While its true Dempsey lacks a win over another all time great heavyweight, and he has some shady outcomes in some of his most famous matches, I believe he has done enough to rank as a top all time 10 heavyweights. Here's why I beleive Dempsey should be highly rated: *Power. Dempsey was a true two fisted puncher, with knockout power in both the cross and the hook. Many punchers only have fight ending power in one hand. With Dempsey, once he landed his best, the other guy often went down quickly, and shortly after that was O-U-T. Dempsey was not an attrition type of puncher like Marciano or Frazier was in most cases. Dempsey carried his power well into the later rounds too. *Size and Style. Dempsey was an aggressive swarmer / stalker type who excelled as both an out fighter, and an in-fighter. He worked the head and the body equally well and could string together combinations. At 6’1 1/2”, and 77” of reach, Dempsey was by no means a short or limited reach type of fighter. While a prime Dempsey weighed about 188 pounds in the 1920’s, he had no trouble knocking out modern sized heavyweights, and some of them had top chins. Dempsey had the frame to properly carry about 205-210 pounds. *Speed, reflexes, and agility. Dempsey had excellent hand speed, good reflexes, and unusually quick feet in comparison to all great heavyweights. He could move forward, backwards, or in a circular motion to get angles on others fighter. Most punchers just aren't this fast with their hands or their feet, nor can they circle or get angles then attack the way Dempsey could. Dempsey has a speed advantage over most sluggers, a reach and height advantage over most swarmers, and the footwork speed to catch up to the deluxe boxer types. When you combine this with his power and aggressive nature, you have a unique type of fighter. *Chin. Dempsey has one KO loss in 83 fights. This is very good. Dempsey fought a few good punchers. He survived a chin checking shot vs Fripo, and a pasting from Jack Sharkey. Dempsey was not a chinny puncher at all. *Heart and will to win. Dempsey proved he had a ton of heart in the Fripo match, and would do what it took to win. The hardest place fight is in the clinches. In the clinches, Dempsey was at home. In fact he was pure hell. * Stamina. A prime Dempsey had true 15 round stamina. * Defense. Dempsey had a very good slip and duck type of defense, which can be seen on film. Most swarmer types who prefer to attack do not have this good of a defense. * Ring record. 66-6-11 at Box rec. The losses to Tunney were vs another all time great when Dempsey was past his best. One of those losses to Tunney is marred by “ the long count “, which might have been a KO win for Dempsey if there was no problem with the count. Besides the Tunney losses, Dempsey lost to Flynn. The Flynn loss was avenged via KO. Dempsey never lost a match scheduled for 6 rounds or more. Had the Meehan fights been 10 round affairs, Dempsey likely wins via TKO late. Meehan was a cheese type of fighter who moved, covered up, and came back with slapping type of punches. * Quality wins. Dempsey holds wins over Fripo, Willard, J. Sharkey, Gibbons, Carpentier, Brennan, Miske, Gunboat Smith, Morris, Levinsky, Fulton, and Pelky. Dempsey owns a KO win over all these ranked fighters, except for Gibbons who ran for 15 rounds. *Historical opinions. Dempsey is a highly rated fighter to this day. Boxing historians, mangers, referees, promoters, fighters, and fans who saw Dempsey rated him in the top 3 in the 1940’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s and 1970’s. In 2007 the IBRO, a group of boxing historians gave Dempsey their #4 spot in the top 20 among heavyweights. While I think these rating might be a trifle high, they do speak volumes about opinions on Dempsey in multiple decades. *Film. There is no doubt Dempsey had some speical performances on film in the ring, and in sparring session that live up to his legendary status. Not all old timers perform on film as good as their legend suggests they should have. While the film quality on Dempsey isn’t smooth or crystal clear, we can get a good feel for what he was about.
Here's where I don't agree. He looks great against Willard, but aside from that... I don't think he looks that great against either Brennan or Gibbons. Against Carpentier he looks vulnerable to lead rights. He dominates these guys on the inside, but Brennan and Carpentier are also natural LHWs. Dempsey's short punches looks devastating, but against Brennan, Gibbons and Carpentier he only looks really effective on the inside. Against Firpo he shows great heart and ability to come back. His short punches are very good in this fight as well. But defensively he looks far from good. I mean, Firpo makes Wepner seem almost smooth, but he still manages to nail Dempsey, and nail him good, several times during the short time the fight lasts. Against Tunney he simple looks outclassed. Sure, he was past his prime, but it's very hard not to not see a representative for more modern and sophistic boxing give the old-school guy a schooling when you watch that fight. IMO Louis, whose peak was only some 15 years after Jack's, looks leagues better on film. I'm not saying Dempsey looks crap - he doesn't - but I just can't relate to the talk about him looking fantastic on film when I watch him.
Dempsey had a quick prime. Since he was trying to take the other guys head off at times, he looks open to be hit, but so was Sugar Ray Robinson for the same reason.
Dempsey was always rated highly by most of best experts of the past but in recent times a lot of the younger so called experts leave him out. You got to remember the times or get a picture of what was happening in the world and hard times of the era. You also have to look at the champions before Dempsey and compare. Dempsey was the 1st million dollar gate in the times before media. He would have been a mega star today. Take into consideration how big of a star he was in his era, you can see why he was not as active as we would like him to be. The gibbons fight can be compared to Tyson-Tillis or Mitch Green fights, where the other guy came into survive. Dempsey had extreme power and recupritive power as well. Jack had good speed and his punching style allowed for him to take a solid blow, so his chin was tested indeed His fights against Tunney and Sharkey he showed rust but also fast 2 fisted power and this was against 2 well scholled future World Champions with solid resumes. Another thing we can not forget about Dempsey is that he was one of the meanest fighters ever and had excellent killer instinct. There are no time machines in boxing and when you compare boxers you have to either blend the era's,training methods,weight,etc. or you have adjust the fighters stats doing the moving. Jack Dempsey was the inspiration for the Charles Bronson movie " HARD TIMES" Dempsey was the best fighter and Heavyweight at that point in time. He was Mike Tyson before his time in a tough but booming era If anyone rate Jack Johnson or Jim Jeffries in there top 10 and excludes Dempsey something is wrong IMO If anyone rates Larry Holmes and Evander H. and leaves Dempsey out there is a definate favor of the modern era. Take into consideration of the era, the fighter and the state of boxing and the world at that time and then make a decision where to rate Jack.
This is what lets him down, his wins are well below the quality of: ALi, Louis, Lennox, Holyfield, Tyson, Jack Johnson, Holmes, Frazier, Foreman, Liston. Even Wills and Langford who fought in Dempseys own era have better wins resumes. And now Wlad is surpassing him legacy wise. its very very hard to put Dempsey in the top10 unless you have a personal bias towards him You've actually listed a win over a man near to dying in Miske alongside a journeyman or 2, and a couple of strong men. His best wins like Brennan were dominated before and after by Greb and Tunney, or Fulton/Firpo who were dominated by Wills. These werent near the best men of his era, Wills, Tunney and Greb were and he fought 1 of them and got schooled twice. Sharkey was a notable win but he cheated to get that and Sharkey was hardly Mr Consistant
I respectfully believe there to be a huge gap there. Robinson on film looks fantastic even against very good opponenets (LaMotta, Graziano for example), even though almost all film of him is from when he was past his peak. That's the difference between Dempsey and many of the ones I rate really high when it comes how they look on film. Louis, Ali, Holmes, Frazier, Tyson, Lewis etc looks fantastic against even very good (in some cases great) opposition. Of the film I've seen of Dempsey I don't believe he did. It's doubtful the version of Willard he fought falls in the category "of very good fighters". But to be clear, I'm not saying Dempsey looks rubbish by any means. Except for Tunney, he looks clearly better than his opponents in these fights. And they were among some of the best fighters around.
If you study the Willard bout you see just how terrific he looked. He also looked terrific against Gibbons, an extremely elusive cross between Jimmy Young and James Toney. He was sensational agaihnsrt Carpentier. He got caught with one right, rebounded immjediately and crushed him. His bodywork in that fight has to be studied in slow frame to be appreciated. It is not easy to avoid getting hit from lightning fast little guys. Brennen was a solid 200 pounder, not a light heavyweight. IT is known Jack played in NYC a bit too much for that fight, overconfident he would crush Brennen like he before. Instead Brennen fought the fight of his life and Dempsey still had the heart and late round stamina and power to come from behind and crush him. Firpo was all about will power and punching power. Inactivity did not helpp as Dempsey at this point was more like the post prison Tyson than the man on the top of his game. He took tremendous shots, survived them, landed terrific bombs and destroyed this harder punching, Oscar Bonavena type wildman. Tunney did not outclass Dempsey. Tunney beat a Dempsey with shot legs. Dempsey simply was a step too slow. Watch the fights in slow motion and see just how close Dempsey comes time and again.
This is more Dempsey bias Holmes, Holyfield, Johnson resumes are simply a level above Dempseys, its clear as day to any impartial viewer
But against a 37-year old that's been out of the ring for three years. I simply don't agree. But each to his own. I don't think he looks sensational, I think he looks far to easy to hit. And I just can't give him too much props for walking through a LHW on the inside. You would expect him too. For example, I think Frazier looks far better against a far better LHW in Foster. Never called Brennan a LHW. I know he was a legit HW of those days. But the fact remains, this fight doesn't support the opinion on how great Dempsey looks on film either IMO. Dempsey had not been inactive for four years like Tyson was in prison. So I don't accept that comparison. Also Tyson looks FAR better against McNeely even with all that rust than Dempsey does against Firpo. For me, comparing these fights shows just how off it is to liken Dempsey's defense to Tyson's. Sure, his legs wasn't what they used to be. But his head is still basically target practice for Tunney. I think he was outclassed. He won one round out of twenty and was badly marked up in both fights. This was partly due to Tunney being in his prime and Dempsey being past his, but it's also due to Dempsey just not being able to defend against Tunney's jabs and one-twos.
All those listed 'qualities' didn't prevent him from losing to journeymen before he grabbed the title from a bum like Jess Willard.
I think that's a bit unfair to Gibbons. Some thought Gibbons was slightly ahead after five rounds; then Dempsey switched from bombing to swarming and forced Gibbons into survival mode. I don't think Gibbons "came in to survive", in the sense of being in survival mode from the ery get-go.
Bokaj : You can disagree about Gibbons but you are incorrect. He was a terrific fighter and still in his prime. Dempsey fought him coming off three years of inactivity and looked terrific. Yes Willard was inactive but Dempsey weth through him like no one before of since. It easily could have been a Tyson/Bonecrusher type fight but it wasn't ... Brennen: Depends on how you look at it. He showed huge heart coming from behind and badly cut to win by single punch late round KO. That to me is greatness. Dempsey had the Gibbons fight three months earlier as his only bout in three years prior to Firpo. That is inactivity. To compare McNelly w Firpo is way off. Tunney could not land flush on Dempsey's jaw in twenty rounds. This is Tunney's own words. He was very hard to hit flush. His offensive minded style less legs made him get hit while fighting such a great fighter.
Dempsey fought Darcy one year before Gibbons. He had had four fights in the last three years. Not that many, but hardly inactivity. It was impressive. But I really don't rate that version of Willard I was only commentating on how he looked on film. And he didn't look that good, See above. There was no three year inactivity. Don't know where you got that from. Why? McNeely's punching was way more technically correct than Firpo's. And a Tyson coming straight from a four year inactivity wasn't hit cleanly once. Dempsey had had five fights in the last four years and was caught several times. The shots he managed to hit Dempsey with was more than enough. Dempsey's eyes was shut and his face a mess. It's very possible that Dempsey wouldn't have lasted through either fight had they been the standard 15 rounds. Yes, it's true that Dempsey was past his prime, but it's also true that he never met anyone with Tunney's skill before. When he met a skillful boxer that didn't give up that much size and strength to him, he was taken to the cleaners. Hard to know exactly what to take from those fights. Anyhow, my firm opinion is that only Dempsey's showing against Willard of what we on film justifies the view of him as monster on mid-range with great defense. And Willard was at the time 37 and coming off a three year lay-off. Against better opponents Dempsey's perfomances doesn't justify this view of him IMO. That intelligent people seriously claim he was more or less on par with Tyson just baffles me. Tyson would have slaughtered Firpo without a scratch to show for it. Willard, Carpentier etc wouldn't have gotten out of the first round either. Not even for his own time was he on par with Tyson IMO. I suppose it isn't unreasonable to have Dempsey in the lower half of your top 10, but I haven't.