Sonny Liston vs Jack Dempsey

so much dislike of Dempsey. I am starting to feel sorry for him, and almost feel the need to defend him. I would say that on this board the amount of Dempsey loathing as reached new, almost perverse sexual heights. He has his flaws, but every fighter does.

Do you guys really think that Dempsey would try and bum rush Sonny Liston?

 

This is the thing, any criticism toward Dempsey and it's immediately written off as "loathing" and "hating". Even hard thought and well laid out criticism is automatically attacked and it's originator discredited by the Dempsey disciples.

I find the above extraordinary to be honest. Paranoia bordering on the wierd, not to mention pure sensationalism. The more i look at it the more i shake my head.

 

Liston won many of his fights by putting "the evil eye" on his opponent at the weigh-in the day of the fight.

Dempsey was a hobo and fought many "backroom" unlisted fights, so he is not going to be intimidated by Sonny.

The young Dempsey was fast, could box, and could hit very hard.

In 3 fights between between the Liston & Dempsey, I go with 2 early knockouts each way, and a Split Decision for Liston in the 3rd fight.

 

Dempsey did refuse a bout with Langford in 1916,he was 20 and being mismanaged ,by John the Barber,a flesh pedlar,Dempsey knew he wasnt ready for the likes of s am, most of his wins up till then were over "tough man "types.Dempsey foughtGunboat Smith a year later over 4 rdswhen he was 21 ,and when he was 22 he kod Smith in 2 rds.Thi s would be good while it lasted,nice to have you back Suzie.

 

Yeah, you can't start a thread mentioning Jack Dempsey without at least three people bashing him and starting a huge argument. Some people are reasonable and have good arguments, some people just have a strange irrational hatred for Dempsey and just want to cause problems. It's starting to **** me off, makes me not even want to start a post about Dempsey because I know what'll happen.

 

Depends if Liston decides to give up when the going gets tough and either feign injury or collapse to the the floor and roll around from an innocuous punch

 

The critical factor is that you have learned it from a group of narrow minded people who do not look beyond his record on boxrec and whatever film they can dig up.

When you look at the whole picture it becomes aparent that the people who actualy saw Dempsey fight and lived into later eras were not delusional or stupid to the last man. What you have here is a group of kids (and I include you in this at the age of 37 or whatever) rewriting history based on a few limited resources and the gaps in their knowledge.

 

Some of us are more reliable sources than others it seems. One or two people on here just make stuff up when they're losing a debate. :good

 

Actually there were a few. In particular one of the main writers of Ring, whose name escapes me at the moment, but was at ringside for Willard, Firpo, Carpentier, etc. He never rated Dempsey that much, a bit higher than some of us on here perhaps, but not after he what came a bit later: Louis, Ali, etc.

 

Reliable refferences.

 

there are a number of posters on here yourself included who not only completely ignore contemporary sources but almost see a merit in doing so.

Except perhaps on the rare ocasions when they suport your viewpoint. Indeed you place some value on the testimony of this reporter (except of course when he turns round and says that Jeffries was the greatest ever) but apparently verry little on that of Ray Arcel.

 

His name was Dan Daniel actually, he wrote for Ring for many a year. I only pretended I'd forgotten his name. :good

 

Source?????????????

And perhaps a few of his other opinions while you are at it.