Is it weird that I don't see anything special in Jack Dempsey?

Whether or not I find it weird that someone doesn't see anything in Jack Dempsey depends on who's making the statement.

 

He had a exciting style, so obviously people will like him.
He was incredibly overrated though ? Hell yes.

 

It should be noted that Dempsey (aside from the knockdown) did better against Tunney in the rematch, losing rounds by closer margins.

Though not like it used to be you can get an appreciation of his weaving because the film quality is superior. Tunny remarked how difficult it was to nail the Mauler; you may witness that left skim past Jack's head and over his shoulder. The range of motion for a heavyweight is impressive.

The performance against Gibbons was excellent. Sit yourself down with a brew and study the film. He's on his toes, using a jab, firing lead rights; Jack did things on that strange day he's not known for. Tommy could make a slugger look awful. Again, he credited Dempsey on a technical front.

Go back to his more famous destructions and you get a sense of Dempsey's versatility.

The failure to meet Wills counts against his legacy though it's my contention that, as a result, what does remain is targeted.

 

I am not sure who he is but if hes very good then yes.

 

And this is what the experts at the time had to say:


In 1950, the Associated Press conducted a poll of sportswriters to name the greatest fighter of all-time, pound-for-pound, and Dempsey was the runaway winner, collecting 251 votes. [Joe Louis finished a distant second with 109 votes; Henry Armstrong was third with 13.] The sportswriters of the first half of the century named Dempsey as the greatest fighter they had ever seen.
As late as 1962, in the Dec 1962 Ring Magazine, a panel of 40 boxing writers tabbed Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight of all time. Bert Sugar rates Jack Dempsey as the # 1 all time pound for pound heavyweight. Nat Fleischer rated him #4 on his all time heavyweight list. He also considered Dempsey the best infighter and best two handed hitter among all heavyweight champions. Charley Rose rated him # 3. Eric Jorgensen rates him #2. Cox's Corner rates him # 6.

But apparently you know more than they do even though there were around at the time. Fact is I think most of Dempsey's fame was his record leading up to becoming world champion, just as much, if not more so, than what he did while he was champ.

And with respect to him fighting Wills, this is Langford's take on it.

Sam Langford, when asked how Harry Wills (whom he fought 18 times in his career) would do against Jack Dempsey, said in the June 5, 1922, Atlanta Constitution "Well if he ever fights Dempsey my money will be on the present champion. Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen. He hits twice as hard as Jim Jeffries and is as fast in the ring as James J. Corbett."

 

yeah but that might be due to if Sam happily picked Wills, a vast crowd of inbreds would rush him and hang him as soon as he left the interview room.

 

Maybe, maybe not, I'm not sure of the context in which that was asked.

Unless there was a gun pointed at him, it seems to me that he could have simply refused to answer the question if he thought Wills would have won, or he could have said I don't know who would have won.

 

well I don't know was probably the same thing as picking against the white man.

To be sure though we will never know the context.

Man all those slave narratives form the 20s and 30s from former slaves who say 'Wooo mamma we had a good time as slaves....' well, you know...nope. yep, they didn't wanna get lynched at the next zebra crossing.

 

Well if you follow that logic to it's conclusion perhaps them not fighting was the best thing to happen to Wills, as one can only imagine what would have happened to him had he won.

 

ha, true good ol demps, he was doing wills a favour by not fighting his creed.

 

Yeah, but if you ask them reasons to rank Dempsey as the greatest, I bet they would say some of those cliches "he was the fearsome!" "the most ferocious" "the most savage" and romantic stuff like that, you take the romantic aura off of it (and this is not only about Dempsey) and you can make a truthful judgment and Dempsey can't be considered the Greatest fighter of all time.

 

Not necessarily, these were more specific comments about his actual fighting abilities (taken from Monte Cox's website)



Jack Dempsey was not only one of the most exciting heavyweight champions in history he was also one of the ring's greatest all time pound for pound fighters. Dempsey has one of the best knockout records in history with an unparalleled winning streak of 32-0 with 28 knockouts, including 17 of them in the first round! His victims included most of the top heavyweight contenders of the period such as Carl Morris, Fred Fulton, Al Palzer, Battling Levinsky, Gunboat Smith, K.O. Bill Brennan, Billy Miske, and his title-winning massacre of big Jess Willard.


Ray Arcel, one of the greatest trainers in boxing history, worked with 18 world champions including Barney Ross, Tony Zale, Ezzard Charles, Roberto Duran, and Larry Holmes. He was in the opposite corner from Joe Louis in 14 of his fights, and he also personally knew and learned from the great Benny Leonard. Arcel has stated that he considered Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey to be the three greatest heavyweights in history and hedged on picking between them, but here is what he said about Dempsey,
“He should’ve been the only heavyweight anybody ever thought of when they thought about the greatest heavyweight champion. I mean he had everything. He could punch, he could box. He was mean and determined.”



Jersey Jones concurs saying, “At his peak Jack Dempsey was the most dynamic and devastating heavyweight this commentator has ever seen…Manassa Jack had speed, strength, better than average boxing skills, lusty punching power and a blazing spirit. His bobbing and weaving style made him a difficult target to hit solidly, but when he was, he had the “ruggedness” to take it. Lithe as a panther and just as savage, Dempsey packed one of the most powerful punching combinations in the game…”


Jack Dempsey was a sure killer. A fighter with great killer instinct and the ability and will to finish a hurt fighter. Dan Morgan, an old time fight manager who had three world champions said that Dempsey had the three qualities which produce greatness in the fight ring and make a man a fighter for the ages. These are: ferocity, cold-bloodedness, and gameness. He said, "There's no place for pity in the ring. Many fighters can't bear to hammer a helpless opponent in the ring. They don't want to hurt him. But look at Dempsey he was probably the greatest rough and tumble fighter who ever lived."



Dempsey was not at all easy to hit because of his quick inside movement. John Lardner wrote that “Bobbing and weaving is a phrase that will probably be associated with Jack Dempsey until the end of time.” Dempsey called “the bob”, “a kind of artistic duck.” And he described “the weave” as “a series of slight imaginary slips. As you shuffle toward your opponent, you roll your left shoulder slightly; then your right’ then your left and so on…the genuine bob and weaver-and I was one of those-uses it fully. A deep bob and a side sway. I used to slip in under an opponents attack. Once in close I threw my left hook. I had a good one. I’d continue with a barrage of rights, hooks and uppercuts.”

 

I still see a lot of romanticization in those words tbh.

I could say the exact same things about Mike Tyson. Rate Tyson above Joe Louis and see what people will think about you as a boxing expert, you know what I mean?
ps- With that I'm not saying Dempsey was not one of the best fighters.

 

Far enough, and to a certain extent I agree, that said, I do think it's somewhat legitimate to rate Tyson higher than Louis on a H2H basis, but it's not even close in terms of career accomplishments.

 

Fair enough too. I rate Louis higher than most in a H2H basis tbh (probably my number 1 or 2).