Jack Dempsey vs Joe Louis

This is a hard fight to judge because Jack was a fast starter and had fast powerfull hands and Joe was a master counterpunching power puncher. both men could be dropped but both had good recup powers and got off the floor to win, I give Joe the edge for the Ko win which could be before the 5th round and it could be a Dempsey stop the same way. Overall Joe was the better fighter but a fighter like Dempsey would spell trouble for him.

 

Prime for prime it is difficult to say would win between Louis and Dempsey. Louis certainly had much better skills but then Dempsey had a much better chin. Louis was a stand up boxer facing Dempsey's lateral head movement. Louis was knocked on his ass by lesser men than Dempsey then again Louis knocked out better boxers than Dempsey. Anybody who thinks Louis would make short work of Dempsey is making a shortsighted analysis.

 

Their careers overlap Dempseys and Louis,s dont,Tunney was denigrated fior beating Dempsey ,Charles for decisioning Louis,Holmes for thrashing Ali,you ghave to have time to look at it objectively imo.Personally I think Jack kos Louis quick,that isnt to say he was a more complete fighter.

 

I don't believe Dempsey can be put on the same short list at all, there's WAY too much gap between their actual achievements. If it makes you feel better Ali is the only one i put on the same shortlist - and this is only possible because his quality of opponent is unmatched. One could also put up a good argument for Marciano, but certainly not many more.

If you don't buy into the myth how on earth do you have him 3 or whatever it is? A calm eye tells us he really didn't do THAT much. Your list must be based on about 70% head to head percieved ability.

At least Ali has victories over fellow greats and more than triple the time at or around the top that Dempsey had. We can also pop on most any of his fights to peruse filmed in perfect clarity.

I'm sure Joe's happy enough with just Ali for company, with Lewis, Marciano and Holmes a stones throw out the back.

 

Well, I think I can afford to run my shortlist of elite ATG HWs to perhaps as many as 5,6 or 7 names. I'm not talking about an exclusive 2-man club.
Dempsey may make the top 3.

I dont see why Marciano would get consideration while Dempsey does not. I'd actually rate Dempsey above Marciano, almost certainly. That's MY opinion. (And all opinions can change)

I think you under-estimate him. He actually beat a lot of good fighters. Again, if Marciano gets passed why be so dismissive of Dempsey ? I dont believe Marciano had a far superior resume or reign, nor do I think he tallied any more dominating impressive performances.

You act as if there's no substance to Dempsey's reputation at all.

Ali was great.

I was saying doubting the fighter and his fans for him being an icon, and explaining away any high ranking of him with talk of "propaganda" and "myth" is not helpful. It's a declaration that you already see the opposing opinion as being an inferior, "wishy-washy" baseless one. It doesn't encourage useful debate.

Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't say it like you see it - I'd probably do the same - but dont be surprised that a detailed explanation of why I think Dempsey should be ranked highly is not forthcoming. I get the impression anything I do write would be seen as "Dempsey Cult" talk by a prejudiced eye.

That's YOUR list.
They were all great, but most - if not all - of them can be ripped apart with a "calm (critical) eye".
Your list is not the only correct list, in fact there's a no such thing as a correct list.

You can explain your reasons for the way you rate them, good reasons, but you know as well as I do that there are good arguments for a completely different order.

I dont know where this obssession with Dempsey as "the overrated one" stems from. You make good arguments, but ratings are just opinion, and each individual can offer a different take.

I would almost certainly rate Dempsey above Lewis, Holmes and Marciano on my list, and I'm not the only one.

Perceived head-to-head and the actual impression a fighter's performance makes on me does play a large part, but it does in all lists and generally on the way we regard all boxers and potential matches , otherwise we'd be just counting wins dispassionately and not having any feelings or preferences about the sport and its participants.

But solid concrete credentials obviously play a large part too, and a fair-minded person would see that Dempsey's actually got a lot of substance to him.

 

Personally i think there's a gap from Ali and Louis to the others. Why put Joe Louis in a club with people who can't compare? Longing for a certain favourite fighter of mine to be bracketed with a higher level sure won't seduce me into putting him there. Blind Freddy knows Dempsey's record doesn't blow wind up Joe's arse. We can bracket ten of them as ATG's, but there are gaps and levels within that 10.

Marciano was never beaten, finished on top, has no Firemen, was a peoples fighting champion, didn't miss perhaps the best of his era and didn't go out on a double negative. There's also plenty of film and he is a lot less blown out of proportion due to his later date and more realistic and down to earth media coverage. I've tried to avoid personal favouritism as a criteria as much as possible when making my list but others will obviously go the other way.

Already close enough to answered.

You ought to be talking with your vaguely hidden anti Tyson agenda. Sniping away at him everywhere and anyhow you think you can get away with it. He wiped out more ranked contenders than Dempsey ever fantasised about yet you continually cut him down while promoting Dempsey as some sort oh Heavyweight demi god.

Mate, it's really this simple - Ali has the proven record and performances to form a decent foundation for much of the hype, but Dempsey hasn't! He's blown so far out of proportion comparative to his actual achievements that it's entirely possible he is the most overrated fighter in the history of boxing. Certainly the heavyweights.

I see you stick to a conservative "most", good move. Anyone trying to compare Dempsey's achievments with Louis will be looked at very strangely to say the least.

Obviously, but nobody is going to rate a Liston say, over an Ali or Louis are they? There are reasonable picks, and there are pisspoor ones. Not all is murky.

No argument there, but only among close picks.

Obsession? Surely you kid yourself? That's the thing with Dempsey devotee's, they take any criticism or opening up of the facts behind the legend as some sort of personal affront and get all melodramatic and sensationalistic in the process, just like the pro Dempsey media back in the day. I hardly post at all about Dempsey, but because the few comments i make don't suit your swollen opinion of him i am seen as "obsessed".

We all know where you rate him.

Given you rate Dempsey at 3 i don't doubt passion, feeling and preference does indeed play a "large part" for you. Immense even. Personally i would never allow head to head speculation to reach past 50%. We can make lists three ways, head to head, achievements of a combination of head to head and achievements. Given head to head involved heavy speculation i'd be want to let it overrun my list. I'd say my list is achievement driven with head to head helping with closer calls.

He's got some substance but nothing like history has put forth when we actually get off our bums and dig. Chris has done some fantastic work in this area and has really provided updated thinking on something that had been previously taken for granted. Kudo's to him for having the balls to do so - he's really grown as a poster of late. He sat back for the longest time, dissecting differing theories on numerous topics, watching loads of pertinent bouts and generally solidifying his depth of knowledge before coming forth of late as a more provocative poster quite confident in his own knowledge and more than willing to have a go in area's of slight uncertainty. His stance on Dempsey may not be perfectly balanced, but it's a whole lot better than most around here.

 

BTW Sonny i hope you don't take these debates too personally, i know i don't. It'd be boring if we all thought the same and tho debate can often get a bit tense it's still only fun at the end of the day. None of us are perfect and we all have a leaning or lack of knowledge somewhere or other.

 

I dont base everything on "the top 10 rankings". These things aren't real.
I consider certain fighters among the true greats, and I'm not going to go back on that by worrying about how much we CAN seperate them, and what the "list" is.
To me, the list is an afterthought. To others here I understand it is central to their whole belief system. But, of course, making lists is fun.

I dont think Fireman Jim Flynn is a relevant knock on Dempsey.
Dempsey was basically still a raw prospect not close to being put forward as a championship prospect, a western fighter who had failed in New York, without management. The circumstances of the time suggest it MAY have been a fix, as was rumoured around the time. ALL Dempsey's victories, all his contender/championship career came AFTER the Flynn fight, AND he owns a 1 round KO over Flynn himself.
It was a stage of his career that has no real bearing on his status as he was as an elite fighter.

You wont ever hear me criticizing ANY fighter for obscure early defeats in "learning process" stages of their careers. Certainly not defeats they avenged as they grew, and certainly not fights that some reliable sources reckon were fixed.

Dempsey was past his best when he lost to Tunney, but I think a 1926-27 Gene Tunney was better than anyone Marciano ever fought.

Dempsey beat some big 6'5 and 220+ fighters who were rated as contenders at the time. Marciano did not.

Some people swear blind that Marciano's manager gave big Nino Valdes the run-around while Valdes went undefeated for 2 years of Marciano's 3 year reign. Valdes beat Charles shortly before Charles was given a shot at Marciano ! Valdes was ONE OF the best of the time, and Marciano didn't fight him - and Al Weill is accused of ducking him.

So, you cant preach that Marciano was squeaky clean in that regard while continously beating Dempsey with the Harry Wills stick.

The opposition that Dempsey beat is on the same level as those Marciano beat, IMO.

 

I dont "snipe" at Tyson.
Tyson was a great offensive force, a great KO artist. Dempsey-esque actually.

But he DID get beaten comprehensively in his prime by Buster Douglas, a competent boxer but not a great one.

Let the excuses fly, I dont buy it.
The "front-runner" criticisms of Tyson do hold some weight too, albeit not to the extent that some of his critics have used them.

You want me to fall in line and brush-over the whole Douglas affair like it didn't really happen, or it doesn't really count, then drag up some obscure early loss on Dempsey's record to denigrate Dempsey ?

I judge Tyson by the same standards I judge everyone else. He was great, but he's disqualified from standing within the highest category because he got owned in his prime by an average contender. And I have little reason to believe he was ever truly the best in the world at any time after that point in time.

If Ali had been whipped by Terrell, and got beaten up everytime by Frazier and Foreman in a comeback, I wouldn't rate him either !

They didn't have rankings in Dempsey's day, so please tell me which of Dempsey's opponents you consider to have been equivalent of ranked contenders.

You would have to have a VERY good knowledge of the era to compile a reasonable list of who should be ranked in a world top ten, for example, at those given times.

You're just parrotting ChrisPontius, who is really just a boxrec hunter.

Yeah, I gathered you felt like that.

I dont think any heavyweight matches Joe Louis.

Well, ranking Dempsey in the top 5 is seen as reasonable by a hell of a lot of people who do these lists.
YOU dont agree with it, but most people acknowledge him as a reasonable pick as a true great.

I can take the criticism of Dempsey.
It's the fanatical attempt to dictate what the rankings are to others that I find a bit over-the-top.
I apologize if I'm pereceiving you wrong here, that's just how it comes across.

Well, I dont really do ratings, not seriously. I will when I know more.
But let's say for arguments sake I rate him top 3 but below Joe Louis.

Mine would be a similar combination.
But we can still arrive at completely different lists, because subjective factors are inescapable. In fact, subjective judgment dominates the whole process, whether you are looking at achievement or otherwise.

To me, ChrisPontius' views on Dempsey seem to be based on scanning boxrec and selectively scouting for fact, rumour or baseless innuendo that puts Dempsey in a negative light.

None of it is original "work", all of it I have debated and seen debated here 4 or 5 years ago.
You've obviously been bowled over because you never took such a deep interest in Dempsey before ChrisP made you sit up with his, frankly unsophisticated and shallow, "factual analysis" of Dempsey.

You put yourself in the "pupil" role to his "teacher", and when you go check the facts through that negative paradigm you think they confirm all that he says.

Excuse me for being condescending, but when you put ChrisP's "work on Dempsey" forward as some sort of current standard I dont know what to say. There are a few historians out there who actually research the records and reports, and there's so much information to gather on so many fighters and fights, there is plenty testimony that isn't just hyperbolic hero-worship.
There's a whole wealth of information that goes beyond a few hours looking on boxrec, a few hours which could still have you being able to make the schoolboy error of saying "Dempsey never fought a black fighter" (when he fought a few) - as ChrisP said mid-debate. So much for great knowledge and great work.

ChrisPontius is a very good postor but there's nothing new or informative for me in his posts on Dempsey. It's a caricature critique to me, verging towards "Revolverism".

I find it odd that you are constantly admonishing me for my "sniping at Tyson" when I have lots of great stuff to say about him, but ChrisP's 99.9% negative "work on Dempsey" is held up as fair and admirable.

Not that I'd want you or Chris to ever change your views on, or ranking of, Dempsey.

I rate him, you dont. That's fine with me.

 

I dont take these debates personally at all.
In fact sometimes I lack any real motivation to engage - other than I ENJOY the writing and reading - precisely because I dont take it that seriously.

So, apologies again for me being patronizing, condescending or otherwise infuriating (if I ever am). It's just a writing style really.

I ENJOY being here, otherwise I wouldn't bother.
I enjoy reading what you, ChrisP, MDWC, Mendoza, dmt, Marciano_Frazier, mcvey, bummy, (apologies to those ommitted), etc. have to say. You all know your boxing, and are good writers.

:good

P.s. Perhaps we spend a little TOO MUCH time here though. LOL

 

Not really to be honest. His stance over Dempsey is not even close to being better then most.

Someone with a more balanced view on Dempsey is OLD FOGEY who is an excellent poster and has criticised Dempsey in he past without going overboard and also giving him credit for somethings instead of filling countless threads with biased views. OLD FOGEY is someone with a more balanced view.

How is his view better when he claims Dempsey never fought a black fighter, or that he had a weak chin because he was knocked down as a hobo, or continually criticising him for going the distance with a light-heavy while completely ignoring it happened to some others as well. (even though Dempsey won most of the rounds vs Gibbons)

I know we all like boxing and as fans have a right to criticise fighters- only to an extent in my opinion. Thats because none of us here as fighters and as far as i can tell being a fighter is very difficult. It is one thing criticising a fighter with balanced views and another of filling countless threads with biased views. As fans sitting behind a computer it does seem easy for us to criticise fighters . Dempsey was after all a fighter- who fought tough fights and showed heart. and i think as fans we ought to respect him for that instead of criticising him at every turn. Yes as fans we do have a right to criticise fighters, however filling countless threads over a matter of few months is very unfair in my opinion.

 

I'm late to the party (but I brought a quiche!) and I don't want to get too caught up in this discussion, although my opinions on Dempsey are well-documented on this forum.

But I do want to address this "Fireman Flynn Thing", because I do think it's been used unfairly as a bludgeon against Dempsey's early career. I don't think there is any reason to consider this fight to have been a legitimate contest, and there are multiple lines of evidence supporting the contention that it was a dive. Boxing historian Monte Cox has a fine article highlighting the details of the fight and including published interviews with firsthand witnesses recorded in 1920 - more than two years before Dempsey became the international sporting idol that might have colored old recollections. The fact that so many witnesses felt the fight was a fix (“Flynn came out fanning with both hands and Jack went into his shell, dropped his left at the blow and as he fell put his right glove against his cheek and did a little flopping," said firsthand witness Hardy Downing of the TEN SECOND "fight") is certainly a red flag to any critical-thinking historian.

Further, Dempsey's former wife Maxine Cates testified under oath in the infamous "Slacker Trial", that the fight was a fix. Dempsey's lawyers, who would be eager to discredit Cates' credibility on any outright fabrication that could be denied by their client, never challenged her testimony on this fight.

I don't think it is fair to hold this ten-second bout against the 21 year-old Dempsey when so much evidence exists questioning the veracity of the contest.

 

I'll try keep things super short (might seem abrupt but if so not meant that way mate) as we have punched out enough words to cover a week of primary school

You will notice i myself too have never made a list till now. My point was Dempsey doesn't belong at all beside Louis in resume nor achievements. Louis is comprehensively ahead.

Fireman Jim was thrown up in jest. It gets people in every single time. Regardless of anything tho Dempsey does have one and Louis doesn't. No big deal, but it's still there no matter what.

I think the Charles Marciano beat for starters would give him a run, and many might pick Walcott over him. Who knows. Dempsey wasn't exactly that old and had only 4 fights in 5 years, so where is the wear and tear? I'll agree it wasn't peak Dempsey but he didn't exactly have the recent carnage on his body that a Larry Holmes had when losing to Spinks. I think he was in better nick that Holmes or Louis when they lost the title. Maybe Tunney was simply the most decent fighter he had ever faced as well as being stylistically difficult? The mind boggles :hey

Mostly real oafs who would have been cut down by Marciano as well.

I've seen whisperings but have never read enough of both sides (Suze etc) to form an opinion.

Dempsey's is proven while Marciano's is more of an accusation, or do you have conclusive proof?

I'll take Marciano's personally, Walcott, Charles, Moore, all fine heavyweights and there are some underrated names as well hidden in his massive W column. Marciano went out by beating the superb Moore, who hadn't been beaten in 4 years :yikes and had been on a sensational long term run. By contrast Dempsey was beaten twice at the finish. I feel very comfortable having Marciano well ahead.

 

I'll sum up fast, you do indeed paint Tyson with a different brush to the one you use in your usual masterpieces and it stands out like dogs balls. You say you don't, i say you do, end of story.

Chris made some mistakes and may have went a bit far on some things but he had to to combat the unbelievable amount of denial and self righteousness many Dempsey fans seem to possess. He dared to open up the tale, and it was a most enlightening read when he did. Even if the truth met in the middle of the fanatics and Chris, we still see a very very watered down verson of the legend.

Dude, you run around in circles trying to find ways of making the Norton's and Shavers competitive vs peak Tyson when all evidence points to blowouts. You refuse to write off almost anyone vs Tyson and were picking Witherspoon over him as well from memory. You allow him absolutely zero quarter while allowing Holyfield a different mark. I'm not even a Tyson fan and revel in stirring up his rabid disciples, but i do recognise when someone has it in for the guy.

Exactly, if we all agreed what fun would it be

:good