Why do people think Jack Dempsey is so good? He isn't

Dempsey lost to Meehan over 4 rds.So did Sam Langford, and Jeff Clark 4 months later. Langford btw stated Dempsey was the greatest heavyweight he ever saw.

 

While I don't want to call Langford a liar, African Americans seldomly gave their true opinions of famous white Americans at that time.

 

Jack Dempsey fought Willie Meehan in only four-round bouts. There are numerous times when inferior fighters beat better ones or at least holding their own in bouts which were scheduled for three or four rounds.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Weren't Dempsey bouts with Meehan billed as exhibitions?

 

I recently watched the Gibbons performance and it wasn't half bad. Dempsey controlled the action, not just via good old pressure, but through changing his attack. There's a decent jab and even lead rights. He spins Tommy up close to keep him off balance, Willie Pep style. The inside work speaks for itself. Jack really shows his versatility in this one.

It's perhaps what I value most about Dempsey. He was quite a cultured destroyer, if you will; light on his toes, merciless yet thoughtful. Legacy is a different matter. I agree his record is sorely missing a Black Panther, but Jack often divides people into extreme camps of praise and hate.

Talking strictly facts; Fred Fulton, Tommy Gibbons and Jack Sharkey are solid victories during a storming career in which, if you rate performances highly, then Jack shouldn't be too far down that top ten list.

 

Okay, but I sincerely disagree with you.

Record is not an opinion. Take Joe Louis. It is not opinion that he was champion for close to twelve years and defended his title 25 times. These are facts and make his record outstanding. Marciano's cleaned out the division, knocked out every rated fighter he fought, and retired with a perfect record. Those are facts.

Now, saying these men are not as good as their records because the competition was poor is an opinion (and why the competition would be poor when boxing was a much more popular sport is not explained other than falling back on the size argument).

Dempsey is a different historical case. Here it is his supporters who claim he is better than his spotty record which simply can not match Louis or Marciano (and why the opposition is tougher when the champion draws the color line is never explained).

"heavyweight by modern standards"

I find this totally irrelevant. Dempsey, or any other champion, obviously fought in their own time AND WERE HEAVYWEIGHTS BY THE STANDARDS OF THEIR OWN TIME. That is the only standard which makes any sense.

The heavyweight division is the unlimited division and the champion the man who can beat any other man walking the Earth in a boxing match. It doesn't matter if he is 185 lbs., 200 lbs., 215 lbs., or 300 lbs.

If you try to use a sliding scale, don't forget the scale won't necessarily stop sliding. "Modern" will be old-time in fifty or a hundred years. Perhaps athletes will continue to get bigger and champions like Wlad and Vitali will be viewed as small. Don't forget, Joe Louis (6' 2"-197 lbs. the night he won the title) was considered a big heavyweight in his day.

Interestingly, the two old-time heavyweight champions who meet the "modern" definition of size, Willard and Carnera, were two of the more mediocre champions and were utterly destroyed by Dempsey and Louis.

 

Excellent post and I agree completely. The sorts of arguments where factors like, size, conditioning, modern training methods vs old, rules of the game or drawing color lines apply, is those consisting of actual fantasy match ups. And even those are inconclusive. But it has nothing to do with rating a fighter's legacy. I liked your analogy the other day which compared NFL football teams from the 50's,60's, 70's, etc.. Regardless of weather or not the 2013 Jacksonville Jaguars ( arguably the worst team in this season's league ) would beat the 1972 Miami Dolphins, it doesn't change nor taint the greatness of what that team did in 1972.

 

Jack Dempsey had the largest number of first round knockouts of any heavyweight boxer - a record that stood for nearly a century until it was finally broken about 5 or 6 years ago. He KO'd top challenger Carl Morris in record time. He destroyed an aged Willard just as emphatically as Tyson demolished similar versions of Holmes and Spinks. He fought and defeated numerous tough opponents prior to his title reign and lots of unrecorded bouts under the name " kid Blackie." Whilst its true that he never met Harry Wills and a few others, his accomplishments are to be accredited. Sometimes a fighter's greatness goes beyond just who he beat or what he did in the ring.. His popularity made him the first athlete to ever generate a million dollars, and his fighting style and personality brought popularity to a division that had been long void of excitement.

 

Just on the million dollar gates--yes, but part of it was being in the right place at the right time.

Attendance at sporting events exploded in the 1920's in other sports also, with crowds unheard of earlier.

Much is made of Tunney-Dempsey II drawing 105,000 at Soldier's Field in 1927, but it wasn't the largest crowd at that stadium that year. The Notre Dame-USC football game in 1927 at Soldier's Field drew an estimated 120,000.

The 1929 Notre Dame-USC game at Soldier's Field drew an official attendance of 112,912.

Not doubting that Dempsey was charismatic and a great draw, but something in the times seemed to lead to the great sport boom.

 

True and in truth I think part of the sports bloom also had to do with other attractions blossoming. Babe Ruth being one of them.

 

Dempsey fought some black guys.

I think this is an indefensible position.

 

I agree a cultured destoyer of opponenets, sometimes just a killer.
if there ever were fantasy heavyweight tournament i think dempsey would take it

 

No, the bouts between Jack Dempsey and Willie Meehan were billed as regular ones.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Meehan has some good scalps, no doubt.

I get the idea that fighters gave more regard to a 20 round fight than a 4 round fight back then.

Beating somebody elite in a 4 rounder, was perhaps a bit like beating a good marathon runner in a 10k?