Someone school me on Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey

>>>Sam might have been 20 years old for the fight! Johnson said Langford was in the 130's for weight. Johnson also told the French press than Langford floored him, though no fight report mentions it.

Yes--Mcvey was a teenager for 2 of the matches, and 20 years old for the thrid.

Jeanette took up boxing late, and had a losing record, and says he was in the 160 pound range when they last fought.

 

Neither make my top 12.

 

Bah, what's with this Dempsey silliness?

I think Dempsey has one of the best pre-title runs.

Homer Smith, Carl Morris, Bill Brennan, Battling Levinsky and Fred Fulton were all beaten, badly. All capable-quality fighters.

The rivalry with Miske is rightly tainted with the story of his illness, but, we will also admit that Dempsey got a win over him in 1918, and when he beat him in 1920 he became the only ever man to knock him out - this cannot account for nothing!

Add on the demolition of Willard, mugging of Gibbons, and the come-from-behind win against Sharkey.

Really, whenever somebody says Dempsey ain't in their top ten they're lacking some basic historical perspective.

 

Att : naysayers ..We must rate great fighters when they were in their respective primes.. Jack Johnson when he was in his prime was a powerful, wily,intelligent counter puncher who did just enough to win. That was his NATURE. He was akin to a big cat playing with a mouse in his prime. I place great importance to what his peers ,boxers and writers said of him.... Just watch the THIRTY SEVEN year old Lil Arthur, beat up on a young powerful
Jess Willard for TWENTY FIVE rounds in a hot sun in 1915, until kod by a right hand from big Jess, and compare this Jack Johnson with ALI at the same age..No contest..
Jack Dempsey,contrary to today's [screw the past] posters was in his PRIME a force of nature in his unique abilities...He combined from 1919-23, great welterweight agility with great two handed punching powers, a bobbing and weaving style, the toughness and ferocity that captured the imagination of his times as no other fighter since then
for a GOOD REASON. He was that great...He didn't in general meet the greatest
opponents of his time as Ali did, but he beat whatever was in front of him 1919-23, and
that is all you can ask of a fighter....Not for nothing was he in a poll by boxings top experts voted by a great majority , "the best heavyweight in his prime", and I believe
fervently that Dempsey ALONGST with my man Joe Louis, to be the greatest HEAD to HEAD heavyweights ever. LITHE [as a panther] and STRONG...SPEED KILLS...

 

I think a stellar performance can basterdize your competition, and Dempsey had many stellar performances.

Say Firpo beat Dempsey and spawned a trilogy...what happens? Dempsey is still Dempsey, but now Firpo is remembered as a really great fighter - all achieved through Dempsey's incompetence, and yet Dempsey's stock would likely increase.

Much is lost through the decades and I'd have to say one of the top peeves here in the classic section is underrating Dempsey's competition.

Hell it's been going on here since I first joined in '03!

 

My two main criteria are resume and achievement with h2h as a tiebreaker.

I'm not sure there's a valid argument putting him top ten under that criteria.

I'm not saying the guy doesn't look great on film and plenty of people smarter than me pick him as a top h2h force. But looking at what he he achieved and who he beat I can't even rightly rank him above wlad never mind in the top ten.

 

Well, Vlad v. Dempsey head to head my money would be on Dempsey.

I used to think Johnson was overrated. Now I think Johnson gets underrated because of his style and because of his race and era that he lived in. Head to head, I think he could give lots more modern fighters fits than many folks realize, but I suppose that debate will go on ad infinitum. Johnson may not be the most exciting fighter or the one you want to see, but if you are a gambler and have to place your hard earned cash on a fighter, Johnson would be a pretty good bet against most.

 

Surely you jest about jack?

I think johnson has one of the strongest resume's in context of an era going

 

No, I'm dead serious. I do not think Vlad could handle that type of fast footwork, two-fisted speed and power, head movement, and relentless nonstop attack. I think size is one of the most overrated attributes in boxing. It is an advantage, but there are plenty of smaller fighters throughout history who were able to overcome those advantages.

Hell yes Johnson had an outstanding resume. You think a black man could have forced his way to a title shot in 1908 if it was not? That's a rhetorical. Everyone knew he was the leading contender for years before he got the title shot. But we all know virulent racial issues got in the way. Otherwise, Johnson might have been champ from 1904 or 1905, and if he had beaten Jeff back then, we'd be talking about a ten-year reign.

 

The coming book will realy do something for Johnson, because it will show how deep the rabit hole realy went during his run as coloured heavyweight champion.

That is something that is hard to pick out just by looking at his paper resume.

 

I think wlad v dempsey is a mismatch. I think jack would barely land a punch.

I consider johnson the top hw from 05-11. Fantastically great fighter.

 

Jack was a straight forward, bore-in, undersized heavyweight who was very often wide-open and off balance. These are consistent features of his BEST work on film. I don't think he would stand a chance against either Klit, if each side was at its best.