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

:good

Some of the Dempsey-Firpo fight fits that description.

 

Didnt Dempsey get a lost and a few draws in his first ten or so fights? Pretty sure his first "Pro" fight was a draw.

 

Dempsey is sometimes underrated by modern fight fans, but equally he is sometimes overrated by older fans. Most fans aren't objective but are biased towards their own generation. "Not as good as in my day" etc, it's nostalgia rather than honest assessment of the facts.

Anyone, even if it's Ali, Arcel, and Cus D'Amato all agreeing on it, who says that any fighter would just steamroller guys like Louis, Foreman and Tyson in 1-2 rounds is not being realistic, it's that simple.

 

That's exactly how I see it.

 

Age is obviously decisive. That is why Harold Johnson crushed Moore in 1954, Bobo Olson slaughtered Robinson in 1955, Valdez destroyed Monzon in 1977, Tom Sharkey bombed out Fitzsimmons in 1900, and Foreman flattened Ali in 1973.

 

Dempsey was a great fighter, but sometimes guys from Dempey's period do get carry away.

You should read what Tunney wrote on how Dempsey was going to smash Matthews, Charles, Walcott and Marciano in less than ten rounds.

He writes how after he is done blowing these guys out, he goes on to ko Marciano in 2 rounds after about 8 rounds of fighting, and I dont think Dempsey carryed his power that well later in the fights.

 

Now wait a movement, well Sharkey did "Beat" Fitz on a foul lol.

 

1. You don't put any stock in what Fulton said post beating yet you view him as "a better source" ?? :huh

2. Can't do that I'm not even a resident in America it would cost me a bomb - but my meaning was that I've read quotes from a couple of newspaper men of the era who said that the managers of fighters would rush to the press men at the printing houses (who hadn't been on hand to witness the fights) to pass on their "fight reports" so a lot of reports that went into print were fabrications that all - apparently this was very prevelant during the no-decision era too when newspaper decisions were printed which often couldn't be relied upon because again they were passed on by whichever manager could get to the papers offices first - thats all I meant about some newspaper reports potentially being unreliable - but i did add this very flippantly.

3. How do you know anything about anything??

4. Really? sounds cool! - did you record it - maybe you could get it onto youtube or something?? I guess he wouldn't be a particularly big fellow if he was a middleweight

 

Not at all Burt, I think you misunderstood what I meant. I don't really no the racial background of most people on ESB Classic. But I do know most are American, and a lot are from the UK region. Just statistically speaking most are "probably" white (Yes, an assumption). The point is that there would be no reason to have a bias against Dempsey. My point was probably done in poor form.

A fair, and good point. It seems Dempsey gets the short-end of the stick on this. It's sort of a double standard through our view of race-relations looking back. While Jack Johnson probably had no interest from the public fighting another black man we don't ever criticize this. But Dempsey and Jeffries seem to criticized for it, though. Even though Dempsey showed interest in a fight... and Dempsey came after Jack Johnson, who probably made things harder for blacks in boxing (This is debatable).

A fair point. But to be truthful, nothing in the history can quite measure up to the fact that of a champion not fighting his #1 challenger for 7 years. EVEN if he does show true interest in making the fight happen. I guess that says something about Dempsey being champion for awhile (Or perhaps being allowed to be champion while being so inactive).

I agree with your last statement. That perspectives needs to be considered, more often. And for both sides of the coin. Nice to hear from you too Burt. Always wisdom from your side, even if it's a different perspective.

 

Patterson twice in the 1st round really blows away anything Dempsey did, specifically. And then there's Valdes, Machen, Folley, Harris, and Cleveland Williams. Maybe you don't think much of the time but Liston cleaned out the era and then dominated a much much better champion. Dempsey efforts against Tunney are more forgivable, but his inactivity and not having fought his #1 or #2 best contenders is bad in its own right.

 

such a long freggin thread no matter who says what a 1919 -1920 dempsey ko.s 80 % of all our past heavyweight champs inside 6 rounds , and has a big chance of beating the other 20% ,he is extremly underappreciated i.m.o.

 

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

 

It is really that simple.

 

On this Forum, Johnson is often critized for it. As he should be.

 

Not to the same extent, though. But time is shifting things a bit.