Was Jack Dempsey "a joke"?

YukisHeart said:
Guy was full of it; tried to badmouth Dempsey whenever he could after he was given his marching orders. There's a good article on it all here: Were Dempsey's Gloves Loaded? You Decide!

In short, Kearns had nothing to do with applying the wraps, there are pictures of Dempsey prior to the bout with the wraps on looking fine, and, finally and decisively, there is film footage of Willard examining Dempsey's wraps right before the fight kicks off.

Myth busted, as they say. :icon_chee
Click to expand...

Power punches and loaded glove accusations are very prevelant in boxing history.
Look up most any hard hitter and you will someone who said it at least once.
 
Dempsey was a killer, a true killer. In boxing almost all of the well known all time greats are stone cold killers. Marciano, Frazier, Forman, Tyson. Dempsey was arguably a more savage ring fighter than any of them.

Boxers like Willie Pep and Gene Tunney (I don't mean to imply that Tunney couldn't hit, but he was foremost a technician) tend to be appreciated by strict boxing fans, but they can't capture the public imagination the way the killers do.

Ali, Robinson, and Louis could all be considered boxers and killers, thats why you almost always see these guys at the top of any GOAT lists.
 
The Fan Man said:
I can totally see that. Even today people talk about Tyson more than any heavyweight that steps in the ring today because of his brutality. There are a few restaurants and bars in Omaha that still have this picture of Dempsey with the Mayor hanging on their walls from when he stopped by during a promotional tour.

Jack%20Dempsey%20and%20Mayor%20Dahlman.jpg


Joe Frazier fought Ron Stander here for the heavyweight title, but you only really see the fight poster in gyms.
Click to expand...

why is Dempsey wearing women's shoes. :icon_chee
 
W a n d y said:
i'm just curious, what is this forum's opinion of Muhammad Ali? i would start a thread but i have dubbz. go figure.
Click to expand...

I think most would rate him as the second greatest heavyweight of all-time behind only the Brown Bomber.
 
Jacob7767 said:
And people argue that Tyson would stand no chance versus ali. Seeing how Tysons lefts were devastating, by your calculations it would have been trouble for ali.
Click to expand...

No, there's a saying in Boxing, but I don't know who first said it:

"Dempsey is everything Mike Tyson wanted to be, but never could be."


I think a young prime Tyson has a very good chance of stopping the young prime fast Ali of the 60s, but I can't see the prime Tyson beating the slightly past it Ali of the early 70s.
 
You know the more I've looked into it the more I think Dempsey has the clear edge over Ali, too. Ali's first fight with Frazier in particular is illustrative - sure, it was competitive, but in the rounds that decided that fight Frazier made Ali look like a fool.

Dempsey was certainly capable of landing the left hooks Frazier did in that fight with at least an equal forcefulness, and actually could probably have delivered still more given his reach was 4" longer than Frazier's and his hand speed was (from what I've seen) better. (I'd put Dempsey's head movement and footwork closer to Ali's than Frazier's was in '71 too.)

Add to that the fact that Dempsey would start pouring the pressure on much, much earlier in a fight than Frazier could and the fact that he was a two-handed hitter in a way Frazier wasn't and I see any version of Ali up til '71 - while probably outpointing Dempsey for a couple of rounds - being broken down and knocked out between rounds 4 and 8. I don't really give '74 Ali a much better chance - no way he could have nullifed Dempsey's inside game in the clinch the way he did Frazier's that year given all the wrestling experience fighters of Dempsey's era brought to the table.
 
A little of Frazier in action to compare with if anyone needs their memory jogged; clips of the first Ali fight start about 1:50:

 
I have had my doubts about Ali also but Ali seems to have had the consistently better opposition compared to Dempsey.
 
Hey! Sweet. A ressurected thread. No sarcasm.

None of the posters from 2010 remain. Crazy turnover for forum members.

Makes me miss consortium a bit for reasons I could never begin to justify.

Dempsey was hardcore. I am not saying he was the best heavyweight, but he was a fast, two-fisted fighter that never let up. His two drawbacks were that he never really cut the ring off and he was willing to trade when the going got tough. He was a fighter that, for any criticisms people will leverage against him, they tend to fail to realize that he was more than the sum of his parts when he got in the ring (as many gritty fighters so often are). The best infighter lost a decision in Shelby Montana and the best LHW, Tunney, that went up to HW to fight Jack, caught him past his prime with three years of fat and rust hanging off his body.
 
wilddeuces said:
Hey! Sweet. A ressurected thread. No sarcasm.

None of the posters from 2010 remain. Crazy turnover for forum members.

Makes me miss consortium a bit for reasons I could never begin to justify.

Dempsey was hardcore. I am not saying he was the best heavyweight, but he was a fast, two-fisted fighter that never let up. His two drawbacks were that he never really cut the ring off and he was willing to trade when the going got tough. He was a fighter that, for any criticisms people will leverage against him, they tend to fail to realize that he was more than the sum of his parts when he got in the ring (as many gritty fighters so often are). The best infighter lost a decision in Shelby Montana and the best LHW, Tunney, that went up to HW to fight Jack, caught him past his prime with three years of fat and rust hanging off his body.
Click to expand...
The guy who made the thread is still around
@YukisHeart
 
not the greatest fighter or heavyweight but the most important fighter in my mind. His contributions turned everything before him on it's head. don't know how i missed this thread. How would he have done with later greats? I don't know, none of them would have been easy wins and that includes Marciano. But.., it's like saying someone today can play guitar better than jimi, but would they have even ever picked up a guitar if it weren't for jimi? or, as steve vai has said "I play better technically but I play a style that he invented".
 
mozfonky said:
not the greatest fighter or heavyweight but the most important fighter in my mind. His contributions turned everything before him on it's head. don't know how i missed this thread. How would he have done with later greats? I don't know, none of them would have been easy wins and that includes Marciano. But.., it's like saying someone today can play guitar better than jimi, but would they have even ever picked up a guitar if it weren't for jimi? or, as steve vai has said "I play better technically but I play a style that he invented".
Click to expand...

Nice analogy with Vai and Jimi. I will say also, that just because it's technically better, doesn't mean it sounds better (and that may be what is being insinuated when he said "invented"). Vai is a better player but he isn't better is how I think it to myself, though it may not make sense. To circle back to fighting, some guys are better, or should be better in a head to head, but aren't when they actually fight. Dempsey and other guys that could work a pace and be so thoroughly unfazed simply found another gear when the fight happened. So, even if Ezzard was technically better, he was never going to beat Rocky.

Nice post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,036
Messages
55,463,086
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top