Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

And in a remarkable coincidence, Tunney's record just so happens to include two victories over the very same Jack Dempsey.

:hat

 

Listen to what Ray Arcel has to say about Jack Dempsey. You won't find a more knowledgeable Boxing man than Arcel.

Jack Dempsey could fight and I just shake my head those that bring race into the equation. It is idiotic.

 

Wow, this.

I've been trying for years to articulate basically what you just said. Thanks. Im in hearty agreement.

 

Dempsey looks great on film, IMO.
But that's largely a matter of taste, and film, the old film especially, will never capture the true impact of a fighter as he appears in the flesh.
Film of him in his prime is both rare or limited, and of relatively poor quality.

His results speak for themselves.
You can fine-comb almost anyone's record and find faults and gaps and circumstances that tarnish the opposition - NO ONE fights everyone else when they were at their peak or fights only the most qualified rival at every juncture, in fact it's pretty much a universal law of boxing that great young fighters come up against the slightly over-the-hill or less-than-great peers who fill the ranks at the time. Some of whom may have been great in their own right hand they not run into a prime Dempsey, a Louis or an Ali.

And if Demspey had fought Harry Wills, I'm pretty sure that those who try now to discredit him for not doing so would be quick to dismiss as another old has-been.

Dempsey's inactivity as champion is understandable. He had fought at least 60 fights in 5 years leading up to the title, perhaps 100 fights or more. As champion he filled his time between defence making money in exhibition bouts and movie appearances. Let's be honest, active champions like Ali and Louis and Holmes resorted to fighting complete unknowns and unqualified novices to pad their championship records. Even a Carpentier has better credentials than an Evangelista or a Coopman, and was a huge draw besides.

 

This, plus it should be noted exciting fighters usually get overrated. The 'great historians' probably haven't even examined his record under the microscope if they view him above other champs in terms of greatness

The long count is the biggest none issue I've heard, it's the refs count not an exact second hand, and the fighter who is down is entitled to stay down until the ref counts 9, regardless of a seconds hand. Tunney was clearly in control and ready to be up by 9

 

It's never acceptable not to defend your title for three years. And you wouldn't make this silly defense for any other fighter. You're just as, if not more, guilty of making excuses for him as those who you (rightly) accuse of making excuses for Robinson in the Maxim-Robinson thread.

The same year Ali defended against Coopman, he also did what Dempsey failed to do during his entire reign: defend against the two top contenders, Young and Norton.

1977 was Ali's worst year as a champion, but still he managed at least one credible defence (Shavers) beside Evangelista. How is this not better than none?

Holmes got a bit lazy and failed to defend against the best in the early 80's, but he is also roundly critized for this. As is Ali for his lackluster reign after Norton III. Still this is better than making no defenses while having an oustanding challenger in the wings.

 

People need to get real - basically the period Dempsey took out as champ was not something viewed as particularly unusual in the day - Willard did the same pretty much - if it was viewed the same way then then Dempsey would've been stripped end of - but thats not the way it was then - obviously if there was any threat of him ever being stripped then he would've been back in the ring in a flash end of - yes we all wish he'd continued fighting during that period because that is what we now expect but hey -

and the Wills thing - Dempsey would've blasted him out anyway end of - fight didn't happen because it would've caused race wars again and no one could be arsed with that and people really didn';t see much point in risking that over a fight which Dempsey would've ended within a couple of rounds anyway

only people who look for reasons to tear Dempsey to shreds are racist people who hate whites - unfortunately there are a lot of them around these days because it is actively encouraged in popular culture everywhere - everyone knows it end of

 

Not really. I'm as white as snow and i find it pretty easy to criticize Dempsey.

His championship reign was abysmal.

He didn't fight black fighters.

He looks completely amateurish in certain footage.

I'm a fan of his and think that he is an atg but there are definately valid criticisms to make of him.

 

I'm blond, blue eyed and quite ok with that.

If someone wanted to put Liston, Frazier or Tyson with Greb and co, I would think they were full of it as well. The only HWs that could in any way be included in such a discussion is Ali and Louis - and I find even that a bit of a stretch.

 

P, look at that power and torque Dempsey unleashed with that SHORT left hook. Unprecedented by a heavyweight. We must remember this was a faded
Dempsey who had no legs left ,and reflexis gone,tackling the prime Jack Sharkey. Dempsey was 32 at this time ... This business of hitting Sharkey in the "nuts" before the ko is bogus. The punches were if at all 'borderline", and
the fact is Dempsey was weakening Sharkey round by round, as the film shows. Just look at those digs to the body,just takes the steam out of Sharkey. The end was inevitable. !
In a preceeding round ,just after the bell,Dempsey, walking to his corner, hands by his side, is smacked on the head by a heady Sharkey. Dempsey doesn't flinch or complain to the referee, nay. This was a MAN amongst men...And in my eyes Dempsey and Joe Louis,are still the greatest heavyweights of alltime,lard be damned...

 

Yes, Dempsey looks crude in some footage but he has his moments of brilliance that make him look fantastic. It's clear to me that he's an inconsistent technical performer. Sometimes he counters well and moves his head superbly, other times he's a plodder who can be dragged around the ring like a dog on a leash. His style is inconsistent and ambiguous as well, he can be a crude but mobile boxer puncher, he swarms, and sometimes he looks like a crude slugger. I think it's a combination of a few things.. Ring rust kills top level swarmers. These fighters are at their best when they're fighting constantly. I blame Kearns a bit. By protecting Dempsey so much I think he wasted the mans prime and his potential. Sounds ironic to say that now given perceptions of Dempsey at the time, but I think he could have been even better if he fought at a higher pace in terms of bouts.

Tunney and Dempsey were a bit past their physical prime when they fought. It affected Dempsey more because of his style and inactivity, but there you go.

Dempsey LB'd sharkey but didn't hit his nuts, and it's his ****ing fault for gazing up at the referee like a moron.

 

PP,you say being on the canvass for 15-17 seconds is a "non-issue ". Never heard that claim before. Even if Tunney had to get up at 9 seconds , he would have certainly be dazed and befuddled ! Five to 7 seconds can be an eternity
allowing a boxer to clear his fogged brain, for sure. Something was "funny" in that "long count bout". For example the Chicago based referee ,in the last round,when Tunney dropped Dempsey with a right on the temple, STARTED
his count, IMMEDIATELY whilst, Tunney was right next to the fallen Dempsey.
Why didn't the referee wait for Tunney to walk to a neutral corner, before he started his one count as he did when Dempsey floored Tunney. The ref waited til Jack walked over to a neutral corner, thus allowing several seconds, to
start his count.Double standard ?Yep. Hanky-Panky ? Probably... Cheers...

 

one of the greatest fighters of all time


under appreciated and underrated on this message board.


imo

 

I'm not making excuses. Just saying I understand why he was inactive. He was making money elsewhere. I'd say the same for Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Braddock too.

Dempsey's three year absence between Firpo and Tunney was actually largely due to legal disputes with his estranged manager Jack Kearns. The contract he was tied to expired September 1926, I think, whereupon he fought Tunney.

You can accuse Dempsey of being badly managed or you can accuse him of wanting to make to cash in and make money.

I'm certainly not making excuses for him losing a fight, so the Robinson-Maxim thing is completely different.

Dempsey fought real contenders too, or are you going to argue that Firpo, Brennan, Gibbons and Tunney were not contenders ?

My point was, the most "active" champs filled their championship records with some "challengers" who were not even worthy of the name. To make easy money.
It wasn't a criticism of Ali.

I didn't say it isn't.
I was just pointing out that men who defend 4 or 5 times a year are likely including some crappy fights that are little more than glorified exhibitions.

Well, the business set-up of boxing changed a lot between 1920s and 1970s/80s.
It was easier for Holmes to be active in championship fights for big money, and he could fight complete unknowns too. Holmes earned his purse from revenue from TV advertising, guaranteed. Prime time on ABC television. And the TV sports execs could throw him in with anyone for two or three fights in a row until they fear ratings might begin to dip. Same with Ali in the late 70s.

In Dempsey's day it was a bit different. It was the age of big impresarios and high risk.

 

Whatever the reasons it's never going to help a fighter's record if he's inactive when there are truly worthwhile challenges out there. Especially not if it's the best possible opponents in the only weight class he's active in. It's damaging for his HW ranking (even if there are others, like Frazier, with truly awful years of their reign) and much more so if we compare against the top p4p.