John Lester Johnson - Jack Dempsey put to rest

Dempsey on fighting the best doesn't annoy me, going through a rough patch with my new girl, that annoys me but not the feats of a boxer 100 years ago.

What it does do is intrigue me. He had the opponents and opportunity to really establish a great legacy and one that stands up to scrutiny down the ages. It intrigues me that given that opportunity he walked away from it.

 

Luf, I must ask you this question...Tell me why do you repeat the old bromide, that "he [Dempsey] had the OPPONENTS to establish a great legacy ", but "walked "away from it ". What have I who have been reading
about Dempsey and his era from the early 1940s missed ? Aside from signing for a bout with Wills that was not consumated due to NO FAULT of Dempsey or Wills, who was a true opponent that Dempsey avoided ?
Harry Greb was my favourite fighter but he was a middleweight, and what did Dempsey have to gain in that matchup ? Zilch...Would you criticize Joe Louis for not tackling the Mw Ray Robinson, would you criticize an Ali for not fighting a Marvin Hagler, though also a great MW...The answer you know is NO you and others wouldn't.... But Dempsey evokes such a dislike by quite a few on ESB, that reason and fairness vanishes from whatever
Dempsey has done in his career...We know that from the time of Dempsey's title reign 1920-23 [after Willard] Sam Langford, Sam McVea,
Joe Jeannette, were pushing 40 years old and were way past their peaks.
So please tell me who are the "opponents" you cite besides Harry Wills that would have been a threat at this time ? Dempsey beat everyone he faced after Willard, such as Billy Miske, Bill Beennan, Georges Carpentier, Tommy Gibbons, and Luis Angel Firpo, before he {Dempsey] went Hollywood, bedding down the silent screen vamps who fell at his feet...Do you think L that he was thinking of what you and others thought about his "legacy " then...I don't... So Dempsey could not be blamed for the calibre of his opposition.. He didn't pick his date of birth...No one does...
So to conclude Luf, Dempsey who didn't fight his one true contender Harry Wills due to circumstances, but would have been a prohibitive favourite
were they to have met..After all Dempsey repeatedly battered his sparring partners as Bill Tate, George Godfrey, Larry Gaines, all who were as or near the calibre of Harry Wills...History tells us that Jack Dempsey was held in awe when he was in his prime for a damned good reason...He was GOOD.
Our ancestors who SAW him and his successors knew a hell of a lot more than todays ESB detractors , NINETY years after the fact...Cheers L...

 

Sorry to disrupt the solemnity of this most scholarly and serious pursuit.

It will not happen again.

 

Well, there's no point in looking for something that isn't there.
It's generally accepted on this forum that every Dempsey opponent (outside of exhibitions) between 1917/'18 and 1927 was not black.

 

He's possibly the most talked-about and most deeply studied of the heavyweight champions on this board, for starters. Definitely among the top 3 or 4 in that respect.
And historically he's always been afforded massive status and a legend of the sport.
His exploits are well known. The footage is played over and over.

That's quite a established legacy, imo.

 

Yada yada dancers leg blah blah underrated yakkity yakkity Harry Wills afraid grr argh all time great

Also thank you Senya for the research. Dempsey lived long enough too mythologize himself.

I think his beating of Battling Levinsky is underrated. Discuss.

 

Brilliant !!! Cracked me up ...

 

I completely agree with every word there. It's just intriguing he didn't actively pursue a clearing out of his division. It's like he got to a certain level and thought "that's me now".

He's undoubtedly an all time great however it's spun, I think I have him 13 or something like that. But he had the names to do more and chose against it.

Like I say, it intrigues me.

 

A lot of what you wrote is general angst on your part.

What I have said is boxing-wise his legacy would have greatly improved had if spent the hollywood years beating greb, norfolk and wills. To be honest that point can't be disputed.

As a footnote you greatly disservice harry greb by referring to him as just a middleweight. Read up on him and show him a bit more respect... Cheers B.

 

He was really just following the tradition of many of the title-holders before him though. The precdent had already been set.
Corbett, Willard, Johnson, Sullivan and Fitzsimmons had all taken long lay-offs or semi-retirments and champions - and had spent their time in theatrical shows, cashing in on their status as the champion. Dempsey had made more money than any of them in the ring, and reigned during the 'Jazz age', the days of the movies and the speakeasies. So it's really not surprising that he was drawn away from the ring during his days as champion.

 

They all did. I'm not surprised, i'm intrigued.

Like today when people ask floyd to take 50-50 against pac for the sake of his legacy, he replies "legacy don't pay bills" statements like that intrigue me as a fan of the sport.

Seeing these guys with the potential fights there to catapult them into the highest tier of the sports history and they walk away. Intriguing it is.

 

I don't find it interesting. I find it logical. You don't fight for your place in the sport; you fight for money. Back before boxing became boxing you could make more money doing other things. Its a job not a sacred calling.

 

You hear plenty of boxers talk about how they want to be remembered. A lot of the time the best fights give the most money and so the two aren't always mutually exclusive hence my intrigue.

You might find it logical when the best don't fight the best, i'll happily agree to disagree