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

I thought it was very funny - my variation on your name that is - haven't read the article - but what's the point - probably just another attempt at trollism so why should I bother - having more fun making you scream and shout like a little brat ;-)

 

Ive always looked at Dempsey-Willard and Tyson-Berbick as almost twin fights

 

gotta love it.

Anyway I rank Wills and Dempsey closely, still not decided who I have in front, although Dempsey isn't in my Top 10 Heavyweights either.

 

Was a good read,thanks for posting the link.

 

Good article from one of my early ESB mentors. It's balanced and seeks the truth. Kudos.

It does nothing to Dempsey's legacy.

It goes against those romanticizing Dempsey as a superman. Good. I'm all for it.

At the other extreme, it indirectly disarms those who speak of Dempsey as nothing but this wild, scrawny, coddled, overrated, old-time white saint.

Random observations:

a) Lotierzo seems to attempt to bring Dempsey back to "human status" by pointing out his inability to cut off the ring. Fine. All greats, even the very best, have readily observable flaws. What Lotierzo fails to mention is that Dempsey won the 15-rounder against Gibbons by a country-mile decision. No man knocks everyone out.

This flaw certainly made Gene Tunney's work easier over 20 rounds, but the huge fact remains that Dempsey was over-the-hill and faced the style most "lethal" to him: that of a runner. And it took one of the most skilled runners (boxers/movers) in the division's history to beat him. Were Gene any less tough (one single Dempsey barrage had him on the canvas, on the edge of defeat), any less savvy in the ring (Gene got on his bicycle and smartly ran for dear life after the knockdown; no Larry Holmes brawling for the intelligent Tunney,) Dempsey, diminished as he was, may very well have regained the title.

b) Lotierzo compares Dempsey unfavorably to Frazier, saying Frazier--with his pressure--would have gotten to Gibbons early. Probably so. But, so what? Frazier was probably the greatest pressure swarmer in heavyweight history and thrived against light-hitting retreaters. Dempsey won the fight handily, so he could clearly get the job done against boxers as well. Not devastatingly? Not a real issue. Mike Tyson had to go the distance against boxer Tony Tucker, as well. (Read style here, not size, regarding Tucker and Gibbons.)

c) Lotierzo has to resort to George Foreman to go after Dempsey as a puncher. First, I've never read anyone's saying Dempsey hit harder than Foreman. Dempsey's one punch knockdown of the 60+-pound heavier, granite-chinned Willlard is all I need to see. And, for once and forever, though irrelevant here really, Foreman lifted no one up with any punch. Lotierzo's mentioning it just proves how biased to romance we all can be even when attempting to pontificate.

Second, Dempsey was a much better two-handed puncher than Frazier, much sharper than Foreman (though not on Louis' level), and much better defensively than either. Foreman gets a lot of mileage out of destroying the lone-gear Frazier and the freezing Norton. Ron Lyle took Foreman to the brink as a two-handed puncher with a little boxing skill. Hey, Ron Lyle, bless him, was no Jack Dempsey!

d) The Wills issue is handled evenly, I think. Bottom line: the prejudice of the era prevented the matchup. Forever unfortunate. If you wish to diminish Dempsey because he, a professional boxer with no power to shake up an entrenched status quo, did not transcend the circumstances of his time and move heaven and earth to fight an opponent he must be a favorite over skill-to-skill, it is your privilege.

The fact that a man whose greatest fight was 92 years ago has to be compared ON FILM to the likes of Louis, Tyson, Foreman and Frazier speaks volumes; a man who, 30 years after his best fight, was voted, BY EXPERTS, the greatest fistic fighter of all time.

Such greatness will unavoidably inspire hyperbole and legend, but this should not engender rejection; like present-day Ali worship, it is a testament to a man who was given nothing and came from nowhere to earn his place in history.

Accept it: Jack Dempsey was one of the greatest heavyweight-division fighters to enter the ring.

 

i agree. the article does tend to support the claim that Dempsey was one of the greatest.

 

where in the article does it say that Dempsey cant be ranked in the top 5 ?

 

Prime, kudos to you.No fighter in history could knock out everybody they fight. Every fighter in history meets some opponent that he has trouble with...For what it's worth Dempsey had his faults, but as the record shows
for a 4 year reign he beat everyone he fought...He could be outboxed for awhile, but he was NEVER out toughed. NEVER. One tough HOMBRE was
the Manassa Mauler...:good

 

I've beaten everyone I have fought in the past 10 years.

 

I'm not certain that Dempsey was the 'first sophisticated pressure fighter', regardless of what your interpretation of the adjective.

 

Then something must be wrong!

 

Seamus, women opponents don't count !:hi:

 

:good



just an obsevation, isnt it intresting how Manbearpig, Mcgrain and tartansoldier all have scotch links..