Jack Dempsey vs. Wladimir Klitschko

atschatsch God don't tell me that McCline, Thompson and Austin (!!!) are now the new standard for historic greatness in our great sport - jeez we may aswell all give up and go home then if thats all it's come to :-( - and no they shouldn't be dominating the division because they couldn't even beat your loverboy - your version of boxing history must be a pretty bleak - serious question for you - I don't understand what drives your interest in boxing if you're so anti Dempsey (one of the greatest and most exciting fighters in history regardless of size if thats all that matters to you) and pro Klit (one of the dullest fighters to ever hold the crown) - that's like taking a Skoda over a Ferrari??? Do you not have more passion for the sport than that? - I wouldn't even be interested in a sport if I didn't see more in it than that?:huh

 

Oh I guess Klit must be the greatest then :scaredas:same question to you - what drives your interest in the sport?? I don't think I'd even be a fight fan if I genuinely didn't think things got any better than Klitsch

also the Vlad being faster the Rocky thing - OMG you need to go and have word with yourself on that one either that or you had a glitch on your TV last time Vlad was on and it was going all speeded up????? Truly that is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on this board - I guess you'd say Vlad was quicker than Archie Moore Ez Charles & Walcott then too??? In fact don't even answer that :dead

 

Man Seamus I feel for you I really do - no genuinely I do - no really - I wish you saw I bit more in this sport - it must have a bit of a limited appeal for you if you consider one of it's biggest crowd pullers (if not the biggest crowd puller) in history to be 'not fully impressive' and if you consider one of the sports most exciting moments to have been exceptionally offensive (??:| Bizarre) - I just don't get it - did Dempsey do something to you in a past life?? Yet you consider Klit to be something of a revelation?? :nut oh well each to their own I guess - just a bit like taking a Morris Minor over a Ferrari or something thats all?? Oh well

an as far as surpassing yourself any further I fear for what the future might bring but I hope you'll be OK :good whats next Klit has better footwork than Ali???

 

I am a huge admirer of Dempsey, bought his autobio when I was a kid, have a framed postcard of him hanging in my living room. But I think he pretty much stopped fighting July 5th, 1919. Granted, he was a revelation, a first, in the sporting world with the money he generated. But he learned he didn't need to make the title reign scintillating: he merely needed to retain it. However, beating a guy he beat before, a declining (though still decent) fighter with a terminal illness, a couple light heavies, going life and death with an oaf... all while avoiding a couple spectacular fighters. In the cold light of objectivity, that is a bit lacking as a championship resume.

I think everyone fell in love with the myth of Dempsey early on. I still have love the myth and try to convince myself it was close to reality in the couple years leading up to Willard.

 

Hey my man Seamus I think I might just be getting somewhere with you come on my man let it all go - dream the dream man :rasta- you need to start loving boxing again - for the reason you first fell in love with it - this is what makes boxing so great - beleiving in the unbeleivable - turning the odds upside down - over coming great physical odds - Dempseys's manager thought Dempsey might be killed going into the Willard match but look what happened Dempsey almost killed Willard - it would be pretty boring if Klitch was whooping all the great heroes of the sport wouldn't it - you know you want to beleive

 

Nevertheless, Joe Louis was a 2-1 favorite over Max Baer in 1935. Louis was never the underdog in any fight.

Size does overly impress people, but Willard was an 8 to 5 underdog against Johnson in 1915. He was heavily favored over Moran in 1916, but the catch was that Willard had to be knocked out to lose. The odds were 5 to 1 against Moran knocking him out according to the NY Times preview of the fight.

The Times preview of 7-3-1919 of the Dempsey-Willard fight has interesting tidbits--excerpts:

"The fighters will enter the ring with as wide a divergence of opinion on the part of experts as to who will win as ever marked a title bout in this country. Men who have followed the boxing game for years declare that Willard will win within a few rounds by knockout. Other experts, equally well known, insist that there will be nothing to it but Dempsey. One thing is certain, no challenger has ever entered a ring against a champion with as meager a record as that of Dempsey against fighters of class and had had so many good judges backing him with opinion and cash."

"Willard is not worrying the least iota and his confidence is one of the most complete things in the State of Ohio tonight. Some of the old heads are wagging over this very confidence, and it is being said by some of these pessimists that Willard is too confident and is holding Dempsey too lightly. The champion declares himself right at the point of his training where he worked to be and considers himself in excellent shape for the battle. At any rate, the charge can't be brought against the titleholder that he is overtrained."

"The average odds tonight are 5 to 4 on Willard."

1. Interesting that this writer thinks Dempsey's record is somewhat wanting against "fighters of class". This seems unfair.

2. "the charge can't be brought against the titleholder that he is overtrained."----sarcasm?

 

It is a very interesting article.

But dont forget,regarding willard, that not only was he bigger than any previous champion which clouds the judgment, but he just defeated a dominant and seemingly invincible champion. That always adds to an aura. Look at Lewis after he beat Tyson, Tunney after Dempsey, Johnson after Jeffries, Holmes after Ali, etc. That sort of a win elevates fighters to a different class in the mindsof most even though the beaten champs are more often than not totally past it.

I tend to think that things would be totally different in the odds if one of Dempsey's lead up victims was an ancient and untrained Jack Johnson. Dont forget that it was Willard who did the impossible, and as much as we all talk about Langford, McVey, Jeanett and Wills, nowadays, no one really thought either of those could do what Willard did, even though hindsight and common sense tells us that Johnson was going to be ripe for the picking.

It is interesting though, that such a phenom could come through and still start underdog. Tyson was favourite wasnt he? Though i am not sure he would have been favourite against Berbick, if Holmes had held the title.

 

Still, it may say the catch is Moran would have to ko Willard to win which is true, but whats forgotting is Willard regardless, pretty much box Moran's ears off. I never saw Willard look so good, in that fight and that includes the battle with Johnson.

Even if it was on a ten point must system, I still would have made Moran a underdog. He had no answer for Willard's jab and yes foot movement. It hurt saying it, but what else is there to say?

 

Well, I perhaps should have made it more clear that I was most surprised that the odds were as short as 5 to 1 that Moran would knock him out. I would have expect them to be at least twice that. After all, toughness was Willard's strong suit.

 

You are making good points about Willard's size and victory over Johnson. It does seem almost beyond dispute, though, that Louis was more highly regarded in his time. I don't see a pre-title Dempsey going into a fight with Baer a 2 to 1 favorite.

 

Very Interesting. The writer is questioning Dempsey's level of competition pre title. Perhaps Dempsey should have taken on Langford, Jeneatte, McVea, and Jack Johnson...deteriorated versions or not, it would still have been big recognizable wins on the world class level for Jack. Many ATG heavyweights have scored legacy sealing wins over past their prime former greats.

 

Could it be the asswhipping and broken ribs John Lester Johnson gave him left a bad taste regarding those "******s"?

 

Could be. It certainly could have scared him off, especially when he realized Lester Johnson got his ass handed to him multiple times by those other "******s".

 

Swarmer ,nice post citing what the great boxing figures who SAW Dempsey in his prime thought of him..
But I am afraid you are wasting your time on the Jack Demposey detractors of today...If GOD came down from heaven and attested to Dempsey's greatness in his prime, their sheer hatred of the man would be the same...After all, they know better than all the top experts who saw him fight,and fought Dempsey,and trained him...These revisionists somehow know better ! What arrogance I say...They know more than Ray Arcel, Jersey Jones, Nat Fleischer, Gene Tunney, Mickey Walker, Sam Langford, Hype Igoe, Damon Runyon, Teddy Hayes etc...They have an agenda, for sure...

 

Revisionists... there is your problem. Boxing by its very nature is revised every generation as new fighters emerge, and in the creation of its image, new commentators on the fight game. To be a revisionist is only to acknowledge the reality of this unfolding narrative. To deny it is merely to be the all-too-common stick in the mud.