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

I was. Never meant to imply that it came from you. I thought it was clear we were talking about the quotes from the article.

A time-machine would definitely come in handy. There are so many of these guys you want to see matched with each other.

 

Loving this debate.

 

The press was building Carpentier more on his WAR record than what he relly did in the ring. Not saying Carpentier was a poor fighter or along that lines, but it was a miss match the movement the pen was sign on paper, and instand of how Carpentier was going to deal with Dempsey, they brought up how well Carpentier did in WWI and how Dempsey duck the draft so to speak.

It would be like Ali fighting some one from the war, and the guy is a good fighter, but not great, but instand of selling the fight as boxers, they sold it the war hero vs the no good draft doger.

(Pretty much how they sold Ali Fraizer I, even though neither one was in the army lol)

 

Talk about a preconceived notion. I love how you're presumptuous about my preconceived notions. Hilarious, and quite arrogant.

No, actually on film I'd think he'd look better than Firpo does that's for sure. And because he does...

What are you saying no about? I said I wasn't sure about? Can you at least provide a date? I thought it was around the Tunney fights that Willis was seeming washed up and has a poor outing against Firpo. Interest began declining afterwards. So how far within Dempey's reign are we talking?

I understand the context, and I do agree that this perspective often gets too easily dismissed. At the same time, it seemed you were arguing to lengths were it looked like you wanted to excuse Dempsey on this matter. You can't do that and then call it indefensible... you just can't have it both ways.

 

dempsey was just the best fighter in the world throughout his time as a champion. He was evrything the world at that time wanted a heavyweight champion to be. always delivered thrills and won big in big fights. He was proven and accepted as the best.

dempseys recocognition was absolute at that time. later on when you scrutanise the period he missed out a couple of guys who with hindsight deserved title shots but neither realy stated a case worthy of a true "superfight" by the different standards of the day. it was not a scandal. "too good for their own good" certainly did not aply to either greb or wills during dempseys reign. dempsey was a great champion but not a busy fighting champion.

 

C, you summed it up lucidly...Dempsey was a hobo as a youngster,had a tough time as a novice fighter, hooked up with Jack Kearns, who became
his mentor, became a great and EXCITING champion, went Hollywood,
went La Dolc'e Vita, living the good life, came back after a 3 year layoff' and we know the rest...At his zenith [short as it was], was a force of
nature...Who could blame him in living the good life, after such hardships as a youth ? I can't.....

 

He was a better fighter than Greb?

Was he even better than Tunney during his title run?

 

When we are asked to compare Harry Greb To Dempsey and Tunney, we
forget we are talking about a 160 pound fighter against the larger Dempsey and Tunney...The question alone speaks volumes about the
Pittsburgh Windmill...What other fighter of that weight would you even ask that question,aside from maybe Fitz, and Langford ???

 

The claim to which I responded was not that Dempsey was the greatest heavy in the world but that he was the greatest fighter.

 

The greatest heavyweight in the 1920s, but Harry Greb was the greatest fighter in any era...He was like a handicap horse giving away weight to the top horses, and winning...
Would L believe he would have beaten Jack Dempsey at their primes ?
A resounding NO in a 12-15 round bout...No fighter can spot a prime Dempsey 20-25 pounds and win...

 

Again, choklab contended "Dempsey was the best fighter in the world during his championship"... This is simply not true unless you qualify it as only among heavyweights.

Harry Greb and Benny Leonard were better fighters and much more active against better competition during that period (at least up until Greb died) and their respective records vouch for this.

 

Agreed:happy

 

Fair enough.

He looks worse to me. But that's largely irrelevant.
Valdes's record and form going in to the Liston fight was abysmal. Even Tex Rickard couldn't have sold him as a viable challenger to Dempsey.

The Tunney fight had to be moved to Philadelphia because there was a lot of trouble with the New York commission over the Harry Wills case.

I dont need to excuse Dempsey.

I mean it's a fact that Dempsey never fought Wills, and it's reasonable to judge Wills to be the #1 man he should have fought.

But beyond that, there's actually nothing to defend. I dont actually think Dempsey gave much of a **** about who he fought, and he sure as hell didn't fight much at all as champion.

The analysis of the promotional politics side of bits of boxing history, the skulduggery and shennigans is a decent exercise.
But I dont actually consider it important in determining a fighter's greatness or "legacy" as a fighter.
I mean, professional boxing isn't really a "sport" in the sense that we'd like it to be.

If you say I'm having it "both ways", okay. I just have a different perspective.