Dempsey regularly appears in all time top ten heavy lists and some people think he'd come out on top in h2h matches against many greats from the modern era. However, anyone else think that dempsey's reputation is built around more his name, his style and kind of how impressive he looked rather than his record?
On route to the title he beat men like Brennan, Miske and Fulton. He beat a pretty plump looking Willard then defended his title only 5 times in 7 years. The guys he beat were Miske and Brennan who he'd beaten before (both lost to Harry Greb), Carpentier a light heavy who really was only exceptional at european level and Firpo an untested slugger. That's it, then he loses to Tunney, beats sharkey with a one punch then loses to Tunney again. All his opponents apart from firpo and willard were around the 180-190lb mark.
He looks incredible in that sparring footage and also against willard but really, his record is probably the least impressive of any of the legendary champions. Him not fighting Wills although not his fault does really harm his rep as Wills was unbeaten near enough for almost all Dempsey's reign.
Would he have beaten Wills? Well maybe but I wouldn't bet on it - he seems pretty protected really. One things for sure - in the time it took dempsey to have those 7 fights, Wills had about 40 fights and only lost one on a DQ. He also weighed about 215 and most of his opponents were over the 200lb mark.
Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
He admitted himself he avoided Langford and Wills because he was afraid they would defeat him. I count him as one of the most overrated fighters in history. White people were desperate for a dominant white champion at the time and I believe it created a myth that he was the greatest fighter, that has now became accepted due to writers of the time blowing him up.
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
"The facts clearly show that in 1926 I tried desperately to arrange a fight with Harry Wills but the deal collapsed when my guarantee was not forthcoming. Wills and I had signed to fight with a promoter named Floyd Fitzsimmons of Benton Harbor, Michigan. Wills, I understand, received fifty thousand dollars as his guarantee for signing the contract. I was to have received one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars in advance of the fight. As the date of the fight grew nearer and my money did not appear, I became anxious and asked Fitzsimmons what was the matter. He wired me to meet him in Dayton, Ohio, assuring me that he would have the money for me there. I met Fitzsimmons in Dayton who handed me a certified check for twenty-five thousand dollars and a promise to let me have the balance almost immediately. I balked at that, demanding the full amount right away. Fitzsimmons tried to placate me by calling the bank where he said he had deposited the money. The bank, unfortunately for Fitzsimmons, informed him that it did not have that much money on hand, that there wasn't enough to cover the twenty-five thousand dollar check he had given me. Furious, I returned the check to Fitzsimmons and told him the fight was off. Later, the Fitzsimmons syndicate financing the fight sued me for failure to honor a contract. I won the case."
(Jack Dempsey speaking in 1950)
(Jack Dempsey speaking in 1950)
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
By the time this fight with Wills was being discussed seriously, Harry was 31 or 32 years old and past his best. Dempsey was in his prime and liked fighting bigger guys because he could move faster than they could. I think Dempsey would have clobbered Wills the same way he did Firpo.
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
Chicago, March 20,-Jack Dempsey will fight Harry Greb if there is any demand for the match, he said here today when he stopped off between trains on his way to Los Angeles.
"It is possible that I might get a match with Harry Greb," he said, "and if I do and there is a call or a demand for it, I surely will take it."
1922.
"It is possible that I might get a match with Harry Greb," he said, "and if I do and there is a call or a demand for it, I surely will take it."
1922.
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
reason why i mention greb is i often wonder how he would have faired...after i read this...not sure how much it was publicly demanded though..
........
Sept 2, 1920 -
Dempsey tackled Bill Tate, Harry Greb and Marty Farrell in sparring this afternoon. He took them on in that order, boxing two rounds with Tate and three each with Greb and Farrell. The bout with Greb was a real one. It was the best work-out Dempsey has had. The Pittsburgher was in prime shape, and although he weighs only 165 pounds he gave the champion a real honust-to-goodness battle. Dempsey hasn't seen so many gloves in a long time as Greb showed him. Greb was all over him and kept forcing him around the ring throughout the session. Dempsey could do but little with the speedy light heavyweight, while Greb seemed to be able to hit Dempsey almost at will. Time and again Greb made the champion miss with his famous right and left hooks to the head and countered with heavy swings to the head and hooks to the body.
Greb was a veritable whirlwind. Twenty-five pounds lighter than the champion and about four inches shorter, Harry made the champion step lively. He had to jump off the floor to hit Dempsey in the head when the latter was standing straight, but managed to do it and landed without leaving himself open to Jack's snappy hooks and short swings. One of the most notable things about Dempsey's boxing is the fact that he is not hitting as straight as he did in Toledo. This is not a particularly good sign. Why he should hook and swing his blows more is a mystery. He can hit straight when he wants to, and when he does his blows carry a wealth of power behind them, for the champion knows how to put his powerful shoulders behind his punches and how also to get the necessary asistance from his legs by rising to the ball of the rearward foot when the punch gets over. It may be that Dempsey does not care to hit straight from the shoulder, fearing to punish his partners too severly.
Sept 3, 1920 -
Dempsey sparred three sessions with Harry Greb, Pittsburgh lightweight, and another trio with Marty Farrell, Pacific Coast middleweight. Miske felt the lack of capable sparring mates and he was compelled to set the pace himself. He stepped the first two rounds with George Wilson, a negro heavyweight, the second two with Jack Heinen.
Early in the third round Greb's head collided with Dempsey's mouth, cutting the champion's tongue so severly that he spat blood for the remainder of the round.
The Pittsburgher was in fine fettle after the excellent showing he made against the champion. He was full of pep. With the call of time signalizing the beginning of activities, Greb promptly rushed Dempsey. The onslaught was so sudden that Jack was caught off his guard and it took a solid left hook into the body, plied with all the force at Greb's command, which is considerable, to jolt Dempsey into action. Then the fur began to fly.
It was a whirlwind three rounds that these two fighters staged for the edification of the biggest crowd that has yet shoe-horned its way into the grandstand at the baseball park in front of which the ring is built. There were fully 2,000 people present, and they were treated to as much action in those three rounds as is usually crowded into eight of a real bout.
The bout caused the crowd to burst into cheers and prolonged applasuse. In fact, during the intermission between the second and third rounds Ted Hayes, who acts as announcer at the Dempsey camp, was compelled to request the spectators to refrain from urging either of the men to greater efforts.
Although Dempsey insists that his wind is perfect and that he is not troubled by shortness of breath while working out, to those who have studied him closely it appears as if his wind might be in better shape. He was puffing very hard after boxing Greb. Of course, it was an unusually fast workout, but it seemed to take him longer than it should to recover his wind even after so strenuous a session.
Sept 4, 1920 -
Harry Greb, looking as chipper as ever in his U.S. Navy Jersey and his black tights, climbed into the ring to take Dempsey over the jumps for two rounds of three minutes each.
Just as soon as they squared off it was apparent that there was to be none of the continuous slam-bang stuff which had accompanied their previous engagements. Greb did not rush the champion and they feinted and pranced about for a full minute before either made a real lead. Toward the close of the round they met near mid-ring and there was a sharp exchange of body punches. The second round was a little livelier, but it wasn't a cyclone, and the crowd was somewhat dissappointed. The fans had expected to see more of a real battling than had featured the jousts between these two.
"Doc Kearns, who was managing Jack Dempsey, refused to let his tiger in the ring with Harry Greb. They did spar on two occasions. The first time was when Dempsey was getting ready for his title defense against Billy Miske in Benton Harbor, Michigan. Greb ripped into dempsey, punching the heaveyweight champion as he pleased, until Kearns finally threw him out of the ring for being too rough."
"It is not generally known however, that Greb and Dempsey did actually meet in the ring. It was at Jack's Atlantic City training camp. They were to box four rounds with sixteen ounce training gloves. Jack Kearns refereed. Harry came snorting out of his corner raising hell with the heaveyweight champion's middle. Dempsey looked confused, he hesitated about throwing punches at first. But he became desperate along about the second round and started putting ginger behind his left hooks. But Greb raced around so fast and poked so many jabs into Jack's face that the great Mauler couldn't land one solid wallop during the entire exhibition. The next day, in bold black type the size off an egg, some papers carried the headline "GREB MAKES DEMPSEY LOOK LIKE A KITTEN."
(Quotes taken from - New York Times / The Washington Post / Ring Magazine / Boxing and Wrestling Magazine)
........
Sept 2, 1920 -
Dempsey tackled Bill Tate, Harry Greb and Marty Farrell in sparring this afternoon. He took them on in that order, boxing two rounds with Tate and three each with Greb and Farrell. The bout with Greb was a real one. It was the best work-out Dempsey has had. The Pittsburgher was in prime shape, and although he weighs only 165 pounds he gave the champion a real honust-to-goodness battle. Dempsey hasn't seen so many gloves in a long time as Greb showed him. Greb was all over him and kept forcing him around the ring throughout the session. Dempsey could do but little with the speedy light heavyweight, while Greb seemed to be able to hit Dempsey almost at will. Time and again Greb made the champion miss with his famous right and left hooks to the head and countered with heavy swings to the head and hooks to the body.
Greb was a veritable whirlwind. Twenty-five pounds lighter than the champion and about four inches shorter, Harry made the champion step lively. He had to jump off the floor to hit Dempsey in the head when the latter was standing straight, but managed to do it and landed without leaving himself open to Jack's snappy hooks and short swings. One of the most notable things about Dempsey's boxing is the fact that he is not hitting as straight as he did in Toledo. This is not a particularly good sign. Why he should hook and swing his blows more is a mystery. He can hit straight when he wants to, and when he does his blows carry a wealth of power behind them, for the champion knows how to put his powerful shoulders behind his punches and how also to get the necessary asistance from his legs by rising to the ball of the rearward foot when the punch gets over. It may be that Dempsey does not care to hit straight from the shoulder, fearing to punish his partners too severly.
Sept 3, 1920 -
Dempsey sparred three sessions with Harry Greb, Pittsburgh lightweight, and another trio with Marty Farrell, Pacific Coast middleweight. Miske felt the lack of capable sparring mates and he was compelled to set the pace himself. He stepped the first two rounds with George Wilson, a negro heavyweight, the second two with Jack Heinen.
Early in the third round Greb's head collided with Dempsey's mouth, cutting the champion's tongue so severly that he spat blood for the remainder of the round.
The Pittsburgher was in fine fettle after the excellent showing he made against the champion. He was full of pep. With the call of time signalizing the beginning of activities, Greb promptly rushed Dempsey. The onslaught was so sudden that Jack was caught off his guard and it took a solid left hook into the body, plied with all the force at Greb's command, which is considerable, to jolt Dempsey into action. Then the fur began to fly.
It was a whirlwind three rounds that these two fighters staged for the edification of the biggest crowd that has yet shoe-horned its way into the grandstand at the baseball park in front of which the ring is built. There were fully 2,000 people present, and they were treated to as much action in those three rounds as is usually crowded into eight of a real bout.
The bout caused the crowd to burst into cheers and prolonged applasuse. In fact, during the intermission between the second and third rounds Ted Hayes, who acts as announcer at the Dempsey camp, was compelled to request the spectators to refrain from urging either of the men to greater efforts.
Although Dempsey insists that his wind is perfect and that he is not troubled by shortness of breath while working out, to those who have studied him closely it appears as if his wind might be in better shape. He was puffing very hard after boxing Greb. Of course, it was an unusually fast workout, but it seemed to take him longer than it should to recover his wind even after so strenuous a session.
Sept 4, 1920 -
Harry Greb, looking as chipper as ever in his U.S. Navy Jersey and his black tights, climbed into the ring to take Dempsey over the jumps for two rounds of three minutes each.
Just as soon as they squared off it was apparent that there was to be none of the continuous slam-bang stuff which had accompanied their previous engagements. Greb did not rush the champion and they feinted and pranced about for a full minute before either made a real lead. Toward the close of the round they met near mid-ring and there was a sharp exchange of body punches. The second round was a little livelier, but it wasn't a cyclone, and the crowd was somewhat dissappointed. The fans had expected to see more of a real battling than had featured the jousts between these two.
"Doc Kearns, who was managing Jack Dempsey, refused to let his tiger in the ring with Harry Greb. They did spar on two occasions. The first time was when Dempsey was getting ready for his title defense against Billy Miske in Benton Harbor, Michigan. Greb ripped into dempsey, punching the heaveyweight champion as he pleased, until Kearns finally threw him out of the ring for being too rough."
"It is not generally known however, that Greb and Dempsey did actually meet in the ring. It was at Jack's Atlantic City training camp. They were to box four rounds with sixteen ounce training gloves. Jack Kearns refereed. Harry came snorting out of his corner raising hell with the heaveyweight champion's middle. Dempsey looked confused, he hesitated about throwing punches at first. But he became desperate along about the second round and started putting ginger behind his left hooks. But Greb raced around so fast and poked so many jabs into Jack's face that the great Mauler couldn't land one solid wallop during the entire exhibition. The next day, in bold black type the size off an egg, some papers carried the headline "GREB MAKES DEMPSEY LOOK LIKE A KITTEN."
(Quotes taken from - New York Times / The Washington Post / Ring Magazine / Boxing and Wrestling Magazine)
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
anyway.....poor quality of opposition....for 3 years he had literally no opposition.
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
cfang wrote:Dempsey regularly appears in all time top ten heavy lists and some people think he'd come out on top in h2h matches against many greats from the modern era. However, anyone else think that dempsey's reputation is built around more his name, his style and kind of how impressive he looked rather than his record?
On route to the title he beat men like Brennan, Miske and Fulton. He beat a pretty plump looking Willard then defended his title only 5 times in 7 years. The guys he beat were Miske and Brennan who he'd beaten before (both lost to Harry Greb), Carpentier a light heavy who really was only exceptional at european level and Firpo an untested slugger. That's it, then he loses to Tunney, beats sharkey with a one punch then loses to Tunney again. All his opponents apart from firpo and willard were around the 180-190lb mark.
He looks incredible in that sparring footage and also against willard but really, his record is probably the least impressive of any of the legendary champions. Him not fighting Wills although not his fault does really harm his rep as Wills was unbeaten near enough for almost all Dempsey's reign.
Would he have beaten Wills? Well maybe but I wouldn't bet on it - he seems pretty protected really. One things for sure - in the time it took dempsey to have those 7 fights, Wills had about 40 fights and only lost one on a DQ. He also weighed about 215 and most of his opponents were over the 200lb mark.
I got a savaging for mentioning this a while ago. I felt that you cannot really compare fighters from that era because it seemed to me that so much of the boxing then was tough guy type competitions with many unrecorded fights or fights in fairgrounds, newspaper decisions etc. His early record is littered with draws, and losses and many of his opponents had either won less than 5 fights or had no recorded fights at all. But to say this is sacrilege.
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
for the record...and i get shot down (from people who's opinions i respect)...i think dempsey is overratted too
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
Dempsey went to Hollywood and there were rumours of wild parties and cocaine, both of which were easily had in Tinsel Town in the Roaring Twenties. He was a fit young man with a savage reputation, a magnet for the film crowd, especially the ladies. He likely wasted the best years of his life, as far as boxing goes.
Dempsey likely did for boxing what Babe Ruth did for baseball, saving it from oblivion or a long tedious death.
As for his opposition. Very few champions actually fought guys who on a given day could beat them. Tex Rickard and Doc Kearns decided who Dempsey fought and they made sure the fights were worth their while financially.
If Dempsey fought today, he'd be a cruiserweight and he'd probably do to the current crop what he did to the heavies of his day. You can be sure people would pay to see him.
Dempsey likely did for boxing what Babe Ruth did for baseball, saving it from oblivion or a long tedious death.
As for his opposition. Very few champions actually fought guys who on a given day could beat them. Tex Rickard and Doc Kearns decided who Dempsey fought and they made sure the fights were worth their while financially.
If Dempsey fought today, he'd be a cruiserweight and he'd probably do to the current crop what he did to the heavies of his day. You can be sure people would pay to see him.
-
Caractacus
- Middleweight
- Posts: 18593
- Joined: 13 Jun 2014, 16:47
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
You revisionists really wanna make me puke.
Your favorites fighters of today arnt even fit to carry Jack Dempsey's jock-strap.
He was "old school".
Your favorites fighters of today arnt even fit to carry Jack Dempsey's jock-strap.
He was "old school".
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15181
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
Dempsey's title reign was disappointing. Not defending between Firpo and Tunney is inexcusable. However, you have to look at the whole picture. Look at the fights he had before he won the title. He defeated more top contenders than just any heavyweight champion did before they won the title. Most of the time he blew his opponent away.
He was fast, aggressive, and could hurt someone with either hand. And no, he certainly would not be a cruiserweight today. He would be the heavyweight champion.
He was fast, aggressive, and could hurt someone with either hand. And no, he certainly would not be a cruiserweight today. He would be the heavyweight champion.
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
You see what I am saying. Sacrilege.Caractacus wrote:You revisionists really wanna make me puke.
Your favorites fighters of today arnt even fit to carry Jack Dempsey's jock-strap.
He was "old school".
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
There's alot of fighters that didn't meet much of anyone while as champion---- hell Willard fought once (successfully) while as champion, and certified legends like Fitzsimmons didn't fight anyone for two-three years before facing Jeffries. Being hyperactive in heavyweight history is actually a rarity. The fact we have men like Holmes or Klitschko with 16-20 title defenses, or Louis being the all-time record holder (25) is the exception to the rule.
Dempsey fought almost every noteworthy contender on the way up, and the only real exceptions were Langford and Wills. That being said, he did try to make the Wills fight happen--- but Langford was inexcusable. He was given quite a few chances to face Sam over the years, but (admittedly) refused to do so because Langford, even in his later years, was out of his league. One could make a case for George Godfrey too, but Tunney was just as guilty (if not more so) for not facing him.
Dempsey fought almost every noteworthy contender on the way up, and the only real exceptions were Langford and Wills. That being said, he did try to make the Wills fight happen--- but Langford was inexcusable. He was given quite a few chances to face Sam over the years, but (admittedly) refused to do so because Langford, even in his later years, was out of his league. One could make a case for George Godfrey too, but Tunney was just as guilty (if not more so) for not facing him.
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
HomicideHenry wrote: One could make a case for George Godfrey too, but Tunney was just as guilty (if not more so) for not facing him.
"Right here and now, I want it understood that when I win the championship from Jack Dempsey, I am going to draw the colour line." - Gene Tunney
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
it seems to me Dempsey was a protected fighter. Much like the promoters of today protect their darling paychecks. I think he was one tough SOB, his punch and his speed made him a danger to anyone who got in the ring with him. As a dream fight I would have loved to see him fight Joe Frazier. That would be a fight.
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15181
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
Langford was well past it by the time Dempsey was on top. He was 12 years older than Dempsey. Dempsey was offered a chance early in his career to fight Langford, but didn't think he was ready. There was really on a short window of time (maybe 1917) where both were remotely close to their best.HomicideHenry wrote:There's alot of fighters that didn't meet much of anyone while as champion---- hell Willard fought once (successfully) while as champion, and certified legends like Fitzsimmons didn't fight anyone for two-three years before facing Jeffries. Being hyperactive in heavyweight history is actually a rarity. The fact we have men like Holmes or Klitschko with 16-20 title defenses, or Louis being the all-time record holder (25) is the exception to the rule.
Dempsey fought almost every noteworthy contender on the way up, and the only real exceptions were Langford and Wills. That being said, he did try to make the Wills fight happen--- but Langford was inexcusable. He was given quite a few chances to face Sam over the years, but (admittedly) refused to do so because Langford, even in his later years, was out of his league. One could make a case for George Godfrey too, but Tunney was just as guilty (if not more so) for not facing him.
Langford should have got a title shot during Johnson's reign, and early in Willard's reign. By the time Dempsey was the champ, he had slipped quite a bit and there were several fighters that were better than him.
Godfrey only became a contender at the end of Dempsey's title reign. Godfrey was never the #1 contender while either Dempsey or Tunney was the champion.
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
Didnt make him a danger to all the guys who beat him or drew with him.DR.Dave wrote:it seems to me Dempsey was a protected fighter. Much like the promoters of today protect their darling paychecks. I think he was one tough SOB, his punch and his speed made him a danger to anyone who got in the ring with him. As a dream fight I would have loved to see him fight Joe Frazier. That would be a fight.
-
Tuan_Jim
- Heavyweight
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
Broomhall, you don't seem to understand how boxing worked at the time. A draw wasn't a draw as it is today. It was common in that era that if a fight didn't end by knockout it would be called a 'draw'. That meant you could win all 10 rounds and, if it had been agreed beforehand, earn a draw.
Dempsey is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. He slugs out a 6'6', 250 behemoth, shattering his jaw in the process, but he's 'too small to fight modern heavyweights' - modern heavyweights who Willard actually dwarfs (and was certainly tougher than). The usual breathtaking, brain boggling criticism of old school heavyweights is tossed out: 'he fought a lot of guys 190-200'. Yes, that's because heavyweights in those days hacked themselves into shape. Showing up to fight at 250lb meant serving yourself up as an gargantuan biped punchbag.
It never ceases to amaze me how in awe the modern boxing fan is with these marauding blobs who are bereft of technique, can't box at a pace, but have a big strong juicy sounding weight and inflated record. Imagine fans in any other sport criticising a competitor of the past for competing against rivals who were in top shape. It's astonishing.
Dempsey is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. He slugs out a 6'6', 250 behemoth, shattering his jaw in the process, but he's 'too small to fight modern heavyweights' - modern heavyweights who Willard actually dwarfs (and was certainly tougher than). The usual breathtaking, brain boggling criticism of old school heavyweights is tossed out: 'he fought a lot of guys 190-200'. Yes, that's because heavyweights in those days hacked themselves into shape. Showing up to fight at 250lb meant serving yourself up as an gargantuan biped punchbag.
It never ceases to amaze me how in awe the modern boxing fan is with these marauding blobs who are bereft of technique, can't box at a pace, but have a big strong juicy sounding weight and inflated record. Imagine fans in any other sport criticising a competitor of the past for competing against rivals who were in top shape. It's astonishing.
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
[quote="Tuan_Jim"]Broomhall, you don't seem to understand how boxing worked at the time. A draw wasn't a draw as it is today. It was common in that era that if a fight didn't end by knockout it would be called a 'draw'. That meant you could win all 10 rounds and, if it had been agreed beforehand, earn a draw.
Dempsey is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. He slugs out a 6'6', 250 behemoth, shattering his jaw in the process, but he's 'too small to fight modern heavyweights' - modern heavyweights who Willard actually dwarfs (and was certainly tougher than). The usual breathtaking, brain boggling criticism of old school heavyweights is tossed out: 'he fought a lot of guys 190-200'. Yes, that's because heavyweights in those days hacked themselves into shape. Showing up to fight at 250lb meant serving yourself up as an gargantuan biped punchbag.
It never ceases to amaze me how in awe the modern boxing fan is with these marauding blobs who are bereft of technique, can't box at a pace, but have a big strong juicy sounding weight and inflated record. Imagine fans in any other sport criticising a competitor of the past for competing against rivals who were in top shape. It's astonishing.[/quote]
That is why I feel it is so difficult if not impossible to compare fighters from such different eras. You look at Dempseys record and analyse it and you see it s filled with guys with few or no fights-tough guy types just out to make a few bucks. As for the draws it could also be that Dempsey was gifted several of those-it works both ways.
As for Willard, he hadnt fought for 3 years, and again similar with Dempsey lots of wins against guys with no fights or few fights.
I dont say those guys werent tough, hard men-but it was a different game back then. But it is all an opinion and I am happy to say you may well be right.
Dempsey is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. He slugs out a 6'6', 250 behemoth, shattering his jaw in the process, but he's 'too small to fight modern heavyweights' - modern heavyweights who Willard actually dwarfs (and was certainly tougher than). The usual breathtaking, brain boggling criticism of old school heavyweights is tossed out: 'he fought a lot of guys 190-200'. Yes, that's because heavyweights in those days hacked themselves into shape. Showing up to fight at 250lb meant serving yourself up as an gargantuan biped punchbag.
It never ceases to amaze me how in awe the modern boxing fan is with these marauding blobs who are bereft of technique, can't box at a pace, but have a big strong juicy sounding weight and inflated record. Imagine fans in any other sport criticising a competitor of the past for competing against rivals who were in top shape. It's astonishing.[/quote]
That is why I feel it is so difficult if not impossible to compare fighters from such different eras. You look at Dempseys record and analyse it and you see it s filled with guys with few or no fights-tough guy types just out to make a few bucks. As for the draws it could also be that Dempsey was gifted several of those-it works both ways.
As for Willard, he hadnt fought for 3 years, and again similar with Dempsey lots of wins against guys with no fights or few fights.
I dont say those guys werent tough, hard men-but it was a different game back then. But it is all an opinion and I am happy to say you may well be right.
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
ok...to clarify....while i think dempsey is a tad overratted i dont for a second say he'd be too small for todays heavyweights....hell, i'm fully expecting someone to come out of the current crop of cruisers and maybe be a heavyweight champ...uysk maybe
my opinion of dempsey comes from fights like a past prime tommy gibbons, who he beat of course..but didnt demolish him.....the way gibbons spoke of it - “Dempsey could beat anybody he could hit. The only reason he couldn’t do anything with fellows like Tunney or Greb or myself was he couldn’t hit us.”
carpentier wasn't a heavyweight of that calibre to test dempsey....lower weights but not a heavyweight.
bill brennan had dempsey in bother at one point early in the fight before carpentier.
billy miske was a sick man.
willard was one of the weaker champions...despite his size....he didnt put a glove on until 27 or even 29 depending on what we read...he was 37 years old by the time dempsey nearly killed him.
gunboat smith was in twilight of his career, into his 30s and had been beaten by miske in the bout before.
go back further and we can't overlook fat willie and fireman flynn.
then we have the reports of the greb sparring sessions....although, i am normally one that doesnt look too much into spars.
now...saying all that...i am not for a moment saying dempsey wasnt good...not for a second...he was great, no doubt........but me saying i think he gets overrated means just that....some people talk like its a given that he would demolish likes of liston, holyfield, etc....i'm not so sure....hence why i say i think he gets overrated.
i'm a dempsey fan.
my opinion of dempsey comes from fights like a past prime tommy gibbons, who he beat of course..but didnt demolish him.....the way gibbons spoke of it - “Dempsey could beat anybody he could hit. The only reason he couldn’t do anything with fellows like Tunney or Greb or myself was he couldn’t hit us.”
carpentier wasn't a heavyweight of that calibre to test dempsey....lower weights but not a heavyweight.
bill brennan had dempsey in bother at one point early in the fight before carpentier.
billy miske was a sick man.
willard was one of the weaker champions...despite his size....he didnt put a glove on until 27 or even 29 depending on what we read...he was 37 years old by the time dempsey nearly killed him.
gunboat smith was in twilight of his career, into his 30s and had been beaten by miske in the bout before.
go back further and we can't overlook fat willie and fireman flynn.
then we have the reports of the greb sparring sessions....although, i am normally one that doesnt look too much into spars.
now...saying all that...i am not for a moment saying dempsey wasnt good...not for a second...he was great, no doubt........but me saying i think he gets overrated means just that....some people talk like its a given that he would demolish likes of liston, holyfield, etc....i'm not so sure....hence why i say i think he gets overrated.
i'm a dempsey fan.
-
Controversial
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9185
- Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
Records weren't so easily kept in those days, just because boxrec has no fights for them doesn't mean they didn't have any. Guys often fought under false names and travelled state to state.Broomhall wrote: You look at Dempseys record and analyse it and you see it s filled with guys with few or no fights-tough guy types just out to make a few bucks.
As an example 1940s fighter Joe Gollob has just 5 fights listed on boxrec. His name probably doesn't mean anything to most people yet a 1943 newspaper article listed his record as 138-11, named him as Canada's most well travelled fighter, boxing all around the world and he was the top contender for the Empires welterweight crown.
Comparing eras is very difficult but for sure heavyweights in that era whipped themselves into great shape hence the reason most didn't weight 250lbs. Most heavyweights of today carry 2-3 stone of dead weight. Also to be fair most of the Klitschko's opponents are hardly anything to write home about.
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
very true thatControversial wrote:Records weren't so easily kept in those days, just because boxrec has no fights for them doesn't mean they didn't have any.
Re: Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition
Controversial wrote:Records weren't so easily kept in those days, just because boxrec has no fights for them doesn't mean they didn't have any. Guys often fought under false names and travelled state to state.Broomhall wrote: You look at Dempseys record and analyse it and you see it s filled with guys with few or no fights-tough guy types just out to make a few bucks.
As an example 1940s fighter Joe Gollob has just 5 fights listed on boxrec. His name probably doesn't mean anything to most people yet a 1943 newspaper article listed his record as 138-11, named him as Canada's most well travelled fighter, boxing all around the world and he was the top contender for the Empires welterweight crown.
Comparing eras is very difficult but for sure heavyweights in that era whipped themselves into great shape hence the reason most didn't weight 250lbs. Most heavyweights of today carry 2-3 stone of dead weight. Also to be fair most of the Klitschko's opponents are hardly anything to write home about.
This taken from mapleleafwresting
.
After a somewhat non-noteworthy boxing career in the 30's the Montreal native became
a Wrestling referee and handled many big bouts at MLG, as well as in Oshawa, Kingston
and other spots around Ontario.
Also on Ancestry.com Gollobs family attribute him to having 2 fights in Canada and 11 in England. So whilst I accept that Gollob may have had over 140 fight around the world there are very few records of him either as a leading challenger for any title or for the Canadian title to vaildate this.
I know guys who fight lots in semi pro, white collar etc and I think this happened a lot on those days as well-people fighting under different names, no board supervision, no records kept-but because it is a newspaper story doesnt mean it is true either. I take the view that Doug.ie does-Dempsey great fighter, but I dont think any evidence that he would beat guys like liston, Ali, Louis, Holmes, Tyson, Marciano, Lewis etc-but again I stress this is just my opinion.