"No one living today saw Dempsey at ringside, so like it or not, he must be...

Again you are and mcgrain are very very very very sad (i was going to say men but that would be giving you too much respect to be honest) - you two really really really need to seriously get a life - i suppose you've spent the last couple of day googling "how to denigrate jack dempsey" - you two seriously are losers sad sad sad - again i will lket it be known that both of you should be removed from this forum for good

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:|:|

 

Jack Dempsey is without a doubt a great heavyweight, but I have several problems with film of him and with his resume.

His resume is flat out weak. He was arguably not even the best of his era.

And he looks limited, wild, and often clumsy on film. He doesn't look poised or skilled after the first round against Willard, in his best performance on film. And he looks like easy prey for a talented boxer in both fights against Tunney, his worst performances. I don't see, on tape, what makes him the head to head monster he is often portrayed as; The fighter I've seen on film is shockingly limited and wild, if savage and powerful.

 

As you can see I didn't actually say you denigrated him in this thread I made a sarcastic reference to a mental image I had of barefacedpig desperately combing the net for anything that he could vaguely use to set up the next in the stream of anti-Dempsey threads and veiled pokes at Burt Beinstock - and obviously whereever barefacedpig goes your tripping over on his coat tails ready to back him for all your worth - its just very VERY VERY funny thats all - its so obvious - and its even funnier if you think it hasn't been noticed - it's pretty cringeworthy to be honest

 

:deal There you go folks straight from the horses mouth - somebody bar this guy please please please

 

I find him insightful, even-handed and relevant.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl


I never knew the fanboysim was like this.

But this is worse than Duran. atsch

 

Mag, Here we go again. Well who was the best of his era then ? Harry Wills ? Dempsey during his reign would have been a prohibitive favorite over the tall ,slow moving Dempsey were they to have met...in the late thirties and 1940s,Dempsey and Louis were considered the most lethal punchers in heavyweight history. Because the people that saw him at his best, were infinitley more qualified to judge him than today's Box.Rec
readers on ESB, 80 years later...Common sense dictates that...
You say Dempsey looks clumsy in the Willard fight. Baloney. A boxing historian a couple of years ago ,took the HAND CRANKED 1919 film of the
Toledo slaughter and reprogrammed in normal speed, eliminating the herky-jerky film which eliminated normalk movement. He was shocked by this real time film of Dempsey's attack. Shocked...
You say Dempsey looks wild.? Try punching up to a man that is 5-6 inches taller than you are and preserving tremendous piower...Try it. A straight right to the chin will hit your opponents chest. With this in mind and the fact that Jack Kearns,bet a great amount of money on a Dempsey FIRST ROUND KO. So Dempsey in the 100 degrees Toledo sun went all out in his attack,having to adjust his punching to punch "up" at the giant Jess Willard
who though not a great fighter had a cast-iron chin, and was never DROPPED before. NEVER. Jack Johnson hit big Jess with the kitchen sink for TWENTY FIVE rounds, and Willard shook all those blows off. For 25 rounds in the broiling Havana sun...
To say Dempsey's destruction of Jess Willard was not impressive, shows either all the fans, writers, ex boxers, were somehow deluded ,or were on LSD...Tell me Mag, why did it take the murderous punching Joe Louis
THIRTEEN ROUNDS to stop Abe Simon in 1941, after hitting the ponderous
Simon with powerful hooks, crosses, and uppercuts, and everyone on ESB, yourself included, give Louis [my favorite heavyweight] a pass, whilst ESB's favorite whipping boy, Jack Dempsey,who crucified a SEVENTY pound heavier 6" taller Willard in 2 rounds. get's villified by too many posters
who think it is fashionable today to besmirch the legacy of one of the greatest heavyweights that ever lived. Certainly the roughest and toughest. Why the hell is there a target on his back.???
What say you M ?

 

Correction : Dempsey would have been a prohibitive favorite of the slow moving Harry Wills...

 

There does seem to be an inordinate amount of dislike, if not outright hatred for Dempsey by many and it appears to be somewhat unfair. When it comes to judging fighters from past era's it's important to give merit based on what they did during thier own time, not how they stack up to fighters from future eras...as tempting as that may be. People point out Dempsey's opponents as proof that he wasn't that good but seem to give a pass to other fighters such as Jack Johnson or Larry Holmes, two men whose reigns had thier share of dubious opposition but are often quoted as being in the top 5 all time great HW champions listings. So Dempsey didn't stop Gibbons. Holmes didn't stop Tex Cobb either and was in serious trouble against such non descript fighters as Snipes and Weaver. Does that mean Holmes was lousy? Hell we could nit pick Ali to pieces if we really wanted to but what would it prove? The man waas great, if not the greatest heavyweight of all time. Dempsey was great too as was Johnson, Louis and Marciano due to what they accomplished while they were fighting. Can't choose when you are born right?