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

At what time? Last I checked, Dempsey's last non-exhibition fight was in 1927. 23 years before the above date.

 

Well obviously "the time" is 1950.

But what's your point?

I saw Ali fight and that was probably over 30 years ago and I certainly saw a prime Tyson and prime Holmes fight and those who came afterwards. I'm sure guys like Harold Lederman and Larry Merchant have seen may who fought going back to the mid 60's.

In fact having a 20-30 year time span between when he fought and when he was rated is probably a good thing. If you would have rated Tyson in his peak you may have ranked him number 1 of all time, but now looking back on it, and seeing other fighters such as Lewis you're in a better position to rate him in a historical context, so the fact that these guys saw both Louis and Dempsey's careers, is a bonus, not a detriment.

But according to your logic nobody currently alive is able to rank Holmes today because he hasn't fought in decades, which is complete rubbish.

 

Van,thank you for these quotes written by men who saw Jack Dempsey
and other great heavyweights...Wouldn't any sane boxing fan take heed
in the opinions of these men who watched Dempsey in the ring, over the
opinions of today's naysayers 90 years later ? As I have posted before
a Sam Langford, Mickey Walker, Jack Sharkey, Gene Tunney and most notably Max Schmeling who sparred with Dempsey in Germany whilst
Dempsey toured, also claimed in his bio, that of all the heavyweights he had seen Dempsey was in a" class of his own",wouldn't these worthy opinions of Dempsey in the ring hold considerably more weight than his
detractors 90 years later ? Any logical boxing fan would think so, but not on ESB. Keep up your defense of a unique great heavyweight Jack Dempsey Van. :good:good:good

 

Here's the full results of that 1950 poll:
1. Jack Dempsey, heavyweight - 251 votes
2. Joe Louis, heavyweight - 104
3. Henry Armstrong, 126-147 pounds - 16
4. Gene Tunney, heavyweight - 6
5. Benny Leonard, lightweight - 5
6. Jack Johnson, heavyweight - 4
7. Jim Jeffries, heavyweight - 2
One votes each: Bob Fitzsimmons, heavyweight; Sam Langford, heavyweight; Mickey Walker, middleweight; Ray Robinson, welterweight; Joe Gans, lightweight.


How many of the writers who cast their votes do you think had seen Dempsey's fights? I'm not even talking about those who had been before him. I can recall maybe a dozen or two of well-known sporting writers who had seen Dempsey before his losses to Tunney, who were still alive in 1950 (Harry B. Smith, Nat Fleischer, cartoonist Ed Hughes, Ed R. Hughes, P.T. Knox, Jack Kofoed, Dan Daniel (Margowitz), Frank Menke, Westbrook Pegler, Grantland Rice, Tom Swope, Walter Trumbull, Davis J. Walsh, Wilbur Wood, J. Ed Wray). But the AP had counted 393 votes in the poll. The ones who were active at the turn of the century, and thus were eligible to pick the best fighter of the last 50 years, were Harry B. Smith (writing sports since 1897), Ed R. Hughes (sporting editor of Seattle Times since 1905, so probably started even earlier), Grantland Rice (Nashville Daily News since 1901), Ed Wray (St. Louis newspapers since 1900). Only 4 names.

 

The day that Jack Dempsey, more akin to a pro wrestling champ than a heavyweight champ, deserves to rank Pound for Pound above Joe Louis, Henry Armstrong, Benny Leonard, Joe Gans and Sam Langford, full grown nursing hogs will fly out of my ass.

 

Well Seamus, better see a proctologist.:scaredas:

 

Seamus.

 

And your preferred methodology would have been what? As to who saw him fight, I would think the answer would be the vast majority. Like I said, I've seen Ali and Holmes fight even though they both retired decades ago. Why couldn't this apply?

 

Look if it was a myth or not is pretty much speculation I guess .. It is not hard to imagine a young new champion partying hard in 1920 NYC ..

Do you think Sharkey took the count hoping for the disqualification ? I think he was out of it completely. That being said, no doubt that he turned his head and Dempsey was lucky but aware enough to pounce.

 

My point was, you can't really use this poll as a counter-argument to what was said about Dempsey.

Among the sporting editors who voted in that 1950 poll, here's what a couple of them had to say on their vote:

Gordon Cobbledick, sporting editor of Cleveland Plain Dealer:
"Louis fought some bums. But he fought all the bums in sight. He asked no questions. He welcomed any adversary game enough or foolhardy enough to climb into the ring with him. And he defeated them all. Probably Dempsey met some opponents superior to any on the long list of Louis' victims. But there were some contenders whom he studiously avoided. Harry Wills, known as the Brown Panther, clamored unsuccessfully for years for a shot at Dempsey's title. ... Nevertheless, he didn't meet and beat everybody in sight. Louis did. This is not to argue that Tunney is wrong when he picks Dempsey as the better of the two and, therefore, the greatest of all time. It is only to point out what seems to me a weak point in his logic. ... Again Tunney neglects to point out the obvious--that a fellow is entitled to more off days in 25 title defenses than in six. Dempsey laid his championship on the line only a half dozen times--the last time unsuccessfully. It seems to be his claim to everlasting greatness would have been more valid if he had met and vanquished a few more of the bums."


Bill Rives, sporting editor of Dallas Morning News:
"If there are any Jack Dempsey fans who read this column, they probably will choke on their toast this morning when they read that we think Joe Louis was a greater fighter than the Manassa Mauler.

In any discussion of the merits of Dempsey and Louis, the first question any Dempsey fan will ask is this: "Aw, who did Louis ever lick?" Or, if it's an English professor posing the query, he'll say: "Whom did Louis defeat?"

We think the question should be the other way 'round. We feel that Dempsey, as champion, did not face any formidable opposition. Maybe there weren't any good heavyweights around at the time. The same thing, possibly, might be said for Louis.

But Joe took on all comers--something Dempsey didn't do--and defended his title twenty-five times. All other records of heavy weight champions pale beside Joe's.

The Louis record is recent enough to be familiar with most readers. But Jack Dempsey's record as heavyweight king might have slipped their minds.

Dempsey won the championship, you'll remember or you have read, from Jess Willard, who was a sort of early-day Primo Carnera. Dempsey attacked the giant in whirlwind fashion; his continuous assault has been described as the most vicious in the history of ring warfare. Willard failed to answer the bell for the fourth round.

A Look at Dempsey's Record

While Dempsey was in the peak of condition, Willard was in poor shape for a title fight. Nat Fleischer, the recognized No. 1 expert on fight matters, has recorded this about the activities of Willard before the battle: "Willard slept late, avoided strenuous work of any kind, neglected his road running to strengthen his wind, failed to have proper sparring partners in his camp, and, generally speaking, paid little attention to his training."

What about the men who sought to take Dempsey's title away from him?

Billy Miske, the first victim, was knocked out in three rounds. Quoting Fleischer again: "It was later learned that Miske went into the ring a sick fellow, for it was soon after the contest that Miske died from tuberculosis. He had kept his serious illness a secret..."

It took Dempsey twelve rounds to finish off the next challenger, Bill Brennan, who already was over the hill as a fighter. Brennan almost kayoed Dempsey, in the second round.

Next came Georges Carpentier, the French Flower. He weighed 172 pounds and shouldn't have been in the ring with Dempsey in the first place. One of the greatest promotions in sports history sold the match to the public. It was the ring's first million-dollar fight, in terms of gate receipts. Carpentier lasted four rounds.

Dempsey then won a 15-round decision over Tommy Gibbons, who was a good defensive fighter and no more, a Bob Pastor-type. Next, Dempsey hammered into the unconsciousness in two rounds a big, awkward South American named Louis Firpo. After knocking him down, Dempsey would stand over him and then clout Firpo as he tried to get up.

Then he ran into Tunney and the end of his reign came. Long periods of idleness between fights reduced Dempsey's effectiveness, of course. And age took its toll.

But on the records, we'll take the Brown Bomber."

 

I think they have valid points, but I also think the poll can't simply be discounted because some people have a different opinion than the majority, that's to be expected. So as far as I'm concerned yes you can use the poll as a counter argument to those who disagree with majority, why the hell couldn't you? If you didn't then obviously those in the majority are being walked over by those who opinions differ. That's hardly a meaningful outcome. Obviously if you ran a poll today Louis would win and really all that demonstrates is that for better or worse, people's opinions of the two have changed over time. But I do think the opinion of those who actually saw both of them fight, count more than mine or yours do, as mentioned I think jack's biggest accomplishments was getting to the title and winning it. I don't think there's much dispute as to who was more active in terms of defending their title, the numbers speak for themselves.

 

The majority of them had only seen him fight on film, not live. They weren't around as sporting writers of major newspapers to follow the details of the Dempsey-Wills situation. The fact that Benny Leonard received only 5 votes, and Langford and Gans only 1 vote each, says it all. Most of them probably only had seen Leonard in his comeback, and few of them had seen Gans or Langford fight (even though the Tar Baby fought into mid 1920s, he was hardly impressive at that period of his career, and he fought mostly in venues where only little-known local newspapers reported them, absolutely majority of big writers weren't present to see him). Henry Armstrong over these three, and with 16 votes? Confirms they only heard about Leonard/Gans/Langford, but never saw them fight.

 

http://heavyweightaction.com/PDFs/1964 Boxing Article.pdf

Does anyone find it strange that Harry Wills himself said Jack was not to blame for the fight never happening yet everyone all these years later and so far removed form the situation and the actual facts blames him?

 

George C. Carens of Boston Traveler voted for Jim Corbett as the greatest boxer. For some reason Corbett's not even listed in the poll's results. "In naming Corbett as the No. 1 boxer, I'll admit I was tempted to bracket him with Gene Tunney, as a stylist, and if the question had been to select the greatest fighter, I would have named Jack Dempsey. As for the man who left the greatest imprint on the art of modified murder, I would consider Joe Louis, but the request was for the best boxer."

 

Excellent article.