Wlad v Dempsey

What is it with this "hatred" thing? I dont know what your history with Dempsey is... but from the way you keep defending him you must be a huge fan. But if other posters dont believe he quite deserves the credit you give him - is that because they HATE him? Im not sure I get why they would. Is it not possible that they are simply expressing an opinion... without any personal HATRED involved?

 

I am no expert on Jack Dempsey, so keep that in mind.

I think the Willard destruction was impressive, but what gets lost is the fact that Dempsey actually didn't put Willard away. Despite the vicious beating he took, old Jess was actually never put down for the count. I remember he actually battled on into the third, landing a decent uppercut on Dempsey before succumbing to his injuries.

Now, if you are allowed to stand over a fallen opponent and muller them as their gloves leave the canvas, and you still can't put your man down for the count...well, what is that saying?

Either Dempsey was not a great finisher (which I think he was) or Willard was that tough (which he was) or that a smaller guy, despite being a vicious puncher, still has the problem that he's hitting a goliath and that his shots have a diminished effect as opposed to hitting another sub-200lb. man.

Wlad is not a tough-as-teak guy, we all know that. He's vulnerable. But I think Dempsey would maybe not find it as easy as some think to put him away, and that's assuming he can get his shots in.

Also franky, if he leaves his chin hanging in the air as he did against Firpo, he's begging to be hit by a big right hand.

 

look sir, I keep defending Jack Dempsey because only on this site,by many
posters , Jack Dempsey is regarded just a step up from Butterbean...These
posters are so obsessed with their dislike for Dempsey, that they disregard
the expert opinions of his unique abilities that so many great wisened boxing experts who SAW him at his best, held him so highly...So sir, should
I who have been watching boxing since the 1940s,and have read literally hundreds of accounts of Dempsey's career as a tough and fast offensive machine, abandon my considered opinion of the prime Jack Dempsey to
the likes of some naysayers who don't believe there were great fighters, before the advent of television.? NAY I say...
P.S. As to why these posters "hate" or degrade Jack Dempsey whilst he
was held in such high regard by top seasoned experts, I know not..
Sigmund Freud is alas dead...

 

Ted, I have high regard for your posts. Yes Jack Dempsey ultimately
did not meet Wills in the ring, BUT as we all know they did SIGN a contract for
the bout under a Michigan promoter who could not come up with the
money, and the fight was cancelled. New York Boxing Commision would not sanction this bout claiming they feared a possible repeat of the riots following the Jeffries/Johnson affair in Reno, in which there were many deaths nationwide...My point is that Dempsey himself FEARED no man in
the ring, and was under the influence of Jack Kearns and Tex Rickard...
He Dempsey was a product of his times as we all are, including the
holier than thou posters of today NINETY years later. A Joe Louis, a Ray
Robinson avoided many black fighters of their times, for whatever reasons
but are not reviled today by some members of this boxing site...Why
only Jack Dempsey today gets the shaft, whilst other fighters, past and present are conveniently looked over.???

 

"carefully contrived, ballyhooed match-ups against no-hopers"

In fairness, this sounds a lot like the 21st century heavyweight championship

although that could be your point, I guess

 

Was it typical of early boxing champions to start their careers touring carnivals and knocking out bearded lady's, fire eaters, and midgets?

 

So you think Dempsey was this fantastic, tough-as-nails fighter who is greatly underappreciated today. That is your opinion and one you are certainly entitled to.

But why are posters who disagree with you not entitled to their opinion - without being called "haters". That was the simple question I put to you - which you didnt answer.

 

Jeffries was more notorious for skipping black boxers than Dempsey was.

Why isn't it held against Jeffires like it is for Dempesy?

Dempsey didn't create the colour line. He just went along with the rules of the time that were in place to keep order.

 

I am not going to downplay Jack Dempsey's abilities nor his greatness. But is beating Jess Willard or Fred Fulton really the argument people should be using to draw a comparison when matching him against a Wladimir Klitschko or a Lennox Lewis? Jess Willard was 37 years old and inactive for two or three years, during which time he worked for a rodeo. Furthermore, he was never really viewed as being that good to begin with. Klitschko and Lewis started boxing as children and were both Olympians. They ruled at the top of their divisions for a very long time, beating one top rater after another, regardless of how good or bad one thinks of their opposition. They demonstrated true skill, athleticism and good conditioning about 95% of the time... Sorry, but Jess Willard and Fred Fulton were no Lewis or Klitschko, and had nothing in common with them aside from just merely being " big "

 

"Jeffries was more notorious for skipping black boxers than Dempsey was.

Is this true? Jeffries fought several top black contenders on the way up, and Johnson in the Reno Fight.

Overall, he fought Jackson, Armstrong, Griffin, and Johnson, all top men of the time.

Dempsey never fought a top black heavyweight,

so whatever the just criticisms of Jeffries, Dempsey would appear to be even more vulnerable on this basis.

 

He refused to fight Johnson when it mattered, gave up the title and only fought him years after he retired for a paycheck when he was an old man.

 

good point about the era and this is true that Dempsey stood out and was revolutionary for the sport but still being less active than he should have been once Champ.

Dempsey also exhibited a toughness and hardness that came from the barenuckle tough man tournaments and traveling on the undercarriage of cargo trains. It was tough days and very tough men and that is one element that is not in the fighters today and one element that Dempsey had ingrained and one that Wlad was missing. Wlad has grown mentally tough but Dempsey was a mean and hard as the panama ghetto child Duran and this is a strong intangible

Again I have said Wlad from the Haye fight is going to be a very hard man to beat but JD did have that something extra but prime Wlad tough to beat over 12

 

Fair enough,

but did Dempsey do better? or even as well?

Did Dempsey fight Wills when it mattered?

 

I don't know why Dempsey never fought Wils to be perfectly honest.

All I know is that in those days white champs were kept away from dangerous black challengers.

 

I don't know the whys either,

my point was just that Jeffries did fight several top black heavyweights,

although he rigidly drew the color-line as champion and was very vocal about it

while Dempsey never fought a top black heavyweight at any point.

I just can't see considering Jeffries more notorious for ducking black fighters.