ANOTHER GEM NEW IN YESTERDAY FROM, YOU GUESSED IT, THAT RARE MAN KNOWN FOR BEING THE RAREST OF THE RARE - IT'S RAREBOXING AGAIN - STILL WAITING ON THAT GREB FOOTAGE BTW [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPbCMQS1DMM[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJoqYLLS2CU&feature=related[/ame] :bbb:bbb:bbb
Whoever posted this gem,my grattitude to you...this 4 rd fight reinforces the old adage that 'speed kills' cand 37 year old Dempsey no longer had IT..It does show Jack had an iron chin,and shows us what a body puncher he was in his prime...In my eyesm,still the best heavyweight of alltime 1917-1923...kudo's to the poster....
Thanks for posting. Dempsey looks a better than I expected. However, he's taking too many punches, and not much happens when he lands. He probably could have still been a professional fighter on the basis that he knows what he's doing and gives a game effort. He could still be a a 'professional opponent', but he no longer has the vital powers necessary to be a marked success with his style. He wouldn't get many fighters out of there, he'd be going the distance and banking on his chin, and he doesn't need that in this stage of his life. He was right to stop his comeback and be a restruanteur.:thumbsup
I agree with you.Dempsey at 37 knew after this exhibition bout with King Levinsky,to abort any comeback...His amazing tigerish speed was long gone...But Dempsey showed that iron chin he always had...Even at age 37..Levinsky was a young ko artist in 1932..Awkward, but he could punch hard...Yes Jack Dempsey was a mean and tough SOB,for sure,even as an old man....
Ok burt, I love your enthusiasm but I have to stop you right there. I personally think Joe Louis would have killed any version of Jack Dempsey, and early too.
Wow. And I slightly disagree with my esteemed colleague above. Dempsey would have had a good chance, not great, against Louis. His attack was more high risk/high reward than Joe's. I give Jack 4 out 0f 10 as wins.
I have no irons in the fire. I love Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis equally, and I fervantly believe that Dempsey and Louis in their primes were the two greatest heavyweights of all time...However I base my opinion that Dempsey would have most likely kod Louis in their PRIMES fort these reasons. 1-Most of the great boxing experts who saw Jack Dempsey of the Willard and before fights ,and saw Joe Louis at his best picked the young Dempsey, the winner of this mythical match, and I give great weight to opinions of men who SAW them at their best. Common sense dictates that premise, I should think...Wouldn't you think so too ? 2-How great a fighter Joe Louis was ,I think young Dempsey with his Bob and Weave style ala Arturo Godoy,with vicious punching power inb both hands woulkd have gotten to the methodical Louis 'fustess with the mostess',koing Joe in an early round...Hype Igoe and other writers of the time ,believed this most likely scenario, and so do I. The Dempsey of 1917 to 1923 who kod giants as Carl Morris, Fred Fulton, Jess Willard, Bill Brennan,Luis Angel Firpo ,most in record times ,would have flattened an Abe Simon in record time also,not in 13 rounds. I am not talking about the 32 year old Dempsey after a3 year layoff,of the Tunney fights, but the Manassa Mauler at his best...My opinion...
P.S. Max Schmeling who as a young heavyweight sparred with Dempsey, and of course fought Louis twice,in his biography claimed Jack Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight of THEM ALL....And who should know more about this subject than Schmeling ? Everyone has an opinion but experts who saw first hand the fighters mentioned ,carry more weight, than opinions eightybyears later, methinks.... P.S. And that was also Jack Sharkey's opinion... I might add...
Kingfish was kind of a trip wasn't he. Also it was of interest that both Schmeling and Sharkey rated Dempsey over Louis.
I read that Sharkey declined to pick a winner out of Louis-Dempsey when asked but said if they fought in a phone booth then Dempsey would win which I'd believe.Under Marquis of Queensbury rules I'd back Louis.