Why is Jack Dempsey considered an all-time great ???????????

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 11 Apr 2006, 00:41

Jack Dempsey. His name appears on many peoples top 10 lists as being one of the 'all-time greats'.............why?

I can't see why he is so highly regarded.

He won the title from a not-so-good Jess Willard, who at 37 years was past his best anyway. Dempsey held the title for 8 years, only making 5 defences and didn't fight any of the top black heavyweights. Thats a bit like Henry Cooper being a world champion and refusing to fight Ali, Liston, Frazier, Foreman etc etc....

Before wining the title he was ko'ed with one punch, seconds into the 1st round, by 38 year old Fireman Jim Flynn, who was on a losing streak before ko'ing Dempsey, and after fighting Dempsey he continued his losing run. Yet Lennox Lewis gets rubbished because he was stopped, but Dempsey doesn't ???

I'm interested to hear why people rate him so highly...........

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 11 Apr 2006, 01:31

Decagon wrote:Well, Dempsey was pretty young when he was stopped by Flynn. Lewis was in his prime for both kayo losses. Also, when Dempsey fought Flynn, he was for all intents and purposes, homeless. He hadn't eaten in a day, and there's a good chance he took a dive either for money, or because he simply didn't have the energy to fight a prizefight.

Hmm, he was 22 years old and fighting his 35th fight 'recorded' fight.....youngish but certainly not green. It a matter of opinion whether he took a dive or was ko'ed for real. It sounds like a good excuse to me. Either way I fail to see why he is rated so high, by so many people. Its no secret the best fighters around, Wills etc... were avoided by Dempsey.

Dempsey was hardly a 'busy' world champ and didn't really fight a top heavyweight. The best fighter he fought (Tunney) beat him...twice. Plus he was lucky to not have lost against Firpo, it was only the ringside reporters pushing him back into the ring that saved him from being counted out.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 11 Apr 2006, 01:45

Decagon wrote:Huh? Dempsey signed to fight Harry Wills. I think this is an issue of you not knowing the facts, and trying to cover up what you don't know by spreading what you do know as far as possible, like a middle-aged man combing his hair over his bald spot.

Sorry I meant Langford not Wills. Either way Dempsey never fought a top black heavyweight and never beat a great white heavyweight either.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 11 Apr 2006, 02:18

Decagon wrote:Sam Langford was not a top heavyweight during Dempsey's reign. You obviously don't know much about the era, and it seems like you just read the Cyber Boxing Zone's page on Jack Dempsey for the first time.

I didn't say when he was a world champ. Earlier in his career Dempsey refused to fight Langford. And his two contracts to fight Wills never materialised. That still means Dempsey never fought a top black heavyweight.

barry · Post by **barry** » 11 Apr 2006, 08:10

The only reason Dempsey never fought Wills was entirely because of Kearns, but more so Rickard…Dempsey feared no man and was confident that he could beat any man in the world. But there was a lot more to the Dempsey-Wills bout not happening than Rickard and Kearns…there were a slew of politicians in congress that did not want the bout to go through either, which most of those feelings can be traced back to Jack Johnson’s reign…none of white America wanted to deal with the chance of another Johnson because of what he did out of the ring…and that really played the biggest part in the fight never occurring.

As to Langford, John "The Barber" Resiler wanted to throw Dempsey in with Langford during Dempsey's first trip to New York in 1916, and Dempsey was very, very green at the time and he was very, very green when knocked out by Flynn. Luckily, Dempsey had better sense and realized that Reisler had no interest in Dempsey except to make a quick buck, so Dempsey left Reisle4r and went back out west and the next time he came east he was a real killer!

As to sparring partners…Bill Tate and George Godfrey were Dempsey’s two favorite and he sparred with the men many, many rounds. As to Dempsey not fighting a top colored heavyweight…well this guy was not the best of the bunch, but John Lester Johnson was a top colored heavyweight, who Reisler threw Dempsey in with before he was the least bit seasoned and Dempsey took a pretty solid beating.

The other couple of colored fighters Dempsey faced, one is not well known, but the other was a solid pro, though his record in the database is incomplete.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 11 Apr 2006, 08:29

Dempsey never fought a top black heavyweight and never beat a great white heavyweight either.

jack sharkey is argueably a top 20-25 heavyweight of all time

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 11 Apr 2006, 09:15

And he knocked out Sharkey with a foul.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 11 Apr 2006, 10:04

Tantum wrote:And he knocked out Sharkey with a foul.

im pretty sure it was a left hook buddy

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 11 Apr 2006, 12:08

Tantum wrote:And he knocked out Sharkey with a foul.

Have you even seen the fight? Sharkey was KO'd by a left hook to the chin. Dempsey supposedly hit Sharkey low and Sharkey complained to the ref and Dempsey took advantage. Sharkey was running out of steam as he usually did and Dempsey was catching up to him.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 11 Apr 2006, 12:15

i admit dempsey kinda cheated, but he did catch sharkey with a left hook to knock him out. sharkey was knocked out from the left hook, not the low blows. sharkey woulda won though.

i still think jack sharkey was better than the 1927 dempsey. however the peak hungry dempsey was something special

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 11 Apr 2006, 12:22

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i admit dempsey kinda cheated, but he did catch sharkey with a left hook to knock him out. sharkey was knocked out from the left hook, not the low blows. sharkey woulda won though.

i still think jack sharkey was better than the 1927 dempsey. however the peak hungry dempsey was something special

There would have been another 8 rounds to go, and Sharkey was infamous for losing it when he couldn't end a fight early.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 11 Apr 2006, 12:23

pundit wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i admit dempsey kinda cheated, but he did catch sharkey with a left hook to knock him out. sharkey was knocked out from the left hook, not the low blows. sharkey woulda won though.

i still think jack sharkey was better than the 1927 dempsey. however the peak hungry dempsey was something special
There would have been another 8 rounds to go, and Sharkey was infamous for losing it when he couldn't end a fight early.

dempsey did not have the legs or stamina anymore to go 15 rounds. why do u think the tunney fights were only 10 rounds?

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 11 Apr 2006, 15:47

Controversial wrote:Jack Dempsey. His name appears on many peoples top 10 lists as being one of the 'all-time greats'.............why?

I can't see why he is so highly regarded.

He won the title from a not-so-good Jess Willard, who at 37 years was past his best anyway. Dempsey held the title for 8 years, only making 5 defences and didn't fight any of the top black heavyweights. Thats a bit like Henry Cooper being a world champion and refusing to fight Ali, Liston, Frazier, Foreman etc etc....

Before wining the title he was ko'ed with one punch, seconds into the 1st round, by 38 year old Fireman Jim Flynn, who was on a losing streak before ko'ing Dempsey, and after fighting Dempsey he continued his losing run. Yet Lennox Lewis gets rubbished because he was stopped, but Dempsey doesn't ???

I'm interested to hear why people rate him so highly...........

Dempsey is a great video fighter, a bit like Tyson in that respect.

You see all these clips of him devastating opponents & you think he's unbeatable.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 11 Apr 2006, 17:07

But why is he considered an all-time great? One so-called expert (Sugar I think) rates Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight EVER !!! Why.....who did he beat to justify that acholade?

Dempsey never fought a black heavyweight after fighting John Lester Johnson, thats the last 11 years of his career. Lester bust him up pretty bad, breaking several of his ribs and never got a rematch.

Dempsey won the title from probably one of the worst heavyweights, Williard, who at 37 was past it anyway.

Dempsey defended the title only 5 times in 8 years. He defended it against Maske, who had a terminal illness. Brennan who outboxed him for most of the fight before being stopped. Carpentier who was on the decline and outweighted by 16lbs. And Firpo who was unlucky not to have won the title after knocking Dempsey out the ring.

Dempsey lost to the best boxer he fought, Tunney....twice.

And in several public sparring sessions with Harry Greb, Greb completly outboxed Dempsey with one newspaper headlining "Greb makes Dempsey look like a kitten'........He never fought Greb for real unsurprisingly.............

So what exactly makes Dempsey so great?

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 11 Apr 2006, 17:51

Ill take a stab at it. With Dempsey , just like Ali generations later, it was more than just there boxing ability that secured there place in American history as well as boxing history. Dempsey , with the way he carried himself and the way he fought captured first the spirit of the wild west and later the roaring twenties. The riding the rails, the hobo jungles , the saloon fights ,the rugged individualism combined with his ferocious apperance and ring style represented what fight fans wanted in there boxers at that time. And it wasnt just who he fought , but how he fought and how he won that gave him legendary status.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 11 Apr 2006, 17:59

expug wrote:Ill take a stab at it. With Dempsey , just like Ali generations later, it was more than just there boxing ability that secured there place in American history as well as boxing history. Dempsey , with the way he carried himself and the way he fought captured first the spirit of the wild west and later the roaring twenties. The riding the rails, the hobo jungles , the saloon fights ,the rugged individualism combined with his ferocious apperance and ring style represented what fight fans wanted in there boxers at that time. And it wasnt just who he fought , but how he fought and how he won that gave him legendary status.

I can see the appeal Dempsey held, the bad-boy, rough and ready, scrapper with the KO punch but when you look at who he actually beat, and who he didn't fight, his record isn't particularly great.

I have seen lots of peoples top 10 lists with Dempsey normally ranked pretty high, I was curious as to why he is held him in such high esteem considering he didn't really beat any great fighters.

theone · Post by **theone** » 11 Apr 2006, 18:55

Because of his style. Heavyweights never fought quite like him before and that made him exciting. Not to mentioning everyone at the time was relieved that they had a legit white champ who was not going to lose to a black fighter anytime soon.

I like to think of the Mauler as a fearless warrior, but if he really wanted to fight Wills why couldnt he make it to happen? He was the heavyweight champ and could have forced the fight if he really wanted it. That contract signing could have been a farce with Dempsey knowing he wouldnt have to go through with the fight.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 11 Apr 2006, 20:39

theone wrote:Because of his style. Heavyweights never fought quite like him before and that made him exciting. Not to mentioning everyone at the time was relieved that they had a legit white champ who was not going to lose to a black fighter anytime soon.

I like to think of the Mauler as a fearless warrior, but if he really wanted to fight Wills why couldnt he make it to happen? He was the heavyweight champ and could have forced the fight if he really wanted it. That contract signing could have been a farce with Dempsey knowing he wouldnt have to go through with the fight.

Cuz last time a black/white HW championship fight was fought there were race riots and murders. Think Dempsey or any of his people wanted to risk that again? Tex Rickard sure didn't. He was the one who promoted that unfortunate bout.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 11 Apr 2006, 21:38

Nero3000 wrote:
theone wrote:Because of his style. Heavyweights never fought quite like him before and that made him exciting. Not to mentioning everyone at the time was relieved that they had a legit white champ who was not going to lose to a black fighter anytime soon.

I like to think of the Mauler as a fearless warrior, but if he really wanted to fight Wills why couldnt he make it to happen? He was the heavyweight champ and could have forced the fight if he really wanted it. That contract signing could have been a farce with Dempsey knowing he wouldnt have to go through with the fight.
Cuz last time a black/white HW championship fight was fought there were race riots and murders. Think Dempsey or any of his people wanted to risk that again? Tex Rickard sure didn't. He was the one who promoted that unfortunate bout.

So Dempsey is rated as one of the best heavyweights ever on the fact that he was exciting to watch and white........the fact that he didn't beat any great fighters is irrelevant? Seems very odd to me....I guess that means Tommy 'The Duke' Morrison should be in a few top 10 heavweight lists from now on then?

I'd be interested to hear from the Dempsey fans who can actually give a decent reason as to why he is an all-time great, based upon the fights he had.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 12 Apr 2006, 12:10

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
pundit wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i admit dempsey kinda cheated, but he did catch sharkey with a left hook to knock him out. sharkey was knocked out from the left hook, not the low blows. sharkey woulda won though.

i still think jack sharkey was better than the 1927 dempsey. however the peak hungry dempsey was something special
There would have been another 8 rounds to go, and Sharkey was infamous for losing it when he couldn't end a fight early.

dempsey did not have the legs or stamina anymore to go 15 rounds. why do u think the tunney fights were only 10 rounds?

Championship fights were often reduced to 10 rounds for a few years in the 1920s. Mickey Walker, Tommy Loughran, Tony Canzoneri, Fidel LaBarba, and many others competed in 10 round championship bouts in the 1920s.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 12 Apr 2006, 13:19

Decagon wrote:I really think that Dempsey was the cause of shorter championship fights around the world.

I disagree. Mickey Walker had two welterweight title fights in 1924 scheduled for 10 rounds, which was well before Dempsey and Tunney faced off the first time.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 12 Apr 2006, 18:15

Decagon wrote:I personally rank Lewis #10 and Dempsey #11. Here are some reasons why I rank Dempsey as an all-time great:
He introduced modern combination punching into the heavyweight division.

His combination punching and punching power would be a problem for nearly any heavyweight who ever lived.

From 1918 to 1919, he basically cleaned out the heavyweight division.

In 1923, after a long layoff, he easily knocked out the #1 contender, Luis Angel Firpo. Firpo was a heavyweight of modern proportions who could crack like no one else.

Dempsey never lost in his prime.

Dempsey was one of the most active heavyweights of all time, throwing an incredible amount of punches per round.

Dempsey had an incredible mindset, unlike Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson, for instance.

Surely to rank fighters you base it mainly on who they fought and beat, not on their fighting style, popularity, mood or any other reason. Dempsey never lost in his prime because he didn't fight any of the top black heavyweights. He was beaten twice by the best fighter he fought and wasn't particularly spectectular in his title defences.

To me Dempsey does not have enough good wins over good enough fighters to justify his his ranking. How Bert Sugar rates him as the best heavyweight ever is beyond me.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 12 Apr 2006, 18:36

Decagon wrote:... and Dempsey-Miske in 1920 was 10 rounds. Under Dempsey, there was a move away from 20-to-40-round title defenses with a few six-rounders thrown in, to 10-to-15-round title defenses. It produced a more exciting form of boxing, where fighters could really go at it, without worrying about the fight going 40 rounds or something. This change was effected all around Europe, as well. Before 1920, almost all European title fights were scheduled for 20 rounds, and after 1926 or so, all European title fights were scheduled for 12 or 15 rounds.

So we can credit Dempsey with the demise of the 20+ rounders? Shame on Jack.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 12 Apr 2006, 20:16

Controversial wrote:
Decagon wrote:I personally rank Lewis #10 and Dempsey #11. Here are some reasons why I rank Dempsey as an all-time great:
He introduced modern combination punching into the heavyweight division.

His combination punching and punching power would be a problem for nearly any heavyweight who ever lived.

From 1918 to 1919, he basically cleaned out the heavyweight division.

In 1923, after a long layoff, he easily knocked out the #1 contender, Luis Angel Firpo. Firpo was a heavyweight of modern proportions who could crack like no one else.

Dempsey never lost in his prime.

Dempsey was one of the most active heavyweights of all time, throwing an incredible amount of punches per round.

Dempsey had an incredible mindset, unlike Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson, for instance.

Surely to rank fighters you base it mainly on who they fought and beat, not on their fighting style, popularity, mood or any other reason. Dempsey never lost in his prime because he didn't fight any of the top black heavyweights. He was beaten twice by the best fighter he fought and wasn't particularly spectectular in his title defences.

To me Dempsey does not have enough good wins over good enough fighters to justify his his ranking. How Bert Sugar rates him as the best heavyweight ever is beyond me.

Controversial,
You have made some valid arguements against Dempsey, and you right that Dempsey surely doesn't deserve to be list as the # 1 heavyweight of all time.
There are some negatives about his career which should be held against him.
However, he has some great positves that need to be considered as well:
He only had 6 official losses in 83 fights. 3 of them were 4 round decisions.
Before he won the title, he fought some good fighters. He knocked out Fred Fulton, Gunboat Smith and Carl Morris; they were top contenders. He also knocked out good fighters like Bill Brennan and Homer Smith before he won the title. He also avenged his knockout loss to Flynn by knocking him out in their rematch.
Most heavyweight champions didn't defeat as many good opponents before winning the title. He paid his dues.

Often overlooked is his title defense over Billy Miske. Miske was a very good fighter and Dempsey knocked him out.

There was excuse for him not to defend his title for 3 years and I agree that he should have fought Harry Wills.

Still, after weighing all that he did (and didn't do) in his career, if he isn't one of the top 10 heavyweights of all time, he has to be pretty close.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 12 Apr 2006, 21:18

I believe that Bert Sugar had Joe Louis at number one Ali at number two and Dempsey third, but that doesn't detract from your point that Sugar rated Dempsey very high. He did discuss at lengnth about how he perceived Dempsey as an all time great.

Also if you can credit Dempsey with revelutionizing the sport of boxing by taking the combination and expanding on it to the point of perfecting it then you would also have to say that everyone before him was less advanced and or inferior. That the sport was at some type of crude level to the point where fighters were only capable of rudementary technique not yet able to put combinations together properly. That would open up a whole new argument.

Why is Jack Dempsey considered an all-time great ???????????

Why is Jack Dempsey considered an all-time great ???????????

re

Re: Why is Jack Dempsey considered an all-time great ???????