Jack Dempsey - poor quality of opposition

[Caractacus]

check this link out.
Hemingway was about 6 ft tall and 23 years old when he wanted to spar with Jack Dempsey in Paris(France) in 1922.



http://artofmanliness.com/2009/08/11/th ... dventures/

[Cap]

Canadian novelist Morley Callaghan was part of the Paris group of artists that included Hemingway. Showing off for the ladies, Hemingway challenged his buddy Callaghan to box. Morley, who had boxed in college, accepted and proceeded to beat up Hemingway, even knocking him down. Even an old Dempsey had nothing to fear from Ernest.

[Caractacus]

I believe Dempsey's real concern was perhaps hurting Hemingway
because Hemingway's manner in the ring was way too aggressive.

[HomicideHenry]

Hemmingway was..... delusional.... when it came to his boxing prowess.

Every source on the subject says that he was nothing to talk about.

His friend, an amateur boxer, reguarly beat the hell out of Hemmingway.

[Caractacus]

Hemmingway was..... delusional.... when it came to his boxing prowess.

Every source on the subject says that he was nothing to talk about.

His friend, an amateur boxer, reguarly beat the hell out of Hemmingway.

Ernest Hemingway vrs Robert E.Howard

who wins?

[Caractacus]

Just suppose( for the sake of argument)
that for some reason in 1918 Jack Dempsey dropped out of the fight game
and decided to drop out of the fight buisness all together and become a wheelbarrow salesman.
also suppose even the most hardened racialists in the USA
had a change of heart and thought it would be good for Harry Wills to have a chance
for the Heavyweight Championship.
So how would you see

Harry Wills vs "Big Wheeler"
July.4th 1919 -Toldedo Ohio
going?

[Tuan_Jim]

Hemingway was more self aware than you give him credit for. In 'Fiesta', the tough guy Hemingway character is badly beaten by a love rival who has a background in boxing.

Norman Mailer had the same violent persona that was half tongue in cheek and that he knew he couldn't back up.

[Caractacus]

Hemingway was more self aware than you give him credit for. In 'Fiesta', the tough guy Hemingway character is badly beaten by a love rival who has a background in boxing.

Man,sounds like you have the"Classics Illustrated" version of Hemingway's 'Fiesta huh?'.

[Tuan_Jim]

Hello again Il Dunce, I see you are still struggling to master basic grammar.

Keep writing those posts that no one responds to.

[Caractacus]

Im no Psychologists,but when I was younger I sometimes had obbssevive thoughts too about certain people .
Excepct I was in 8th grade and my obession was Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman.
BTW
Ernest Hemingway was a Big Fat Tub of Goo.

[Crease]

The problem is every Heavyweight can be criticized in one way or another. I'm looking at this in the broadest sense of the word... On this site in the past, I have heard people systematically criticize;

Jack Johnson (he never give Sam Langford a Title shot)
Jess Willard (he only defended his title once in 4 years)
Max Schmeling (he was inconsistent, and got KO'd by a bum in the 1st round - (Gipsy Daniels))
Rocky Marciano (he never fought Nino Valdes)
Joe Frazier (he was one-dimensional)
Larry Holmes (he defend his World title against a load of bums - Osvaldo Occasio, Lorenzo Zanon)
Muhammad Ali (he was fortunate to be awarded points wins over some fighters - like Doug Jones in '63)
Mike Tyson (he was a "flash in the pan" - and never beat fighters who had the balls to stand up to him)
Lennox Lewis (got KO'd by Rahman - ducked Vitali Klitschko rematch & and he's not the fighter that his British fans make him out to be)
Wladimir Klitschko (beat a very poor standard of opposition)

- Essentially my point is that you could be overly critical and negative toward practically any Heavyweight Champion in history - you could say "he never fought that guy" - or he didn't defend his belt enough, or some of his points wins weren't convincing.

The solid truth is that no fighter in history has ever had the perfect career.


This thread might be based around Jack Dempsey, but we'll see others who are cutting in to someone else - and my point resonates with that thread as well.

[Controversial]

The problem is every Heavyweight can be criticized in one way or another. I'm looking at this in the broadest sense of the word... On this site in the past, I have heard people systematically criticize;

Jack Johnson (he never give Sam Langford a Title shot)
Jess Willard (he only defended his title once in 4 years)
Max Schmeling (he was inconsistent, and got KO'd by a bum in the 1st round - (Gipsy Daniels))
Rocky Marciano (he never fought Nino Valdes)
Joe Frazier (he was one-dimensional)
Larry Holmes (he defend his World title against a load of bums - Osvaldo Occasio, Lorenzo Zanon)
Muhammad Ali (he was fortunate to be awarded points wins over some fighters - like Doug Jones in '63)
Mike Tyson (he was a "flash in the pan" - and never beat fighters who had the balls to stand up to him)
Lennox Lewis (got KO'd by Rahman - ducked Vitali Klitschko rematch & and he's not the fighter that his British fans make him out to be)
Wladimir Klitschko (beat a very poor standard of opposition)

- Essentially my point is that you could be overly critical and negative toward practically any Heavyweight Champion in history - you could say "he never fought that guy" - or he didn't defend his belt enough, or some of his points wins weren't convincing.

The solid truth is that no fighter in history has ever had the perfect career.


This thread might be based around Jack Dempsey, but we'll see others who are cutting in to someone else - and my point resonates with that thread as well.

It boils down to whether someone likes a fighter or not. If your a fan you will tend to argue their case, if your not you tend to criticise them. Your right anyones record can be torn apart. I think the issue with this thread was basically someone seeing a lot of 0-0-0 on Dempsey's record and assuming that meant he fought a load of stiffs.

[Ambling Alp II]

Agreed. Too often it goes down to whether we like someone or not.

Crease and Controversial are absolutely right in that no one is perfect. People light to point out flaws in certain guys (and ignore their positives) and then with guys they like they ignore the bad and only mention the good, sometimes exaggerating it.

Some of the things you mentioned are legit, some aren't.
Johnson should have given Langford a title shot. Willard should been defending the title much more often. Schmeling did lose to Daniels. Klitschko's opposition has been generally poor.

That being said, all of these guys had (to varying degrees) their good points.

The rest, not so much. Marciano did not fight Valdes, but so what? Valdes was not that good.
Frazier was not one dimensional.
Holmes did fight some "bums" but also fought some good fighters.
Ali won more rounds than Jones and so he should have got the decision. None of his other close decisions that he won were in his prime.
Tyson was certainly not a flash in the pan. And he did beat some guys who stood up to him.
Lewis did not duck Kltischko. No reason at all for him to have to beat again.

That being said, all of these guys (to varying degrees) had their negatives.

We need to weigh the positives against the negatives.
Jack Dempsey has some things than can fairly be criticized. He also had some things that that are very impressive.

[pound per pound]

The late teen's and early 1920's were a bit of a down time for heavyweight boxing. A fighter can only meet the best in his time. trouble with Dempsey is he did not meet the best of his time until he was older and Tunney had his way with him.

Either WIlls or Greb would have been viewed as Dempsey's best wins. Greb fought many of the same me that Dempsey did, and sometimes had an easier time. The Wills fight could have taken place in other venues outside of New York.

[Ambling Alp II]

He did not fight the best competition during his title reign. I totally agree with that. In fact he did not defend the title at all in 1924 or 1925.
(Though you can make some argument that he was fighting decent challengers early in his reign.)

However, look what he did before his title reign: KO1 Flynn, TKO6 vs Brennan, KO1 vs Fulton, KO1 vs Morris, KO2 vs Smith. Try finding many other heavyweight champions that did something like that against decent competition before winning the title.
He does not get enough credit from some people for this.

Yes he could have fought Greb. That really would have been a no-win situation for him. He beats Greb and everyone would say, so what, he is just an overblown middleweight.

Wills is a different story. It often gets pointed that Rickard did want to promote the fight. Fine. However, Rickard was the not the only promoter. Rickard did not promote the Miske or Gibbons title defenses either. Dempsey did make some effort to fight Wills, but if he really wanted to, he could have tried harder.

Dempsey probably would have beat Wills, or anyone else until he fought Tunney. He deserves criticism for not actually doing it. He should have defended against Wills, and made a couple of other defenses against decent challengers in 1924 and 1925.

[Caractacus]

Jack Dempsey once sparred with Harry Greb.Does that count?

Also Harry Wills once sparred briefly with Jack Johnson,but Wills left the camp early,
because Johnson said he couldnt take it.

[Ambling Alp II]

"Tales from the Gym" should always be ignored. Even if they are true, it doesn't mean anything.

[Broomhall]

"Tales from the Gym" should always be ignored. Even if they are true, it doesn't mean anything.

You are usually wrong on most things but on this you are right.

[Ambling Alp II]

Nice. I disagree with you on few other topics and you need to say something like this. Classy.

[cfang]

Well despite all the really interesting responses, I still think Dempsey was protected in his title period and isn't quite up to the other legends of the dvision. I think he'd have had a lot of trouble with Greb and when considering how much trouble he had with both Gibbons and Brennan, I'd take Wills to beat him too.

He's actually one of my favourite fighters though but I still feel his style and general image overinflate his rep compared to those that came after him.

[Ambling Alp II]

Agree, he did not blow out Brennan and Gibbons.
However,in other title fights, Willard, Miske, Carpentier, and Firpo all failed to last 4 rounds.

I have no problem with him not fighting Greb. He would have got almost zero credit for beating Greb.
Wills is a different story. He was the best out there. I do think Dempsey would have beaten him, but the bottom line is he didn't.

[Caractacus]

Did Harry Wills ever challenge the"Human Windmill"?

and If not,why not?

[jaclem3]

.....haven't looked at the records, but i think jack sharkey knocked wills out of contention for a title fight with dempsey. i do think, though, that before this wills should have been in line for a shot at dempsey.

i'm not going to comment here on the quality of opposition against dempsey.


as for the long gap between defenses, the champions before dempsey also sat on the title, it was joe louis who defended early and often, and ezzard charles even moreso....especially if you count him as word champion , as i do, when he won the vacant title when he beat walcott in their first match.

[Caractacus]

Why is it that one never hears anyone here "belly-aching" about the fact that Joe Louis didnt defend the title
against better contenders after he won the title in 1937 up until 1940 anyway.
contenders like Tiger Jack Fox,LeRoy Haynes Eddie Blunt and Elmer"Violent"Ray?
(instead Louis's defends the title from boxers like a Baldy Bellhop from Chicago )


and BTW Do you know the main reason fighters beginning in the 1930's that sitting boxing champions defended the title's earlier and more often
then the champions prior to that?
I will give you a hint
its all about the
DOE-RAY-ME.

[beaujack]

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.

AA, give todays revisionists hell. They think they know more than all the great hardened boxing figures of Dempsey's time and after.
Almost a hundred years later, they know "better' than the thousands who saw Dempsey at his best...