Since none exists I go on level of opposition .. since Greb and Walcott were famous for ducking no one this can simply be viewed as a dodge since film does exist on Dempsey and you refuse to utilize it to back your point.
Enough were filmed, especially his biggest bouts , to support the claim if someone wants to make the argument ... so far no one has stepped up.
So cutting to the chase, you view his performance against a 37 year old, highly inactive mediocore champion at his own best as the fight that proves Dempsey is an all time great in your eyes ... I simply don't feel that's enough in my book.
The question was what films of Dempsey show his skills...all of them. You just need to know what you are looking for because of the film quality. Put it this way....no fighter that you can watch on silent film quality moving pictures looks good. That includes Gans, Jeffries, Johnson, Leonard, Tunney, ...you name it. Is it that all of a sudden when film quality improves fighting skill improves also? Of course not. Try watching Dempsey as well as any of the above and look closely at what is going on....it took me 30 years of watching Dempsey Firpo to notice the weave, feint and two 6 inch punches that caused the kd just before the ko. Great stuff and its noticing these skills all through his filmed bouts that leads you to the conclusion that Dempsey was one special fighter. That's not any news however as it's what everyone from that period have been telling us for the last 85 years.
Really? No fighter looks good on silent film? You need to know what to look for to appreciate Dempsey? It took you 30 years to of watching Dempsey-Firpo to appreciate it? LOL. P.S. I call bull**** on the Dempsey-Fulton film. Doesnt exist and wasnt used in any documentary.
I think the Dempsey who fights Tunney in their fights looks a level above Wills v Firpo and Madden.I think the Dempsey that butchers Willlard is tremendous .Plus I could go on contemporary opinion as a back up. Anyone refer to Wills in the superlatives that they did Dempsey?
Nice find, but Wills looks fairly poor. The old excuse of 'the film was old/like charlie chaplin, etc" seldom washes with me. Irrespective of the film quality you can still get a real sense of a fighters style and methodology...AND how many punches he throws and how he puts them together. Wills look similar to Chaplin in the fight scene in City Lights in that neither of them threw a decent combination. Actually that a bit harsh... on Charlie. :hey
THis is really some dodge .. he doesn't llo as great as he was because of the film .. the fact is that Dempsey is likely the first heavyweight champion that has quality prime footage with the exception of a bit of Burns .. your spin of if you know how to look at it is funny. Perhaps you should phrase it as if you wre honest with what you were seeing ... I agree Dempsey looks his best against Willard but do not qualify him as a all time great fighter based on that footage ... he has far too many moments of raw, wild swinging .... the Carpienter footage is terrific including where Jack is badly staggered in the second round from a right .. the Brennan footage is a bit dark at points but quite clear and it shows a life and death battle with Dempsey hurt on multiple times. Gibbons is very clear and speaks for itself. Firpo is not 100 percent but if watched in slow motion is quite decisive as is what exists of both Tunney bouts and Sharkey. If you feel the films support Dempsey as the gretest fighter of the first half of the 20th Century that's your opinion but I think it is romanticism ...
Yes, his opponents did .. not the press which was paid for years by both Kearns and Rickard to build up the man killer image to feed the gates .. seriously, this is common knowledge for any student of this period, Dempsey , even if he was half the fighter some of you believe was the best promoted fighter that ever lived. IF that is your opinion regarding Dempsey and Wills I disagree and obviously so did Kearns and Rickard ...
The man who fought him more times than anyone Sam Langford stated that Dempsey would ko him in a couple of rounds. This paying of the press was common place to every fight manager and dates back to the no -decision days and beyond.The idea that Dempsey got his reputation from paid for hacks is totally unfounded .Dempsey, when he challenged Willard had had 25 fights since Feb 1918 he had won 22 of them by stoppage. That isn't paid news talk its fact. Dempsey was called the man killer because thats what he was. To intrepret Rickards reluctance to promote a Dempsey Wills fight as a fear that Wills would be too good for Dempsey is supposition on your part, it is not obvious, nor is it fact. How should we interpret Paddy Mullins reluctance to let Wills face either Tunney , Godfrey, or Gibbons during Dempsey's later reign? What's "romanticism" is that because Wills was denied a chance at the title he is necessarily this tigerish, panther- like ATG. Wills best wins are over a 5''6" fat man who was not even a true heavyweight ,and some of those wins occur when that fat man is not only old but half blind . Eleven of them when Langford is anywhere between 34 and 40 years old. with his eyes ****ed by Fred Fulton. Wills could not master Jeannette until Jeannette was 40 years old similarly McVey was his superior till he declined. There is a good basis for concluding that Wills was the least talented of the 4 black men that came after Johnson. If Jack Johnson , even as a 40 year fighter, had drawn with Bill Tate we would still be hearing about it today. I think Wills rep has considerably embellished through the years by the same journalists that you accuse of hyping up Dempsey. Reports of his actual ring performances do not support his rep today . The natural sympathy that one feels for the wronged has coloured how Wills is perceived , but it did not colour Langford's view of him ,nor his opinion of his chances against Dempsey. Who would be in a better position to judge?
No dodge at all. I know what I am talking about regarding this subject. When you watch any silent movie era film all fluidity of motion is lost. Look at any silent movie...do those actors move like people actually move? There is a level of jerking as if every third frame has been removed and speed can be slower of quicker depending on how quickly the film was cranked through the camera. All this is compounded when looking at athletic events since fluidity of motion is a critical aspect. Anyway the idea that some huge press promotion fooled every singe...every single boxing expert at that time who watched Dempsey from ringside is beyond laughable. Fooled Langford? Fooled Arcel? Fooled Stillman? Fooled Bimstein? fooled Fleischer? Fooled Tunney? Fooled Leonard? Fooled Rice? Fooled every sportswriter who voted him as the best hwt ever as of the early 50s? You need to learn that having a good promotional team behind a fighter does not mean the fighter was not an all time great. No one was as wildly promoted and self promoted as Ali and he was indeed the best. Suggest you buy some popcorn and spend some time watching Dempsey...look close beyond the film quality. All the skills these men wrote about Dempsey exhibits during those filmed bouts. Oh...and please remove the I hate jack Dempsey tee shirt before you begin.
Dempsey barely landed a punch against Tunney and you think he looks better than Wills easily beating Madden and Firpo without having to go into high gear?
