Jack Dempsey: In Summary

Mostly agree with your summation and the reasons behind it. I can only imagine how awesome Dempsey must have seemed to those who watched him for the first time, and that impression contributed to the creation of that legendary figure that comes down to us today. On film I've always found him to look quite mediocre, better than most of the opponents he was in the ring with but not particularly impressive when separated from his time. Refined in some ways but very crude in others. Never been afraid to voice that opinion. Sacred cows are meant to be challenged.

 

I don't really think it makes much sense to say he fought more honourably than Johnson. I think Dempsey's infighting was one of his biggest strengths, he certainly like to rough it up a lot, then add in the low blows, and hitting people as they got up.

Certainly far more exciting to watch though.

I find he can be a bit frustrating in that he shows flashes of skill that he fails to use consistently. He was certainly very athletic, strong, pretty quick, and tough as they come.

A lot of the early heavyweight title reigns were pretty absymal. I think Jeffries is the clear standout. Sullivan is probably up there for his early reign, but much harder to asses, and Jeffries did it in the much stronger era. This will be controversial, but I think Jeffries' era was better than Dempsey's.

I like Dempsey, one of my favorites to watch, but I think his legacy is largely ruined by his failure to meet his best challengers, especially as it was a pretty weak era.
Johnson's title reign is even worse, but his pretitle run does a lot more to redeem it IMO, especially as his key challengers were guys he already held wins over.

 

I could imagine, that his winning streak of knockouts was very impressive too. He also had a high number of first round knockouts. Maybe he was something like a previous version of Mike Tyson for many boxing fans or even more popular. On the other hand, there were not so many or none films about his earlier fights (don`t know), but newspaper reports etc. And Dempsey had also a great Manager with Jack Kearns and promoter for his title fights (Tex Rickard).

 

I think the opinion of infighting now is quite different than what it was then.

Johnson's particular style of infighting is more spoilery, rather than some of the aggressive infighting you also see in early boxing. But a lot of what Johnson did was to make the fight long, painfull and embarrasing for an overmatched opponent. I think Dempsey took way more advantage of dirty fighting. Johnson did less of that stuff when he was in a more competitive fight. Johnson is a lot harder to assess as a lot of his best wins were pre-title, and we don't have any film of them.

Were missing a few of Dempsey's key wins in Morris, Miske and Fulton, but a much better portion than we do for Johnson.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head that Dempsey's aggressive style, the polar opposite of Johnson, really gave boxing a shot in the arm at the box office and would remain the norm for popular champions until Ali.

The second part I find dubious.

"He fought more actively than Johnson as champion"

I don't see this really, if you mean defending the title. Both didn't fight the top contenders, and both didn't defend the title that often.

"fought in a more honorable style"

Yes, in not making a fight a clinch fest. Agree.

"Dempsey was a gentleman, which Johnson was not (in the ring, that is)"

Don't agree with this, as Dempsey resorted to fouls quite often. If we are talking only inside the ring. Dempsey did grow into a gent outside the ring though, and was a very popular ex-champion.

"I do not rank him among the great fighters, and not among the great heavyweights."

I agree.

 

I partially agree

I, however, think Dempsey was extremely fast. He was faster than Frazier, Marciano and most other great heavyweights.

I am not talking about the older Dempsey's whose legs were gone vs Tunney. Young Dempsey was very quick on his feet and had fast hands. I would rate him as one of the quicker heavyweights of all time.

I think Dempsey was highly exciting but his failiure to meet Wills (before and after winning the title) as well as Jeanette and Langford pre title hurts his legacy. I don't rank him in my all time top 10 heavyweights (though he used to be in my top 5). But he did immense work for the popularity of the sport.

Dempsey's style was revolutionary for his time. Decades later, a young Tyson (who idolised Dempsey) refined that style even further. I still rank Dempsey in my all time top 15 at heavyweight but no longer hold him in the extremely high regard i once did. Still, i enjoy watching clips of him from time to time. IMO he is one of the pioneers of modern boxing, and for that alone, he is a first rate hall of famer.

 

One more thing i would add in Dempsey's defence is that the majority of his best fights were not captured on film. When he was at his youngest, strongest, fastest, and hungriest, he must have looked incredible, but alas, it wasn't captured on film.

 

Welp... this is gonna go down well

 

Dempsey was no gentlemen in the ring. Just watch what he did to a sick Miske, who he knew was critically ill, or the groin beating he gave Gibbons, or how he ended the Sharkey fight.

But that's part of what is to be liked about Jack. He wasn't in the ring for parlor games. He was fighter first, a boxer second.