lusty punching power and a blazing spirit. His bobbing and weaving style made him a difficult target to hit solidly, but when he was, he had the “ruggedness” to take it. Lithe as a panther and just as savage, Dempsey packed one of the most powerful punching combinations in the game…”
Our next witness is one of Dempsey’s opponents and his final conqueror, Gene Tunney, Who said of Dempsey in 1952,
"Dempsey Could Flatten Today's Heavies All in One Night," (1952 pp 36-38)
Gene also said, "Jack could recover faster than any man I ever fought. He was dangerous again within a five-second interval."
Dempsey’s ability to recover quickly should come as no surprise. Dempsey, as we have learned, from the time of his youth was fighting to literally be able to eat, he had to get up and fight while hurt. He had to. Dempsey won a number of fights in a “proverbial fog” not even remembering what happened but battering his opponent’s until they fell. Dempsey’s will to win is unsurpassed by modern fighters and should be classified, at the very least, with that of Muhammad Ali.
Backing up Gene’s testimony is newspapermen Frank G. Menke’s retelling of the Dempsey-Firpo slugfest (1999, 241) that Dempsey, fighting hurt, won in exciting fashion by knockout,
“Every ounce of the South American’s (Firpo's) gigantic body was concentrated in that one blow-one of the hardest ever landed, in the annals of the ring. The knees of the world’s champion buckled and he pitched forward…but as Dempsey pitched forward, Firpo was so close that the champion fell against the body of the giant. Instinct made him grab and hold. Firpo tried to shake off Dempsey. But before he could achieve his purpose the brief rest saved Dempsey. Strength and power came back to Dempsey’s legs and the floodgates of reserve energy refreshed and revived him…Dempsey afterward said he remembered nothing after that first pile driver blow. He had been hit and hurt by the rushing, tearing form before him. And that form must be destroyed!”
Clearly those who actually saw Jack Dempsey fight considered him one of, if not the greatest heavyweight champion of all time. He was every bit the terror of the ring that a young Mike Tyson was. They described him as they saw him. He was fast of hand and foot, could take it, was very quick to recover when hurt and could dish it out with the best. He was also an under-rated boxer as Arcel and Jersey Jones both pointed out. Dempsey, according to eyewitnesses, was highly regarded not only for his punching prowess but also for his high degree of boxing skill.

 

Today, we see a lot of people trying to re-write history for their own personal agenda’s. It is important to consider the established views of those that came before us, who actually saw the fighters they were judging, before forming our own opinion.
One must consider established opinion when trying to rate the heavyweight greats. As late as 1962, in the Dec 1962 Ring Magazine, a panel of 40 boxing writers tabbed Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight of all time. When considering what has taken place since 1962, just before the Ali era began, one must still consider established opinion when viewing everything that has happened since that time. In other words one must consider the opinions of those who lived in the time and saw those fighters when trying to form a new opinion. Don’t radically alter established opinion, because you are too far removed from that time to change it honestly. That is the essence of “revisionist history.” It is better to consider the opinions of those who saw the fighters prior to the Ali era, and then form new judgments using established opinion as a backdrop.
It's like the Supreme Court when they decide a case they weigh heavily upon established opinion. Now they do form new opinions, but not without precedent. So to magnify a rating of someone in a time period that you did not live in and to lower someone's stature, which is contrary to established opinion, is just wrong because you were not there, you did not see Dempsey and do not know enough about him to change established opinion. One should consider the actual eyewitness account of what happened and not just stare blindly at a record book. Consider established opinion and then add to it based on what has taken place in the generation one lives in.
The legal status of the doctrine of joint and several liability isn't going to change over time (or at least it shouldn't). A straight-up opinion as to "who is better than who" must change, by definition, every time something better comes along, but it shouldn't shake up established opinion of fighters whose time has past. If the new guy is proven to be better over time, Ali for example, than he should move ahead, but that shouldn’t change established opinion of previous generations.
Add in the new but don’t change the order of the old, at least not drastically. Obviously everyone has a different opinion but for instance in the Dec 1962 Ring magazine Jack Dempsey was rated #1, and Joe Louis #2, Jack Johnson #3 and Marciano was a distant #6.
Today on most lists Ali/Louis are in the top 3, which is not a drastic change, but to leave off Jack Dempsey in the top 10 is just wrong and completely revisionist. Today it is common to see Rocky Marciano high on an all time list and Dempsey not on at all. This is a gross change in established opinion of those who saw them both fight.

Virtually no one who saw both Dempsey and Marciano would tab Rocky over Dempsey in a match. Recall, that Marciano finished a distant 6th in the Dec 1962 Ring magazine rating of the all time great heavyweights, far behind #1 Dempsey. Anything Marciano could do, Dempsey could do better. Jack hit just as hard with his right, was a much stronger puncher with his vaunted left, had superior hand speed, was more maneuverable, was a better boxer, had a better jab, and had an equally good chin, and better cut resistance.

 

In 1950, the Associated Press conducted a poll of sportswriters to name the greatest fighter of all-time, pound-for-pound, and Dempsey was the runaway winner, collecting 251 votes. [Joe Louis finished a distant second with 109 votes; Henry Armstrong was third with 13.] Yet, today, many fans want to rewrite history, substituting their judgment for the judgment of eyewitnesses, by deriding Dempsey’s accomplishments and diminishing his place in the heavyweight pantheon. Why this should be true is not entirely clear. Probably, there are many reasons, including (a) general ignorance of Dempsey’s record and the era in which he fought, (b) general ignorance of the sport generally (most boxing beat writers also cover other sports that are more popular in this day and age), and (c) a natural bias in favor of contemporary athletes. Regardless of the reason, however, it is fundamentally unjust – not to mention flat wrong to underrate Jack Dempsey.

 

A young boxing fan wrote me that, “That the older crowd tends to rank Dempsey in the top 5. He doesn't make a lot of the younger crowds entire lists. It would seem to me that the discrepancy is most likely due to older fans, and fans that really knew the scene back in the day, getting kind of swept up in the Dempsey mystique. Younger people tend to look at his record and say, "I don't know I don't see it."
The irony inherent in the suggestion that an observer coming along 80 years after the fact could somehow arrive at a clearer understanding of Dempsey’s true abilities than those who actually saw him fight and train – and saw his opponents fight and train – and on a regular basis were able to do so, is, evidently, lost on this young “scholar.” But, youth is nothing if not arrogant.
But, let’s take a look at the facts. At his peak Dempsey went on a 32-0 run, with 28 kayos, 17 of them in the 1st round! That is one of the best knockout records in boxing history, and the victim list included most of the top heavyweight contenders of the day including Carl Morris, Fred Fulton, Al Palzer, Battling Levinsky, Gunboat Smith, K.O. Bill Brennan, Billy Miske, and his title-winning massacre of big Jess Willard.

 

In his twilight years, Max Schmeling, always a very astute observer and commentator on the game, was asked to name the boxers who had impressed him the most down through the decades. “Trying to name them all would be a little too much,” Max replied.

“But, in alphabetical order, my short list of those boxers who will never be forgotten includes Muhammad Ali, Henry Armstrong, Georges Carpentier, Julio Cesar Chavez, George Foreman, Harry Greb, Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, Jack Johnson, Ray Leonard, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Carlos Monzon, Archie Moore, Willie Pep, Ray Robinson and Mike Tyson.

“But now I want to add, all by myself, one more name: Jack Dempsey. Despite all the class shown by the others, Dempsey was not only my own idol, he remains for me to this day the greatest of them all. He was the big daddy. He embodied the complete perfection of a professional boxer."

 

Truly Kurupt, I feel SORRY for your grandfather [though I never met him]for
having a grandson so devoid of the ability to grasp the obvious...The people who saw DEMPSEY at his best, saw Joe Louis at his best,saw Rocky Marciano at his best, were not your grandpa, nor mine, sitting by the radio listening to the announcer describing the fight. SIR, these were the greatest boxing minds, writers, boxers, trainers, too, too numerous for me to repeat that SAW HIM RINGSIDE, watched him train,seing ,years later Louis in his glory, Marciano at his best and VOTED DEMPSEY by a vast MAJORITY the best HEAVYWEIGHT they had EVER SEEN. Some who lived through the Ali era,as Ray Arcel, still held to that contention...So,read history K, as I who was never even born during Dempsey's fighting career
so avidly do, and leave grandpa out of this. He might be ashamed...
Romanticism, you call those days ? Maybe so, but we were able to walk the streets late at nights, visit our parks with a date late at night, ride the subways 24 hours a day,without being accosted or mugged, and if that is what you in your infinite wisdom call "romanticism ", well heck, bring those days back again. :hi:

 

Post prime Dempsey saw Tunney off but was deprived of his win .

 

To those that responded to me.. tell me then... How would the Greenbay Packers of 11' be viewed if they only played teams of the calibur of the 11' Rams for 4 years in a row? Would they not, during their time be considered one of the greatest teams that ever existed, and probably THE best team ever? You very well know they would because they would most likely go undefeated for seasons on end or loss maybe one or so games. This analgoy is very comparable to Dempsey and who he faced. If he face a whole bunch of so so fighters and you yourself are good or even better than good.. You will and always do look like a world beater. Yet, is that actually the case if you examine who these victories were over and how those fighters rank in an overall perspective of the sport. This is the case with Dempsey and why I believe some of these writers at the time viewed dempsey that way. He had a cult following very close to what Tyson had back in the 80's. Yet who did Tyson beat during that epic run that was worth mentioning in an all time great category? Nobody. That is why we can now view Tyson for what he was.. a very good fighter who feasted on a very poor era of boxers. This is EXACTLY the same thing that happened with Dempsey.. Only he had more romanticsm behind him in an era where it meant a lot more to be tough and a hero. Hero doesn't mean much now, back then it meant a helluva a lot more. Point is, much like Tyson, we can now truly examine Dempsey career and who he beat and how good they are. We can now see, any very good or great fighter would look like the best ever if they fought subpar competition. That is true in ANY era, difference is, dempsey benefited from it more than most with the era he lived in.