I have made very similar arguments time and again but Dempsey guys, like Marciano guys, don't want to deal with details. They have highly romanticized images of their heros and the facts do not matter. They gloss over them. I have always said I give Dempsey an incomplete because he stopped being a great fighter in Toledo. BY his own admittance he started regressing after that bout. I say this loving Dempsey. It's the facts.
I agree. Dempsey made a hell of a lot of money after the Willard fight but his reckoning as a fighter/champion are hardly enhanced by the fights that came afterwards. A bit maybe, but not a lot. And the inactivity is atrocious.
It's the whole rub ... Dempsey seemed to have the goods ... decent size at 6'1" , a solid 78" reach, lightning hand and foot speed, a great chin and tremendous two handed power not to mention a huge heart and was one nasty S.O.B. in the ring ... a real warrior who was tough as nails and loved to fight ... Image if he had a terrific trainer and worked his craft in the years following Toledo ? We may have seen a heavyweight version of Manny Paq based on facts and not propaganda. All this talk about all these writers saying how great he was ... I always say this is the "Liberty Valance" clause ... print the legend. I ask, based on what footage ? Putting aside Toledo against a very questionable Willard which footage ? If it was not on footage then on what ? How many writers traveled all over the country in 1918 to see him in some of his most fabled blow outs ? It's just questionable at best. I truly feel Marciano was an over achiever while Dempsey was an under achiever. To Rocky's credit, he fought everyone around and in my opinion improved right to his last fight. Dempsey to me is a great could have been, may have been but just not sure based on his prime record .. I'd be far more sure if in 1920 he fought Wills and Greb rather than Miske and Brennan .. maybe a Kid Norfolk as well ...I don't know if he was closer to a Gatti or a Paq .
The same thing applies to every unfilmed or pre-film fighter. Every report and source needs to be taken on its own merits. Undoubtedly many writers WERE following Dempsey in 1918, not just writers - fighters, managers, trainers. Dempsey seems to have had some rare talent. Rare, that is not to say unprecedented or incomparable. Of course, to take every statement as gospel and to take seriously the most hyperbolic of those statements would be foolhardy. But he must have been very good.
I agree which is why the in the ring record is so important ... Dempsey's inactivity and opponent selection was average to poor as champion ...
The problem is that while dempsey was barn storming pre championship he was caught blowing out sparring partners posing as opponents. So even then he was padding his record and how many times was he not caught.
How we rate Jack Dempsey today, depends on two points. As no one here on ESB,has ever seen the Dempsey of Willard,when he was in his prime,1917-1921 or abouts,rest on in my view= Whether all of the old trainers, boxing writers,fighters, who saw him fight,and raved about his prowess, were somehow suffering from mass hyperbole , or - Are the posters who never saw Dempsey at his best,but base their opinions on the resume of his opponents, and the fact that he was not an active champion,during his championship reign.? Are they swayed by the fact that though Dempsey signed for a bout with Wills, the bout was aborted and Dempsey never fought No.1 Wills.? If fate decreed that they had fought,[Dempsey/Wills],and Dempsey kod Wills,[most likely], how would Dempsey's detractors, then rate him ? So,it comes down to my rating Dempsey so highly,because of snippets of his greatness ,I have seen in the few films PRE TUNNEY, and rely on a myriad of boxing experts who saw Jack Dempsey,of Willard and before ,and extolled his greatness, as opposed to- Other posters who rely on his past peak Tunney days film, and who decry his opponents abilities, and relative inactiveness as a champion ? Tis one or the other. Or are we both right..?
In some ways Dempsey was the sewer but not the sewage. The conduit for what took place rather than the instigator. He was clearly a lot more receptive to the idea of fighting Wills on his merits than his trainers and promotors, or the state athletic comissions. Dempsey only fought Gibbons because he personaly pushed for it against the wishes of his team. If they had got their way, then Dempsey might have avoided Gibbons as well, giving him a hat trick of the three best fighters of the era! It is an irony of history, that the fighters before Dempsey who drew the colour line out of misguided principle, were damaged less by it. Sullivan and Jeffries did their worst, but there was nobody much worth ducking until it no longer made much difference!
Sullvan clearly ducked Jackson and Jeffries suffered the worst .. by refusing to fight Johnson in his own prime Jeffriescame back post time and got slaughtered ... as far as Dempsey goes I am sure he did not fear Wills initially but do believe it is possible as he got older and rustier he allowed himself to be convinced to fight others ..
I believe Dempsey would have fought anyone for the money he was demanding, if he knew it was guaranteed. And the easier the opponent the better. That's the same thing we're all looking for - the big payday, and easy work if possible. But I'm not sure he was shrewd or detached enough to pick his own opponents. Kearns was the shrewd one. Kearns made Dempsey. I seriously doubt Kearns would have put Dempsey in with Tunney after a 3-year layoff. I doubt he would have put him in with Wills straight away either, but he probably knew a 36 year old Wills would be safer than a 28 year old Tunney. But Kearns was taking 50 per cent, and more probably ! Still, if Dempsey had stayed with Kearns, we might have seen another 5 years of Dempsey's reign - what's that amount to .... Another two more successful defences ?
Without stirring **** up. Isn't it true that at one point you picked Dempsey against Wlad? I know you reverted on this pick, and I know styles make fights. It seems you're torn on Dempsey like most, but you've at least had a history of romanticizing him and propping him up higher than Marciano in some matchups, even if he didn't prove it. Nothing wrong with that I guess. Am I wrong, though?
OR the old trainers, boxing writers, fighters, who saw him fight, and raved about his prowess were watching him against fighters not qualified to test him...until Tunney. But keep playing the same song Burt. I guess it's the only one you know.