Jack Dempsey vs Jersey Joe Walcott Prime for Prime

Hypotheticals are subjective and like arseholes everyone has one, but I buy out of this one, Dempsey a sporting superstar of his era does not have to in death prove anything to anyone. By the way I am a massive Walcott fan.

 

Dempsey knocks him out.

 

Walcott by close UD over 10 or 12, he probably gets knocked on his ass and gets caught with some stupid shots now and again... but Joe was smart and savvy enough to avoid any big punishment and frustrate Dempsey...

Over 15 I can see Dempsey catching him while behind on the cards ala Marciano.

 

I think so ,but Joe may have him down first.

 

J, I have great respect for your boxing acumen.Really do...Where we differ is
I, who had been exposed from early on to the boxing opinions of so many great boxing minds of writers as Nat Fleischer, Damon Runyon, Dan Parker,
Jersey Joe,etc,and oldtime boxing people as mickey Walker, Gene Tunney,
Max Schmeling, Ray Arcel,Lou Stillman,etc ,who saw Jack Dempsey in the flesh, knew about his layoff and career, knew about Dempsey not fighting Harry Wills, and Harry Greb,and STILL chose him above all the other heavyweights in their valued opinions... You ,and others on ESB wish to ignore the people who saw Dempsey of 1923 and before, prefering the old and shot Jack Dempsey of his 3 year layoff to evaluate his place in boxing's history. I am just baffled J by this logic of ignoring the vast opinions of people at ringside who SAW Dempsey at his best,and completely ignoring, that the Dempsey of 1926-27 of the Gene Tunney fight, was a shell of his former greatness...There is the difference between our thinking.
I,am talking about the man to man Dempsey of his prime. You are talking about the Dempsey resume of his career, and Tunney years,past his peak.
And the twain shall never meet ! Cheers.:hi:
P.S. And the pollsters who picked Dempsey as the BEST they had seen,knew of Harry Wills and Harry Greb. Wouldn't you think ?

 

I appreciate the kind words Burt as I also have great respect for you. Dempsey was a great fighter, I would never say different, but his title resume marred by not fighting either Greb or Wills and I've never read a thing that dismisses that point. I think most historians base their opinions on how Jack fought in his prime and do not take into account some of the things many of us question. As I've said plenty of times, Dempsey was an icon and people do not like to change their perceptions of men of status. But there is no doubt in my mind, the minds of many others and newspaper accounts of the day that Dempsey should have fought both Greb and Wills but instead chose to sit on the title and fight lesser opponents up until Tunney. And that is something many choose to overlook when evaluating his legacy.

 

J, of course in a fairer and more interesting world Dempsey SHOULD have fought Harry Wills and Harry Greb.I sure wish that had happened. But it DIDN'T . I sure wish that Ray Robinson would have tackled Charley Burley, but this didn't happen. I as a boxing fan wished that Sam Langford, would have hooked up with the "white Sam Langford", Jack Dillon when both were in their primes, but this didn't occur,as we know.
The Dempsey camp headed by Jack Kearns,and Tex Rickard called the shots
and Dempsey complied. As I have stated before ,Dempsey after 1923 took a leave of absence, went Hollywood, tom-catted around, got married, broke up with his manager Jack Kearns,and did not fight anyone for over THREE years.
Did this enhance Dempsey's legacy ? Hell NO. But he enjoyed the good life only money and fame ,could give you. For 3 years Dempsey chose the saddle
instead of the ring. Who could blame him.? Do you J ?
I know Ali fought a tougher crop of heavyweights in his career. Sure do.
But no one can pick the time of their birth. Dempsey at his best,had unique qualities for a heavyweight, such as middleweight speed of foot and hand, great strength in the upper body ,marvelous two-handed hurting powers,
a bob and weave defense with chin tucked in his shoulders,a leather like face
seldom cut,and a kill or be killed attitude of a later day Roberto Duran.
This was the Dempsey who was voted by the experts as the best heavyweight till then, resume be hanged.. And I and MANY others agree with them...:hi:

 

I don't blame him my friend, and yes I would have done the same thing. But if you're going to take the easy road than you have to expect to be criticized. Im simply not the type of person to ignore these kinds of things in my overall evaluation of a fighter. I have no problem with a guy taking a little time after a tough road to the title, nor do I have a problem with a soft touch defense on occasion. But missing the two best fighters of that time period and instead fighting guys who have been beaten by them and than making excuses just leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

 

And J, I could see why ! From your viewpoint I understand,and I don't fault you for this.
I just happen to think with the vast majority of that long ago time, that the prime Dempsey in a title fight at stake ,kos the 160 pound best P4P Harry Greb, and flattens the tall less mobile Harry Wills.
So J, we maybe both right...Cheers :hi:

 

What a great matchup this would be. Personally I think the would favour Dempsey, but not by a wide margin. If it goes the distance, Walcott will win almost always. But Dempsey was a great pressure fighter with great handspeed and two-fisted KO power, and Jersey Joe had a slightly shaky chin. Even an old, faded Dempsey managed to catch the smart, elusive Tunney in one of their fights, and it was only Gene's granite chin and evasive abilities after getting back up that avoided the KO. Walcott would not have escaped that round like Tunney did. Also, Dempsey benefits from a very solid chin himself.

So to me, this is a great style matchup, both very good at their styles, but a fast swarmer with true KO power is kryptonite to a slick mover with a so-so chin like Walcott.

 

I don't agree. Here's faded Dempsey's handspeed:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5rDUbO4NSc[/ame]

To me, that is quicker than late-career Joe Louis. Prime Dempsey has faster hands than prime Louis IMO. I agree that Louis was the better combination puncher, but Dempsey was a tad ahead of him in raw speed.

 

disagree

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUzJaokX_N8[/ame]
1:31-1:33 faster combination than anything Dempsey ever put together

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uCpJ0bm6RI[/ame]
5:07-5:09 faster than anything ive seen Dempsey put together on film



Prime Joe Louis? Forget it. His hands were clearly faster than Dempsey's.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5zkE4BkMgg[/ame]

 

I mean I have no problem with someone saying Prime Louis over Dempsey... I'd agree. But 1946 Louis? The one you see getting rocked and tagged by telegraphed shots he would have blocked or slipped easily years ago? I have seen Dempsey throw much faster and harder shots during and past his prime in the Willard, Firpo, Tunney II, and Brennan fights and a few in sparring as well.... And that's throwing wide shots too.

 

And under Dempsey's era rules ..:yep

 

Burt, I time and again come back to this on Dempsey ... putting aside the all time great publicity machine he had behind him in a day when print ruled, let's logically break down some facts ...

Dempsey fought before film and t.v. ... pre Willard I question how many of the fabled trainers and writers actually saw him fight, let alone a BOXER/Puncher of Walcott's caliber ... we do know as champion perhaps the best comparison was Bill Brennan who while a very good fighter was no where near Walcott in speed or power ... Gibbons was more a Jimmy Young type who was both small and not young ...

My question remains, "who did Dempsey fight that you can gage a Walcott type fight on ?" Based on the film we know he can destroy huge, sluggers like an old Willard or a raw Firpo but it is a gigantic leap from those guys to a prime Foreman, Lewis or Liston ... as far as boxers go we do see against Tunney and Sharkey that Dempsey, age and rust aside, is almost clueless on how to cut off a ring ... against a tricky ******* like Walcott I can see him tripping over his feet, eating a ton of shots and then getting clobbered by a nasty hook or cross ...

As I have said time and again Dempsey gets an incomplete by me as I'm clueless as to how good he might have been based on his inactivity and regression post Willard ... I know he had a very good chin, excellent recooperative powers, the ability to deliver lightning fast combinations on the inside , a world class heart and two handed KO power .. in other words he had great physical skills ... that in my book is not enough when gong up against a guy like Walcott who was lightning fast, trick as hell and could take your head off ... it's a pick em fight ... we know what Walcott was capable of, we don't know what Dempsey was against this type of opponent ..