He gets knocked out the ring by an unskilled neanderthal and then assisted back in. Now I'm just a simple country doctor but that does not overly impress.
I can understand if you find him robotic; his style is cold and purely based on minimizing the probability of losing. However, if you can't see that his jab is fast, accurate and power then I don't know what will convince you. As for him being slow. Watch him knock out Austin with a quintriple left hook thrown in very rapid succession. Watch the one-punch KO of Chambers. Watch the Byrd KD in the rematch, round 5. Watch the Mercer fight. The McCline bout. The Nicholson counter-left hook knockout. If that's slow then I don't know what to tell you, you may be beyond help. As for him just getting by because he's so big - he's easily beaten McCline, Thompson and Austin, all of whom were 6'5+ and 240+lbs. By your reasoning, he should've had a few losses to them as the sole reason he's successful, his size, would be gone. Furthermore, shouldn't those guys be dominating the division, since they have size, the sole thing that has made Wlad a dominant force for over half a decade now? As for a Dempsey fan talking about the opponents being a joke... Let me know the next time Wlad nearly gets knocked out by a guy who makes amateur boxers look like Floyd Mayweather, does nothing for 3 years while retaining the "championship", only to twice be embarrassed and completely outboxed by a lightheavyweight.
Dempsey did wear down young Jack Sharkey wit straight body blows as the fight progressed..Yes in the early rounds some of thye body shots were borderline,BUt the referee did not deem them low blows, and that is what counts...What about Sharkey swatting Dempsey on the face after the bell sounded,which was intentional? Those days infighting prevailed, much more than today...Dempsey who was an older much slower version of the tigerish rip snortin fighter of his early days showed why he was a great body puncher even in his old age...In my eyes Dempsey Kod Tunney in 1927 in the seventh round, when Gene was given a 15-17 second long count by the referee, because Dempsey didn't go to a neutral corner/ But in the last round tUNNEY DROPPED jACK WITH A SHORT RIGHT HAND, and the referee started the count immediately, while Tunney was hovering over Dempsey...Was that fair to penalize Dempsey and not Tunney for the same infraction ? My point is Dempsey Kod Sharkey as he was not disqualified for the questionable body blows, and Tunney won the battle of the " long count " in 1927...No matter how many detractors Dempsey has today from "haters who have never SEEn the prime Manassa Mauler, in my eyes he was the perfect blend of speed, power, bobbing and weaving defense,and toughness and desire for a heavyweight, never seen before or since...
Thats because you don't understand the rules of boxing, its the count of the ref, not how many seconds on a stop watch
Power Puncher i don't know what your AGENDA is, but what I have seen in one quarter of my lifetime is more than you have seen to this day..There is no use to argue with you as it is in vain...You are ignorant of the times of Dempsey's prime,while i have many years ago have spoken to many boxing people who SAW Dempsey,and his opponents who imparted their experiences of the Manassa Mauler...He was what all the great boxing writers called along with Joe Louis ,the two best heavyweights they had ever seen....And today many years later, I believe they who have seen Jack Dempsey in his prime, know a smidgen more than a closed minded hater than you 90 years later....
That fight is the best display of compact punching that I have seen on film, from any heavyweight. Even 90 years on.
Be careful though, the way things are going, his number 1 contender looks like he might be a light heavy soon.
janitor I agree...Luis Angel Firpo was a limited fighter but had bullish power and strength.He was a threat to kayo anyone those days,even though he had limited boxing skills...He did club Dempsey,hurt him and Firpo shoved Dempsey out of the ring ont the typewriters..But when Dempsey kod Firpo in the next round with powerful "compact "punching was a revelation...He was a real "tiger", and reminded me of a later vicious smaller version of Roberto Duran... Even the old Dempsey of the LONG COUNT,in slow motion hits Tunney 5 or 6 punches so fast and precise...He was something!!
"I have never seen Dempsey in his prime when he was lauded as the most destructive fighter of all time" Well, we all have all seem films of the fights with Willard, Brennan, Carpentier, Gibbons, Firpo, Sharkey, and Tunney. Which fight would show him in his prime? I must point out that he went into the fight against the 37 year old, laid off for three years, Willard as the 6-5 underdog. This is about the same odds as Carnera had going into the 1933 fight with Sharkey. If he impressed that much in earlier fights, why wasn't he the strong favorite? This is the AP report in the SF Chronicle report on the first Dempsey-Miske fight of 1918 on 5/4/1918 "Jack Dempsey and Billy Miske boxed a tame ten-round draw tonight. Neither man gained a commanding lead and a poor draw was the general verdict. Miske outboxed Dempsey most of the fight, with the exception of the seventh round, when Dempsey, sinking a hard left into Miske's stomach and putting a right to the jaw, evened up the battle. Up to that time, Miske had claimed three rounds, Dempsey two, with one even. "Miske held his own the rest of the way. "Miske managed to get inside most of Dempsey's blows. "Dempsey scored in the second, third, and seventh rounds, and his Chicago supporters were inclined to give him a shade for his work. "The writers who gave Miske a shade based their verdicts on the fact that he made Dempsey miss many blows. "Neither fighter got up a good sweat. A draw seemed the only reasonable decision." Miske was a good contender, but did lose to Greb and Norfolk about this same time. Off this ringside report, Dempsey just does not seem like an overwhelmingly great fighter.
If we're going by 2nd hand quotes, there are nothing but accolades for Dempsey. This content is protected He shouldve been the only heavyweight anybody ever thought of when they thought about the greatest heavyweight champion. I mean he had everything. He could punch, he could box. He was mean and determined."-Ray Arcel At his peak Jack Dempsey was the most dynamic and devastating heavyweight this commentator has ever seen Manassa Jack had speed, strength, better than average boxing skills, lusty punching power and a blazing spirit. His bobbing and weaving style made him a difficult target to hit solidly, but when he was, he had the ruggedness to take it. Lithe as a panther and just as savage, Dempsey packed one of the most powerful punching combinations in the game -Jersey Jones "Well if he ever fights Dempsey my money will be on the present champion. Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen. He hits twice as hard as Jim Jeffries and is as fast in the ring as James J. Corbett." -Sam Langford on possible Wills vs. Dempsey fight etc etc
"If we're going by 2nd hand reports" The report on the Dempsey-Miske fight was the AP report printed in the SF Chronicle on 5-4-1918. I apologize if I did not make that clear. It is a ringside report.
Yeah, but people tend to forget just what a dominant champion Willard was seen as, even if in hindsight, his record isnt that great. Many people of the time, thought that he was the greatest ever, because of his sheer size, strength and stamina. Not too different to the way some think of Wlad nowadays. No matter what any up and comer does today, dothey really star as a favourite against Wlad? or Vitali?
