View Full Version : Dempsey article


JAB5239
06-12-2009, 02:08 AM
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/dempsey_fl.html

Kinetic Linking
06-12-2009, 02:15 AM
Very good article, but not fair. Good critique of his bad fights/mistakes without appropriate credit for great fights/awesomeness.

Richie-G
06-12-2009, 05:50 AM
good article.

can anybody reccomend me which jack dempsey fights to watch? i would be interested in getting to know more about him.

thanks :boxing:

Obama
06-12-2009, 01:02 PM
Good article. Not sure about his conclusion tho. Because guys were better boxers than him they should be rated ahead of him? p4p I'd rate Tunney ahead of him, and I'd rate Louis ahead of him no questions asked. He's neck and neck with a guy like Frazier however, a fighter who had just as many shortcomings as Dempsey did.

d9rat
06-12-2009, 01:06 PM
While doing my rankings on HWs I actually had a lot of the same questions regarding Dempsey's level of competition as well.

I wish Lotierzo had gone into a bit more detail on the fighters Dempsey faced because apart from Willard, Tunney, Carpentier, Gibbons, Firpo, Levinsky, and Gunboat I don't know much about them. I think an article comparing the levels of competition across various decades would be very useful in figuring out a proper all-time HW ranking.

Kinetic Linking
06-12-2009, 01:14 PM
The general consensus is that boxing as a whole was as competitive as it's ever been during the 1920's. Personally I think this is obvious from watching film, strangely not many people on this board agree.

Kinetic Linking
06-12-2009, 01:23 PM
Richie I would suggest 3 fights. First, Dempsey vs. Willard. It's the fight that made Dempsey famous, the fight where he won the title. Dempsey is 180 pounds and unleashes the most devastating combination I've ever seen, ending with the hardest left hook pfp I've ever seen. He caves in the side of his opponents face.

Second, I'd watch a sparring video of Dempsey vs. Bill Tate. You get to see a completely different version of Dempsey, fighting from a very deep crouch with tremendous aggression. It's a fantastic video.

Third, maybe check out Dempsey Gibbons. It's way, way less entertaining than the first two, but it shows Dempsey defeating a highly skilled technical fighter.

Dempsey Firpo is exciting but you won't learn too much about Dempsey the fighter as it's pretty hectic.

The Tunney fights are great, but as a Dempsey fan I wouldn't suggest judging dempsey based solely on those fights.

Obama
06-12-2009, 01:37 PM
If I had to rate the credible opponents Dempsey beat, it would look like this:

'A' level wins:
Fulton, Sharkey
'A-' level wins:
Willie Meehan, Battling Levinsky, Jess Willard, Tommy Gibbons, Luis Angel Firpo
'B' level wins:
Gunboat Smith (x2), Carl Morris (x3), Bill Brennan (x2), Billy Miske (x2), Georges Carpentier
'B-' level wins:
Andre Anderson

Sharkey is the best fighter he ever beat, period. BUT, he didn't really beat him. He fouled him the whole night, the ref did nothing, Sharkey finally went to complain, and BOOM, it was over. So as far as impressive wins goes, Fred Fulton is top of the list. That's right, Fulton, not a 37 year old 3-year layoff Jess Willard.

Also, Willie Meehan appears on this list of people, but lets keep in mind Dempsey only beat Meehan 1 out of 5 times, officially losing to him twice.

d9rat
06-12-2009, 02:03 PM
I'm wondering how you rank the A, A-, B, B-.

Could you use heavies from the 90s or 2000s and rank them using those rankings so I could figure out where they stand?

I've also always thought of Willard as a lucky champ who outlasted an old and out of shape Johnson for the title then fought a few stiffs but never actually was anything outside of a low top 10 for his time guy.

Oh, and thanks for mentioning Fulton. I just checked out his record and was quite surprised. He was a very good fighter I had never heard of.

Obama
06-12-2009, 03:55 PM
I'm wondering how you rank the A, A-, B, B-.

Could you use heavies from the 90s or 2000s and rank them using those rankings so I could figure out where they stand?

I've also always thought of Willard as a lucky champ who outlasted an old and out of shape Johnson for the title then fought a few stiffs but never actually was anything outside of a low top 10 for his time guy.

Oh, and thanks for mentioning Fulton. I just checked out his record and was quite surprised. He was a very good fighter I had never heard of.

Here's one for Mike Tyson:

'A' level wins:
None
'A-' level wins:
Trevor Berbick, Tony Tucker, Larry Holmes, Michael Spinks, Frank Bruno (x2), Donovan 'Razor' Ruddock (x2)
'B' level wins:
Marvis Frazier, James 'Bonecrusher' Smith, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tubbs, Carl Williams, Alex Stewart, Bruce Seldon, Brian Nielsen, Andrew Golota
'B-' level wins:
Jesse Ferguson, Jose Ribalta, Alonzo Ratliff, Tyrell Biggs, Buster Mathis Jr., Francois Botha, Lou Savarese, Clifford Etienne (half credit), Orlin Norris (half credit)

Trevor Berbick is really B+, but A- for me just means between A and B, but neither of the two.

--------

As for the Jack Johnson vs Jess Willard fight, that fight is about as valid as Dempsey vs Fireman Jim Flynn. It took took place AFTER Johnson was already convicted of the Mann Act. Johnson was supposed to go to prison, he shouldn't have been fighting at all. He flees the country and is not hunted? Gee, I wonder why? (Because he agreed to relinquish the title if that went over anyone's head) Between 1912-07-04 and 1920-11-25 Jack Johnson did not fight in America. When he came back, he went to prison for the 1.5 year sentence he was supposed to serve back in 1913. While in prison, he fought 4 bouts (against nobodies) from 1920-11-25 to 1921-05-28. He got out of prison in July of 1921. Now 43 years old, you'd think the man would not longer be considered a threat and they'd allow him to get fights in the US right? It takes 2 years after his last fight in jail before he fights again, and it's in Cuba. He doesn't get a fight in the US again until he's 48 years old. He loses the fight, and it's the first fight he's lost in 11 years (last losing to Willard).

The man really didn't legitimately lose a fight from 1901 to 1926:

Robbed against Hart in the same fashion De La Hoya was robbed against Trinidad (ie, same reasoning behind the robbery, the real winner didn't force the action)

DQed against Jeannette in the 2nd round, a man he'd officially beat 3 times afterward, although already getting the best of him in 2 no decisions prior to this. Johnson was DQed for his antics, not because he was in trouble and got himself DQed to save himself.

And then there was of course Willard, with dubious circumstances involving the fight, not to mention the video footage of it looking like a fix anyways. Johnson himself said he took a dive. This is the same Johnson who said Max Schmeling would KO Joe Louis, and explained exactly how it would happen. Who could claim this man's word meant nothing?

I don't really know why Johnson fled and came back, it would seem he would have been better off just going to prison immediately. Then again, promises were probably made that weren't kept which caused him to change his mind. All we really know is, the powers that be REALLY wanted Johnson out of the lime light of the sport, and were willing to go to any length to get the job done. They wanted to take his title but they wanted to make it seem legitimate, so they made a deal for his freedom. He took the deal.

LondonRingRules
06-12-2009, 04:15 PM
I'm wondering how you rank the A, A-, B, B-.

Could you use heavies from the 90s or 2000s and rank them using those rankings so I could figure out where they stand?

I've also always thought of Willard as a lucky champ who outlasted an old and out of shape Johnson for the title then fought a few stiffs but never actually was anything outside of a low top 10 for his time guy.

Oh, and thanks for mentioning Fulton. I just checked out his record and was quite surprised. He was a very good fighter I had never heard of.

** Obamy was handed down those ratings by his dear ol' mammy. He wouldn't know what they mean since he has no criteria.

At any rate, the fighters are best ranked in their eras as anything else enters the realm of fantasy which is fun if taken in context.

Willard was a formidable fighter and physical speciman. This is nonsense about Johnson being out of shape. He was out of shape for Battling Johnson where he stunk up the joint, but was in excellent condition against Moran in a decent scrap before Willard. You don't go 26 rds at the pace Johnson set against Willard without being in shape. Johnson saw Jess as a big clod and figured on an easy KO. Willard won in strategy, figuring his best chance was later rounds and it worked.

I'd match that KO with any recent highlight KO for athletic ability Willard showed from way outside leaping in with as deadly a result as has ever been exceeded. Willard only had 3 yrs of ring experience combined with a year of ring rust. Brilliant tactical fact he is seldom credited for in spite of relative inexperience and a late start in boxing at age 29.

As far as the Dempsey article goes, it's an OK article, but Lotziero gets full of it at times. He says he's only going on video and 1st hand accounts, but there is no video of Hart that I know of, so strike one.

Then he tries to tell us Greb was not bothered by Gibbons' footwork when there is no Greb footage of any fight. It don't take a rocket scientist to figure Gibbons is gonna fight Greb different than a Dempsey who could take him out. Greb lost his earliest encounters to Gibbons who had nothing to fear in Greb but his reported dirty tactics.

Lotz concedes Dempsey easily handled Gibbons, and then crack on him for not being more aggressive and going for a KO. This is a clear bias against a natural slugger that I see many have. Few complain when Ali goes 15 unless he stinks up the place which he did many times. Maybe Jack wasn't 100% physically or just had an off night. That's classic attribute of great champs being able to persevere when things ain't going their way.

It's just plain inane to crack on Jack for what he was doing in sparring. Clearly he and Tate are going through excercises designed to get him in a specific mode of style for the fight. An experienced writer should know this. Jack wasn't working on his punching, he was working on distance, bodyfoot movement, and clinching.

Lotz is out in left field about the "help" Dempsey recieved against Firpo. First off, he was pushed out of the ring, not punched, a foul. 2nd, his corner was not assisting him, he was naturally being half assisted and half interfered with by shocked sportswriters finding him in their laps. Theirs a completely natural reaction to get him off their table and out of their laps.

The modern rule is a fighter has 20 sec to enter the ring after being knocked out of it. It's unclear what the rule was for that fight. When nonparticipants interfere as happened, that's another ruling which given the complete lack of consistency in boxing could mean a KO loss, a DQ, an NC or ND, or a TD by modern rules. Or let the fight go on so a riot doesn't ensue as happened and the rest typical legendary Dempsey history.

I must add that ol' Obamy is all wet on the Sharkey fight. Every one of Jack's fights was a little different, and for some strange reason he went body crazy against Sharky for 80% of his offense, just a buzzsaw of body hooks and uppercuts, a blizzard of short punches. That some were on the beltline is not an automatic foul. It was a fairly clean fight against a physically superior speciman that Sharkey was in his prime and it worked.

I disagree that Tunney won 19 of 20 rds and Lotz's assessment of that fight. We know now that taking an extended break like the 3 yrs Jack took in Hollywood, he's gonna lose something that he has to work to get back. Vitali is the only heavy to stepped straight away after a long layoff to beat a top ranked fighter, and he may have set the record in that regard for all fighters.

Jack was competitive and took his share of rounds by my scoring both fights. He hurt Tunney plenty, almost having him out on his feet against the ropes in the first fight as well as Tunney checking his teeth after Jack smashed his mouth at another point. Tunney was an exceptional fighter at his peak with young Cassius Clay like footwork whereas Jack's footwork and reflexes had slipped in the layoff. The fight was also in a chilly autumn rain that may have influenced the fight.

For the 2nd fight, Jack's brother had committed suicide a couple weeks before and Jack contracted food poisoning the night before the fight. These are not excuses, just that he was less than 100% physically and mentally going into the 2nd fight. None the less one could argue he won the fight based on the long count. Ironically Tyson modeled his style and appearance on Dempsey would lose his title to an identical 14 sec long count some 65 yrs later.

Obama
06-12-2009, 07:53 PM
** Obamy was handed down those ratings by his dear ol' mammy. He wouldn't know what they mean since he has no criteria.

Finally something worth responding to from you:

http://www.sweetboxing.com/showthread.php?t=289

LondonRingRules
06-13-2009, 01:06 PM
Finally something worth responding to from you:

http://www.sweetboxing.com/showthread.php?t=289


** Heh, heh.......Credible: Capable of being believed per Websters.

To Wit: I(0bamy) define a credible(Capable of being believed) opponent by the accomplishment of beating 2 or more other credible(Capable of being believed) fighters. Losses are not taken into account when assessing if another fighter is credible(Capable of being believed), unless a win over such a fighter came in a period of which that fighter did nothing but lose. Exceptions can be made for a fighter's credibility(Capable of being believed) (should he not have at least 2 credible(Capable of being believed) wins) if he was a victim of close decision losses or drew with 'A' level opponents. Also, exceptions can also be made that an over the hill former 'A' level fighter merely reduces to A- in the case that he was really 'A+' level to begin with.

Oh, he really was a 'A+' level to begin with, eh? Thats some sweet petard you're hoist upon(Capable of being believed)......:yeah:

Kinetic Linking
06-15-2009, 08:52 PM
Obama, no offense but you're nuts. You're doing too much number crunching and not enough thinking.

While that list of Dempsey opponents is actually somewhat accurate, it misses the mark in a massive way.

While Sharkey may have been dempsey's best opponent, no one gives a **** about the sharkey fight. Dempsey was over the hill trying to make a buck earning another shot at tunney.

Watch some of the videos of the fights you're discussing before making claims about their importance.