Was Jack Dempsey The Dirtiest Heavyweight Champion?

Surely whether or not a guy is fighting "dirty" in any particular fight depends on the
rules of the day and the referee allowing dirty tactics to continue. I can recall many
Ali fights in which he leaned on the head of boxers, until Padilla in Manila stopped him
from leaning on Frazier. Of course the worst display of this tactic was Wlad-Povetkin.

Holyfields' headbutting was constant and disgraceful. Only got a warning once in a while.

 

The question is what was at that time considered a foul both in terms of the rules but just as importantly what was "let go" as within acceptable parameters. The fact that within 75-80 bouts Dempsey never lost via foul shows in of itself that he performed within what was accepted as within acceptable parameters.

Historians, if indeed they are in fact historians, would know that they should not look back on past events through today's eyes.

 

Hey Cherrypicker......why don't you for one time in your life act like a real historian. I know it's tough.

Dempsey fought 75-80 pro bouts and he was never DQed. A real historian would investigate why. Instead the Cherrypicker jumps to a completely invalid conclusion.

Ref stated both men were hitting low but nothing intentional nor severe. He also stated neither Sharkey nor Sharkeys corner complained about low blow up until the fights end.

The doctor in charge of the fight examined Sharkey and found no evidence of a foul blow being struck.

Think like the historian you're not.

 

I think that you have to make some allowance for the accepted practice of the day.

Some referees of the period enforced the rules if one fighter wanted a clean fight, but turned blind eye if both were mutually intent on fouling each other.

If you wanted the rules to be enforced, you often had to fight a clean fight yourself.

Some referees would even suggest that a fighter who had been fouled should foul back!

 

As far as the Sharkey fight goes, Dempsey wasn't hitting as low as people would like you to think. Sharkey notoriously wore his trunks high. If you look at the photo of them facing off, Sharkey's trunks are considerably higher than Dempsey's and Dempsey was an inch taller!

 

I'd give that honor to the guy who bit someone's ear off and made multiple attempts break opponents' arms in clinches, smash elbows into their faces.

Dempsey was a choirboy compared to Tyson.

 

Or he was just much smarter!

 

When you put it like that...

 

While there is a bit of gray area in the Sharkey fight, although I feel the film backs the fouling point of view, the real damning fight is the one with Firpo. If Dempsey didn't step over a line in that fight, there was no line to step over. I feel somewhat the same about the Willard fight. Certainly the most questionable tactic is standing behind a fallen opponent and attacking either while he was just getting up or at least before he was in a position to defend himself. I think these tactics were controversial at the time and led (appropriately) to rule changes to make such tactics impossible.

As for Dempsey never being disqualified, well, Lizzie Borden was never convicted either. Doesn't mean we all have to agree she certainly didn't swing that ax.

Besides being a foreigner, which in and of itself might have led to him being given the short end of the stick, Firpo managed himself. I have read a comment from Tunney that Tunney was in practice his own manager but nevertheless paid a de jure manager as he knew if he didn't he would end up getting shafted like Firpo did. His opinion was that it was suicide to cross the managers guild.

 

Ed.....your comments are just plain idiotic.

Lizzi Bordon had one day where she supposedly killed several people. Dempsey had a very long career of 75-80 bouts and he was never DQed.

It was common practice prior to Dempsey to stand over a downed fighter that's why you don't hear any clamor from Willard concerning being fouled. You would think Willard would be jumping up and down screaming he was fouled if Dempseys actions were against the rules or acceptable norms. He did not because they were not.

 

Perry

Okay about Lizzie. But what about Al Capone. He was convicted of income tax evasion, but never of murder. So he never had a hand in or ordered murders?

"you don't hear any clamor from Willard concerning being fouled."

Are you serious? Willard claimed Dempsey hit him with an iron bolt. I have not only read of this, I have heard Willard on tape. He made no bones about thinking that Dempsey cheated him out of his title.

"your comments are just plain idiotic"

absit invidia

As for standing over opponents, you have a good point that Dempsey got away with it. But is there any other boxer on film who actually goes behind an opponent? Also, it is a fact that the rules were changed during Dempsey's reign and his tactics probably were at the base of that.

Does any of this make him the "dirtiest" fighter of them all. Nah. What you can get away with you can get away with. The way of the world. But I have to say that compared to later champions he had a big edge in finishing an opponent when he could get at them before they were ready to defend themselves.

On the Sharkey fight, Dempsey did what Fritzie Zivic said a really good fighter should do. The purpose of hitting low isn't to disable the opponent, but to momentarily stun him with the unconscious reaction of dropping the gloves--so after the low blow go to the chin with a quick follow up punch. Like picks, holding, and push-offs in pro football, it is only a question of getting caught.

As you point out, Dempsey was never caught, so okay.

 

Back to the games, first off nobody has spent over 10 yrs dedicated to one guy, that is beyond hugging them nuts tightly, and defends him at the price of others. Nitpicks, cherry picks with spins and biases. The professor started this thread solely to dump on Dempsey. He is so obsessed that he went through the trouble of putting together a vid of Dempsey, trying to show how dirty Dempsey was. When the nuts he was hugging so tightly was without a doubt one of the dirtiest fighters of his time. Almost every article you read from that time, on the nuts the prof is hugging mentions how dirty he was. But here he creates a vid, starts a thread to put down an icon, that even today he is admired. While the nuts the prof is tightly hugging is not held in the the same high esteem that the icon is. Why cant you accept the fact that the nuts you so expertly hug, was too small for Dempsey, and that my nuthugging friend is the truth and the no matter what you think now, and how you may spin things to fit your agenda, Dempsey is still Dempsey, an icon. Now before you read something into this the nuts you hug was a great fighter and fought everybody true but Dempsey changed boxing forever, and has brought many, many new fans to boxing and has been a credit to the sport. Please tell me why Dempsey's film exist and Greb's doesnt? Dempsey's was preserved and Greb, nothing, why?? I know they were all destroyed by a fire, or just destroyed cos they were a fire hazard, but again why does Dempsey's exist and Greb's not?

 

Leave Ed alone he knows not what he is saying but is entitled to his opinion.