In Defense of Jack Dempsey {article} + The great trainers and fighters on Dempsey

Thanks for posting this on here Caelum - people need to really get back to reality about Jack Dempsey - all the usual crap about the likes of Vlad Klit or Riddick Bowe beating Jack Dempsey that some brain-deads spout on here is kind of put into perspective when you get past all the oh Bowe would be far too big and skilled for Dempsey - alot of people on here would do well to absorb some of this a little, just so they at least understand why they sound so ridiculous to people who know what they're talking about. Thanks again

 

good post.. too many people dont give Dempsey the credit he deserves

 

Ray Arcel sounds like the average Tyson fan when it comes to Jack Dempsey. I'll take his comments with a grain of salt, as great a trainer as he was.

 

The thing I liked about Ray compared to another who saw most of the great old timers first hand, Nat Fleisher, was that Ray wasn't so biased towards the earlier fighters being better then the modern. It seemed to take a lot of soul searching before he stated that his fighter, Duran, was greater then another he trained, Benny Leonard. I can't think of any other authority on boxing I would have placed above him.

 

I'll take the opinions on a fighters true abilities from great trainers who
have seen said fighter, than someone with no idea of those times 85-90
years ago...Just as I would take Einstein's valued opinion on a math
problem over a laymans opinion...
You today have no idea of the merits of Jack Dempsey of his prime .NONE.
I have never seen Joe Gans, Barbados Joe Walcott,but I take seriously the
measured opinions of the great boxing writers and trainers who saw them and raved about them...Otherwise what is the point of history ? I saw Ray Robinson at his absolute welterweight zenith, and to see him in person
gives in my opinion more weight than todays fan sixty five years later...
And so with Arcel on Dempsey, I believe !!!

 

Will you take a 20-30 year olds opinion on Mike Tyson?

Because Arcel seems to view Dempsey the way the average person who started watching boxing in the 1980's views Mike Tyson, saying he had no weaknesses and that he would have knocked out any fighter inside 2 rounds. That is obviously not true.

I respect Arcel but I happen to disagree with him on Jack Dempsey, but I can also understand why he viewed Dempsey the way he did. Many people, no matter how objective, have that one fighter that they hold in higher regard than anyone else. For Arcel it seemed to be Dempsey, the hero of his youth.

 

Nice to see Dempsey get the praise he deserves around here. Instead of guys hanging on the likes of Lennox Lewis! give me a break.

 

I always think it's interesting to hear what trainers and other fighters think about the greats, but when it comes to Dempsey the assesments are often so wildly absurd that it's hard to think anything but that Dempsey's legend has got to them.

He would breeze through Marciano, Louis, Foreman and Tyson? Come on. He didn't even really breeze through Carpentier. He was KO´d in one round near his prime, nearly KO'd in one by Firpo, went the distance with fighters far inferior to Louis/Marciano/Tyson/Foreman, and was badly outboxed by Tunney (when past his prime, but not shot by any means). His best win is probably a KO of Sharkey when behind.

There is simply nothing to suggest that Dempsey was this invincible juggernaut that many like to think. He was clearly very good and his peers' high assesment of him gives him a good case for the top 10 at HW, but that he would crush Louis, Marciano, Foreman and Tyson... Does anyone here seriously believe this?

 

Thanks for posting those two interesting articles.

Ray Arcel certainly has some quirky opinions on Dempsey H2H.

 

I like the debate and the different opinions and ideas you get to here on here but sometimes people say things, like Bokaj has, that I just can't let unknowledgable people read and beleive (thats why so many great fighters get run down these days because people who don't really know what they're talking about say things and other people who don't know much about it just take it as read) - Didn't breeze through Carp?? He actually let him hang around a few rounds - he was catergorically told to let it go a few by Tex Rickard (otherwise that may have been over in one) - you have to know a bit about things before making statements which carry absolutely no weight whatsoever...also kayoed in one round in his near prime - i guess you're talking about the dive against Flynn?? Again come on be real. Taken the distance by fighters inferior to Louis/Marciano/Foreman/Tyson - one example would be say Tom Gibbons - one of the best pure boxers who fought for the title (who fought to nothing but survive in that fight anyway) Louis was taken the distance by Farr and Godoy - both inferior to Gibbons, Marciano was taken the distance by Ted Lowry again inferior to Gibbons - Foreman was taken the distance by the feather fisted Gregorio Peralta (!!!) - so yeah clearly Dempsey one of the alltime great fighters ever couldn't hang with Foreman (???) and prime Tyson was taken 15 by MItch Green whose name shouldn't even be uttered alongside Tom Gibbons' (funnily enough that was I think the best Tyson ever was in that fight too??) So, you know, its OK that you don't like Demps much and everything but it would be better you just said that rather than shooting yourself in the foot :good

 

I don't see anything wrong with what Bokaj said.

Carpentier actually stunned Dempsey, whether Dempsey was told to take the fight a few rounds or not. There is no actual proof about Dempsey-Flynn being a dive, people just assume it is. Bokaj at no point said that Dempsey is no match to Foreman or Tyson, rather he's saying that they would be a match for Dempsey. No fighter, no matter how great, can just KO any fighter in a couple of rounds. Your examples simply prove the point.

 

yes.

 

This thread is getting strange lately with all the love for the old timers. Like saying anything remotely derogatory about Dempsey is punishable by death because we didn't live during that time atsch

Forget about the fact that we have infinitely more access to records and fight films than those from the early 20th century