Over the past few days I have constructed several threads matching up Jack Dempsey with opponents who we all know would probably get manhandled by him. I would like to appologize and say that I was only having fun, and meant no real harm by it. Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to say some positive things about Dempsey. Contrary to many of his critics claims, Jack Dempsey made some very notable contributions to the sport of boxing which helped tremendously in its evolution. Dempsey fought a style which involved a great deal of fast footwork and creative use of the ring. As I stated once before on a different thread, this was a rare trait for a big puncher, especially during such an early period in the sport. A lot of future fighters would adapt some of these patterns and over time changed the way the average fight fan viewed a big hitter. If we watch many of his films, or at least whatever ones are available, we can see that he established a clear pattern of stick and move, along with fading away after landing a big shot. He was actually a fisted genius if there ever was one. Another big contribution that Jack made to the sport, was breathing life into the game after a long period of little interest. James Jeffries and Jack Johnson were long gone, and Jess Willard was basically ignored by the public. Jack's dynamic style and exciting knockout abilities drew fans to the sport like never before. The result was the generation of the first million dollar fight gates ever. This opened up boxing as a lucrative earning venue for many young athletes, without which, a lot of quality talent may never have been attracted to the game. Many ( including myself ) have criticized Jack for his opposition, and truthfully I still have some negative feelings towards his never fighting Harry Wills. But I suppose no champion ever produced a flawless reign, except for perhaps Joe Louis, but this is also subject to individual opinion. Dempsey's intangible contributions are far more important than stats, records or big named opponents in my opinion. Sometimes changing a game is just as much a part of greatness as mastering it. These are my TRUE Feelings regarding Jack Dempsey. -Woody Woodpecker
Joe Louis? he can be critisized for failing to fight Lee Q murray, Jimmy Bivins, Elmer Ray, Lem Franklin, Harry bobo. He can also be critisized for only defending his title 2 times to black men despite defending his title 25 times! DESPITE their being very strong top rated black opposition during his reign. A guy like mike tysons reign who fought every single dangerous top contender as much as he could in a 3 year span regardless of color and dominate them. * for your information I rank louis # 1 heavyweight of all time
It was hard to choose the emoticon that best describes my thoughts on this subject, so I settled on this. :lama
People often overlook all of these qualities when comparing the "greatness" of a fighter. It's really disappointing that people feel you have to dominate and challenge everyone to be considered "great" and contributions like these get no mentions.
For the note here, actually, three of Louis' defenses were against black opponents. His failure to fight Bivins is largely the result of his inactivity due to the war during Bivins' career peak, and he sort of fought Walcott as the "best representative" of the black murderers' row in the division, as Walcott had, in fact, beaten Bivins, Ray and Murray.
I am not really critisizing louis here as much as I am trying to make a point MF. Louis knocked out ray in a LIVE exhibiition twice, beat walcott 2x, beat bivins in 51. you could spin it the other way too.
