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

Hmmmm...No mention from HeGrant on Willard being 37 years old and inactive the last 3 years? Yet he calls Willard "very dangerous" . I guess age only applies to Marciano's opponents. :nut

 

:happy:happyTHIS!!!!!!:happydealBIG TIME!!

 

:happyTHIS TOO:happy

PS on the subject of how Dempsey would've done with a neutral corner rule (not being able to stand over Willard like a vulture) people forget that if that fight had unfolded as it did but in this day and age, the fight would've unquestionably been stopped after the very first knockdown anyway - Willard's face was pretty much caved in from that first vicious left hook - again different times different rules different outlook of whole fight

 

I've enjoyed our little battle very much Old Fogey but at the risk of being picky one last question

1. Why wouldn't you take what Fulton said as gospel?

 

Run through the New York Times Archives. Fulton's career "smelled" a bit and there were plenty of rumours of fixed fights, suspensions, and the like. He was suspended for supposedly taking a dive against Tony Fuente in 1925. I personally would have to see more evidence than just Fulton's word to think something was fishy about the Dempsey fight.

 

I dont rate Willard highly at all, especially a 37 year old Willard coming off a layoff.
I dont rate Patterson highly at all either. I admire him because he really wasn't much more than a light-heavyweight, and he was an honest performer in spite of his fragility of mind and chin.
He was a "fragile" champion, and that was noted independent of Liston's arrival on the scene.

I'd rate Patterson above Willard, but not by the massive gulf you suggest.

Firpo was a young "live" fighter, maybe just built up on has-beens and second-raters, but at least he was beating them when he was put in with Dempsey.
Valdes was losing to second-raters.

Firpo had KO'd Charley Weinert in 2 rounds a month before fighting Dempsey.

Who did Liston beat in 1958 for us to say he was "dominating" the division ?
It's a load of bull. Just because Liston was frozen out of a title shot in late 1960 and through 1961 into '62, people are trying to stretch his "waiting years". You're not the only one doing it.

I didn't make any excuses for Dempsey's ducking of Wills.
I pointed out that the concept that Wills was believed by all pundits to be the clear best available challenger throughout the entire duration of Dempsey's reign is just not true.

And in the absence of any official rankings and uniform awareness of the true abilities and current form of fighters, it's just plain wrong to impose such clear-cut simplifications on the issue.

You say I'm "trying to cast some sort of ignorance of the time period" but i'm not. You're trying to impose some rigid clarity on the period with the benefit of hindsight.

I dont even have an agenda. Certainly no wish to defend the indefensible. Just telling the truth.
DEMPSEY FAILED TO MEET WILLS AT A TIME WHEN THE PUBLIC WERE CALLING FOR IT. I never said otherwise.

I'm just calling people up on this "blatantly and inexcusably avoided Wills for a whole seven years, and ducked Greb, who was clear number 2 for his entire era too !" .... it's a simplified and over-stated version of a matter that is a little less clear-cut.

You mentioned the NY commission, but they flip-flopped on the Wills fight several times, and one point declaring that they wouldn't sanction any "mixed bout" for the championship, and issuing short-lists of acceptable challengers for Dempsey that didn't include Wills.

 

Suzie Q, if Lee Q Murray was not the#1 contender to Joe louis's crown, why did Louis choose Johnny Paycheck, Gus Dorazio, Al McCoy, Red Burman,and others as his opponents rather than Lee Q Murray, Curtis Sheppard, Jimmy Bivens etc, Who were CLEARLY superior to Louis's
mediocre bum of the month club..Suzie, tell me why did he not give thesemore dangerous fighters a shot ??? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I believe ... Because I believe boxing is a business, and it is human nature to want to hold [a title ]a as long as you can,
and you listen to your mgr for advice...By the way Joe Louis who was
my heavyweight idol, would have kod, bivens, sheppard. Murray, were they to have met, but he listened to his advisors, whoi brought him to
the heavyweight title...And so with Jack Dempsey...It is a fact that
he [Dempsey] and Wills did sign for the fight, as pictures and reports show
in spite of fears of the race riots ala Jeffries/Johnson in 1910...We know
this as a fact...As far as Harry Greb, my favorite fighter, whatvwould Demposey have gained were he to fight and beat the "seven year itch "
as Greb was described..Beating a middleweight would do nothing for
his reputation, so Dempsey and greb never met...
As far as Robinson he had plenty of opportunities to meet many of
" murderers row ", including Holman Williams, but Robinson chose not too.
Why, we can only guess ...
So to sum it up, I believe Dempsey could have, should have but did not fight Greb or Wills as we wished for, but he was not any different than Louis, Robinson and other great fighters,who did many of the same things
but somehow do not get criticized for similar actions...Keep punching...

 

There is some questioning of whether Wills could draw. Paging through the NY Times archives he does seem to have drawn pretty good crowds consistently in the 1920's. One problem is he was rarely matched against top men. Some gates--From The Ring Boxing Encyclopedia, 1976 edition, pages 120, 121, 130:

Tunney-Levinsky (1922)---$44,817.90
Wills-Norfolk (1922)---$56,115.75
Tunney-Greb (1922)---$65.322.43
Miske-Gibbons (1922)---$39,392.50
Tunney-Weinert (1922)---$14,705.50
Firpo-Brennan (1923)---$50,755.10
Firpo-McAuliffe & Willard-Johnson---$385,040
Firpo-Willard---$390,837
Wills-Firpo---$509,135
Wills-Weinert & Greb-Walker---$339,040

The list of top grossing live gates goes down to $240,000. The fights between Tunney-Carpentier and Tunney-Gibbons do not appear and apparently did not draw that much. Looking at this, how one comes up with the idea Wills was not a draw eludes me. He obviously was a bigger draw than Gibbons, and probably than Tunney prior to 1926. The gate for the Firpo fight is the largest for any fight other than one with Dempsey, plus the Tunney-Heeney heavyweight championship bout, in the 1920's. Dempsey was a bigger draw, and perhaps Firpo, but after that one can make a very strong case for Wills.

 

Good post. :good

Dempsey and his manager would have been stupid to fight Harry Wills when they could shatter box-office records by taking on Carpentier and Firpo, as they did.


Ironically, Dempsey almost certainly made a bad choice taking on Tunney instead of Wills, who was probably more washed-up by then than Jack was himself.

Wills certainly deserved a shot and a payday though. It's not fair that he didn't get his shot, but business isn't fair.

The way people seem to dismiss the racial-political climate of the times in judging Dempsey is a bit strange too. Lots of people were very much against the idea of any black heavyweight champion, people in high places were anxious, and for good reason. Riots and lynchings and unrest were realities, the experience of the Jack Johnson years was a reality. It's all very well saying "look these pundits wanted it, the public seemed to want it, the NY commision supported Wills' case" .... but I daresay the promoters, mayors, police chiefs and local politicians had some serious anxiety and dread over the prospect.

The very fact that no black man fought for the championship until 1937 (a full 11 years after Dempsey lost the crown, and six champions later), and that Joe Louis and his handlers had to issue statements of re-assurance that he would not emulate Johnson, should suggest that these "race politics" issues were a reality.

 

That makes you in the unique position here, not me. More importantly, Liston clearly beat a much better version of either fighter regardless of ranking (Where Patterson is pretty much a consensus in being ahead of Williard). I've never seen Williard break top 20-25 or even top 30 lists. Agree to disagree, I guess.

What second-raters? The other side of the coin is that it's a better era, and he was losing to quality men (Folley, Baker, Machen, Moore, etc). Valdes was fighting often and good quality opposition. Losing happens.

Firpo, lost to a no rater at one point. This happens in boxing, especially in these eras. He was also dropped 4 times by a MW when having 50 lbs on his opposition. Either way, my point was they're within the same ball park. Firpo was probably more viable, although his skills hardly impress.

It started in 1958 I'd say, though. But you're right, it was my mistake. I confused him winning the title in 1960, and not 1962 for some reason.

Well, you seemed to sugar-coat it.

Dempsey probably should of gave more effort into making that match. It was the one of most sought after bouts of the time though. And if they weren't official ratings, Willis was almost a consensus (Unless you were racist) man to challenge Dempsey for the title. This was accepted and wanted for many years. This is not hindsight. I don't quite know the time line, but I'm pretty sure by the time the NY state flip-flopped Willis had shown to be inconsistent or unimpressive. At this point he had gotten old, and probably wasn't worth it.

Now, you say you have no wish to defend the indefensible but how then call you call people up on saying him not fighting Willis for 7 years is inexcusable? Even if it's not 7 years... it was many years. Do you find it excusable, or do you just not like label because it's not that straightforward. Really seems like we're doing with a technicality or some minor form of exaggeration. Otherwise, it seems like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

I'm not talking about the reason as to why Dempsey didn't take them on. I am simply stating that Dempsey is untested against his best contenders. How can that not hurt a legacy? I can't really understand the discussion.

 

He was in the sense that they beat so many other great fighters. Robinson beat some 45 ranked fighters, among them ATGs like Zivic, Gavilan, LaMotta and Basilio. Louis beat almost 35 ranked opponents - among them four ex-champions, one current and one future - and made 25 defenses of his title. At their peaks they thoroughly cleaned out their divisions (well, Robinson cleaned out two).

The difference between them and Dempsey is not minor in this respect.

 

Bokaj,you state that Dempsey did not fight the best contenders, aside from Wills and Greb..We went through that issue before, and I will not rehash it again...
I do not think that koing Carl Morris, Fred Fulton, Gunboat Smith, Billy Miske, Jess Willard, Bill Brennan, Jess Willard, yes Luis Angel Firpo, the tough Battling Levinsky, decisioning a great boxer Tommy Gibbons, scoring 25 first round kos, and after a three year layoff ,flattening the peak Jack Sharkey, and very possibly koing Gene Tunney in the infamous LONG COUNT in 1927, is exactly chicken soup...It is easy for todays Dempsey detractors to diminish his legacy eighty three years after his last fight,
but I, neophyte that I am will still take the opinions of all the great writers, trainers, great fighters of his time, who declared the prime Manassa Mauler in a poll in 1950, the greatest fighter up till then...
If I am wrong believing the vast majority of hundreds of sports writers who saw him, well i can live with that...Take care...b.b.

 

Would do nothing? If that's the case then why did Dempsey fight Billy Miske and Bill Brennan instead, both fighters who were destroyed by that "Middleweight"...

 

word.