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

It seemed like you were defending those statements because that's what this thread is about. It's not only about Dempsey but what people such as Arcel thought of Dempsey.

Yes I do. Read the statements again and tell me you agree with them. I don't.

I take his comments on this subject with a grain of salt. I happen to disagree with him, and I imagine 90% of people would, unless you believe Dempsey would "murder" any fighter in a couple of rounds and that he had no weaknesses. I'm really stating the obvious here.

All I'm saying is that it shouldn't be cast aside as an obvious dive when there isn't much proof to such claims.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=147209

 

One thing that may give pause to these modernday practitioners of the black art of Revisionism (regarding Jack Dempsey) is that in an interview once, Archie Moore was emphatic, I recall, in stating that Dempsey was a great fighter, and (especially), was a particularly powerful man, physically..and somewhat, Archie said, typical of hard men of that era. Moore was quite positive in assessing Dempsey. I tend to agree with a guy of Moore's calibre in assessing the Manassa Mauler over the opinions of these latter day revisionists.

 

Of course, I don't believe Dempsey would "murder" any fighter til now..
I believe that what I have never seen because it was before my time,
it is logical of me or others to depend on the consensus of boxing experts
who had SEEN them fight...Why read history if we ages later do not
take seriously what most historians saw and put on paper ?
I believevwhat Ray Arcel wrote in the piece was true in evaluating
Jack Dempsey's place in fistic history, without the hyperbole...Arcel was
overreacting to the revisionists of the time of the interview, who a half
century later diminish the impact that Dempsey had in his prime...
I believe to this day that my ideal built heavyweight was a Dempsey and
my hero Joe Louis...They were VERY strong at their weight, hit with the
speed of middleweights,with two handed power, and against todays
water logged musclemen would get their "Fustes with the Mostes" to
coin a phrase from the Civil War..

 

Check Ted Spoons, Janitors, He Grants, Hanks, and Spittle8's posts in that thread to gauge my thoughts on the whole thing - why would anyone testify in court under oath that Dempsey was paid to take a dive and duly did??? It's one thing making claims through hearsay but it's another thing altogether stating something under oath before a court of law - something is not right at all about the fight - not right at all - I know because I've seen film of Flynn fighting and he couldn't crack eggs with his punches - something fishy that someone who couldn't really crack goes and knocks out one of the toughest fighters ever in one round - and then in the rematch suddenly gets KO'd in one himself - something not quite right - I could post a hundred and one things about the fight being dodgy if I could be bothered but i can't so we'll just have to disagree - but you haven't answered my last question anyway?? Do you genuinely think Flynn knocked out a prime Dempsey???? And if so where do place him in the top 10 of all time heavies??

 

Here Here :happy very well put Cobra :good

 

Thank you Rocky...I just wish I could dredge up somewhere on the net that interview with Moore.

 

Whenever I see a vid or picture of Dempsey..even when he's quite an old man...he seems to have a catlike, tigerish aura about him..a very impressive thing...he reminds me of coiled steel..like a tiger or a leopard.

 

1. "prime Dempsey???"

What makes you think the Dempsey of Feb, 1917 was anywhere near his prime. Name what you think was his most impressive victory prior to the Flynn fight. Kearns always said Dempsey was in pretty sorry shape before he took him on.

2. "why would anyone testify in court under oath to Dempsey taking a dive"

Let's not be that naive. Maxine was a prostitute. She may have been offered a deal by the DA that he would let her off the hook, including jail time, if she testified against Dempsey. Was a deal offered? No way to tell, but clearly an ex-wife who was a prostitute and could have been in trouble with the law is not an unimpeachable source.

3. This fight drew $5000. Dempsey was a draw. Why throw all that in the gutter to take a dive?

4. "Flynn couldn't crack eggs with his punches"

Whatever, but how big a puncher was the middleweight Johnny Sudenberg, who had Dempsey down nine times in the first round? Dempsey wrote extensively about those knockdowns in his autobiography.

 

I know about the praise Dempsey got and it does make an impression on me. But some of it is just so over the top that it can't be taken seriously. I wouldn't take it seriously either if someone said with utter confidence that Ali would toy with other HW greats. Perhaps, a certain match-up between ATGs could theoretically be one-sided because of styles, but none of them are that far ahead of the pack.

I also think that Dempsey wouldn't match-up well stylistically with Louis, which makes it even more implausible for me that he would run all over him. Perhaps I'd say that Dempsey matches up the best with Foreman of these four, and he's really a quite superior version of Firpo. Bigger, stronger, more, durable, more powerful and more technically skilled (as seldom as you get to say that of Foreman). Firpo came close to taking Dempsey out, as you know.

 

But who here has disagreed with that assesement? I find it very reasonable as well.

It's when claims are made that he would dispatch of Louis, Marciano, Foreman and Tyson in more or less as many rounds in total as it took him to dispatch of Carpentier, that some of us feel it's time to pull the break.

 

This I can agree with. I just do not appreciate being called a denigrator and a revisionist in an insulting manner when all I did was state the obvious, that Arcel's words here need not to be taken entirely seriously.

I've gathered all the films of Dempsey that I can, including his sparring sessions, but I obviously can't begin to understand how it must have been for a person who was actually there and saw him in action. Thus I compared him to Tyson, because he is the only "phenomenon" in recent times that comes close.

I do not think it was a prime Dempsey and stranger things have happened. I have not seen any solid proof of the fight being a fix, not even a statement by Dempsey himself, other than speculation. On the other hand I'm willing to admit that the circumstances were suspicious, but this is not necessarily proof of the fight being a fix.

 

B, you say Jack Dempsey "wouldn't match up stylistically with Louis ".
Let me to remind you that a vastly inferior fighter than Dempsey with
similar bobbing and weaving in close style lasted Fifteen and eight rounds
with the porime Joe Louis in 1940. And that was Arturo Godoy...He
bobbed and weaved to get under Louis's devastating punches, took
what landed and lasted 23 rounds with Louis...What would a Dempsey
with a fairly similar style, infinitly faster, murderous punching Dempsey
have accomplished ? With an old wise coot Jack Kearns devising a
strategy for Dempsey I believe the much more versatile Manassa Mauler
would have prevailed against the best heavyweight of my times ,Louis.

 

That is a good point. It should be noted that Louis destroyed Godoy in the rematch, though, and that Dempsey didn't employ quite such a low crouch as Godoy, was probably less awkward. But I see where you're coming from.

It's also true, however, that Dempsey was given trouble by and even was defeated by far lesser fighters than Louis.

 

In my opinion, Dempsey v Louis is the greatest mythical HW match-up ever. Dempsey has the style and tools, but unless he applies them at all times to their fullest potential, Louis has openings to get the momentum shifted in the other direction in an awful hurry. And once Louis hurts you, there really is no way out. And remember, Dempsey had less than sterling performances in what should have been his prime. Any efforts similar to Brennan II, Gibbons or even Firpo could seriously jeopardize Dempsey's chances.

 

Dempsey went 32-0 with 28 KO's at his peak? When did this happen? Am I missing something?