Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

He was the final chapter of the White Hope era. Society had been in a state of depression whilst Johnson reigned. Once they took the title back, and banned blacks from fighting for titles, they had an era of white-only champions, and they called it a Golden Era. Jack Dempsey's entire being and resume, personified this era completely.

 

1) Color line controversy.

2) Mediocre title reign, infrequently defended and so-so performances. Long though.

3) Lost to some questionable fighters, and lost to the best fighter he ever fought, 19/20 rounds.

4)Took the title in a fantastic performance.....against an old, inactive champion with a bad reign himself.

5)The long count was all Dempsey's fault any way you slice it, although the ref did count for Tunney immediately which I think isn't fair.


Basically there is a lot of mythologizing about Dempsey's ability that seems to pan out not so well in footage and in his record. He had trouble with some fighters that were supposed to be his vast inferior, shows a modicum of boxing skill but more physical talent than anything else... It just doesn't look as good as it should, and something similar has happened to perceptions of Johnson. Dempsey's contemporaries rate him so highly that it seems we're missing out on something, but a lot of the evidence is damning as far as a top ten heavy ranking goes.

And I'm a Dempsey fan.

 

I have to respectfully disagree.

I personaly regard the black dynamite era as the greatest in the history of the sport. I also think that it was a bubble rather than the begining of a trend.

Jack Dempsey might have been protectd by the colour line but people in other weight classes wern't. The subsequent era saw the dominance of white predominantly jewish fighters.

 

Trial by boxrec.

I am not saying that the people who criticise him are wrong or malicious.

 

Yep, which is funny isn't it? 1919-1929 is the greatest collection of white talent there ever was:

Leonard, Greb, Britton, Dempsey, Walker, Loughran, Tunney, Gibbons, Lewis, Lynch, Dundee, Mandell, etc etc

 

I agree with every word here.

I do think that Dempsey looks quite good in several aspects, though. A further development from Johnson and in many ways an inspiration for generations of fighters to follow.

It's just that his legend gets in the way of any kind of rational discussion. If you point out the simple fact that nothing he did places in him in the company of Louis and Ali, let alone Fitz, Armstrong, Greb, Robinson etc you're a disrespectful hater. And that kind of skewed perspective can make it hard sometimes to appreciate what he actually achieved and was capabable of.

 

the sad things is that despite all this stupid bickering about the atg placement of the man we never talk about the things Dempsey did that revolutionized the game or set him apart:

1)He was the first sophisticated swarmer at heavyweight and arguably period. Everyone else, burns, sharkey, etc are like little rugby players trying to wrestle for leverage and just hit. Dempsey moves his head rather well in his prime and does a great job of probing for openings. He's not the best at cutting the ring off and pressuring behind a jab but he does draw an opponent fairly well into making their move and then he punishes them with an assault. Matter of fact, frazier, tyson, marciano etc. would not be the same today without him and iirc all of them give dempsey a fair bit of credit(tyson was in awe of the man)

2) He did take on men with big size advantages and destroyed them. I have no compunctions about favoring him in hitting matches, he is very good on the inside and if he can land on a man, he can hurt them badly. He also has very good powers of recovery and like Louis or Marciano if you deck him or hurt him he will instinctively roar back with his own assault. He's fast and strong, no doubt.

3) He has good but inconsistent boxing skills, I guess. Kind of like Iron Mike, actually. We see some footage of him bobbing and weaving very well, as well as circling on the outside well against Willard. But the later footage shows a plodding man that follows a fighter around the ring all day and doesn't pull the trigger when the opportunity presents himself.

I guess he's one of those guys that has been colored by their existing footage. There is such a thing as an inconsistent performer and Dempsey seems to have been one. But brilliant at peak form.

 

I very much agree with this.

 

No, the rule is that you get to that neutral corner as soon as a fighter hits the deck. The count does not start till that. The fishy thing is that when DEMPSEY gets dropped Barry starts the count right away which is pure bull****.

Dempsey's ranking has also changed because the heavies have changed. They're bigger, and some of them were very good despite their size. There were superheavies and larger guys around in Dempsey's era and before, but they were mostly pretty mediocre. Big guys like Ali and Lennox change the game a little bit. And then there's guys like Louis, Walcott, Marciano, Charles etc who look very good on film regardless of era.

Basically it's hard to say. Perceptions of era are hard to nail. The general consensus seems to be that Dempsey would defeat Wills and Greb by knockout, but then again people were saying similar things about Tyson that weren't true either, hmmm? Explosive, dynamic champions can sometimes create perceptions of ability that are inflated. We see it with Tyson, Ali, Louis, Dempsey, Duran, and a few others. Just the nature of the beast.

EDIT: Dempsey could really crank out some rapid fire heavy blows. When he put tunney down he really laid it on thick. And he was capable of some good short punching from time to time:

This content is protected

 

Not defending against Wills is devastating, although even Harry said it wasn't Jack's fault. Regardless, the fact is that Dempsey-Wills never came off. He was the highest paid athlete in 1925 without having defended the title. The championship was mothballed in 1922, 1924 and 1925, after promising years in 1920 and 1923. But what should have been his peak was largely squandered to inactivity. As has been pointed out, those who witnessed him in action have died out, while at least one opponent of Louis still lives among us. (I'm referring specifically to Jimmy Bivins.)

Was Jack Sharkey a great come from behind win, or a low blow triumph? Did Firpo shove him out of the ring, or was it a legal punch? Did Tommy Gibbons expose him for Tunney, or was that actually one of the Mauler's most impressive wins?

Dempsey was lauded and carried aloft out of the ring when he dethroned Willard, and he endeared himself to the public after Philly for, "Honey, I forgot to duck," but he wasn't especially popular as a reigning champion after slacker allegations surfaced about his failure to serve in uniform. (Greb was in the USN, Carpentier a decorated French aviator, and Tunney in the USMC, among numerous other champions and stars involved in the war effort.) Then, the pendulum swung the other way when he became a sympathetic former champion. His service in WW II and insistence to come ashore and participate in combat at Okinawa further offset the earlier slacker allegations. (Ali claimed after his career that he was prepared to go to war for the US during the Iran hostage crisis, and much later after 9/11, but of course never had the opportunity or physical ability to walk the talk as Dempsey did for the USCG.) One extreme to another, then back again.

Very much in his favor is the fact that "Championship Fighting" was such a tour de force of instructional information. He literally wrote the book on how to do it, a manual Bruce Lee appropriated and applied to his own teachings. By virtue of this treatise, he became ranked as an authority on pugilism alongside Haislet and Walsh.

 

Championship Fighting made me a Dempsey fan. It's hard for me to equate someone with being a crude slugger with no boxing skill and simultaneously write something like that. The hitting mechanics and principles described in that book helped me hit much harder, and it's got an overall good look at the basics too. You'd think that the book would be written with a slant towards Dempsey's style, but it's pretty general to all practitioners of boxing. Still one of the best manuals ive ever read.

I wish Leonard had been able to finish the one he was purportedly working on...

 

Luf, very good post ! To ANSWER your last question. One word suffices :
AMNESIA !!!
Yes selective AMNESIA.!!!
DEMPSEY,whether some posters like it or not,was at his best, a lithe and
powerful bobbing and weaving machine, blending the speed of a welterweight atop the frame of a 210-15 heavyweight. By all who saw him at his peak, he was very tough to hit solidly on his chin, as his chin was always tucked in his shoulders. Seldom if ever was he cut,very tough and leatherly,
was his face. No one was rougher or tougher than Dempsey. A powerful puncher with both hands,with a do or die attiutude never excelled by a
heavyweight. His blows were lethal from less than a foot [watch the 2 punch combo] that decimated a crude but POWERFUL Firpo in the second round !
So blurring was this combo, it is hardly seen on the existing tape. Jack was a force to be reckoned with by any heavyweight that ever lived. Our ancestors
who WATCHED the Manassa Mauler,in his prime had a better handle of Jack
Dempsey's greatness than today's naysayers, eighty or so years after his
plied his trade. Thanks for your input Luf.:good