Jack Dempsey vs previous heavyweight champions

[James9753]

How would Dempsey's heavyweight career have shaped if he'd been battling prime versions of Johnson, Jeffries, Corbett, Sullivan, Fitzsimmons etc up to a good 30 years before he was actually champion?

[Sequitorian]

LWWWW

[DrDuke]

As styles make fights, Corbett could have been the worst matchup due to his slickness. However, I suppose, in those times generally there was significant progress from one generation to another. It was especially good seen with Johnson and Dempsey. Probably Jeffries was about the same, cause he is highly regarded, just not much footage of him had been made. They had looked better than anyone before. And then came Tunney, who was on a completely other level.

[Crease]

How would Dempsey's heavyweight career have shaped if he'd been battling prime versions of Johnson, Jeffries, Corbett, Sullivan, Fitzsimmons etc up to a good 30 years before he was actually champion?

I would have Dempsey down to beat Jim Jeffries, Corbett, John L & Fitz...

A Dempsey vs Johnson fight is a 50/50 in my book.

[gilgamesh]

Johnson and Fitz could beat him I think. I don't know if they WOULD beat him, but they'd have at least a 50/50 shot at it I think.

[handsofstone]

Been watching a lot of Dempsey lately, he's as crude a fighter as they come, obviously very effective but a guy with his style would be easily dealt with these days from guys barely top 10, don't get me wrong if Dempsey fought today he'd be a totally different fighter and most likely still a champ but boxing hadn't evolved in his day and he only had one style

I just watched the first Tunney fight earlier, I never realised he gave Dempsey such a schooling, Tunney's probably the earliest fighter I can remember seeing who has close to the textbook style we see often today

[jamamb]

Been watching a lot of Dempsey lately, he's as crude a fighter as they come, obviously very effective but a guy with his style would be easily dealt with these days from guys barely top 10, don't get me wrong if Dempsey fought today he'd be a totally different fighter and most likely still a champ but boxing hadn't evolved in his day and he only had one style

I just watched the first Tunney fight earlier, I never realised he gave Dempsey such a schooling, Tunney's probably the earliest fighter I can remember seeing who has close to the textbook style we see often today

if dempsey fought today with that body hed probably be a lhw

he was 6'1 and often weighed in the high 180s or low 190s

for comparison, current lhw sullivan barrera was 6'2 and 190 on fight night vs joe smith, while smith was 6'1 and 187

[handsofstone]

Been watching a lot of Dempsey lately, he's as crude a fighter as they come, obviously very effective but a guy with his style would be easily dealt with these days from guys barely top 10, don't get me wrong if Dempsey fought today he'd be a totally different fighter and most likely still a champ but boxing hadn't evolved in his day and he only had one style

I just watched the first Tunney fight earlier, I never realised he gave Dempsey such a schooling, Tunney's probably the earliest fighter I can remember seeing who has close to the textbook style we see often today

if dempsey fought today with that body hed probably be a lhw

he was 6'1 and often weighed in the high 180s or low 190s

for comparison, current lhw sullivan barrera was 6'2 and 190 on fight night vs joe smith, while smith was 6'1 and 187

Aye that's a constant theme with the Old guys, I watched Demspey/Carpentier the other day and Carpentier went in as the reining LHW champ, he was 172 on fight day and didn't try to bulk up like what boxers would need to do today to make the limit

Carpentier actually did ok before Dempsey caught him

[jamamb]

ya, another example being jack johnson winning the world hw title vs a guy 5'7 and 168 on fight day.

and people go on about fitzimmons winnings titles at mw, lhw, and hw, but his opponents to win those titles weighed on fight day 147 for the mw title, 168 for the lhw title, and 180 or 184 for the hw title. so his biggest opponent was about the size of a modern smw or lhw

just a vastly different sport back then in many ways. although tbf were comparing dempsey with fighters from the similar time frame.

[handsofstone]

ya, another example being jack johnson winning the world hw title vs a guy 5'7 and 168 on fight day.

and people go on about fitzimmons winnings titles at mw, lhw, and hw, but his opponents to win those titles weighed on fight day 147 for the mw title, 168 for the lhw title, and 180 or 184 for the hw title. so his biggest opponent was about the size of a modern smw or lhw

just a vastly different sport back then in many ways

Yep puts a lot of boxing history in perspective, the way most old fights are described are nothing like how they actually are when you watch them, same goes for the boxers God forbid you criticise them in this section though, those guys are very fortunate social media wasn't around in their days because that romantacised sh1t from the writers wouldn't wash and quite rightly so in some cases

Can you imagine Joshua getting put on his arse from Tony Galento like Louis did or worse, put down and through the ropes like Buddy Baer did to him in their 1st fight?

Not saying Joe Louis wasn't a great fighter, he was but there was a lot more leeway back in the day

I love Ezzard Charles, am excellent Light Heavyweight, 1 of the best ever but what did he do at HW to be generally accepted as ATG top 10? He toiled against Louis who was passed it and having his first fight in 2 years, Charles had 2 good wins over Walcott but he lost the 3rd and 4th fights, the 3rd by chilling KO yet I never see anyone have Walcott above Charles in the ATG rankings

[DrDuke]

Tunney's probably the earliest fighter I can remember seeing who has close to the textbook style we see often today

Probably he is. He was really a progressive boxer.

[Ambling Alp II]

How would Dempsey's heavyweight career have shaped if he'd been battling prime versions of Johnson, Jeffries, Corbett, Sullivan, Fitzsimmons etc up to a good 30 years before he was actually champion?

Would lean towards Johnson, would have been a very interesting fight between two of the all time great heavyweights. Jeffries would be a tough fight.
Sullivan and Fitz would not have much more than a puncher's chance.
Corbett probably would have made it interesting but Dempsey probably would have got to him eventually.

Other fighter's who never got a title shot like McVey, Jeannette, Langford and Wills would have had an outside chance.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

How would Dempsey's heavyweight career have shaped if he'd been battling prime versions of Johnson, Jeffries, Corbett, Sullivan, Fitzsimmons etc up to a good 30 years before he was actually champion?

- Question seems a bit muddled James since 30 years previous Sullivan had begun his great dissipation after having vanquished all his foes with an undefeated record. He was drinking America dry for years before showing up in his last fight against Corbett, not a fair contest.

In addition to your names provided, Jack had've fought Kid McCoy, Joe Choynski, Sailor Jack Sharkey, Peter Jackson, and Jennette, Langford, Wills, and McVey plus an additional 30 years of lesser contenders. Jack was a primal talent that changed the shape of boxing no matter who he fought. I'd rate Fitz and Langford as his toughest comp because they could box and had great power and were quick.

And no, Tunney didn't dominate their fight as the misguided types claim with no scores ever provided. The biggest boxing youtubers back in the day like The Great A all had the same video of those two fights with missing minutes and poor quality such that they were impossible to judge, but Tunney was on his back foot for much of the time, at one point checking to see if his teeth were still there. Moreover Jack knocked him out with the sweetest combo since his opening salvo on Willard to no credit. Jack and Gene showed two of the most dominant successful styles still in use today that changed boxing for the better, so this notion that modern fighters have progressed is nonsense, they've adapted to new rules, regulations, and equipment. See Tyson and Frazier among heavies.

People ain't suddenly got smart genes, but they definitely got a lot more lard that seems to be growing between their ears as well as daily news of today demonstrate.

Now the Johnson vs Dempsey fight was tackled exhaustively here many years back, a hot topic back in their day as well as here.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=97251

[handsofstone]

How would Dempsey's heavyweight career have shaped if he'd been battling prime versions of Johnson, Jeffries, Corbett, Sullivan, Fitzsimmons etc up to a good 30 years before he was actually champion?

- Question seems a bit muddled James since 30 years previous Sullivan had begun his great dissipation after having vanquished all his foes with an undefeated record. He was drinking America dry for years before showing up in his last fight against Corbett, not a fair contest.

In addition to your names provided, Jack had've fought Kid McCoy, Joe Choynski, Sailor Jack Sharkey, Peter Jackson, and Jennette, Langford, Wills, and McVey plus an additional 30 years of lesser contenders. Jack was a primal talent that changed the shape of boxing no matter who he fought. I'd rate Fitz and Langford as his toughest comp because they could box and had great power and were quick.

And no, Tunney didn't dominate their fight as the misguided types claim with no scores ever provided. The biggest boxing youtubers back in the day like The Great A all had the same video of those two fights with missing minutes and poor quality such that they were impossible to judge, but Tunney was on his back foot for much of the time, at one point checking to see if his teeth were still there. Moreover Jack knocked him out with the sweetest combo since his opening salvo on Willard to no credit. Jack and Gene showed two of the most dominant successful styles still in use today that changed boxing for the better, so this notion that modern fighters have progressed is nonsense, they've adapted to new rules, regulations, and equipment. See Tyson and Frazier among heavies.

People ain't suddenly got smart genes, but they definitely got a lot more lard that seems to be growing between their ears as well as daily news of today demonstrate.

Now the Johnson vs Dempsey fight was tackled exhaustively here many years back, a hot topic back in their day as well as here.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=97251

Do you think Tunney dominated Dempsey in the first fight?

[HomicideHenry]

Sullivan vs Dempsey.... Depends on the rules really... Sullivan had 300+ MQ rules bouts and a handful of LPR rules bouts... He's greatly underrated by people today, but from everything I read his explosiveness and power and toughness and conditioning was first rate and his counter-punching & feinting was world-class... Throw in the fact he had fast hands, I think he'd of given Dempsey a helluva fight because Sullivan PREFERRED guys standing right in front of him trading punches... It's really a 50/50 contest if people think about it... Mind you, 1892 (Sullivan's retirement) and 1919 (Dempey-Willard) was only 30 years difference, so very little advancements in boxing would have taken place.

Same thing with Fitzsimmons and Jeffries, who were also massive punchers with many similar abilities and style as Sullivan.

Corbett and Johnson, I think would have made Dempsey look like an amateur tbh. Too fast, too good, and tough too. They also had a seemingly endless supply of energy whereas Dempsey seemed to give up rounds as time went on (middle rounds) only to come back strong at the end.

[APerno]

How would Dempsey's heavyweight career have shaped if he'd been battling prime versions of Johnson, Jeffries, Corbett, Sullivan, Fitzsimmons etc up to a good 30 years before he was actually champion?

- Question seems a bit muddled James since 30 years previous Sullivan had begun his great dissipation after having vanquished all his foes with an undefeated record. He was drinking America dry for years before showing up in his last fight against Corbett, not a fair contest.

In addition to your names provided, Jack had've fought Kid McCoy, Joe Choynski, Sailor Jack Sharkey, Peter Jackson, and Jennette, Langford, Wills, and McVey plus an additional 30 years of lesser contenders. Jack was a primal talent that changed the shape of boxing no matter who he fought. I'd rate Fitz and Langford as his toughest comp because they could box and had great power and were quick.

And no, Tunney didn't dominate their fight as the misguided types claim with no scores ever provided. The biggest boxing youtubers back in the day like The Great A all had the same video of those two fights with missing minutes and poor quality such that they were impossible to judge, but Tunney was on his back foot for much of the time, at one point checking to see if his teeth were still there. Moreover Jack knocked him out with the sweetest combo since his opening salvo on Willard to no credit. Jack and Gene showed two of the most dominant successful styles still in use today that changed boxing for the better, so this notion that modern fighters have progressed is nonsense, they've adapted to new rules, regulations, and equipment. See Tyson and Frazier among heavies.

People ain't suddenly got smart genes, but they definitely got a lot more lard that seems to be growing between their ears as well as daily news of today demonstrate.

Now the Johnson vs Dempsey fight was tackled exhaustively here many years back, a hot topic back in their day as well as here.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=97251

Do you think Tunney dominated Dempsey in the first fight?

Dempsey did; felt he gave a better performance second time out in '27. In his own words Dempsey entered and left the ring (in '26) with much self doubt. ---> http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2016 ... orner.html

[Ambling Alp II]

Sullivan vs Dempsey.... Depends on the rules really... Sullivan had 300+ MQ rules bouts and a handful of LPR rules bouts... He's greatly underrated by people today, but from everything I read his explosiveness and power and toughness and conditioning was first rate and his counter-punching & feinting was world-class... Throw in the fact he had fast hands, I think he'd of given Dempsey a helluva fight because Sullivan PREFERRED guys standing right in front of him trading punches... It's really a 50/50 contest if people think about it... Mind you, 1892 (Sullivan's retirement) and 1919 (Dempey-Willard) was only 30 years difference, so very little advancements in boxing would have taken place.

Same thing with Fitzsimmons and Jeffries, who were also massive punchers with many similar abilities and style as Sullivan.

Corbett and Johnson, I think would have made Dempsey look like an amateur tbh. Too fast, too good, and tough too. They also had a seemingly endless supply of energy whereas Dempsey seemed to give up rounds as time went on (middle rounds) only to come back strong at the end.

Sullivan had more than a handful of LPR fights.
The vast majority of his the 300+ fights you speak of were against fighters that were almost complete novices.
Dempsey did not stand right in front of opponents and trade punches. He showed a lot of head movement and usually came in at angles than made him harder to hit than one might think.
The sport did advance some in the years (actually 27) between Sullivan's last fight and when Dempsey won the title.
The sport got better in the early days mainly because new techniques and strategies were still be developed in the late 19th century and early 20th.

All of this does not mean that Sullivan was not that good or had no chance against Dempsey. Obviously Sullivan was good and he would have had an outside chance against Dempsey.

[HomicideHenry]

Sullivan's fights under the London Prize Ring rules are as follows: Jack Curley, Paddy Ryan (first fight), John Flood, John Donaldson, Charlie Mitchell (2nd fight), Jake Kilrain. One more than a handful, but regardless he was no bareknuckle man as the bulk of his career was under the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

As for the assertion that the majority of men he faced were novices, I highly disagree. The problem with 19th century America and prior is a lack of record keeping. After all prizefighting was illegal, therefore most bouts were done in secret and seldom reported. Take Paddy Ryan, for example, clearly his record is incomplete because he was known as "Champion of the Great Lakes & Erie Canal", and yet we have no record of him winning that distinction before claiming the American Heavyweight title.

Sullivan, regardless, was something unique and special. Even before becoming a professional, he smacked around the highly respected Joe Goss and Mike Donovan in exhibition fights where they challenged all comers. Sullivan was essentially a freak athlete, much like Jim Thorpe and later Brock Lesnar where natural talent took him farther than the most experienced of opponents.

[Ambling Alp II]

He had many more bareknuckles fights than those mentioned.
He fought many fights against whoever would get in the ring with from the crowd. Many of these guys were not really professional boxers. This has been documented in Biographies on Sullivan books on boxing.
Of course some of his opponents were against professionals who didn't have complete records; though Paddy Ryan was very inexperienced when he won the title. I have seen his record as 0-1 before he beat Joe Goss.

I agree that Sullivan was something special and is very misunderstood by many.

[HomicideHenry]

I think the biographies, to a point, are incorrect when it comes to the notion that alot of people were completely novices and debuters. Who in their right mind would fight the world's champion for $400 or $1,000 and no title on the line, IF you could last 4 rounds with him?

That's part of the reason I must assume alot of them had to of been prizefighters of some note, because of the "no guarantee" of success in such a proposition. Now, they may have been of the London Prize Ring rules persuasion, and such experience wouldn't have translated to the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Many LPR combatants were wrestlers not strikers, so of course in a "shoot out" they'd come up short miserably.

But to assert that they were mainly farmers, miners, lumberjacks, blacksmiths, etc with zero experience in fighting... I disagree with that prognosis...

Mind you, even in the era of Dempsey, there was fighters who have been forgotten to history who got the better of The Manassa Mauler (at least early on) like "Big Ed" who defeated Dempsey in a hybrid rules match back when Dempsey was Kid Blackie.

Hell, take someone like Klondike Mike Mahoney, who nearly defeated Tommy Burns in a bareknuckle kickboxing match during Burns time in the Yukon. NOTHING is really known of him outside of that footnote in history.

Just because we know nothing of somebody doesn't mean they were a debuter to combat. What it means is we have a very limited picture of certain eras before the advent of film and "honest" journalism covering every aspect of life in a region.

[Ambling Alp II]

A lot of people would have stepped for a few hundred dollars in the ring to last a few rounds against Sullivan. You are talking about several months pay here. We know it happened because it has been well documented in multiple books which included extensive newspaper research. Volunteers were literally picked out of a crowd.
In many of these "fights" Sullivan had no idea who he would clobber that night.
Sullivan had hundreds of these types of fights. There is no way that he could have fought that many real professional fighters in that short of a period of a time. The sheer logistics of lining up all of these fights against real professionals in advance would have been impossible.

I do agree that there are probably opponents that Sullivan beat (both bareknuckles and with gloves) that have been lost to history. Nobody was keeping records at the time and there is no way all of them could have been recorded. Most were not real professionals but I am sure there were some.
I'm also sure that some of his opponents that have been recorded have very incomplete records.

And to a much lesser extent the same is true with Dempsey and some of his opponents.

I was just addressing your original post which was riddled with inaccuracies.

[APerno]

Sullivan repeatedly stated he hated fighting bare knuckle, he hated being grabbed, he hated not being able to bang on his opponent's head, he hated being wrestled to the ground, he hated that his opponents could take a knee and stall (e.g. Kilrain) - he hated having to shave his mustache off and crop his hair for fear of being grabbed -- the come out of the audience and last four rounds challenges were gloved fights -- it is absurd to think the man would fight all those 'meaningless fights' without protecting his hands with gloves, especially a man who is repeatedly on record for hating to fight bare knuckle -- whether they were good opponents or not is open to debate, but there is no reason to believe (or even to speculate) that there are more bare knuckle fights than the few recorded; we can take Sullivan at his word, he didn't want bare knuckle fights and took them only when he was forced into the pitch. John L. Sullivan was NOT a bare knuckle fighter, he was a MQB gloved fighter (a boxer) who only occasionally (against his own desire) fought bare knuckle.

[Ambling Alp II]

I agree with you. I was just saying that he certainly had many more bareknuckles fights than the 6 that homicide mentioned.

[APerno]

Warning: Digression from the OP

Check out the round times in this bare knuckle fight. -- I enjoy the fact that they actually threw their hats in the ring (well actually the one guy threw in his "beaver.") - The fight was particularly brutal. Actually it is kind of surprising that the Times saw fit to report on the fight in this manner, usually when you look back into the 19th century you mostly find reformers protesting the game; not here, lots of detail right down to the sound of bones cracking.

[HomicideHenry]

I'm not saying all were prizefighters. After all, in the 1880s a weekly wage was like $5 or so. A hard up farmer, etc would be naive enough to try his hand. However, since nothing is known of these people outside of the line or two in a newspaper, I speculate that some were indeed fighters of some kind.

And excellent article APerno. People tend to forget just how much Sullivan actually cleaned up the sport and it's image. Prior to him, these were more like skirmishes where "anything goes" and you were often fighting the crowd as well as your opponent, and had to dodge not only fists, kicks, knees, slams but (from time to time) weapons and surroundings. Morrissey who was known as Old Smoke, got that nickname because he was literally knocked into a steel coal stove and his skin and clothes began to smoke, and he came back to win the fight. Was a completely different business then.

Imagine Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder, essentially, fighting in a barroom and the only stipulation was, "To win you must knock out your opponent or make him say he quits," and during the fight they break through tables, walls, and there's broken glass everywhere. Oh and it's bareknuckle and "anything goes".