In this thread the Dempsey supporters have been totally dominated in every department of logical reasoning, but still make the same arguments. It is frightening, really. I mean, Duran supporters often get on my nerves, but at least there's ample basis for Duran's greatness. The only argument here is that Dempsey's contemproraries regarded him as the best, even though they never got to see him against the best competition. Well, except when he was well beaten by it. But that doesn't count somehow. Why is it so important for some to believe in the Dempsey myth? I can't really get my head around it.
Actually he was inactive for more than six years of his 7 year reign. He was inactive from 1923 to 1926 but he was also inactive from july 1921 to july 1923 (The bout that some now claim as an actual fight - Jimmy Darcy, was just an exhibition, despite some trying to make it otherwise... for the purpose of being able to say "hey I found a long lost Dempsey bout that has never been recorded), AND he was inactive from July of 1919, when he won the title, until Sept of 1920. When you really look at his record closely the guy was sitting on his laurels and cashing on the HW BOXING title by doing things other than boxing. He would pop up now and again to make a token defense here and there but largely his inactivity worked in his favor because the fans were so anxious to see him that they would accept him facing lower quality competition. Besides he could always pull the old "I need a tuneup" excuse after his long periods of inactivity, fight his tuneup for a fortune, and then go inactive again.
C, I have never stated that Jack Dempsey's championship reign was the most impressive in history.Never, Never. What I do state that I along with great historians, trainers, sports writers ,and boxers of the past as Sam Langford, Mickey Walker, Jack Sharkey, Gene Tunney, Max Schmeling, placed Jack Dempsey amongst the best heavyweights in history,maybe the best, taking into ACCOUNT his inactive years, pursuing the pleasures of Hollywood. These men,knew of Dempsey's career, and still thought that no heavyweight was BETTER, in spite of what people like you deem the opposite. And i go along with these wise boxing men, as opposed to closed minds as you, with due respect...We are talking about MAN to MAN, not career to career, let it be clear C. I have to repeat this, Ad Nauseum===Joe Louis,who i adored ,NEVER tackled many great BLACK fighters of his reign. Louis and his management never gave these dangerous punchers as Elmer Ray, Lee Q Murray, Lem Franklin, Harry Bobo, Curtis Shepperd, Jimmy Bivens [some I had seen], a MONEY SHOT at his belt, opting for the likes of such inferior fighters as Red Burman, Tony Musto,Harry Thomas,Al McCoy,Jack Roper,who would have been flattened by the great black belters i mentioned above. This is a fact that you and others conveniently ignore. It is called selective arguments,when you tear down a Dempsey for not fighting a dangerous opponent, whilst ignoring the elephant in the room,in this case Joe Louis's avoidance of a slew of great black punchers. Why? What is good for the goose is good for the gander,I say ! Have a good day ... P.S. My argument above doesn't detract one whit ,the ability of Jack Dempsey or Joe Louis as a fighter. They did what managment deemed,after all...
Do you have any substantial about Miske's condition when he challenged Dempsey? Are there good sources to suggest he was sick?
yes, it was the worst kept secret in boxing. He had already retired once due to an "ailment" which at the time was called serious. He then returned to try to make money stating that he had been misdiagnosed and that it was in fact a pinched nerve. few believed it. He had done nothing to earn a shot at dempsey's title and training camp reports talk about Miske's sickly grey skin color etc. Miske did so poorly against Dempsey (and Greb was so impressive in training with Dempsey and stole the show on the undercard) that reports state Greb would have been better placed as Dempsey's opponent than Miske.
1) I accept wholeheartedly that wills was a great fighter and the most legitimate challenger for the majority of dempsey's reign. From all accounts dempsey signed to fight wills, but the promoter couldn't get the cash together. So i'm not convinced it is fair to say dempsey ducked wills. But as I said, history doesn't change. He was recognised by every man and his dog as the champ up until he lost. 2) the thing here is about times. Back then champs could be inactive and go years without a defence. In 88 i'm not convinced the same could be said. Obviously if we transport the 80's to the 20's holmes could have done exactly that and be seen as the champ. Certainly today it could not be done, but times are different now. I must say I don't really agree with the tactic of retrospective criticism. It'd be like saying hearns beat leonard because he was up after 12 rounds. You can't apply aspects of the times to era's when they weren't aspects if you get me. So I feel strongly that you have made a silly comparison that can't be taken seriously. Hell using your logic dempsey was never champ at all because willard should have been stripped right?
Dempsey beat the **** out of Jess Willard, who had knocked out Jack Johnson. Why doesn't that count for anything, yet so much is made of his fights with Gene Tunney ?
Why he didn't face Wills doesn't matter (and that has also been said dozens of times here, but you just ignore it). What does matter is that Dempsey didn't prove himself against the best challengers. And whatever every man and his dogs say, you can't by definition be the best if not proven against the best. AGAIN: Whether Dempsey's conduct was legitimate or not for the time doesn't matter. No matter what time you're in you have to beat the best to be the best. And, yes, the fact that Willard was old and inactive and had taken the title from an old an inactive champ undermines the importance of Dempsey's win. To compare: More is made of Dempsey's destruction of Willard than Holyfield's onesided KO of Douglas. This even though Douglas had beaten a prime version of Tyson the same year, while Willard had beat an old version of Johnson 4 years earlier.
It does mean something. But how much more should it mean than when Holmes outclassed a 38-year old Ali coming back from inactivity? Tyson destroyning Spinks is more impressive in my book. Liston's destruction of Patterson certainly is, as is Holyfield's win over Douglas and Frazier's over Ellis.
Dempsey was an exeptional heavyweight talent who indulged in a less-than-great championship run; when we consider the heavyweight championship tenures that always get a thumbs up - Louis, Ali, Holmes - they're all full of defences - Dempsey's at just 5 is sorely lacking in that favoured 'longevity' module. Further, there is a huge dose of 'ballyhoo' attached to Dempsey's legend which makes trying to put some of his fights into perspective difficult. Richard ingenously built them up to be the 'be-all-and-end-all' of spectacles but that shouldn't backfire, though it often does with capable men like Carpentier and Firpo being discarded as unworthy sideshows. We all aware that Dempsey did not fight Wills, for what ever reason, and it will always count against him (rightly so), but again, there can harvest a bias, negative charge where it spills over, hurting his better points. His pre-title surge matched with his patchy, but decent reign makes for a nice resume, and contemporary opinion (which does account for a lot) is greatly in favour of him. Where would Tyson be without that fierce reputation?
WTF are you talking about. They were unworthy sideshows. Firpo was exactly that. He was brought over and promoted by Rickard specifically for the purpose of being slaughtered by Dempsey in a massive gate attraction. Period. Same with Carpentier. Carpentier had a bought and paid for championship and that is the ONLY qualification he had for facing Dempsey. When promoters have to close a guys camp because they are afraid that a percieved mismatch will hurt the gate then something is seriously wrong with the competition. When you have to create stories about new secret invented punches, and hypnotism beating the champion then its safe to say you are counting on ballyhoo to sell the fight and not an actual competetive match.
I am going to have to half disagree with you here. While Carpintier was something of a manufactured challenger Firpo was a legitimate challenger who deserved consideration for a title shot.
