Is Jack Dempsey a Top 10 Heavyweight All-Time?

Marciano was "tired" in that he breathed heavily and whatnot when he heavily exerted himself for extended periods of time. By saying he never tired, the point is that he didn't take breaks; you never see Marciano take a round off in the ring. You never see Marciano clinch out of tiredness, or lay back and rest against the ropes, or in any way act out of a need for rest in the ring. He fights and fights and fights and never lets his opponent rest easy. Dempsey did not have the level of stamina Marciano did.

 

He doesn't have one of those all time great resume's. Many people overrate him because he was an exciting heavyweight champion and one of the white hopes back then. He is definitely great, but he is not in my top 10 because he didn't have the names or the accomplishments of a Joe Louis, Ali, Tyson, Holmes, Foreman, Holyfield, Lewis, Marciano ect. He should rank around the top 15.

 

Chris: Yawn.. my new policy is to avoid wasting time in tit for tats here. I will respond to legit questions, not baited masturbation.

No Cramello, I mean the 26 year old Jack Sharkey that fought Dempsey, that fight, that night.

Incorrect Marciano Frazier. He did get tired nd did take breaks. Guess what? He went to the bathroom too.

O.F. : Age wise correct except Rocky to his credit stayed active and retained skills while Dempsey was highly inactive and this accelerated the deterioration of his skills ... you lose it when you do not maintain it ...

 

Show me a round Marciano takes off- in fact, show me a minute Marciano takes off, in any one of his fights.

 

I think its fair to say that Jack Dempsey made a reasonable contribution to the sport of boxing during a time when there wasn't much going on. Jim Jeffries and Jack Johnson had basically gone the way of the dinosaur, and Jess Willard was less than a champion by most people's standards, beit yesterday or in the present.

Dempsey brought with him, a new style of fighting which involved great utilization of the ring, along with very aggressive composite punching. Additionally, he seemed to have a rather servicable chin, or at least one that stood up to the competition of the times. Lastly, he was the first ( and maybe ) the only heavyweight champion to record 25 first round knockouts, and generated the first ever, million dollar fight gate, which later attracted other young talents to the game.

Can we rate Dempsey highly as a champion? I think it depends on what the individual critic views as the most pertinant criteria. Dempsey certainly brought a great deal to the sport, and arguably revived it during a time when the game was in trouble. On the otherhand, how heavily does his conduct as champion weigh into the picture?

Upon easily relieving Jess Willard of the heavyweight title, Jack Dempsey seemed to have played the role of an illusive and somewhat abscent champion. He defended his title some 6 times in 7 years, and even went 3 years without a single appearance in the pro ring. Could we allow such activity to be performed by future or past champions, and still award them the right to being all time greats? Again, the criteria needs to be left up to the individual.

During Dempsey's tenure as heavyweight champion, ratings were not quite as organized as they are today, and I have even heard claims that they were virtually non-existant. The best fighters in the world were generally determined by public opinion rather than by politically governed organizations ( imagine such a concept. ) At this particular moment in time ( a moment which lasted for several years, ) a very talented fighter by the name of Harry Wills was considered to be the best fighter in the world, and more than deserving of a shot at Dempsey's crown. Jack's managment signed to fight Wills at one point, but quickley terminated the contract for reasons that are still unknown to me, ( insites on the issue are welcome. )

To make a long story short, Dempsey never fought Wills, and retained his title despite. Mandatories were not very prevalent in those days, and therefore, Jack continued to reign. In a later era however, we saw future champions fiercly criticized or even stripped of their titles for not facing the concencus best fighters in the world. Does this hurt Dempsey's standing at all time great status? Once again, the individual must be the judge......

 

does no one on here read about all the corruption about color lines back then as ive said over and over and over dempsey tried to fight the easy opp. wills his first upfront payment on the fight bounced.so he went to the only promoter he trusted rickard and begged him to stage the fight ,rickard in the past had vowed to never stage another white _black championship match after jeffries-johnson.but with dempsey being so persistent rickard(problobly lying said the big whigs of new york ordered him not to )this is were rickard had promoting rights so jack took next offerd opp. tunney.therefore wills who about every boxer and analizer said would get beat inside of 5-6 never got his shot and dempsey gets ridiculed from every boxing fan who only reads the bold print and does not truly study.if it was the great rocky that was restricted by racisim and promoters and state officials and could not fight charles,walcott,louis ect. and only the poor lineup that he did fight wich were white would everyone pull the race card on him to?

 

Gentlemen, at the time of Dempsey`s reign, the fight game was still in recovery stage. Due to the memory of the outlandish, unacceptable and disrespectful torments from Jack Johnsons reign. It was barely ready for the oportunity to accept a second 'Colored Champ' as made clear by the Governor of New York. Rickard, as well as the public wanted the match. It was drawn up, tickets sold, all systems go........

The potential of violence was obvious, had Wills walked away the victor.. No doubt, the memory of Johnson was still too fresh in the minds of politicians.

Thankfully a few coloured fighters were given title shots, and walked away the victor, including Tiger Flowers , Feb 26, 1926 over Greb. In NEW YORK..

The public support of a Dempsey/Wills fight, politicians welcoming of Flowers/Greb and the manor inwhich several others conducted themselves in the public eye, no doubt opened the door for Louis to enter and place pride in himself, until the Politicians themselves, via the IRS, subsequently rendered themselves the subject of ridicule, until this day.

 

Don't ask questions like that. To quote him: his my new policy is to avoid wasting time in tit for tats here. He will respond to legit questions, not baited masturbation.

 

i.e. I make big statements and make out i know what i am talking about but when asked to back them up or to provide proof i don't know ****

 

I don't have rounds 13 & 14 of the Gibbons fight, but i do have round 15, in which i counted 22 punches from Dempsey. Needless to say, i did not include small punches to the back of the head during a clinch, unless it was a full body weight punch that frees him from the clinch, of course.
A part of this round is missing however, because the round takes 2:01 in my film. If we assume that Dempsey spent as much energy during the missing minute as he did during the ones we saw, then he threw 33 punches in the last round. Which probably benefits him, because you can be sure they threw away the boring, inactive parts where he likely had a lower punch output. But OK, let's forget about that for now.


After counting the same way for the 15th round of Marciano-Charles, i end up with 91 punches. See the difference here? A full factor of three. Dempsey is under the heavyweight average in the final round, Marciano is above it by an almost inhuman amount.



An other round comparison, in round 8 of Dempsey vs Tunney II, Dempsey throws 8 punches in the 2 minutes i have of that round. That would mean a total of 12 punches during that round.

In round 8 of Moore vs Marciano, Rocky threw 89 punches. Round 9, 57 punches for a duration of 1:10, corresponding to 146 punches a round if that one continued! Of course we don't know if he would keep that tempo up for the rest of the round, after all, he took a lot of rests according to you, but then again, i'm also giving Dempsey the benefit of the doubt by assuming he was as active in the parts of the film they cut as he was in the highlights they show.

Those were both men's last fights, but if you think Dempsey was too old for that, let's look at round 7 of Gibbons vs Dempsey. Dempsey threw 27 punches during the 2 minutes i have, meaning 41 punches during that entire round; the heavyweight average.

Not just in a way of figure speech, but Marciano literally more than doubled Dempsey's punch output during those rounds.

Want any more "baited masturbation"?

 

Marc/Fraz: I told you where ... it is on tape ... in addition, to think otherwise is unrealistic. A great fighter, definately. Human, without question.

Mr. Magoo: Good post.

Pulgilist_Boyd ... There is little record of Dempsey begging for such a fight. It appears true that Rickard was strongly against it ... it is a shame it did not come off because Wills was far and away the best fighter out there during Dempsey's reign and had fought and defeated much better fighters than Dempsey did ... anyone who says Dempsey was a lock , even as Wills got older, is kidding themselves. Wills was a tremendous fighter and a much larger man, not simply a larger man ... this remains the primary blemish on Dempsey's rcord and will forever.

Flamengo: Well said.

 

"Age wise correct except Rocky to his credit stayed active and retained skills while Dempsey was highly inactive and this accelerated the deterioration of his skills . . . you lose it when you do not maintain it."

I don't cut Dempsey slack for not fighting. That was his fault. When all is said and done, Marciano was the better fighter. He beat the best opposition available, which I also think was better than Dempsey's, and he was more consistent.

 

Dempsey's inactivity was definatly Dempsey's decision, the result of far better options than Marciano ever enjoyed. Dempsey was a much bigger draw at a time that boxing exploded. Dempsey had huge show biz options for big money and took it ... Rocky did not and fought ... however, no one should compare them at any point except their primes. You feel Rocky was better and that is your opinion. I disagree, that's all.

 

Just one point. Several posts have said, and I would concur with their judgement, that Marciano had better stamina than Dempsey. This does not mean that I think Marciano never tired or was not human. It means I think he had better stamina than Dempsey. I am certain that is what Marciano-Frazier means also.

There certainly are serious questions to be raised about Dempsey's stamina. In fights which went past one round, he scored only 25 knockouts in 57 fights, indicating that he slowed and perhaps had more difficulty than Marciano, or Louis, in carrying his power into the later rounds. Nor is this an entirely new criticism. Jack Johnson claimed Dempsey was a four round fighter back in the twenties.

 

i put him at #3 and dont think twice about it