Jack Dempsey vs Jersey Joe Walcott Prime for Prime

If Walcott was a "slick" and "tricky" as some people say, how come he dropped decisions to - or only narrowly beat - the likes Joey Maxim, Elmer Ray and Rex Layne ?
Walcott had a unique style, with some flashy moves, and had good power and was a seasoned pro, but I think his ability to "school" or "bedazzle" ATG fighters is a figment of people's imaginations.
He lost to an tired old sub-par Joe Louis because, firstly, he had a CLOSE fight where some say he was "robbed", and secondly, he got caught showboating in the rematch and KTFO.
He lost to Marciano in a fight where he was shipping punishment in quite a flat-footed slugging match from the 2nd round onwards. He was ahead at the time of the KO and had given out more than he'd taken but it's a myth that has him bedazzling Rocky for the whole fight up to then. He was in the trenches throughout.
Ezzard Charles beat him very clearly the first time they met. He floored Walcott the second time they met. He also did better against most of their common opponents.
Walcott wasn't a consistently slippery or slick trickster. He had some cute moves and gambits but not the whole superior game that some people think he did.

I don't think Walcott had the speed or supreme ability or work-rate to beat a 24 year-old Dempsey, or save himself getting KO'd in a 15 round contest.

 

he, you are preaching to the choir. I too love Jersey Joe Walcott, since the night in Aug,1946 ,when I saw Walcott ko a young sensational puncher Tommy Gomez of Tampa Fl. THAT Walcott at age 32 was quicker and better than the Walcott six years later who fought Rocky Marciano...Walcott would have been a severe threat to any heavyweight who ever lived that night that I saw him. Yes he,even the hyped Clay/Ali later on.
However, I still believe irregardless of the films we have of Dempsey ,what i detect in my readings of the writers who saw him at his peak, and the way
he decimated a 260 pound ,albeit slow Jess Willard, who took everything an older Jack Johnson dished out for 24 or so rounds,without wavering at all,
and Was NEVER on the floor before. This was to me as impressive a punching power, when you consider that my favorite puncher Joe Louis took THIRTEEN rounds to stop a lumbering,and slow Abe Simon...Dempsey at his best would have stopped Simon in one or two rounds ,for sure. Then I have watched Dempsey take out the crude, but powerful Firpo in the second round with
TWO punches in close so fast , that the film can barely detect the blows, but
only shows the results of them, Firpo pole-axed on his back... This he , is what I think of the true Manassa Mauler, when I evaluate his place in history,
and I agree with the majority of fighters,such as Mickey Walker, Jack Sharkey, Sam Langford, Max Schmeling [who sparred with Dempsey in Germany], along with a host of veteran boxing writers, who saw him at ringside...If I am wrong in my evaluation, well, I'm in good company...Cheers he...

 

Jack Dempsey might only be comprable to tyson in that they are one the most loved and hated boxers at the same time and draw such extreme polar reactions from posters on here.

I think Jersey Joe would win this IF he can avoid an early dempsey onslaught. I don't think it is fair to catergorize dempsey as all out early and fades down the stretch...but my thought would be if Joe could avoid that early pressure he would settle down and find his rythem.

I would take Jersey Joe by a close but clear decision, but if Jack catches him early or late it might be over. I would pick Joe, but wouldn't bet a dime on it!

 

That's a fantastic post HE:good

 

He without question had the speed and supreme ability. Walcott is far and away better than anyone dempsey ever beat. Walcott had a combination of feints, triple jab combos, footwork, punching power, use of angles, head movement that Dempsey never ever saw in his prime. The real question is could Walcott avoid Dempsey the whole fight or would Jack catch him at some point with a lighting fast combo. Dempsey would not beat a peak Walcott on the cards in my opinion. I give Jack a major punchers chance.

Joe Louis was not old or tired in 1947. He was reigning heavyweight champion of the world coming off two devastating knockouts over top contenders. Was he past his prime? yes. Was he still dangerous and great? Hell yes. Louis could still put together blazing combinations, still had ridiculous power, and was a big guy at 6'2 213lb in 1947.

Walcott was ROBBED in the first fight, no question. One of the worst decisions of all time. Jack Dempsey never came close to beating a fighter the calibre of a 1947 Joe Louis.

He was well ahead on the scorecards after 12 rounds vs a Prime Rocky Marciano. Marciano was every bit as good as Dempsey. This should automatically tell you Dempsey has a lot on his plate vs Walcott.

The 2nd fight was very close, so close that the fans booed the decision and some sportswriters felt the decision could have gone to Walcott. Watch the fight sometime, Walcott badly staggers Charles like 5-6 times during the fight. Very close fight, AP had it 8-6-1 in favor of Charles.

Walcott also knocked the **** out of Charles in their 3rd fight, first man ever to put Ezz down for the 10 count. He then outpointed him in their last fight, in probably their most underrated fight of the series.

Bottom line is Walcott showed up and brought his A game when he took on the ATG heavyweights. He twice beat charles, knocked out harold johnson, should have beaten louis, and almost beat Marciano. Not to mention the countless other dangerous top rated heavyweights he beat during the 40s like Lee Q Murray, Jimmy Bivins, Elmer Ray(all 3 of these fighters are arguably top 50 of all time), Joe Baksi, Joey Maxim, Tommy Gomez, Hachetman Sheppard, Hein Ten Hoff.


Walcott blows Jack Dempsey away when it comes to resume

 

JAB there is so much "rubbish" in your response that I don't even know where to start. You start by saying that Dempsey has been blown into a god like fighter and when put under the scope is not as excellent as some would believe. The people who are boasting Dempsey as the greatest they had seen had watched him fight and were relevant to the sport in some way at the time, unlike you who is just a fan 80 years later. It's also incredibly interesting to me that you can say what you say about Dempsey put under the scope, yet you rank a fraud like Lennox Lewis at #3 and REFUSE to acknowledge any of the question marks that hang over his career. You talk about resume as if it's the end all of any discussion pertaining to a fighter, yet Lewis never fought Bowe, lost to Holyfield, was axed by 2 journeyman early on in a fight, and never fought a top prime fighter when they were in their prime. You talk about "open minded" but what you really mean is seeing things your way and acknowledging it as a reputable opinion. Sorry, but I see Jack Dempsey totally different from the way you do, and you see Lennox Lewis totally different than I do.

Rubbish about black fighters? The fact is that THERE WAS NO MONEY TO BE MADE WITH HAVING A BLACK CHAMPION. The country was racist, white men ran the sport, white men spectated the sport, therefore black men had little opportunity to become champion. I remember reading "There isn't a nickel to be made in having a black champion." Boxing is a business first and foremost, so save the "There was demand" as if you were there and know first hand. You are using hindsight to put matchups together today. The fact is that the fight had a slim chance to materialize. There is a reason why after Jack Johnson there wouldn't be another black champion until Louis, and even then Louis had to be "appealing" to a white audience. He could not smile after beating a white man, as he had to portray kind of an "uncle Tom" type persona. Sad, but true. Get off the Wills train, you can't hold not fighting Wills as your reason for Dempsey lacking greatness that others can plainly see, just as you believe people can not fault Lewis for refusing to fight Bowe.

Now you still want to go on about Greb as if Dempsey had any reason to be afraid of him. I find it very hard to believe that Dempsey had any reason to duck a small middleweight like Greb for any other reason aside from business. For you to expect me to believe that Dempsey feared any man, especially Greb, is very hard to believe.

 

JAB, now you're just being a comedian. This kind of squabble is not even acceptable if you want to be taken seriously. You talk about this being a knowledgeable forum, then you go on to say that Jack Dempsey had taken the easy road. Give me a break. The man fought in back alleys and bars for pennies and nickels. He road the rails to make his way across the country to have bigger opportunities in a big city. He was a hobo living on the street malnourished sleeping on park benches hoping to have a fight the next day. He would fight for food on an empty stomach. Don't give me any crap about Jack Dempsey taking the easy way at any point in his career. This man would fight the devil for a hot meal and a pint so save it that he was afraid of Wills or 158 pound Harry Greb who he used for sparring.

Your pitiful display of knowledge toward Dempsey and your downtalking criticism is laughable when I see Lennox Lewis in the #3 spot of your ATG heavyweight list. I can not believe what I am reading from you.

Sometimes I wonder if you really believe what you are saying, or if your feuds with Sonny have you grounded in your opinion of Lewis even if you know that it is laughable, and your apparent dislike for Dempsey stems from your feud with Sonny as well, because Lord knows you can not agree with him on anything.

You keep calling me out to be objective, like if you say it over and over again it will be true that I am not objective, when in reality it is I who can see things the way that they are and am always forming my own opinion. I don't just like or dislike a fighter for no reason, there is a well founded reason. There are many reasons I hold Jack Dempsey in high regard, as well as the many reasons I hold Lewis in a much lower regard. Just because it differs from your "objective open minded opinion" does not mean I am close minded, so please save those comments, as those comments are close minded in their own way.

 

I disagree with most of this.
A prime Dempsey was better than Walcott and better than everyone Walcott fought.
He beat fighters of comparable quality of Walcott.
In my opinion.

 

I disagree.
My opinion is different to yours on almost all of this.
Walcott was a good fighter, a great one perhaps. But he would almost be forgotten today if he hadn't been given FIVE shots at the title. He was a good solid pro who came into his own at just the right time - when there was a serious lack of heavyweight talent in the post-Louis, post-war era.
That's my take.

 

And on this week of EastsideBoxing Classic, "Did Dempsey Actually Suck? And Did He Hate the Blacks and Cyclopses?"

Entertainment Weekly says "Fantastic performance by Klompton. Not only did he produce 15 primary sources detailing why Georges Carpentier was a fruitcake, almost all of them documented his spectacular ducking of Greb."

Time raves "Burt Bienstock and Unforgiven paint a fantastic picture as Jack Dempsey as a hobo terminator/tiger hybrid. By the end of this 10+ page topic you'll be convinced that Jack shat bullets, pissed anthrax, and ate children... And being gentlemanly in the process."

The New Yorker had to say "Man I feel sorry for this poor new guy who hasn't seen 16 of these topics already. He's about to get learned something fierce. And probably labeled a troll, a newbie, or a racist"

Pachilles & Ebert said "Duran probably deserves a mention"

 

In which case you're very ignorant, most thought he won his first shot, meaning his second shot should have been a defense. His 'third shot' was for the vacant title after he'd provd himself no2 to the ex-champ, after fighting 2 razor thin fights, he rightfully got a rubber match and won by KO. After several title defenses including against Charles, he got Marciano who he lost to in a close fight that warranted a rematch

Louis, Marciano, Charles, Layne, Bivins, Ray is certainly not a lack of talent and all are probably better than anyone Dempsey beat

 

No, there is stackloads of information on Greb.