Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

Why should ESB's favorite punching bag Jack Dempsey get tarred and feathered by a poster who "I was addressing", for fighting Carpentier ,a financial windfall and a fighter from Europe
the public was intrigued by, but a Joe Louis fought many fighters who had as little chance against Louis as Carpentier had against Dempsey, but Louis never get's criticized for the same thing ???
What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
One other thing, your opinion of Jack Dempsey's low standing in boxing history is solely YOUR opinion. No less, no more. I happen to believe the vast consensus who rated Dempsey highly as a much more realistic barometer than people on ESB. And I also feel that Dempsey gets more flack by many posters , whilst
other fighters who are no angels are overlooked. WHY ???.

 

S, you know very well that I was addressing YOUR comment of Dempsey fighting a "stiff like Carpentier who had no chance of beating Dempsey ", THOUGH the vast public WANTED to see the
French War Hero fight in America. So I brought up the fact that
Joe Louis [my favorite heavyweight] also fought many fighters I named who had as little or LESS chance of beating Louis as Carpentier had of beating Dempsey, but Louis escapes criticism
for doing the same thing...You are changing the subject because
you know that what I state is true. I'm sorry to defend your favorite whipping boy Jack Dempsey.

 

You cannot compare the Louis era vs Dempseys. During Dempseys time and prior the title was taken on the road. Dempsey or rather Dempseys management did this as did those before him. Louis vs Dempseys era in this way cannot be compared. It is well documented that Dempsey wanted to fight (Arcel made this quite clear) but his management many of whom were old school naturally expected the champion to instead have exhibitions and take to the stage. In the 20's taking to the stage meant motion pictures.

 

Dumb Pampas Strongman you spout.? Let it be known that the
"Dumb Luis Angel Firpo", later on became one of the richest men in Argentina...But of course you who are fair-minded must taint anything associated with Jack Dempsey...Do not preach to me about the greatness of Joe Louis S, but the facts are he did
fight some guys who had as "much chance to defeat him as
your favorite target Jack Dempsey had losing to Carpentier"...
Jack Dempsey was a "product" of his times, as Joe Louis was a man of his times...
So ,I still insist that Georges Carpentier had as much right and skills to fight Dempsey as MANY of Joe Louis's victims had...
P.S. You are on shaky grounds S when you mention Max Schmeling as an example of Louis's career opponents. You should read Max Schmeling's autobiography where he raves about Jack Dempsey being "by far" the greatest heavyweight he ever saw. After all Der Mox sparred with Dempsey when Dempsey was in Berlin as a young prospect, and Max saw most of all the heavyweights in his long life. Who should know more
than Max Schmeling ???.Sayonara ...

 

Sorry buddy but once again you are spouting nonsense that isnt grounded in fact. First of all, the idea that a champion cashed in on his title by being in movies, on stage, or taking part in exhibitions is not mutually exclusive of actually defending your title. A generation before Dempsey Jeffries was champion for just over 5 years and defended his title 7 times in addition to squeezing in two other fights, exhibitions, and stage appearances. Tommy Burns was champion for just over 2 years and squeezed in 14 title defenses among public appearances. Jack Johnson was champion for just over six years and managed six title fights and four non title fights. Gene Tunney was champion for two yrs and managed two title defenses. Same with Schmeling. The only champion anywhere near Dempsey's time who was as inactive as Dempsey was Jess Willard and the war prevented him from being active just like it interrupted Louis' reign. You compare that to Dempsey's paltry activity and the setups he was actually facing when he finally chose to fight after several long layoffs (over 1 yr between 1919 and 1920, 2 yrs from 1921 to 1923, and 3 years between 23 and 26) and you suddenly start seeing the reality of how weak Dempsey was. The problem for Dempsey was that he wanted to stay a champion in order to cash in on it and the only way you can be guaranteed to do that while Harry Wills is your universal #1 is by not fighting.

Its also notable that between 1920 and 1921 both the NYSAC and NBA instuted bylaws whereby champions had to defend their title at least once a year. This was to prevent exactly what Dempsey was doing. So both history and context is on the side of those who say Dempsey was criminally inactive.

As for Arcel I will never understand why people act like he was god, especially in relation to Dempsey. Other than being a fan of Dempsey's he had nothing to do with Dempsey whatsoever. He is also, clearly, subject to the same biases that every other old man is who thinks the fighters from his generation were flawless.

 

So wrong. Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries......up to Dempsey all took the title on the road aside from Burns. Fighting six times in seven years or in five years is not greatly different. They ALL made the bulk of their money on the road. ALL fought probably hundreds of exhibitions during their reign. Dempsey's management not Dempsey wanted exactly that. Arcel stated Dempsey wanted to fight regularly. It was Rickard who preferred the old school approach as would be expected from someone who lived through the earlier years of boxing history.

 

And once again stop the Wills Bull****. Wills himself did not blame Dempsey! He stated the promoters and commissions prevented the bout from occurring. End of discussion.

 

Even if Arcel never met Dempsey which is untrue as they were good friends he would know 100 times more than YOU. HE LIVED THROUGH THOSE TIMES ACTIVELY IN THE BUSINESS. He knew the details of what was going on because of this. You can only look at newspaper snippets. You cannot compare the two.

 

What I want to know is this: How many of Dempsey's fights did Schmeling attend? What does he base his opinion on? Anything other than a sparring session with his hero, when he was a young boxer?

 

Corbett and Fitz were champions a full 20+ years before Dempsey. Hell almost before Dempsey was even born. The sport was entirely different. That doesnt change anything I said about every champion within 20 yrs of Dempsey being more active barring the war. Period. Spin that **** all you like but thats how it was. Blame Rickard all you want but Rickard wasnt the only promoter in the world and Dempsey didnt fight exclusively for Rickard. Floyd Fitzsimmons and Mike Collins also promoted fights for Dempsey as champion when it suited Dempsey. You can blame others, which is pathetic, but the bottom line is that there were other states, other countries, other promoters who were more than willing to take on that bonanza and Dempsey always flatly refused and those close to him said he personally said he would never fight Wills. Blame Doc Kearns as well. Pass the buck, but when Kearns was ousted a year and half before Dempsey lost his title the same trends and patterns continued and the same bait and switch games continued. The one constant was Dempsey. All of these apologists like yourself want to pretend that 1919 was 1920 and 1920 was 1921 and 1921 was 1922 and so on. They want to compress this period into one day and act like nothing ever changed. Thats bull**** and its why by the time Dempsey fought Tunney he was a pariah and chased out of New York. He even admitted that the long count changed him from a villain to a hero. He was the villain because he was seen as an opportunist who took advantage of the sport and the title to enrich himself whether it was avoiding service to his country, refusing to defend his title, or taking part in over commercializing the sport to the detriment of the fans. These are things you wouldnt understand because you want nice, concise little sounbytes that you easily digest from Ring magazine or whatever other outlet preaches to your particular Dempseyist sensability.

Wills was a gentleman who was smart enough to not make himself unpopular by bashing a popular champion. Go read what he actually said when they were rivals instead of spouting back to me what you think you imagined in Ring magazine. Hell, even Dempsey himself drew personally drew the color line on the record and said that since HE NEVER HAD ANY INTENTION of facing Wills he felt comfortable saying that Wills was a wonderful fighter who would beat them all. Those are his words as champion during his life. Its just nice and convenient that he felt comfortable saying that since he made the decision to never face him...

Arcel was a human being. No better or worse than the best of us. He lived 2000 miles away from Dempsey in a time when there was no TV, fight films were illegal, and very little radio coverage. He likely saw less of Dempsey than we have today. He was fan plain and simple and pardon me if I form my own opinion rather be a slave to the biased ramblings of some old man who claimed Dempsey could beat any HW despite the fact that he never even would face his two toughest challenges, one of which was a MW!

 

Schmelings own version is that he was first induced to take up boxing after watching a film of Dempsey-Carpentier and idolizing Dempsey. So we might deduce that maybe Herr Max was a little biased for his all time hero...

 

How about Sam Langford's opinion of Dempsey? He said Jack would have no trouble with Wills, and so did Jack Johnson.
For me Wills is the standout contender Dempsey should have fought and didn't, a damn shame as I think he flattens him.

 

It doesnt matter what ANYONES opinion was of the possible outcome a fight. Thats why fights are fought. Who Johnson or Langford thought would win is purely conjecture. Jack Johnson also thought he could beat Dempsey when he was past forty. I guess we should just accept that as gospel and move on. Sam Langford also thought Jeffries would beat Johnson... How did that turn out?