BoxRec

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Sorry, didn't you just falsely accuse me of demanding Dempsey be referred to as, "a God?"

Pretty hypocritical.

I can certainly exaggerate on my own and I've definitely egged you on a bit. I ranked jack at the tail end of a top 100 all time fighters on a list i did for another site.

It never had to get to that. Simply because I think frazier is a bad style match up for him you got all on your high horse. I knew who jack dempsey was and his career record about 17 years before you were conceived.

I know it's fun to tackle the old timers when so many young fans slam on them. It's refreshing to see a youngster have respect for the pioneers. But you don't have to be so arrogant about it.

Calling Dempsey a paper champion, saying that he accomplished nothing as champion is crazy.

Holyfield loses the decision or gets stopped late.

"...Simply because I think frazier is a bad style match up for him you got all on your high horse. I knew who jack dempsey was and his career record about 17 years before you were conceived..."

The red herring of your second sentence aside, the first statement is just not true. Take a look back at that thread, if you doubt me, & see how many people who picked Frazier I took anywhere near the issue with I did with you.

I will admit, I agree with a lot of what you say on unrelated fighters, or, at least, can see where you're coming from. On Dempsey, I just cannot believe how extremist your viewpoint is. I don't know if I can recall a poster (other than the kids who think anyone who fought before they were born is, "too little & too old-school") who thought so little of a fighter --- any fighter --- so great.

Even if you don't think much of Dempsey, it's absurdist to suggest his power wouldn't threaten Frazier's chin & style.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"...Simply because I think frazier is a bad style match up for him you got all on your high horse. I knew who jack dempsey was and his career record about 17 years before you were conceived..."

The red herring of your second sentence aside, the first statement is just not true. Take a look back at that thread, if you doubt me, & see how many people who picked Frazier I took anywhere near the issue with I did with you.

I will admit, I agree with a lot of what you say on unrelated fighters, or, at least, can see where you're coming from. On Dempsey, I just cannot believe how extremist your viewpoint is. I don't know if I can recall a poster (other than the kids who think anyone who fought before they were born is, "too little & too old-school") who thought so little of a fighter --- any fighter --- so great.

Even if you don't think much of Dempsey, it's absurdist to suggest his power wouldn't threaten Frazier's chin & style.

Like I said, i exaggerated quite a bit after the initial thread. "You know not what you see" got me rolling. My opinion of Dempsey has changed over the years. Comparing eras and fighters from different ones is certainly subjective. You will find as you watch and read, sometimes you come up with something different than you initially thought.

I'm sure you've had many fights where you were certain of the outcome and had the majority against you. that's part of the fun of the Sport. No matter how certain you are, there are never any guarantees.

I can't see Dempsey backing joe up, I don't think he had the physical strength to do it. The only edge I see for Jack is hand speed and obviously his right hand was superior. It's an uphill climb imo and I just can't see him winning. Does that mean it's impossible? Of course not, if somebody would have told me Douglas was knocking out tyson I would have ran away from the lunatic.

Anyway, my bad for poking you on it and I'll just agree to disagree about Jack Dempsey.

It is really amazing to me the way some folks impose standards from the 21st century on fighters of the early 20th century. Jack Dempsey is a case in point. Some modern fans criticize Dempsey for his three-year, as Saad put it, “vacation.” Yet, in those days, long absences from the ring were pretty routine: of the champs who preceded Dempsey, only Jeffries and Burns fought at least once a year during their reigns as champion and only Burns more than once a year – the others all had extended layoffs of over two years or more. Why?

The main reason is that the heavyweight championship was more lucrative as a meal ticket than it is today – in other words, a champion could make more money through non-ring activities like vaudeville and movies than he could defending his title. In 1903, sportswriters inquired of Jeffries why he delayed in signing to fight a rematch with Jim Corbett. Jeff forthrightly replied: “If I fight Corbett, I’ll get a purse of $20,000 before expenses and net about $10,000 for eight weeks of hard training and a tough fight. In vaudeville, I get $1,000 a week for going on stage for 30 minutes a night. You do the math.” (This is a paraphrase, not a quote.)

It’s important with Dempsey to realize that he was also embroiled in a dispute with his manager, Doc Kearns, whom he wamted to shelve as his manager, but who would also not go quietly into the night. Dempsey knew by 1925 that if he signed for a fight, Kearns would be trying to attach his purse and instigate all kinds of legal action (which, in fact Kearns did, when Dempsey finally signed to fight Tunney).

Certainly, the fans wanted more frequent defenses – read the newspapers from that era, and the fans and sportswriters repeated implored Corbett, Willard, Fitz, et al to defend their titles. But to suggest that Dempsey was a “paper champion,” does not consider the context of the times.

I'm not oblivious to the difference in the times. But Boxing isn't Football. You can rank Otto Graham high at QB, even though they didn't throw as much then. But when I see Dempsey in the top 3 alltime Heavyweights when he didn't do what many others did, I have to laugh. I've never questioned the mans talent, but his title reign was lacking of the substance to say he was greater than a Larry Holmes or a Joe Frazier. It just isn't there.

The Fitz-Corbett was scheduled and postponed over a period of YEARS because of the difficulties involved in putting on a fight in various locales at that time.

Corbett and Fitz first signed to fight in 1894.

They didn't fight until 1897.

I don't see either of them ranked as high as dempsey, though Fitz gets some p4p love. Harry greb managed to fight 60 times while Jack was getting paid to drink at parties.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I don't see either of them ranked as high as dempsey, though Fitz gets some p4p love. Harry greb managed to fight 60 times while Jack was getting paid to drink at parties.

Yeah and he married a movie star. It sounds like a pretty good life, and considering what Dempsey had to go through to get the title it should be easy to understand.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: Harry greb managed to fight 60 times while Jack was getting paid to drink at parties.

- And Ali was paid more than much of the globe's 3rd world countries' national budget to fight little Leon, the kind of deal that no red blooded American male of any age would turn down.

And you've managed to chew up more of the ring canvas on the deck than any previous KO victim in history. Same ol' same ol' for you except now you're in the record books!

The Great John L wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I don't see either of them ranked as high as dempsey, though Fitz gets some p4p love. Harry greb managed to fight 60 times while Jack was getting paid to drink at parties.

Yeah and he married a movie star. It sounds like a pretty good life, and considering what Dempsey had to go through to get the title it should be easy to understand.

No doubt, his path to the title was much tougher than Wills.

Dempsey is not the only fighter that sat on their title for a length of time.

The problem is that his advocates often over look that he did this. Regardless
of it being a different era.

Even if there were no challenges, any challenger is better than not fighting
and giving 'bum' a shot. Boxing is a sport, and as such it belongs to the paying
public that want to be entertained. And when the Worlds Heavyweight Champion
denies his public a defence for 3 years because he had better things to do,
then that in itself is a disgrace.

As great as Dempsey was, he was not without his faults.

Once again, I think Marciano vs Dempsey peak for peak would be an exciting
fight to watch.

It is only, "a disgrace" in retrospect --- & nowhere else.

Dempsey cleaned out the division before being champ in a way that was comparable to say Liston or Tyson (if you think of him becoming champ after beating Spinks). These guys were champs well before they actually won the championship (if you follow my messed up logic). There are plenty of top contenders on Dempsey’s record, just most of them come before he won the title.

A guy like Willard gets laughed at now but he would have been a formidable fighter in a 45 round fight.

I think Dempsey did more than enough to be considered one of the great HW champs. Up until the 1960s Dempsey versus Louis was often the match-up to go to for the greatest of all-time.

Regardless of those feats. The fact that the man did not grant a rematch or
take on any challenger for 3 years. Is the point.

Robinson wrote:Regardless of those feats. The fact that the man did not grant a rematch or
take on any challenger for 3 years. Is the point.

It's fair to say that but do you do this in reverse? Do you factor in that Lennox never fought 15 rounds? Do you factor in that when Ali was champ the communist bloc did not allow boxers to turn pro? Don't you think, in some weird parallel universe, that Holmes would have done exactly the same thing in the 1920s if he could have (sat on the title).

You have to have a little leap of faith no matter who you are assessing.

Check out the 100M final. Do you really believe the human body is getting faster in such a short time, or do you think that these guys are products of their time?

Being great in the context of your day is all that you can ever be. The rest is enjoyable debate between us all.

Robinson wrote:Regardless of those feats. The fact that the man did not grant a rematch or
take on any challenger for 3 years. Is the point.

To whom should he have granted a rematch and why?

Who would you have had him fight during his three-year hiatus? (Aside from Wills, whose situation has been discussed ad nauseum.)

What do you know about the circumstances of his lay-off? Or don't those circumstances matter in your opinion?

Robinson wrote:Dempsey is not the only fighter that sat on their title for a length of time.

The problem is that his advocates often over look that he did this. Regardless
of it being a different era.

Even if there were no challenges, any challenger is better than not fighting
and giving 'bum' a shot. Boxing is a sport, and as such it belongs to the paying
public that want to be entertained. And when the Worlds Heavyweight Champion
denies his public a defence for 3 years because he had better things to do,
then that in itself is a disgrace.

- Problem is with YOU my friend, not Dempsey, but can you even see the disgrace of your position?

Dempsey never denied the public anything. He was easily the most accessible champ in history to that date, arguably ever. He thrilled the public in movies, theater, and exhibitions at all points of North America and even into Europe.

But apparently you wanted him to fight a bunch of Coopmans, Evangelists, Lubbers, Leons and such, eh, and that puts him on your heroes' list? Jack can live with himself just fine thankyou, but he did fight dozens of those fights, he just couldn't call them title matches.

He was frozen out of title defenses in this period just as sure as Wills was getting a shot at his title. Do you crack on Ali for not defending his title for 3yrs, disgracefully going on the college lecture circuit and denying his fans? Much similarity to Dempsey save some official strippage. Boxing orgs hadn't advanced enough to strip anyone then. That's part of YOUR era my friend, so where's the apologies for the disgrace you share?

Holyfield TKO9 in a competitive fight[quote][/quote] with Marciano getting dropped a couple times before his corner stops it

Ezzard wrote:Dempsey cleaned out the division before being champ in a way that was comparable to say Liston or Tyson (if you think of him becoming champ after beating Spinks). These guys were champs well before they actually won the championship (if you follow my messed up logic). There are plenty of top contenders on Dempsey’s record, just most of them come before he won the title.

A guy like Willard gets laughed at now but he would have been a formidable fighter in a 45 round fight.

I think Dempsey did more than enough to be considered one of the great HW champs. Up until the 1960s Dempsey versus Louis was often the match-up to go to for the greatest of all-time.

You mean he clean out the WHITE part of the divsion right?? Harry Wills sure didnt get his shot at Willard, nor a pre title shot vs the up and coming Jack Dempsey.

Dempsey1238 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Dempsey cleaned out the division before being champ in a way that was comparable to say Liston or Tyson (if you think of him becoming champ after beating Spinks). These guys were champs well before they actually won the championship (if you follow my messed up logic). There are plenty of top contenders on Dempsey’s record, just most of them come before he won the title.

A guy like Willard gets laughed at now but he would have been a formidable fighter in a 45 round fight.

I think Dempsey did more than enough to be considered one of the great HW champs. Up until the 1960s Dempsey versus Louis was often the match-up to go to for the greatest of all-time.

You mean he clean out the WHITE part of the divsion right?? Harry Wills sure didnt get his shot at Willard, nor a pre title shot vs the up and coming Jack Dempsey.

Aside from Wills (which has been discussed in this forum ad nauseum), which African-American fighter would have had Dempsey fight in his run-up to the title under Kearns?

raylawpc wrote:

Dempsey1238 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Dempsey cleaned out the division before being champ in a way that was comparable to say Liston or Tyson (if you think of him becoming champ after beating Spinks). These guys were champs well before they actually won the championship (if you follow my messed up logic). There are plenty of top contenders on Dempsey’s record, just most of them come before he won the title.

A guy like Willard gets laughed at now but he would have been a formidable fighter in a 45 round fight.

I think Dempsey did more than enough to be considered one of the great HW champs. Up until the 1960s Dempsey versus Louis was often the match-up to go to for the greatest of all-time.

You mean he clean out the WHITE part of the divsion right?? Harry Wills sure didnt get his shot at Willard, nor a pre title shot vs the up and coming Jack Dempsey.

Aside from Wills (which has been discussed in this forum ad nauseum), which African-American fighter would have had Dempsey fight in his run-up to the title under Kearns?

Relly no one else, but its more than just Wills. Dempsey also didnt face his number 2 in Harry Greb. Who was white.

And Greb has been demanded a fight(Not relly a title fight) since 1918 or so.

I dont think Dempsey clean out the divsion pre title like say Liston did. Dempsey still left contenders un fight both pre title and during title rein.

It was worse once he held the title, but still.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Robinson wrote:Dempsey is not the only fighter that sat on their title for a length of time.

The problem is that his advocates often over look that he did this. Regardless
of it being a different era.

Even if there were no challenges, any challenger is better than not fighting
and giving 'bum' a shot. Boxing is a sport, and as such it belongs to the paying
public that want to be entertained. And when the Worlds Heavyweight Champion
denies his public a defence for 3 years because he had better things to do,
then that in itself is a disgrace.

- Problem is with YOU my friend, not Dempsey, but can you even see the disgrace of your position?

Dempsey never denied the public anything. He was easily the most accessible champ in history to that date, arguably ever. He thrilled the public in movies, theater, and exhibitions at all points of North America and even into Europe.

But apparently you wanted him to fight a bunch of Coopmans, Evangelists, Lubbers, Leons and such, eh, and that puts him on your heroes' list? Jack can live with himself just fine thankyou, but he did fight dozens of those fights, he just couldn't call them title matches.

He was frozen out of title defenses in this period just as sure as Wills was getting a shot at his title. Do you crack on Ali for not defending his title for 3yrs, disgracefully going on the college lecture circuit and denying his fans? Much similarity to Dempsey save some official strippage. Boxing orgs hadn't advanced enough to strip anyone then. That's part of YOUR era my friend, so where's the apologies for the disgrace you share?

Well even if he defended against ANY contender, it gives another man a shot at the title. It gives
the paying public a chance to see the Champion defend his title. Any defence is better than no
defence.

A rematch against anyone, even if they lost convincingly...perhaps Firpo, seeing as that was
such an epic, though brief encounter. A fight against the aging Johnson, who was still around
and certainly could make a good crowd appear...

I think Dempsey would have most likely beaten all the challengers at that time, but we shall
never know. I think he was a great fighter and from 1919-1923 a great champion.

Am I so daft as to think that he should have defended his title against ANYONE...even if they
were only all whites.

delete

Dempsey1238 wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Dempsey1238 wrote:

You mean he clean out the WHITE part of the divsion right?? Harry Wills sure didnt get his shot at Willard, nor a pre title shot vs the up and coming Jack Dempsey.

Aside from Wills (which has been discussed in this forum ad nauseum), which African-American fighter would have had Dempsey fight in his run-up to the title under Kearns?

Relly no one else, but its more than just Wills. Dempsey also didnt face his number 2 in Harry Greb. Who was white.

And Greb has been demanded a fight(Not relly a title fight) since 1918 or so.

I dont think Dempsey clean out the divsion pre title like say Liston did. Dempsey still left contenders un fight both pre title and during title rein.

It was worse once he held the title, but still.

Ranked no. 2 by whom? Name a single promoter who seriously proposed matching Dempsey and Greb from 1918?