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

Willard doesn't deserve to be considered a top 20 or 25 all-time heavyweight.
Patterson might barely scrape into my top 20, if I'm generous. And I've noticed many people who have him top 20 or higher often stress that "head-to-head" he's not even that good.

I'll repeat what I pointed out before ....... going into the Liston fight, Valdes was coming off a one-sided loss to Alonzo Johnson, the fight before that he had beaten a nobody called Dan Hodge, (who according to boxrec had only 8 fights and never fought again and became a pro wrestler) ... and before beating Hodge, Valdes had been KO'd Charlie Powell.
Two losses in his last three fights against not-so-great opposition.

Powell and Johnson were tough young fighters, up-and-comers, but they never amounted to much, I'd call them "second-raters".
The fact that Liston beating a Valdes who was their "left-overs" is somehow being credited to contributing to an ATG resume.

Again, he was losing to men that weren't even as good as the ones you name.
His record was 47-18-3 and he was clearly over-the-hill.
Yes, losing happens. But it's no great achievement for Liston to beat a guy who's been losing to half-decent young fighters who was fringe contenders at best, and never amounted to much.

You say "it's a better era" but that's just a preconceived notion on your part, a prejudice. If you took a man with Valdes' record, current form, and frankly unimpressive showings on surviving film, and put him in 1918 and on Dempsey's resume, I'm sure you'd be quick to ridicule and dismiss him.

No, towards the end of Dempsey's reign in when Wills started to gain more support.

When Wills was at his peak there were still many pundits who wrote like they'd never even heard of him.
The real revisionism is that Wills was the #1 contender when Willard was champion, and therefore already an issue before Dempsey even held the title. Almost all the press from 1917 and 1918 seems to rate Fulton and the Dempsey as the main contender, Wills name hardly ever comes up and that's not just racism because Langford is named as a contender from time to time.

I'm not arguing. Just pointing out the context.
Dempsey was horribly inactive, and Wills certainly deserved a crack at the title sometime in his career.

Dempsey's reign is justified from a business point of view.
Of course you dont score "legacy points" for not fighting though.

 

No, it isn't. But it still would quite a lot better if you could put the names of his two foremost contenders there as well.

The high praise Dempsey got is impressive. Some of it so over the top that it can't be taken seriously, though.

 

the point is, by the measure of the day the "best contenders" were the most exciting ones that drew the biggest gate. fans wanted heavyweight title fights to be king kong v godzilla.

It does not make it right but the fans of the day thought of dempsey as too much of a monster giant killer and greb as a mere middleweight.

perhaps the fans of the day were less intrested in form, records and resume and saw wills as a guy who (by the time he drew big enough crowds) too old and not intresting enough.

we cant gage dempsey by todays standards. chris byrd and jimmy young would never have got a heavyweight title shot in the 1920s -it dosnt mean they couldnt beat most of dempseys opponents. young and byrd would not have been as exciting recording those wins and if their fights were not filmed 90 years later we would say "dempsey didnt fight his best contenders". the point is fans didnt want chalengers at heavyweight who fought like that.

 

Man, my very simple point seems very hard to get across.

It' not about why the fights didn't come off, it's that he didn't beat the two best opponents avaliable. Take away Ali's wins over Frazier and Foreman/Liston and his record wouldn't be quite as good, no matter the reason as to why they hadn't met.

 

You're really just not that bright ... not your fault, just an observation ... let me make it simple so you can concentrate when you put down your comic book ... my reference was to a prime Willard with regard to a prime Patterson ... I know it's not easy for a guy with your skill set to follow the conversation but give it a shot

 

Well said C...Well said :happy

 

Nonsense. The same media machine that made the vastly inferior Carpentier a quality opponent could have done the same with the much better Greb ... the reality was that Kearns and Rickard wanted to minimize risk and Wills and Greb were dangerous ...

Marciano guys refuse to be realistic about who Rocky fought and Dempsey guys refuse to be realistic about who he ducked ... same old same old ..

 

"Over the top " by you,NINETY YEARS later, but not by the thousands of boxing afficionados, who Actually saw Jack Dempsey wreck havoc in his
division...Big distinction, I believe !
If Dempsey met Wills in their "cancelled " fight and kod Wills, what other excuse would naysayers have than...?
Harry Wills eked out a dull 12 rd decision over Luis Angel Firpo in 1924,
while Dempsey ultimately destroyed Firpo in 1923, when the "wild Bull of
The Pampas ", was at his best...

 

here here - Bokaj just face it you can't just overturn 90 years of boxing history just because you don't think Dempsey was as good as he was judged over the past 90 years - I don't don't personally think Wills would have lasted 3 rounds with an on fire Jack Dempsey anyway, and it wouldn't effect his legacy one iota anyway for me if he had've fought him - what would it matter? Dempsey was already that good anyway - Wills didn't make Dempsey - Dempsey made Dempsey - and Dempsey made Wills too in my opinion

 

I think I've made a good case why it's highly unlikely to believe that Dempsey would dispatch of Louis, Marciano, Foreman and Tyson in a combined total of 4-5 rounds. He didn't do that to the best four opponents he met in his prime, and they were quite a bit below the above mentioned four.

I do believe in evolution and don't believe the earth flat. This I would still do even if a Noble Prize winner (which some actually do when it comes to evolution) claimed differently. It's the same here.

 

THAT'S FUNNY :happy

 

Did I EVER claim that Dempsey would have "dispatched " Louis, Marciano, Foreman and Tyson in 4 or 5 rounds ??? Never did I...To win a point, don't misquote...Your a worthy adversary without that...You might have been thinking of Ray Arcel's hyperbole remark ,when a reporter got his dander up about Dempsey's ability...Louis and Tyson [young] would havethe best chances against Dempsey...Handspeed, handspeed, handspeed....
I just happen to beliueve that prime Dempsey had what the OLDTIME
bare knuckle fighters called " BOTTOM "..An intangible ability and toughness to prevail at the end. No matter what...Dempsey whatever
his faults was percieved by people who saw him in his prime, was a mean
rough and tough *******, who was never OUTFOUGHT !

 

for how often he fought greb must have been well known anyway. when you fight so often as he did it must be imposible to impress each time. today we think the fight would be huge but who knows?

im a marciano guy, a dempsey guy, a louis guy, an ali guy, a holmes guy etc etc. great is great. I respect leon spinks,jess willard, carnera too. I am realistic about who they all fought and recognise that to downgrade their achievements is to belive in uncrowned champions who may of beat them even though fans of their times would not rate their chances.

 

I dont think the press were building up Carpentier only on the grounds that Jack Kearns and Tex Rickard wanted an easier opponent.
They genuinely found the Frenchman interesting, a figure that transcended boxing appeal.

The problem with Greb was that he was even smaller than Carpentier and he had no KO punch.
It was almost a prerequisite for a heavyweight challenger to be sold on his ability to land a KO punch on the champion. No challenger had ever won the title by decision, and it didn't seem fitting that the title should change hands that way.
Even if Greb could beat Dempsey, and allowing for the fact that he was a fistic marvel of unsurpassed reputation, he was still a middleweight without a KO punch.

 

Wow 12 pages, I'm not reading them, Dempsey was unproven against the best of his time, thats all that needs to be said