I don't think so. Does he hit crazy hard? Yes probably more than 99% of men similiar in weight but I don't think he's in Shavers or Foreman's league. Particularly since boxing did evolve skill wise, gloves got bigger, mouthguards became a thing and the size difference is there. Dempsey weighed 180 for his fight with Willard, Shaver's at his absolute lowest was still 200 lbs, that's 20 lbs of muscle he's got on him. As hard as Julian Jackson hit at Middleweight I don't think it would compare to Bob Satterfield at Light Heavy. Shaver's was also almost universally called the hardest puncher by practically all who faced him (except Quarry) while some opponents of Dempsey called his power overrated, Larry Holmes has a great chin and every time Shavers managed to land his right hand he looked as tho he was out on his feet i don't think a single Dempsey left hook would have the same impact. Still one of the hardest punchers ever :good.
Shavers was not a very big guy. I met him twice, albeit when he was older, and was shocked at how small he actually was. He also came into many of his fights with some excess flesh on him, something a prime Dempsey never carried. That said, one of the reasons Shavers was never elite was that he overcommitted to each punch, left himself open and tired himself out in a lot fights. Dempsey could also do that, but was quite a bit more disciplined and fought within a plan, at least in comparison to Shavers. Hell, if Waldo went into each fight throwing punches like Shavers he would have probably killed a couple guys, and also have a few more KO losses to his record. Dempsey had very effective power. Remember, 26 of his 77 fights ended by KO in the first round, that's 1/3, a crazy percentage. He could punch like a mother. If you want to say Shavers was a harder puncher, I will not offer a big argument but we are talking **** hairs.
Damn you've met Shavers? What's he like? JG said when he shook Shavers hand it felt like he was gonna lift him off the floor so even tho he may not have been a huge dude he was very powerful. I do agree with the over commitment to his punches, every time he threw his right hand it seemed like he did it with 100% probably why his tank ran out so quickly. He was also a terrible finisher one of the worst of any i've seen (bar his destruction of Norton). Dempsey I feel got as many KO's as he did because he threw much faster punches, were no where near as looped, he threw them in combinations and could finish off his man when he had them in trouble...tho like you said were probably talking **** hairs.
1. Gibbons had lost two fights the previous year,one to Greb one to Miske. His other loss was to Greb , three years earlier . I think it is disingenuous not to mention that fact. Gibbons had three losses in his last 37 fights. The two most recent a year earlier ,the other three years earlier. 4.Charles was clearly 2-3 levels above Gibbons?:think
Killer,Ruthless are words to describe the Greatest of all time. Shavers was not this. Give me the killer over power hitter any day. I believe shavers would get discouraged and intimated after a few rounds of fighting a man who doesn't know when to quit.
1. And who had he beat in that time? His best win seems to be a shot Miske who he had also lost to 4. At HW certainly, a top15 HW, at LHW maybe no1 of all time and a consensus top10 P4P of all time. Gibbons was some what unproven at HW and was what 172lbs against Dempsey?
Just trying to keep things in perspective. There are elements to Dempsey's skill set and career that can be criticized. His power, however, is the last of these. Morris, Fulton, Pelkey and Flynn are very good first round KO victims, even if most these guys were on the downside of their careers. Levinsky and Willard in 3 were also very good results.
Met him twice, both times in Vegas. I got my picture with him the second time, but that was lost in many moves since. Hopefully I will find it one day. He was a really nice guy, took time out to answer questions... probably the same ones he gets all the time. And no, he is not the hulking huge monster you think of. However, like any elite athlete, you get that sense of immense power and the "don't **** with this guy" vibe.
Fulton had lost 2 fights out of 37 in the previous 4 years when he went in with Dempsey both by dsq. He had stopped Gunboat Smith ,Frank Moran ,and Sam Langford among others. Five months after being wrecked by Dempsey, he again beat Langford.
Mc, FredvFulton was a terrific left-hooker, who beat a lot of good fighters as you posted. But the manner in which young Dempsey flattened Fulton left some boxing writers astonished...THIS Dempsey went on to ko Battling Levinsky, Gunboat Smith, Jess Willard, Billy Miske, Bill Brennan, Georges Carpentier, Luis Angel Firpo soon after,and only the great veteran Tommy Gibbons,lasted the distance with Jack Dempsey...Dempsey at this stage in his career was the greatest ring attraction of all time...He was lean and mean then, until he went La Dolce Vita, going to Hollywood,for three years and severing his ties with his shrewd gambling manager Jack Kearns....Three years later without a fight, 32 years of age, the shell of Jack Dempsey foolishly took on a prime Gene Tunney, sans one tune-up bout...A recipe for disaster...Cheers Mc...
Gibbons had beaten Miske Greb Roper Madden Flynn Jones Respectable names,imo. I don't know that Charles makes my top 15 at heavy. And Langford, Tunney & Greb might be better at LHVy.
