Jack Dempsey

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 01 Sep 2006, 12:23

Is Dempsey disregarded too easily these days?

A lot of champions ducked one or 2 guys in their reign but Dempsey seems to get the worst of it. In many ways he seems light years ahead of his peers at the time when he won the title.

He was an excellent swarming fighter, with great speed, very good durability and decent boxing skills.

Up until the 50s many regarded him as the greatest ever. I had a copy of The Ring from the 1960s that claimed he was the greatest ever HW champion. In the 1980s he came 5th in an analysis by The Ring. These days he doesn't even make a lot of top 10s.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 01 Sep 2006, 13:04

Ezzard wrote:Is Dempsey disregarded too easily these days?

A lot of champions ducked one or 2 guys in their reign but Dempsey seems to get the worst of it. In many ways he seems light years ahead of his peers at the time when he won the title.

He was an excellent swarming fighter, with great speed, very good durability and decent boxing skills.

Up until the 50s many regarded him as the greatest ever. I had a copy of The Ring from the 1960s that claimed he was the greatest ever HW champion. In the 1980s he came 5th in an analysis by The Ring. These days he doesn't even make a lot of top 10s.

This is what happens in every sport. Sullivan was also generally considered the best for quite a few years, but dropped from the list entirely. Jeffries was also VERY highly ranked until probably the 60’s. Louis was #1 until Ali came along. And probably in 20-30 years, Ali will drop to around #5, while Louis may drop to the 6-10 range. And by then, Dempsey will be considered a primitive “pioneer” of the sport, much the same way many fans now look at Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, etc.

You see the same thing in every other sport as well. Most baseball fans don’t even know the names of the best pre-1950 players, and few would even consider any of these “old time” players as being remotely close to the current crop of players. Sad, but that’s just the way it is.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 01 Sep 2006, 14:40

Ezzard wrote:Is Dempsey disregarded too easily these days?

A lot of champions ducked one or 2 guys in their reign but Dempsey seems to get the worst of it.

I wouldn't know any other heavyweight champion who did NOT fight the one by far most deserving challenger - Harry Wills - for a period of 7 long years.

The "case Dempsey" is indeed pretty singluar.

Aldo Pravisani · Post by **Aldo Pravisani** » 01 Sep 2006, 19:36

pundit wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Is Dempsey disregarded too easily these days?

A lot of champions ducked one or 2 guys in their reign but Dempsey seems to get the worst of it.
I wouldn't know any other heavyweight champion who did NOT fight the one by far most deserving challenger - Harry Wills - for a period of 7 long years.

The "case Dempsey" is indeed pretty singluar.

I think Jack Dempsey, like all sportsmen of that era, was a creature of his time and there was little he could have done about it. Perhaps he hid behind the "skin colour" banner because he did not want to risk his title to an extremely dangerous challenger, perhaps public opinione did not want to have another Jack Johnson on its hands.

Thank goodness things have changed somewhat.

You have to feel sorry for the Harry Willses of the world, and there have been many to suffer because of racism, but nevertheless denying Dempsey's greatness would be just as serious a fault.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 01 Sep 2006, 20:13

I do not know how many times anyone has to explain this shit to pundit...

look at it this way, ok?

Would you rather be paid $100 to carry 75 pounds up a flight of stairs?

Or...

Would you rather get paid $100 to carry 25 pounds up a flight of stairs?

GENE TUNNEY was THE bigger draw, thus he would make the bigger money.

Harry Wills wasn't ducked because he was a black man. He was prolly ducked because there was no interest in having a black fighter face off against a white fighter, especially after Jack Johnson. Everyone was scared shitless that if another blackman would win the title that he would be as big a braggart and scandalous as Jack Johnson was.

That's the truth of the matter. It wasn't a racist thing on Dempsey's part.

In defense of Dempsey, I bring up these points:

1-Jack Dempsey had fought black men in his early career

2- Jack Dempsey used black men as sparring partners

3- While he did not defend his title for 3yrs, Dempsey was becoming a huge celebrity, possibly boxing's biggest star to date, and was in Hollywood making movies and had signed million dollar contracts to do films and was married in that time as well, and had also done several exhibitions to stay in shape while shooting.

4- There were OTHER deserving men in line for a title shot, not just Wills. What about George Godfrey who had an even higher ko percentage than Dempsey? There were plenty of top ranking contenders deserving of the shot other than Wills.

On that note, YES i would have loved to have seen Dempsey square off against Harry Wills, it would have been a great fight, but knowing what I know of Wills he did have his flaws as well, he wasn't superman, and a style like Dempsey's could have gave him alot of trouble.

The inactivity that Dempsey had would have been a vast advantage for Wills, and it is very much possible, because of that fact, that he could have been champion, and not Gene Tunney.

But bottom line....it wasn't a racist thing, it was a money thing.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 01 Sep 2006, 21:19

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:I do not know how many times anyone has to explain this shit to pundit...

look at it this way, ok?

Would you rather be paid $100 to carry 75 pounds up a flight of stairs?

Or...

Would you rather get paid $100 to carry 25 pounds up a flight of stairs?

GENE TUNNEY was THE bigger draw, thus he would make the bigger money.

Not in 1919. Not in 1920. Not in 1921. Not in 1922. Not in 1923. Not in 1924. Perhaps in 1925. For sure in 1926.

Harry Wills wasn't ducked because he was a black man. He was prolly ducked because there was no interest in having a black fighter face off against a white fighter, especially after Jack Johnson. Everyone was scared shitless that if another blackman would win the title that he would be as big a braggart and scandalous as Jack Johnson was.

Don't you contradict yourself in this paragraph?

Anyway, there was of course lots of interest in Dempsey-Wills. The NY boxing commission even stripped Dempey for not fighting Wills.

That's the truth of the matter. It wasn't a racist thing on Dempsey's part.

I didn't say it was racist. But he didn't fight the by far most dserving challenger in 7 long years.

In defense of Dempsey, I bring up these points:

1-Jack Dempsey had fought black men in his early career

Why does this compensate for not given Wills a shot at the title? Strange logic.

2- Jack Dempsey used black men as sparring partners

See 1.

3- While he did not defend his title for 3yrs, Dempsey was becoming a huge celebrity, possibly boxing's biggest star to date, and was in Hollywood making movies and had signed million dollar contracts to do films and was married in that time as well, and had also done several exhibitions to stay in shape while shooting.

How is this in defense for Dempsey?

4- There were OTHER deserving men in line for a title shot, not just Wills. What about George Godfrey who had an even higher ko percentage than Dempsey? There were plenty of top ranking contenders deserving of the shot other than Wills.

With Godfrey Brockton has created quite a bit of damage here. Godfrey wasn't a top challenger during Dempsey's reign. He was traded as a challenger in 1928, but only as one among several.

Harry Wills, in contrast, was the #1 challenger in 1919. He was the #1 challenger in 1920. He was the #1 challenger in 1921. He was the #1 challenger in 1922. He was the #1 challenger in 1923. He was the #1 challenger in 1924. He was the #1 challenger in 1925.

He was arguably the #1 challenger also in 1915, 1916, 1917, and 1918. He was more deserving of a shot at Willard than Dempsey.

On that note, YES i would have loved to have seen Dempsey square off against Harry Wills, it would have been a great fight, but knowing what I know of Wills he did have his flaws as well, he wasn't superman, and a style like Dempsey's could have gave him alot of trouble.

We will never know. But we know that it was THE heavyweight fight to be made.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 02 Sep 2006, 02:25

..dempsey has never been one of my favorites, but the reason he didn't fight harry wills was simply that tex rickard refused to make the match...nor would he have matched dempsey against any other black fighter of that era.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 02 Sep 2006, 10:55

Jaclem wrote:..dempsey has never been one of my favorites, but the reason he didn't fight harry wills was simply that tex rickard refused to make the match...nor would he have matched dempsey against any other black fighter of that era.

I don't dispute this at all -- but that's a tragedy for boxing.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Sep 2006, 12:58

so you critisize dempsey for not beating the best contender of his era........yet u praise quitschko who did not beat the best contenders of his era?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Sep 2006, 18:21

With Godfrey Brockton has created quite a bit of damage here. Godfrey wasn't a top challenger during Dempsey's reign. He was traded as a challenger in 1928, but only as one among several.

he wasnt?? then explain to me why godfrey was rated in the top 10 1924-29?????

UpWithEvil · Post by **UpWithEvil** » 02 Sep 2006, 19:12

I wonder what's going on in that picture. Looks like Dempsey on the far left. I'm pretty sure the fellow in the middle is boxing promoter Floyd Fitzsimmons, who promoted Dempsey's first title defense against Billy Miske. I think the guy on the far right is Louis Armstrong or Cab Calloway but I could be wrong.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 02 Sep 2006, 22:10

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:so you critisize dempsey for not beating the best contender of his era........yet u praise quitschko who did not beat the best contenders of his era?

Klitschko wasn't champ, except for a very short period at the end--or was he?

Demspey was champ for seven long years though and the by far most deserving challenger didn't get a shot in all these years.

Aldo Pravisani · Post by **Aldo Pravisani** » 03 Sep 2006, 05:25

There were rumors, obviously only from what I read, that when Dempsey stopped Willard, his gloves might have been loaded, and that Rickard sprinkled plaster of Paris on Dempsey's wet bandages prior to the match's commencement.

Willard always claimed that Dempsey could have inflicted so much damage to his own face only if it were so, and that Dempsey's manager stood to lose a fortune if the Manassa Mauler did not win by a first round KO.

Some 40 odd years ago, Boxing Illustrated ran an article, where Cleveland Williams and his trainer ran an experiment, duplicating to the letter the supposed loading of the gloves.

After an allotted time allowed for the plaster to set on the Big Cat's fists, the plaster formed a thin crust that dissolved the second that Williams thumped the big bag, theoretically dispelling a myth that Demsey always denied happening.

Any of you guys ever heard any more on this story?

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 03 Sep 2006, 07:42

Yes that rumor was out there for a long while. I thought it was Kearns who claimed that he did it .
I thought he started that rumor while he was beefing with Dempsey.
I could be wrong about this.
I dont believe it and I think your right that it was later put to rest.
Kearns while a colorful guy seemed to have more stories than the Sears Tower.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 05 Sep 2006, 04:18

So where should Dempsey rank in the pantheon of greats and why?

Aldo Pravisani · Post by **Aldo Pravisani** » 05 Sep 2006, 04:33

Ezzard wrote:So where should Dempsey rank in the pantheon of greats and why?

I was going to work out my top ten Heavyweight Champions, but I haven't got around to it yet. But I would say definitely a top ten champion. Very strong, hard puncher and fearless.

As a younger man, that is before the Tunney fights, when his legs could carry him, he would have been very hard to hit with his bob and weave style while attaccking behind a destructive left hook.

This at least is my opinion.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 05 Sep 2006, 04:45

For me Dempsey would rank around the lower end of the top 10; along with Marciano, Holyfield, and Tyson. I'd say hes about on par with these guys, maybe the best out of them and I'd rank them 9-12 on the all time list

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 05 Sep 2006, 09:58

I guess that I really love the era from Johnson to Dempsey. It was a remarkable time in American history and the stories of these men and their times seem to embody what a fighting man was (should be).

Dempsey's tactics were blitzkreig to a division still coming to terms with Johnson's slower paced, methodical unpicking of his opponents. Johnson wanted opponents to waste their energy trying to KO him. He wanted to preseve his energy and spirit for the later rounds. Dempsey was the opposite and looked to inflict as much damage as early as possible. He would then pace himself in the middle of the fight and turn it back on in the later rounds.

I think Dempsey was quick for a HW swarmer. He had power in both hands but his much vaunted left hook was a real killer. He was also one of the better boxers of the KO artists and had possibly the best defence of the swarmers.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 05 Sep 2006, 13:22

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

With Godfrey Brockton has created quite a bit of damage here. Godfrey wasn't a top challenger during Dempsey's reign. He was traded as a challenger in 1928, but only as one among several.

he wasnt?? then explain to me why godfrey was rated in the top 10 1924-29?????

Godfrey was rated #8 in 1924, #6 in 1925, wasn't rated in the Top 15 in 1926, was rated #9 in 1927, #2 in 1928, and #3 in 1929.
(From 1924-1927 the Champion was rated # 1, so Godfrey was actually one notch higher in those years)

Godfrey wasn't the # 1 challenger in either the Tunney or Dempsey title reigns.
Wills was #2 rated heavyweight in both 1924 and 1925, behind just the champion Dempsey. He was considered the top challenger by many for several years before there were ratings.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 05 Sep 2006, 14:09

Wills was #2 rated heavyweight in both 1924 and 1925, behind just the champion Dempsey. He was considered the top challenger by many for several years before there were ratings.

harry wills also blantantly outright ducked george godfrey. i have MANY SOURCES. the black press critisized wills for ducking godfrey.

wills ducked godfrey cause he knew he was old and that he could not beat godfrey.

rankings aside, godfrey was the best heavyweight challenger in the world, not wills.

godfrey would have knocked wills out in 1925

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 05 Sep 2006, 14:14

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Wills was #2 rated heavyweight in both 1924 and 1925, behind just the champion Dempsey. He was considered the top challenger by many for several years before there were ratings.

harry wills also blantantly outright ducked george godfrey. i have MANY SOURCES. the black press critisized wills for ducking godfrey.

Only champs can duck contenders, so talking of Wills "ducking" Gdofrey doesn't make sense. #1 contender Wills was duckED 1916-1925, first by Jess Willard and then by Jack Dempsey, not duckING.

As for Godfrey, he was never the #1 contender and hence not the obvious man to fight, so he can't have been ducked.

P

UpWithEvil · Post by **UpWithEvil** » 05 Sep 2006, 16:10

Only champs can duck contenders, so talking of Wills "ducking" Gdofrey doesn't make sense. #1 contender Wills was duckED 1916-1925, first by Jess Willard and then by Jack Dempsey, not duckING.

Ah yes, presumably Jack Dempsey could have only avoided charges of "ducking" Wills if he had signed a THIRD contract to face him, rather than the clearly inadequate two contracts.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 25 Jul 2012, 07:05

always a topic to get people going...

keithmoonhangover · Post by **keithmoonhangover** » 29 Jul 2012, 15:54

The life that Dempsey had growing up and the way he learned how to fight was a lot different from the kids of today. The likes of Dempsey and Ketchel before him, had to in order to eat and ultimately to survive. As I'm sure most of you know, the term 'killer instsinct' was coined by someone watching Dempsey. He more fight in him than almost any fighter in history. Styles change, training methods change and I'm sure if Dempsey had grown up in the 80's and trained at the Kronk of 5th Street, his style would have been different. I only wish there was footage of a lot of Dempsey's pre-title fights - although not the fights he threw.

Boilermaker · Post by **Boilermaker** » 29 Jul 2012, 17:14

pundit wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Wills was #2 rated heavyweight in both 1924 and 1925, behind just the champion Dempsey. He was considered the top challenger by many for several years before there were ratings.

harry wills also blantantly outright ducked george godfrey. i have MANY SOURCES. the black press critisized wills for ducking godfrey.
Only champs can duck contenders, so talking of Wills "ducking" Gdofrey doesn't make sense. #1 contender Wills was duckED 1916-1925, first by Jess Willard and then by Jack Dempsey, not duckING.

As for Godfrey, he was never the #1 contender and hence not the obvious man to fight, so he can't have been ducked.

P

Wills WAS the coloured Champion! I think there was definitely a time when Godfrey was the number one contender to this belt. Wills was also the second highest drawing (and paid) fighter of the era.

Jack Dempsey

Jack Dempsey

Re: Jack Dempsey

Re: Jack Dempsey

Re: Jack Dempsey

Re: Jack Dempsey

Re: Jack Dempsey

Re: