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

I dont think blowing away Patterson in one round in the rematch adds much, if anything, to Liston doing it the first time.
It was the most pointless and unexcusable immediate return match in the history of championship boxing.
Patterson wasn't as great opposition as you seem to think. Any champion who brings a disguise to wear to sneak out of the arena when he loses isn't a great champion. His psychological and confidence issues were terrible. And his championship record prior to facing Liston was pretty poor too.
I just dont think he was a "much much better champion" than Willard.

You mention guys like Nino Valdes, who was washed-up, and never great to start with. Valdes had lost 2 of his last 3 fights, to the illustrous duo of Charley Powell and Alonzo Johnson.

Liston dominated an "era" from about 1960 to 1963, and lost to his first challenger (If we dismiss Patterson as any sort of worthy challenger).
Liston was the best in the world, yes.

I think there's a lot of revisionism going on with Dempsey and this "ducking his #1 and #2 contenders" stuff.
Firstly, YES, he failed to meet Wills who was considered the number 1 contender during at least the second half of Dempsey's reign. Then again, after 1923 I wouldn't argue that Dempsey was the best in the world.
Anyway, what people fail to acknowledge is that there weren't any consistent official rankings or any broad consensus across America (nevermind the world) as to who the best challengers were. This was before TV and all sorts of other mass communications that make public and media awareness far more uniform and even.

With the benefit of hindsight and all the modern tools and methods of historians, many here have come to the conclusion that Harry Wills was the "number 1 contender" through the whole of Dempsey's reign, and that Harry Greb was number 2 through the most of it.
Well, there may be some reality that makes those two worthy of the restrospective titles of #1 and #2 bestowed upon them, and it's probably debatable, but the whole project is actually pure revisionism.

I dont completely exonerate Dempsey of ducking in the Wills case, he certainly failed to meet him at a time when many people were calling for the fight. But evidence or suggestions that Dempsey was willing and the undoubted political climate surrounding "race" (and the Jack Johnson factor) need to be taken into account.

The idea that the pecking order and structure for ranking contenders in those days was as clear cut and established as it is now though is a historical fallacy.

 

1. "Fulton was a better source"

As a historical source, yes. He was a participant in the event. He was there and should know what happened. Maxine Cates? Do we know if she was actually living with Dempsey prior to the Flynn bout? If so, how much would Dempsey confide in her? I doubt if anyone really knows. This is the difference between testimony and hearsay.

That said, I don't take what either said as gospel.

2. I think I somewhat misinterpreted what you were driving at with "fabricated" reports. Well, long after the fact reports can be fabricated as well and they also suffer from problems of failing memory. I have read four "ringside" reports on this fight and they all agree on the essentials--Flynn rushed Dempsey, hit him with a series of punches, and knocked him out for the count in about 20 seconds. At this point, I have no reason to doubt that this is what happened. None of these ringside observers say anything about a fix. Perhaps not proof, but certainly the best evidence.

3. "How do we know anything about anything?"

This is a profound philosophical question, especially when dealing with history. We just have to evaluate the reliability of various sources. Anyway, I am far too old and far too crabby to pursue this point.

4. I have never seen most of those live TV shows from the fifties as available on DVD, not that I look that much. You could check wholesalers and perhaps film and TV museums.

 

Patterson really is a lot better than you give credit. Still, the idea that he's on the level of Williard is something else. Patterson is much much better than Williard. Maybe both opposition are tailor made for each other, but I have seen Patterson ranked in HW top 10 lists. I've seen him in the top 15 rightfully so many times. He has a lot of good wins, and even re-proved himself in his comeback. Patterson just on another level from Williard, and of course we're talking a prime Patterson versus a 37 year old 3 year inactive Williard. The comparison aren't even close.

Valdes was past it, I'll give you that. I still think Valdes is pretty much comparable to the average challenger of Dempsey's title. Maybe along the lines of Firpo, he is probably pretty overrated a fighter and not incredibly proven (Knocking out old Williards and such doesn't prove much by that juncture).

Liston dominated an era from 1958 to 1960 too, at least cleaned it out. IF you don't recognize he was the man terrorizing the division and a man that deserved a title shot than you're doing Liston a disservice. He should got his title fight way before. Is the title the only real authority to you? Do you know rate Charles at LHW that highly then?

Your excuses for Dempsey are weak and inaccurate. While there wasn't as much mass media, it was quite clear that Harry Willis was the man who deserved a title shot. A man people wanted to see fight Dempsey, and vice versa. He was a clear #1 and there is really no confusion among boxing pundits as to why Willis was this man atop the division as he was for so long. This happened to the point of Dempsey being banned from NY, and having received a pretty strong backlash to his reputation as a champion (I think he was banned in 1923). This all come from a result of not fighting Willis; a fight which was one of the most anticipated fights in history at that time. It's not debatable they were inclined to the title, nor is their rating. And the entire project isn't just some revisionism.

You're trying to cast some sort of ignorance of the time period. People wanted a fight. The public clamored for a fight. I've read this in many bits in Newspaper reports. The fight was wanted by Willis, and the people. It was pretty clear who the most deserving challenger was for Dempsey. The best HW at that time was Harry Willis... even if Dempsey did have the title. Let's disservice his work.

 

THERE is pictorial evidence showing Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills signing
a contract for a fight with promoter Floyd Fitzimmons..The picture has been shown on ESB awhile ago..But problems arose because of finance,
and other things, and they never met. Why is the old bromide that
Jack Dempsey REFUSED to meet Harry Wills at all when such visual and
written evidence refutes this...? Why is Jack Dempsey, ninet years later
held up as a poster boy for fearing to meet a top challenger [Wills], when
the great Joe Louis refused to tackle top black fighters as Lee Q Murray, Curtis Sheppard [kod Joey Maxim in one rd] and fought much more inferior fighters, [bum of the month club] etc..Why not criticize Joe Louis ?
OR, what about Ray Robinson never taking on any of the top black fighters as "murderers row "...He refused to take such risks !!! Why not
criticize the great Robinson ??? Why should only Jack Dempsey be
verbally crucified so often, so many years later, while not holding other
great vfighters to the same standards ? I love fair play in boxing as in life,
why not give this to Jack Dempsey ??? .His memory deserves that....

 

Burt, no matter who is to blame or who isn't, fact remains that Dempsey failed to meet his two best contenders, and therefore we can't say for sure how he would do against them. That can't help but take away from his legacy.

 

he did not "fear" wills or "ducked" him

 

Bokaj, Of corse we can not know how Dempsey would have done against
Harry Wills and Harry Greb, just as we cannot positively know if Joe Louis
would have ko'd Lee Q Murray or Curtis Sheppard..
Or what Ray Robinson would have done against "murderers row"..Of course
not !My point Bokaj was that Dempsey, did Sign for the Wills bout as the
pictures of the contract signing exist...But there are posters that today DENY what is visible of Dempsey and Wills signing...Bokaj ,is it fair to deny
that Dempsey and Wills did sign for that fight.? This is what irks me today.
To still deny a signing that did occur...Where I am wrong Bokaj ?
Whether Dempsey would have beat Wills is up to each others opinion...
The great majority of boxing writers of those days would have picked Dempsey, as I would... Style. Style..But Dempsey and Harry Wills
certainly signed a contract to fight,,, What say you ? b.b.

 

Burt,

The comparison is invalid. Wills was a # 1 heavyweight contender for 7 straight years. Lee Q Murray and Hatchetman Sheppard were never # 1 contenders in their whole careers. Joe Louis ALWAYS fought his # 1 contenders, and took on # 1 rated contender black hall of famer Jersey Joe Walcott. Did Dempsey do that?

 

Louis had already a glittering career behind him when Murray etc came on the map. He had some 20+ defenses and great run before that behind him and was past his prime, without much more to prove. He also faced and defeated the best contender of that era: Walcott.

In Robinson's case the murderer's row was fading out when he emerged. Sure, wins over C. Kid and Burley would perhaps propel him to the unquestioned nr. 1 p4p, but his wins over Zivic, Gavilan, LaMotta and Basilio goes a very long way as it is.

Dempsey doesn't have those kind of scalps. Greb and Wills was clearly better than anyone he beat, with the possible exception of Sharkey (which wasn't exactly a glittering win). Since he never beat Wills and/or Greb he never established clear superiorty in the division.

Louis was THE unqestioned man at HW 1938-1942 and Robinson was it at WW and MW ten years later. Periods where they VERY active. I think the difference is substantial.

 

there is a lot of talk on here about dempsey not fighting wills. B.B has pointed out dempsey DID sign to fight him.

before the days of rankings champions always fought the biggest draw. Before the invention of "#1 contender" the bigest draw amounted to the same thing- an exciting guy to watch who the public would go crazy to see fight the champ. Dempsey always fought the biggerst draw.

Putting things into perspective Bill Tate (a mere sparring partner to Dempsey) who had a record of 34-28-5 actually drew with Wills for the “coloured championship” so both claimed that title. Their title fight had been fought in front of 5,000 fans in a former “street car barn”.

At the same time exciting contender Luis Firpo was the biggest draw in boxing outside of Dempsey. Firpo had 85,000 crowds in new York and New jersey twice before even fighting for the title. Firpo knocked out Jess Willard and Bill Brennan two fighters who only Dempsey had ever knocked out. as much as we now rate wills as a great contender the fans who watched boxing then prefered to see what would hapen if firpo fought dempsey.

When wills got his hands on firpo (after Dempsey had ruined him) he blew it. Nat Fleischer called it a boring dreary affair. It was a no decision. How does that compare to what Dempsey did to Firpo?

 

Wills was the number one contender from before Dempsey won the title as he was ducked by Willard as well ... love Dempsey but ducking Wills, avoiding Greb and the huge pockets of inactivity in his reign greatly effect his status ... speaking of Willard , there is no way to really compare him to Patterson ... both were very dangerous based on the match up ... could not have more different styles ..

Here's a question: How would Dempsey/Wilard have played out with a neutral corner rule opposed to Dempsey standing over him like a vulture ... might have been a whole different fight ...

 

as much as we all like wills and greb today how come the fans who saw them did not come in such high numbers to watch them? if greb drew carpentier,firpo like crowds a title fight would be made easier. even jack sharkey v jim maloney was a huge fight proving titles need not make the fight big. same with wills, obviously I am aware of the social situation and that in fairness wills should not need to be a joe louis like attration to warent a shot but joe louis did draw milion dollar gates before winning the title. louis was always going to get a shot!

before the invention of a rating system championship boxing was more about making the biggest posible fight. its not fair but that is how the sport evolved and became exciting.