Jack Dempsey vs Joe Louis

Ditto for me on everything to Sonny, and if you think i cross the line at any point sincere apologies. I think a pair like you and i can have a debate that some might think approaches "heated" and even a little patronising, but deep down feel we both appreciate the exchange and would never take it for what it isn't.

Cheers mate

 

Nice spiel DMT, but i vividly remember your violent treatment of poor Earnie Shavers the time a couple of us picked him over Dempsey to try to get the poor bugger a vote. I hardly think you are suited to the podium is what i am trying to say i guess.

Again i must say to you - it's only a forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Life will go on mate, don't panic.

As far as gagging/banning/disallowing opinion on Dempsey you don't agree with or deem fair - in the day of free thought and speech it just ain't gonna happen. People can say and do whatever they like within the regulations of the forum - whether you like it or not.

Sorry to tell it like it is.

 

i am not panacking, nor is esb the most important thing in my life. I do admit that i was far too harsh on Shavers- but i did not fill 50 threads about it. Then again everyone has their own opinion. :good

 

I'd hardly say Chris has done/filled 50 threads either.

 

I think Tunney is VERY underrated. He was at his absolute peak in 1925-28, and he looks terrific on film.

I think he was better than Walcott or Charles, and Marciano never had to fight them after a three year layoff.

Obviously inactivity is as damaging, or more damaging, than wear and tear through activity, in many cases.

Dempsey took 3 years off, and tried coming straight back against top fighters.

I dont believe THREE YEARS INACTIVITY is something most fighters can be expected to recover from immediately.
Sugar Ray Leonard was an exception, and he was expected to lose badly.It's almost an anomaly in boxing history.

Seriously, if Manny Pacquiao or any top fighters these days went off for 3 years doing Hollywood movies and stuff, then came back to fight a really good active fighter immediately, in 2011, I wouldn't expect them to win.

Well, I think inactivity was his downfall, and as I said above, I believe inactivity is probably the most damaging thing.
Young athletes rarely come back to what they were after 3 year layoffs.

But if you want to talk "carnage" on the body, and "wear and tear" - god knows how much Dempsey had accumulated over the years. More than Larry Holmes, I would say. It doesn't have to be "recent".
Comparing the eras in that regard would actually make the moderns look pampered.

He was in better shape than Louis against Charles.

I feel you're bending over backwards to alibi Holmes though.

Then, you obviously dont see a 3-year layoff as particularly important.

Tunney WAS, unequivocally, the best fighter Dempsey faced, IMO.
Prime-for-prime Tunney's a serious threat to Dempsey, you wont hear me say different.

But it wasn't just that.
Sorry to sound ike a broken record, but .... THREE YEAR LAYOFF.

In fact, this was Dempsey's second ridiculous layoff. He took 2 years off from real championship boxing after the Carpentier fight, then came back to fight Gibbons and Firpo, fights in which some observers thought he'd clearly lost something. THEN he takes a full three-year semi-retirement (actually the layoff was elongated to allow him to break free from his contract with Kearns) and then he fights a superb fighter in Tunney !

But you know all this. Inactivity is a fair criticism of Dempsey. But it also damaged his ability as a fighter, which just seems obvious to me.

I dont disagree (though I dont know they were real oafs). "Would haves" can be applied in Dempsey's favour too, but I'm fairly sure you'd object to that line of reasoning.

What exactly is proven ? That Dempsey didn't fight Wills ?
Marciano didn't fight Valdes. That's the conclusive proof that ChrisP uses.

Gibbons, Fulton, Sharkey and Firpo were all on good winning streaks when Dempsey beat them. I think Gibbons was the oldest - at 32 !
Others like Carpentier, Miske, Brennan and others were good fighters too.

 

See, that's the thing about criticising Dempsey. He is so legendary that when you criticise him, you're a "boxrec" hunter.

If you say that Miske went 3-3-2 with two losses two lightheavies in his fights up to getting a shot at Dempsey, you're a boxrec hunter.

When i bring up a newspaper article that said Dempsey got booed by the crowd after leaving the ring with a black fighter (illustrating that the people didn't exactly mind seeing a black vs white fight), i'm a boxrec hunter.

When i bring up that Dempsey did not fight the #1 contender for an incredible period of time, i'm a boxrec hunter. When i bring up that he avoided the best black fighters pre-title, i'm a boxrec hunter. When i bring up he was knocked down 9 times by a mediocre middleweight early in his career, i'm a boxrec hunter.

I guess i should be saying that Dempsey is an All American Legend, impervious to criticism to avoid being a boxrec hunter.


Have a made a mistake? Sure, we're all human. I took it back. But most of it still stands. And i'm sorry to see that poor DMT has caught janitor's iterative-disease of repeating already debunked points.


Come to think of it, i was also a boxrec hunter according to janitor, because i thought Johnson beating Simmons once in 3 fights, when Simmons was one fight away from retirement while losing the earlier ones, was not so impressive... and for calling Simmons a journeyman. That was boxrec hunting because according to janitor, he drew once with Fox. Of course, the fact that he lost the other three times he fought Fox, when Fox had more than 6 fights like the first loss, he lost all the time.

As i'd already said in that thread itself, by no black fighters i meant no good black fighters. Anyway, that was one mistake - big deal. It's very convenient to keep bringing that up while ignoring the other information that was brought to the table. That's not debating.

I never claimed to be a prophet. Dempsey lived nearly hunderd years ago. I'm still learning, everyone is. But the more information i gathered, the more black marks i found. Of (semi) modern fighters we know all details of their careers, Ali having a close fight with Jones, Tyson having a close one with Green, but few people know Dempsey had a close one (draw) with Lester Johnson.

If a fighter these days avoided the #1 contender for five or more years, he would be extremely criticised and the general forum would be filled with "Dempsey is a fraud"-threads. Dito for taking a full three year break. Many people simply do not know this, see Dempsey destroying Willard, Carpentier and a few other lightheavyweights, say wow and rank him in their top3. Back then information was much not as easy to come by: there was no Internet or tv and not everyone could read. Less than 1% of Dempsey's fans knew that Firpo fought like someone walking in the gym for the first time.

The same amount of people thought Willard was a hulking giant in magnificant shape, while in fact he was inactive for almost 3 years, 37 years old and overweight. But hey, if Dempsey writes the former but not the latter in his autobiography, then people would never know. And how can you blame them? It's not like they could see the fight or look up Willard's record, anyway. So his legend grows and grows. And big surprise. From the moment that Dempsey's career is evaluated on records, his ranking in all time lists drops like a brick. You can be pretty sure that most of the people had no idea who Wills was either. Hell, in 1918 there was an article that described Dempsey as "a relatively unknown fighter". And he was white and exciting. Not saying that he was so unknown everywhere, but it just goes to show you how lousy information-spread was that day.

Yeah, but the difference is that i admit that i snipe at Dempsey. You pretend to be objective about Tyson and Lewis while i think it's pretty clear you apply different standards to them than to others.

On a sidenote, i still rank Dempsey in the top10. I think he's a great fighter. Just not as great as he's often made out to be.

Here is what i want you to do. Click on my name, then click on "watch all threads started by ChrisPontius".

Count all threads i made the last three or two (whatever you want) months. How many are they? And how many of them were about Dempsey?

I would be surprised if i even made 10% of your claim, 5 threads about Dempsey, and i'd also be surprised if 10% of the total of my threads during those period were about Dempsey.


Tell me the exact numbers about your discoveries DMT. Don't run away from this one. :good



p.s. if for some reason, i have made less than 50 threads about Dempsey, i will keep bringing this up forever, like me saying Dempsey did not fight black figthers.

You see, this is simply not true. You're twisting my words. I already adressed and corrected the never fought a black fighter part long ago. It's okay, you can let go of that trauma now.

I never said Dempsey had a weak chin because he was knocked down 9 times by a mediocre middleweight in his early days. Here is how it really went:
Someone claimed that Dempsey had a better chin than Louis, so i summed up the facts for both fighters, and yes, Dempsey being knocked down 9 times early on is a fact that should be taken into account. I know he was young and i do excuse him somewhat for that, but that doesn't mean we should ignore it!
If Louis was knocked down 9 times by Adolf Wiater, we wouldn't hear the end of it. Dempsey just has the advantage that many parts of Dempsey's career are lesser known, while we know just about everything for Louis, so that every bad part on his career is shown.



About criticising Dempsey for going the distance with a lightheavyweight: i think most of my criticism was that half of Dempsey's key opponents were lightheavyweights. And why not? Marciano gets a daily shower of **** for fighting (much greater, mind you) lightheavyweights. Dito for Tyson and Spinks. But Dempsey somehow is shielded from this criticism? Why?

As for him going the distance with a lightheavyweight. Let's have an objective look at similarly high ranked champions after him:
Louis: knocked out Lewis in one round, knocked out Conn in 13 and 7 rounds.
Marciano: went the distance with Charles but knocked him out in the rematch. Knocked out Moore in 8.
Patterson: knocked out Moore in 5.
Ali: knocked out Foster in 8.
Frazier: knocked out Foster in 2.
Foreman: stopped Peralta once, once went the 10-round distance with him.
Holmes: twice went the distance with Spinks.
Tyson: destroyed Spinks in one.
Holyfield: once went the distance with Moorer and once stopped him in 8.

It should be noted that Moorer and Spinks bulked up to 200 and 220lbs, respectively. That's different from fighting from 175 or 180lbs.

Even at that, only 4 other lightheavyweights went the distance, despite:
a) Moorer and Spinks bulking up
b) Spinks, Foster, Moore, Charles and arguably Moorer being greater fighters than Gibbons
c) Dempsey being claimed as a devastatingly big puncher, whereas Holyfield and Holmes are "good punchers" at best: he's in their company at this comparison.

Wrong again, but you'll find out about that when answering the above questions.

 

I don't really see the connection here.

Wills was as good as undefeated for 5 or 6 years against top-opposition.

Valdes was the top contender for only 3 or 4 months during a brief period of 1953 when he beat Ezzard Charles over 10. He went down to the #3 spot after winning a disputed decision over journeyman McBride, during which Charles had knockout wins over Wallace and Satterfield, and Valdes didn't want to rematch a focused Charles, so Charles got the shot instead. In 1955, he made it back into top contendership. Marciano's management wanted to test his split (by Charles) nose and see how he'd do, so they put him in with a relatively safe opponnent in Cockell (#2 contender). During that period, Valdes lost to Moore which again made him lose his top contender spot and Moore got the shot instead.


The difference here is that Marciano fought the #1 contender five times and once the #2 contender. Dempsey avoided the #1 contender for five or six years. Dempsey's #1 contender went undefeated against a myriad of top opponents. Valdes, as i explained above, got close but didn't receive his title shot for reasons other than being avoided. He was only top ranked for a few months.

So there you. Some nice boxrec hunting there right?

 

Now this is what i was looking for, i honestly didn't know for sure one way or another before this post. So we have another bubble that has been burst. You ought to be on MythBusters mate.

 

Perhaps your contention that Wills was the No1 challenger continuously throughout Dempseys title reign is equally misguided on closer inspection.

I would argue that he did not clearly establish himself as the No1 guy in the division untill he beat Fred Fulton. I could also argue that he maintained that position to a large extent by not fighting the other top contenders.

To put things in perspective Fred Fulton stopped Sam Langford in 1917 immidiately after Langford had sucesfully defended his coloured heavyweight title against Harry wills having previously won the same title from Wills by knockout. Langford also went on to beat Joe Jeanette and I believe retained his title claim against Wills in a later encounter.

 

ChrisP,

I'm not against a high level of scrutiny being put on Dempsey.
But I argue that the same can be done to most of the other great heavyweights, with similar conclusions.

I dont go much on early results and early set-backs on any great fighter's record, because I acknowledge a learning process in a career, but I accept criticism of a fighter's blemishes in or around his peak/prime.

I dont use results of obscure fights that I know very little about as sticks to beat fighters with, as some would use a 1930s KO loss to denigrtae a 1951 Jersey Joe Walcott, for example.

I think Dempsey was a great fighter, and having considered all the things you have considered, I rate him a lot higher than you.

There's a gap between THE FACTS and THE JUDGMENT that must rely on one's own subjectivity.

I dont think you are wrong to rate Dempsey at 9, or 10, or even at 15.

But I think you are wrong to assume that MY (and anyone elses) higher rating of Dempsey is based on this historical "myth", "legend" or "sacred cow" stuff.

Years of hype and idol-worship does NOT influence my rating of Dempsey, and why should it, seeing as the vast majority of people on this forum would tell me my rating is too high.

I believe you've considered the facts and made your best judgment, I have done the same. I would be nice if you acknowledge that rather than impose all this stuff on my rating that is irrelevant.

Having said that, some of the things you might see as "facts", I wouldn't. For example, I believe Firpo was a damn sight better than a man who has just walked into a gym for the first time. He looks wild and crude, he WAS wild and crude, but so were some of the "greats". Firpo must have had something going for him.
Tony Galento and Renaldo Snipes fought wild and crude too, IMO.
Still, I dont want to re-open a debate, so I'll shut up .....

P.S. I apologise about "boxrec hunter" generalisation, which was out of order. Next time I'll call you up on "boxrec-hunting" if and when I feel it appropriate and valid.

P.P.S. I dont have any conscious agenda against Tyson or Lewis.
I simply call it like I see it. Tyson was one of the great offensive fighting machines but he got beaten up and knocked out in his prime by Buster Douglas, who was NOT a great boxer by any means.
That's my take.
No one contradicts the facts when confronted with them, but then brings up later that I have been "sniping at Tyson". In other words, mentioning a SIGNIFICANT LOSS is somewhat unfair ??

 

I've taken you on numerous times on the spot when i considered you to be unfair to Tyson and most had nothing to do with the Douglas loss.

 

Ok, so I have made a few unorthodox picks against him, is that a crime ?
OF COURSE you were right about Norton.

I said Jimmy Ellis beats Evander Holyfield on an EH thread yesterday, a pick I know will upset some but a I stand by as of now.

So, is this "sniping" at Holyfield ?

I was going on about Walcott beating Foreman the other day, and I'm sure that upset some people, but do I now deserve to be label as having an "unfair" "agenda" against Foreman ?

What's the difference with Tyson ?

It seems to me the difference lies within your heads, not mine.

 

Well it's blatantly obvious to most but we're all human that's for sure. No biggie.

 

Thanks for clearly that up, ChrisP.

Some British writers (contenporary and since) have certainly been of the opinion that Valdes was avoided. But perhaps they valued Valdes high because he beat their best fighters. It is usually within British books or mags that I read brief mentions of Valdes, "the man Marciano avoided".

Still, relating to janitor's counter-points, I think it's relevant that they didn't actually have official regular RATINGS until 1924 or '25, when Ring magazine introduced them. So, if the McBride performance was enough to drop Valdes, perhaps some of Wills' work over a 6-year period was enough to at least cast doubt over his status as the hottest contender out there at certain points in time.

 

JohnThomas,

If you still think I have any agenda against Tyson, I think you always will do.

To be honest, I've given up any hope of convincing you otherwise, which is a shame really because we can at least understand each other on most other issues even when we dont agree.

Basically you think I'm a liar, someone who "hides" things.

All I can say is that I do NOT have an "agenda" against Tyson, or Lewis, or Foreman, or Holyfield, or any other fighter for that matter.

Magoo accused me of creating a thread to discredit Vitali Klitschko the other day, the thread was entirely about Hasim Rahman !
Everyone seems to be looking for an angle, a slant, a hidden agenda.

I rate some fighters higher than the general consensus, I rate some lower than the general consensus, and I rate most of them where everyone else rates them.
That's normal.

Anyway, I know I'm wasting my time trying to explain myself to you, but I thought I'd give it one last try.

:good