John Lester Johnson - Jack Dempsey put to rest

With all due respect Burt do you ever understand a single post I write? Am I that indecipherable?

First of all, I am an American who was working in Portugal when I joined this shiftiest. And I am not one of those knee-jerk liberal types who reflexively hates his country and blames every problem worldwide on the US.

My post you are referring to was about the changes in history as it is presented, in the morals and standards these narratives reveal and how given time and perspective they change. It was not a pot shot at the US or England or Tur****istan. I fully understand and have researched and philosophized over countless pints the concept of historical guilt. Yes, there is plenty of blame to pass around both for actions taken and those not taken. I think there is plenty of judging to take place, also, of certain cultures, time periods and actions... and yes, it gets spread around pretty well.

My point is that what was once understood as a reasonable narrative or estimation of events often changes when removed from the confines of immediacy and given time to breathe. When Dempsey was fighting, boxing as we recognize it was still in its infancy, barely 30 years into the ascendency of the MdQ rules. Given another 90 years, thousands more world class fighters with world class careers, we have entirely broader context to review and judge those events.

And I think it should be fairly obvious in general that I am mostly just playing foil here to the adolescent idolization of Dempsey that gets trotted around this board. Yes, I also like Dempsey quite a lot, have plenty of books on him on my shelves and a picture on my wall at work. I am a fan boy at heart, also.

 

True S, I recall how sad he was when the Landlord refused to renew his lease, and Dempsey loved his famous restaurant on Bwy, a few blocks away from Abe Attel's bar, the old FW champion...Never went into Dempsey's joint but saw him sitting at the window table shaking hands, waving to us, a few inches away seperated by the large glass window..
He was an icon to all of us and a much beloved figure...Contrary to his
uninformed haters on ESB today...Cheers...

 

S, a most consise explanation you post...Well said but you are an iconoclast whose retorts come across along the lines of deep vagueness...
What you say about Dempsey coming along about 30 years more or less from the start of boxing, agrees with what I have said...He was a product of his times, no more, no less, and for me to see him villified today by
some harsh misinformed posters of today, ignorant of the "times" he lived in, gives me agita, to say the least...Carry on sir.:hi:
P.s. As you must know S, i am no neophyte who is so old that my
Social security number is in Roman Numerals...

 

Burt whats your top 5 favorite fights ever?

 

I'm not sure why you segregate his contenders on the basis of race. But anyway.

Kid Norfolk was easily beaten by Wills in 1922. KO'd.
He was beaten in 1924 by Tommy Gibbons. KO'd.
He was rated at #3 light-heavy by RING magazine in 1924.
He went 2-1 with the mediocre Battling Jim McCreary - who was also black, BTW - during this time, struggling in the wins.

 

This is completely irrelevant.
We're not talking about how things are taught in schools years after they happened.
(Obviously, ideally the true unbiased facts should be arrived at - and then taught. I'm all for the true unbiased facts. )

So, we're talking about who really were considered the leading contenders to Dempsey's title.
Harry Wills certainly was. Greb, not really. Norfolk, not at all.

"Ratings" and "contenders" in boxing are (at best) decided by public and media perceptions. They are subjective. That's the way they are done. They is no rigid league system or points system like in football or tennis. Copy and reputation are deciding factors. It's that way now, it was that way then.

 

during the era of the colour line that's just what you have to do, I hate that part of boxing history but it's a reality :-(

No shame losing to Wills who was probably the best active HW. The loss to Gibbons marks the end of him being a viable contender.

Aside from the guys he beat, Wills and Greb (who beat most guys Dempsey would go onto beat) Norfolk was the best guy remaining imo.

 

I don't think we have to do that at all.
When RING magazine published their ratings they had the whites and blacks integrated into one list.
People here - including yourself - have no problem calling Harry Wills "the number 1 contender". We don't just consider him the number 1 BLACK contender.

But this is smack bang in the middle of the Hollywood years where you said Dempsey should be fighting him.

Well if you are going to use the caveat "apart from the guys he beat", there's always going to be a "best guy remaining".

 

well either way Wills and greb were the top 2 contenders and norfolk was the only other great of the era (aside from tunney who beat him)

yes Dempsey could have done with fighting him before Gibbons did.

Of course there are, that's why a champ beats as many top contenders as possible. these 3 HOF men, had he beaten them would have cemented his claim of clearing out an era, add other's if you so desire but that's what I'd have like to see.

 

Tommy Gibbons was as great as Kid Norfolk, or greater.

Around the time he was losing to Battling McCreary or when he was being blasted out in 2 by Harry Wills ?

But not all champions beat as many top contenders as possible.

 

But you only like girls with mustaches.

 

definitely greater imo.

after wills, before gibbons.

no they don't, it's what separates the elites really.

 

I don't think champs such as Sugar Ray Leonard, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Bob Foster, Archie Moore - to name just a few - beat "as many top contenders as possible".

 

Please clarify.
Where does Gibbons fit in with these ?