Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

:good

Sorry Chris but no. Your opinion will never be as valid as the like of Arcel, Hayes, Tunney, Langford, etc.

[url]http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/casey/MC_DempseyGreatness.htm[/url]

"Teddy Hayes had some kind of portfolio as a trainer. Among the legends he handled were Mickey Walker, Jack Johnson, Battling Nelson, Ad Wolgast, Joe Gans, Stanley Ketchel, Billy Papke, Tiger Flowers, Jack Britton, Benny Leonard, Freddie Welsh, Johnny Dundee, Pete Herman and Lou Brouillard

Who did Hayes consider to be the greatest of them all? Jack Dempsey

Boxing historian Mike Hunnicut, who had many conversations with Teddy Hayes, points out: “Teddy wasn’t a ‘good old days’ guy. He was always looking to tomorrow and the betterment of boxing. But he quite rightly observed that the excellent athletes forged from hunger and poverty began to disappear when life got easier and television helped to kill off the thousands of fight clubs. There were suddenly fewer fights and fewer fighters. As a consequence, there weren’t nearly as many fighters who had that inherent anger and ferocity. Other sports became popular and young men didn’t have to box for a living.

“Going through my notes from my various chats with Teddy, he said that Dempsey was the most perfect puncher with the most perfect hands ever. He was a very fast, instinctive athlete, a great natural fighter with perfect co-ordination and timing.
“He could take a punch – a real punch – and not ever be aware he was hit. He was able to take fighters apart when he was out on his feet – as he was in the first Gunboat Smith fight – like no other fighter ever. His hands were not just huge, they were incredibly strong and the hardest fists Hayes had ever seen. Every fighter has trouble with his hands at some time or another. Dempsey didn’t. They were the perfect weapons.


“I would say that the nearest thing to Dempsey in modern times, for an iron chin and unbelievable resilience, was Matthew Saad Muhammad. But Jack of course was far more talented than Saad and probably even tougher.”

 

[url]http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/casey/MC_DempseyFeature.htm[/url]

Arcel on Dempsey

"They come from men like legendary trainer Ray Arcel, who saw all the great champions through Mike Tyson

Did Arcel dwell in the past as an older man? Well, he trained modern fighters like Roberto Duran and saw the vastly underrated Argentine master, Nicolino Locche, and couldn’t speak highly enough of those greats. In the brilliant wizard Locche, Arcel saw a man he described as being even cleverer than Willie Pep.

So how did the great Ray assess Dempsey and the other heavyweights? Mike Hunnicut interviewed Arcel at length on different occasions and picks up the story. “You have to understand,” Mike explains, “that guys like Arcel are very measured and understated in their descriptions of fighters. It takes a lot to impress them, because they get to see and handle so many quality operators. If they tell you a guy was ‘pretty good’, they usually mean ‘excellent’. They may also take some time to warm to you and therefore warm to the subject.

“Arcel was a very quiet and polite man by nature, unbelievably knowledgeable about the fight game, yet never one to brag about how much he knew.
“But when we went deep on Jack Dempsey, Ray’s eyes lit up. For him, there was no other fighter past or present who could compare.”

Arcel’s verdict on the Manassa Mauler was thus: “Dempsey would have absolutely beaten any fighter who came after him – without a doubt. I know all about Joe Louis and how he knocked guys’ teeth out. I have every respect for Joe – I rate him number two. But Dempsey would have killed Louis, George Foreman, any of those guys. What Jack had was God-given – you can’t develop the kind of talent he had.

“Marciano? Same result. Dempsey would have murdered Rocky. I tell you, Jack would have chased everyone out of the ring. I trained Max Baer a couple of times and often got asked how good that booming right of his was and whether it was as good as anything Dempsey had. Are you kidding? It wasn’t even close.

“Mike Tyson might have got through a round with Dempsey, maybe two. People always asked me what Jack’s weaknesses were. That’s the point – he didn’t have any.”

Lou Stillman

Gruff, strict and taciturn, the legendary and brilliant Lou Stillman ran his famous New York boxing gym with a rod of iron. Like Ray Arcel, Lou could be shy and guarded in giving his opinion of different fighters.

Stillman saw thousands of fighters over a great span of years: champions, contenders, preliminary boys, ordinary men just working out. But one day Stillman saw one thing he never forgot. It was the angry punch with which the retired Dempsey knocked out Tony Galento in a sparring session. The sight and sound of that mighty blow being driven home was hard for even Stillman to believe. Right to the end, Lou maintained that it was the hardest shot he had ever seen and that Dempsey was the greatest heavyweight.

Ray Arcel was also a witness to the chilling incident and recalled that the punch nearly decapitated Galento.

Max Schmeling on Dempsey

Max Schmeling, always a very astute observer and commentator on the game, was similarly fascinated by Dempsey’s almost mystical qualities. In his twilight years, Max was asked to name the boxers who had impressed him the most down through the decades. “Trying to name them all would be a little too much,” Max replied.

“But, in alphabetical order, my short list of those boxers who will never be forgotten includes Muhammad Ali, Henry Armstrong, Georges Carpentier, Julio Cesar Chavez, George Foreman, Harry Greb, Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, Jack Johnson, Ray Leonard, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Carlos Monzon, Archie Moore, Willie Pep, Ray Robinson and Mike Tyson.

“But now I want to add, all by myself, one more name: Jack Dempsey. Despite all the class shown by the others, Dempsey was not only my own idol, he remains for me to this day the greatest of them all. He was the big daddy. He embodied the complete perfection of a professional boxer

Jack Sharkey on Dempsey

This content is protected

. Mike Tyson had just surged to the head of the division and Sharkey said of Mike, “There is only one heavyweight that I can see who would fit into the old school and that’s Tyson. They’re all cream puff punchers today except Tyson, and his secret is that he doesn’t waste many punches.”

Then Sharkey turned his attention to Dempsey and others “Jack Dempsey was the best because he was a real fighter, and if he hit you in the shoulder he could dislocate it.

“Ali was a real good boxer but he took too many punches in his training, which he didn’t have to take.

“Joe Louis was nothing sensational, being a methodical fighter, but he was a great finisher when he had his man in trouble.

“Rocky Marciano was very good and I almost put him up there with Dempsey. It would be a tough fight between those two but Dempsey, I’d say, was a better puncher.”

Gene Tunney on Dempsey

In a 1952 interview with ‘Look’ magazine, Gene spoke of Dempsey thus: “Jack Dempsey, I’m convinced, was our greatest heavyweight champion. In his prime, when he knocked out Jess Willard to win the title in 1919, he would have taken the four leading heavyweights of today – Jersey Joe Walcott, Rocky Marciano, Harry (Kid) Matthews and Ezzard Charles – and flattened them all in one night.

“These four men are honest, earnest, capable professionals. If they are not touched with ring genius, neither are they stumblebums. So I do not mean to deprecate them when I say Dempsey would have levelled them all in the same evening as follows: Matthews, two rounds. Charles, two rounds. Walcott, five rounds. Marciano, one round.

“A total of ten rounds. Even then, I don’t consider I’m giving Dempsey any the best of it. He might have demolished each of the four in less than one round. He was eminently equipped to do it. He had many championship gifts, including a great fighting heart and the ability to absorb a tremendous punch and recuperate astonishingly fast.

“The most remarkable thing about Dempsey’s fighting make-up was the shortness of his punching. His blows seldom travelled more than six inches to a foot. He had a trick of hooking his left to the body and then to the head in practically the same movement

“All the others were short, murderous jolts and digs to the heart and the kidney and the jaw. This ability of Dempsey to generate such punishing power over a few inches of swing, without seeming leverage, traced from a quick power inherent in his unusual shoulder conformation, with its high and bulging deltoid muscles.

 

That was one perfect, short, explosive left hook..a perfect example of perfection, so to speak.

 

Clever.

 

Dempsey is like Marciano in that many question if they would be competitive against the much bigger men of later generations ... both were terrific in their day and great pound for pound heavyweights ... it's just the blind devotion of some fans looks illogical when compared to the facts .. in addition, a lot of facts are glossed over ..

 

Vysotsky . Your post above said it ALL. I have read before ,. But all the above testimonials
to the truly great Jack Dempsey, i couldn't post as you just did. V, I want to thank you.
It is a damn shame that so many of today's "revisionists ", who revile Dempsey now, have a closed mind,and mindlessly ignore the opinions and knowledge of a Teddy Hayes, Ray Arcel,Lou Stillman, Jack Sharkey, Max Schmeling, that you cite above. Nothing can sway
these people, not logic, not the opinions of the top experts who saw Dempsey and the
HW champs after him, NOTHING. Your post should be required reading for serious posters on ESB. Even facts cannot change their thoughts.
For example, they defile Dempsey by saying that Dempsey was avoiding Harry Wills, when
a photo shows Dempsey and Wills SIGNING for a bout for promoter Floyd Fitzimmons.
The bout after the signing was cancelled because Fitzimmons could not come up with the money.Wills pocketed the deposit money. But DEMPSEY signed for that aborted bout.
And yet, some posters still deny it...Why ? They love to label Dempsey as a "racist" though
Jack fought John Lester Johnson, had several black sparring partners throughout his career
befriended JL Johnson when Johnson was ailing,and to top it all, Jack Dempsey had American Indian blood coursing in his veins...Some racist !!!
When I have posted before that the great Joe Louis, avoided many tough and dangerous
black heavyweights, such as LeeQ Murray, Lem Franklin, Harry Bobo, Jimmy Bivens etc
who should have gotten a money shot ahead of many inferior white bum of the month club.
This is a fact. Why does Joe Louis get a pass, but Dempsey is still reviled,ala Wills, though they DID SIGN. ? Tex Rickard ,Dempsey's promoter feared a riot that occured after the Johnson/Jeffries fight in 1910. What would have happened if Rickard did promote a Dempsey/Wills bout and riots ensued ,and lives were lost. ? He would be accused of
being responsible for the death of riot victims, for money greed. A no. no situation for
Rickard. To conclude V, I thank you for your informative post, and Jack Dempsey,
must be gratified too. He was truly a legend...Take care V ...

 

deal

 

Which cases are you refering to ?
I don't think he defended against anyone who was coming off a loss to Greb.
Lots of fights were billed as "eliminators".

Don't forget Jim Corbett !
Joe Louis actually holds the record, I believe. He went 4 years without defending. (Making his record of 25 defences even more remarkable !)

The closest you've been to Dempsey and Louis is probably black and white footage or clips on youtube.

It is what it is. He destroyed the champion, who was much bigger than him and known for his durability.
This doesn't OVERRULE the fact that Willard was 37 (he had won the title at 33, by the way), overweight and had defended in 3 years.
But none of those facts overrule what Dempsey did to him either.

How much footage of Wills and Greb have you seen ?
You tell us they are much better than the "amateurish" big men (your assessment) that Dempsey beat, but you haven't seen much (if any) of them.
The legions of writers who wrote the reports and articles in the 1920s on which you select the good points on fighters Dempsey's didn't fight are the very same people who largely tell us that, regardless, Dempsey was the greatest.

The generations who rated Dempsey either saw him and his opponents live and in the flesh, or consulted those who had done so the most.

These men didn't need newspaper archives, they WROTE the articles, they gave their ratings. And they sat next to dozens of men who did the same, at ringside, in training camps, or at the bar.

Of course, in 1950 they didn't have access to what has come since. But in 1950 they had Dempsey as the greatest, or on a par with Joe Louis. And similar polls and ratings had him very high for about 30+ years after that.

 

I agree.
People here will tend to dismiss such realities as "just an excuse" but it was a REALITY for the people of the times.
For them, Jack Johnson - Jim Jeffries was the reference point, and Dempsey-Wills would have been an even bigger event.
Rickard feared that it could kill boxing, and I daresay most local politicians behind closed doors were saying, "Not in my town!" in spite of what they may have been saying in public.

 

I read all that but all of them are simply hero worship and are in no way analytical. Arcel 'Dempsey had no weaknesses' - ok so why did he get outboxed by Tunney, Miske and fat boy Meehan, and knocked out the ring by a weight lifter? And what about being sparked out by journeymen Flynn?

Basically it's their bias stating the era they grew up watching or fought in is the best as many have fond memories of their youth

 

This whole forum is written testimony, isn't it ?

If I learn or accept something that McGrain has written and explained about a fighter (which I do, often ), I'm forming an opinion based largely on third party testimony.

 

Well something's are speculative, some things are facts, ie what someone did. If 1 of us stated Pacquaio is the bestest of all time and would knock out Hagler in 1 round with no evidence other than our opinion we would be laughed off the forum, but Ray Arcel says the same thing, ahh right ok he can't be biased or anything he trains boxers :nut