Jack Dempsey vs. Wladimir Klitschko

It's great that they were there, but you imply that being "there" somehow gives a more accurate picture than being able to see the film over, and over, and over. In fact, the opposite is true: human memory is simply not good enough to remember specific images for 30+ years. Unconsciously, emotion has its influence and distorts this picture. This has been shown by various psychological research papers.


And it also explains how the Hell these experts you're talking about, can justify Jack Dempsey rating higher than Joe Louis.

As they say.... you can lead a horse to the water, but can't make it drink.

 

With all do respect, each of us tend to rate higher the champions of our own "hey-day", relating our own primes to that of this spectacle of boxing history. If you ask me after a few pints who I would pick to take them all, I will always reply Mike Tyson (and I will believe in all depths I am correct). I think the same goes for most observers. Even the rare few who were so lucky to see such history as your dad, their views are warped by their own life curve. It's just natural.

 

Well, maybe that speaks more to Marciano being a mere placeholder between era's of true heavyweights.

I more often run into the "back in my day" syndrome.

 

Dempsey was an overrated fighter, a man who was good but never great. He won the title from the cumbersome hulk in Willard, he beat a broken man in Miske, and a comparative middleweight in Carpentier; he couldn't do anything with a brainy fighter like Gibbons; he battered an unschooled floundering giant in Firpo, and fell when he faced his first real opposition from a man who was determined and unafraid and who could fight as well as box.

 

djsanders,

Where does Marciano and Liston rank on you and ur dads lists

 

Don't hold back, tell us what you really think.

 

I have to take issue with you on several poins...
Dempsey was overated "---By you 90 years later, but not by his peers who saw him FIGHT in his prime.They who SAW him,claimed his greatness including Sam Langford who proclaimed Jack Dempsey as the "greatest heavyweight I ever saw ".Langford knew boxing I think.
"He couldn't do anything with a brainy fighter like Tommy Gibbons "
Tommy gibbons was a great defensive master who was kod only once
in 106 fights by Gene Tunney when Gibbons was 34 ,in Gibbons last fight.
And Dempsey won about 12 rds of a 15 round fight...No fighter can knock out everyone, includind Joe Louis with tommy Farr, Bob Pastor,Natie Brown
etc..Why overlook these facts about Joe Louis and conveniently Berating Dempsey who decisively beat Gibbons though not koing Tommy?.
Why do you overlook the fact that Jack Dempsey was 32 years old, past his prime,didn't have a bout in THREE years, and without a tune-up fight
went against the prime razor sharp Gene Tunney.? That vwas not the Manassa Mauler of his prime.He was a shell of the man killer of Toledo,and before...That is overlooking a salient point in your diminishing the true greatness of Jack Dempsey...Why bring up Carpentier to prove your point?
It was an international money fight and Dempsey took care of business. and this fight has NO basis for his reputation pro or con....It is not the fault of Jack Dempsey that his prime bouts except for the Willard bout in
1919,was not filmed for us to watch ninety years later...Willard might have been OLD but he was an oak tree who was never on the floor before
Dempsey bounced him like a yo-yo in 1919 ! The Dempsey of thirty two years of age ,way past his peak,who wore down and kod a prime Jack Sharkey in 1927, convinced me that in his prime years before he was the
toughest and best SOB in the heavyweight division.And I am NOT alone
in spite of his detractors, who to make their point always talk about the
Dempsey of his Tunney days...Don't make sense to me....

 

I forgot to tell you that after Jack Dempsey kod a sick Billy Miske in 3 rounds in 1920; the SICK billy Miske Won 23 out of his last 24 fights, including a ko of Bill Brennan...Didn';t fight like a dying man, I think.
Miske it was said never fought better after dempsey kod him in 1920.
After the Brennan fight brave Miske died of Bright's Disease !

 

Considering his inactivity I feel Dempsey looked pretty good against a terrific Gibbons in Selby ... Gibbons was a terrific fighter, a James Toney of his day, and Dempsey pretty much dominated him , showing his ability to regroup when an early round KO did not manifest ..

An interesting question is how the Willard fight would have played out if Dempsey was not allowed to stand over Willard and pummel him time and again ... could Willard have regrouped as Dempsey punched himself out ? Who knows ...?

 

Wlad would lose this one for only one reason: that chin. Dempsey would crack it, I think. I think prime Vitali actually has a better chance of winning.

 

are you serious?vitali is slow,much less skilled,and he doesn't punch nowhere near hard as wlad.dempsey tko3 vitali

 

Only in that fight would a man like Willard be floored SEVEN times in the first round, without the slaughter being stopped after 3 or 4 knockdowns.
In any other time or bout Dempsey would have been awarded a tko in the first round...It is like the umpire allowing a batter who has three strikes and allowing him four more...In my mind it was an abberation, and Dempsey tko'd Willard in the first round...

 

2 things ChrisPontius: 1, stop spouting from your poop hole about things you know absolutely nothing about whatsoever - and 2, well actually I think (1) about summed it up

cheers:good