Jack Dempsey vs. Wladimir Klitschko

What do you mean by that? Sorry, I'm not that smart.

 

a revisionist to me is someone that would think they know better of Dempsey,in his prime, than the people who saw him fight at his best years
and raved about his prowess...But ninety years later people like you {revisionist ],who have NEVER seen the prime Dempsey live or on film,somehow proclaim he was overated and not much of a fighter...
Perhaps you are omniscient...

 

In the July 1946 issue of Ring Magazine, Jack Johnson gave probably his last interview. Nat Fleischer asked him:

"Jack, what do you tink of the present day heavies compared to those of your day?"

"They are a dime a dozen. Not that I want to throw cold water on the boxers of today, but because history proves that the men of my fighting era were giants in comparison to the best of today's fighters. There is only one man who stands out today, Joe Louis, and in my humble opinion, not only could I have whipped Joe when I was at my best, but I'll name Sam Langford, Jeffries, Corbett, Choynski, Tom Sharkey, Fitz and Tommy Ryan among some of the old timers who would have taken Joe into camp and Jack Dempsey among those who followed me."

Okay. There is very little film of many of these men. None at all of the 155 lb former welterweight Tommy Ryan. Jack Johnson saw them all and he certainly knew boxing. Do you agree that Joe Louis would lose to all these men? Do you agree that Joe Louis loses to the 155 lb Tommy Ryan?

If not, how can you disagree after the argument you made above?

 

Later, Johnson commented further on modern fighters and boxing in general:

"I recently listened to a discussion on the air between The Ring Editor and the man who was quizzing hiim on boxing and when the time to quit the air had come, I heard the quiz master say:

'Well, Nat, like most of the old timers you simply won't agree that progress has been made in boxing as in all other sports.'

"That's where the quiz master was wrong. Boxing has made progress so far as commercialism is concerning, in the class of individuals who take up boxing as a profession, in the class of fight patrons and the management of the sport through legalized commissions, but not in boxing itself. The men of the past, as Nat Fleischer pointed out in his arguments, far surpassed the present age leaders. There are no Abe Attells, Owen Morans, Jem Driscolls, Johnny Kilbanes, Benny Leonards, Jimmy Wildes, Jim Corbetts and fighters like Jim Jeffries, Bob Fitzsimmons, Tom Sharkey, Jack Root, Stanley Ketchel, Tommy Ryan, Joe Choynski, George Dixon, Joe Gans, Joe Walcott, Sam Langford, Sam McVey and loads of others I could name. They were masters of the art. They were kings in every branch."

"Of course all old timers have such thoughts. But they cannot help possessing them since they saw what they saw and haven't met up with the likes of those fistic scientists since. I question that any one who knows boxing, who knows anything about ring history or famous fights, would say that Jim Jeffries, Bob Fitzsimmons, or Tommy Ryan in thier primes, could not have waded through the present list of heavyweight contenders and rocked each to sleep. Frankly, and I say this without prejudice, it wouldn't have been any contest, that's how good those old-timers were to the present crop."

Well, "they saw what they saw" and so I certainly haven't seen the 155 lb Tommy Ryan and so I guess we all have to agree that Walcott, Elmer Ray, Joe Baksi, Jimmy Bivins, Billy Conn, and I guess Joe Louis would all have been rocked to sleep by Ryan.

*And of course all the named fighters "far surpassed" Sugar Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, etc. No doubt. Jack Johnson saw what he saw.

 

I'm not a hater, to use your jargon, you're a 'nutthugger'. I'm merely being analytical and asking for evidence, something a biased rose tinted poster like yourself finds to be kryptonite.

The fact is you haven't seen any more 'Prime Dempsey' than the rest of us. Most consider the Willard version to be prime, and this version makes plenty of glaring errors. Or the Brennan fight where he didn't perform quite as well as Greb against the common opponent

You talk about knowing fans who have seen him. I couldn't care less what another fan thinks after seeing a fighter live 80years ago. In reality seeing a fighter live gives you a far worse perception than seeing film of a fighter. You rarely get a good view of the action and often get caught up in the atmosphere, not to mention half the time alcohol has been added to the cocktail

Tell us again how Dempsey knocked out Tunney You're either biased or ignorant of the rules of boxing. Or why don't you use your years of watching boxing to tell me smashing someone to the balls is 'breaking an opponent down' And then you have the audacity to claim I have an agenda

 

I think Dempsey's main flaw is clearly his inactivity during his reign.

All the fuss about his opposition and ducking is a bit overblown. You can rip apart most great champions with similar lines of argument.

 

Old Fogey. You've made a very interesting counter point to the argument.

 

OLD FOGEY, you are a worthy adversary...
But to say I believe the hyperbole that Jack Johnson gave in that interview is false...Jack Johnson is not my guru...He would get paid for those interviews, and controversy sells!.Do I believe that those oldtimers
would have licked Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey ? The answer is a resounding NO. Jack Johnson was jealous of Joe Louis and aklways demeaned him when Louis was first coming to his own, and Jack Blackburn
once kicked Lil Arthur out of Louis's training camp..For Johnson to say thay a Tommy Ryan @155lbs would beat Joe Louis is preposterous of course.I have always said that the Joe Louis of the Max Baer fight was
along with Demsey of Willard and before .the two GREATEST fighting machines ever...They to me were the perfect builds for a heavyweight. Lean and lithe and didn't have to drag along excess weight...
One other point-I am not upset when posters say that A or B would beat
Jack Dempsey, but to say he was overated,not that good, ninety years later, when the vast consensus of boxing experts who saw him lauded him to the skies....Were those men who saw Dempsey prime and extolled his greatness wrong, and the naysayers of today never even seeing the prime Dempsey on film, and berating his abilities right...I think not....

 

"but to say he was overated, not that good, ninety years later"

I think you are referring to this post:

"Dempsey was an overrated fighter. He was good, but never great. Dempsey won his title from a 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."

I am really embarressed by this post. I was tired, and I don't know what happened, but this is a quote from James P Dawson of the New York Times on September 25, 1926. I posted it to indicate that the so-called modern or "revisionist" criticism was, in fact, expressed at the time. Why I screwed up making it clear it was an original quote from a top boxing writer of the time who was at ringside for most of Dempsey's major fights and certainly had first-hand experience, I don't know. I apologize for my error and apologize if it confused any readers.

I also don't agree with everything said here, especially his negative takes on the Gibbons and Tunney bouts. Dawson was on the ground and perhaps knew more about Miske's physical condition than we do, so I will pass on Miske. Willard was the champion and Dempsey had to fight him and did as devastating a demolition as anyone could expect. Firpo was crude, but also tough and a big puncher. It is fair to say that Louis looked better against Max Baer than Dempsey did against Firpo.

Again, I apologize for my error and causing confusion.

In 1978 or so the Boxing Writers of America were polled by HBO on the greatest heavyweights. The results:

1-----Joe Louis
2-----Muhammad Ali
3-----Rocky Marciano
4-----Jack Dempsey
5-----Jack Johnson

In 2000, the AP panel of experts rated them thus

1-----Muhammad Ali
2-----Joe Louis
3-----Rocky Marciano
4-----Jack Dempsey
5-----Jack Johnson

These seem reasonable to me.

 

I'm going with the opinion of Ray Arcel, Dempsey one of the greatest of all time, would walk through comp. today.

 

You're talking about Adamek? Does he currently fight at 185lbs ? If not, is he a blown up lightheavyweight, i.e. fat? Is he the #1 contender?

If the answer to these questions is "yes" then you might have had a point.

Even then, you're probably the only one in the Universe who thinks he beats Wlad. Even Poles don't fancy him doing that.

With all due respect, but how the Hell can you call Willard "dominant" ? He was inactive for 3 years, his record going into the title fight was very thin and his title winning match wasn't exactly dominant, either.

How you can compare this with Wlad, who is actively seeking out all the best challengers and dominating all of them, is beyond me.

You completely missed the point of my post. Read it again and this time take into account the context, i.e., what I was replying to.

As for your serious question: I appreciate the sweet science to hit and not get hit. I also appreciate honesty and fairness. A lot of people rate (praise) Dempsey on mythological, heroic value, while not looking at the facts.

For instance, Marciano defended his title five times against the #1 contender and once against the #2 contender. He fought and beat all the best heavies and lightheavies of his time. Yet look at all the **** he gets from people here.

Now compare that to Dempsey, who defended his title against people who lost their title eliminator, who sat on his title for a full three years without doing anything, who set a record for all weight classes in avoiding the highest ranked contender, who failed to fight the best heavyweight of his time and thoroughly got outclassed when he fought the best lightheavyweight of his time. Now look at the praise he widely receives, mostly because he looks spectacular in beating up a 37 year old, skill-less, 4-year inactive champion who would've never held the title under 15 round rules. Fair?

Who dug Arcel up from the grave so he could inform us how a champion of his time would do against boxers 16 years after he passed away?

 

I did.

 

Thanks for your reply OLD FOGEY...The above list seems reasonable to me...I cannot envision though Ali beating the 198 pound Joe Louis,circa Max Baer...Louis was at that moment the greatest combination puncher who ever lived.He hit like a trip hammer then and Ali had nothing to hold Louis off for long. Joe Louis, never wasted punches and he hit just as hard
in the 15th round as the first round...He had a ram rod left jab that would nullify Ali's jab as did Ken Norton in later years..His jab had the power of
some heavyweights hooks and crosses it was said..And Louis knew how to cut off the ring,and would eventually corner Ali,with devastating effect.
Louis by Ko.Ali could run but he "coudn't hide ",for 15 rounds...Nice speaking to you OLD FOGEY.

 

Nice speaking to you Burt. See you on another thread.

 

I agree with burt about Joe Louis. I just do not see how he ties Jack Dempsey in with Joe Louis. As far as im concerned, Louis is clearly better than Jack Dempsey.