It seems where ever boxing is discussed the true merits of legendary icon and former champion Jack Dempsey are debated. Some say he is one of the very best all time greats. Others feel he is the most overated champion ever. Here's my thoughts about the Mauler. We really do not know how great Dempsey was because of his inactivity post Willard. Going into the Willard fight Dempsey was very active against both tough and not so tough opposition. We then have the Toledo blow out against a 37 year old Willard who had one fight in the previous four years. After that , Dempsey steadily deteriorated as a fighter as he graduated into the idol of his age. Two fights in 1920, Miske, who may or may not have been too weak to actually fight and Brennen, a fight where Dempsey under performed but came back to win in late round dramatic fashion. Cut to 1921, Jersey City and immortality against a 175 pound champion not on anyones list of all time top light heavyweights. In addition, Dempsey may or may not have been rocked in the second round, not exactly all time status cementing. Cut to 1923, long period of inactivity and an impressive if slightly boring decision over a very tough but small Tommy Gibbons. Two months later more immortality with the brutal but raw Pampus Bull. A terrific battle but does little to make you think Dempsey would have survived a Louis, Liston, Foreman or Tyson. Three more years of inactivity and then Gentleman Gene. My point in all of this is that Dempsey frustrates me. He was a warrior and truly tough as nails. He was very fast of hand, in his prime very hard to hit with a solid shot, had a hell of a chin and great recooperative powers and was a knockout puncher with either hand. However, we never saw the best of him because he regressed as a fighter as he graduated into a world figure. Much like Sullivan but to an even greater degree, Dempsey may have shown us his true potential in defeat. Dempsey loses a lopsided ten round decision in 1926 to an absolute prime and great Gene Tunney. He takes a beating all the way but never a back step and never quits despite the fact his legs are shot and he has not had a fight in three years. Heart and chin unquestioned. Comeback against a prime and very good Jack Sharkey. Again takes punishment but rallies to pull close and then flattens Sharkey with one of boxing's all time memorial shots. Chicago: Almost pulls it off. For ten seconds he was back in 1919 and showed what he was and might have been. Still takes a beating but never quits. Cements legacy as a legend. There are reasons why Dempsey to this day still causes such controversey. It is because we are just not sure how great he might have become if he defended his title three or four times a year for a few years. However two addition things to keep in mind: 1. A little thing with Harry Wills which to me is indefensible. 2. If the Tunney fights were 15 rounds he very likely would have ended his career with two TKO losses similar to Lopez v.s. Sanchez and this would have effected his legacy as well.
Whatever picture of Dempsey has been painted for you the key point to better understand the 'decomposing inactivity' remains this: He was a fighter sandwiched between a driven manager and an 'all-in' promoter of whom he both looked up to like his parents as they always made the logical moves for the greatest financial gain. He admittedly had two "social left feet" as he looked to dress, behave and act in exactly the same manner as Kearns. He was a very impressionable young fighter, fantastically ferocious, but his early idea of making things happen was running up to small time match makers, completely out of breath/underweight, showing them small paper clippings of his quick yet obscure knockouts over unknowns. Dempsey really was a pawn in the big game. He had the power to fire Kearns earlier, but he knew how good he was for him, support wise. When champion, within his constant replies to the public about his possible fighting of Wills, throughout the first half of the decade, the reply was always lent on what was the best option for Rickard, who possessed all the public connections, relations and understanding. Dempsey respected the hands he was in and let them do the tricky things. Dempsey was happily pampered by a boxing world that had never quite hit these kinds of peaks. He spoke down to papers about scheduled bouts because back then he was like a promoter himself - him and Rickard were like the dynamic duo whose slightest movements were monitored. It became a bit like the freak show that was the re-incarnated version of Mike Tyson when papers started to report that Dempsey was now wearing a monocle, or bought a little dog - miscellaneous drivel, the likes of which you'd read today. It was a sign of the inadvertent debilitating hold Dempsey had of the boxing world, to which he understandably took advantage of, and consequently, eroded until Tunney put his fighting days into perspective.
My thoughts for whatever they are worth. Head to head Dempsey is awsome and I would have trouble giving any heavyweight in history much better than 50/50 odds against him. That is not what we are talking about here however we are talking about resume. A lot of the meat on Dempseys resume is before he wins the title like with Sonny Liston or Mike Tyson. His destruction of Fred Fulton in 23 seconds is an incredible win, almost unique in heavyweight history. Fulton was efectively the No1 contender and it was thought a 50/50 fight, then it was over before it started. Billy Miske is for my money one of the most under rated heavyweights of all time. He was a verry complete fighter who could box and punch. He held prime Dempsey to two close decision wins before he held the title and Dempsey defending the title against him was had an unfinished business angle. On the Wills issue I have mixed views. I personaly consider Wills to be an all time great heavyweight borderline top 10. I also recognise that Dempsey tried to make a fight with him, while former champions like Sullivan Jeffries (and even Johnsonto some extent) said "no and never" to fighting the top black challenger. In all Dempseys record stacks up thus- He was one of the most dominant champions in history on the way up to the title. He defended the title seven times and most of those fights were against guys who would have been ranked in the top 5 had rankings existed.
I don't believe this. It's very easy to hide behind your manager and act asif your hands are tied, but they weren't. If Dempsey really wanted that fight, he could've gotten it. There was a lot of public demand for it, despite Wills' skin color. A picture of Wills and Dempsey signing doesn't prove anything but a publicity stunt. He was also promised a shot if he got by Fulton. Actions speak louder than words. The words were that he'd get the fight, continiously, the action was quite clear: Dempsey wanted no part of him just like he didn't want a part of Langford or Jeannette earlier in his carreer.
