Why Jack Dempsey???

why does he keep his hands so low and he looked kind of amateurish and this is coming from a dempsey fan. i am a fan of the boxers in the past but not during this time period. i also have thought jack dempsey and harry greb were both overrated. but like "Feint" on this thread said, "You really can't compare boxers from different eras against each other. The only real way to rank a fighter is how well did he dominate the era in which he boxed in. Using that criteria you have to put Dempsey in the top 10." Umm, how can you be a fan of a boxer but then say he is overrated and that you're not a fan of boxers of that certain time period he fought in. Anyway, like you said, you can't compare boxers from different eras against each other. What use do you think having gloves up would've been with those tiny gloves he had? The big, strong guys he fought would've punched right through his guard. Dempsey was an inventor, he was one of the first ones to use the bobbing and weaving, come forward pressure style. That's why he was able to take out much bigger opponents, he avoided their slow but strong punches, got inside and pummeled them to the body and the head. Dempsey showed his ability to adapt to certain styles even when he was past his best against Tunney in the rematch. He counter punched with rights over Tunney's jab and managed to connect cleanly once (01:21 in the vid). Tunney was put down but saved by the 'long count' and his surviving skills. Tunney never made the same mistake twice, Dempsey lost a decision and retired. You can also see the short punching power he packed in that vid, look at 01:00 when he lifts Sharkey up with a short left hook. I don't rate Dempsey as a top 5 heavyweight because he didn't defend his title actively enough and he didn't beat Wills and Tunney. Otherwise he would probably make my top 5 or atleast top 7. Now he is in there somewhere in the top 15 along with Mike Tyson. That's just my opinion though, others might rate him the greatest of all time because of his impact on the sport. I don't rate fighters like that but it's all your own opinion, as long as you have logical explanations and facts to back it up.

Mostly because of his effect on the sport, he was hugely popular and destroyed his often bigger opponents in exciting fashion. Dempsey beat most of the top fighters of his era aside from Harry Wills who he could be accused of ducking. Sam Langford was already an old man by the time Dempsey arrived on the scene, Dempsey destroyed Fred Fulton who knocked out the old Langford. The giant Willard who had knocked out Jack Johnson was destroyed in 3, Georges Carpentier was knocked out in 4, Jack Sharkey (who beat Harry Wills) was knocked out in 7, Tommy Gibbons lost to Dempsey by a decision and Firpo who destroyed Willard was knocked out by Dempsey in two. I'm not sure if I would rate Dempsey as top 5 but maybe top 10, definitely top 15. It all depends on how you like to rank top HW's. Jack Dempsey HL. :ugh: why does he keep his hands so low and he looked kind of amateurish and this is coming from a dempsey fan. i am a fan of the boxers in the past but not during this time period. i also have thought jack dempsey and harry greb were both overrated. but like "Feint" on this thread said, "You really can't compare boxers from different eras against each other. The only real way to rank a fighter is how well did he dominate the era in which he boxed in. Using that criteria you have to put Dempsey in the top 10."

Even if you cant compare fighters from different eras, Dempsey only defended his title 5 times in 7 years, and then lost pretty one sidedly. most of his wins are over lousy opponents, and his big wins arent even that big. even one of his biggest wins over Sharkey he only won because he punched him in the balls. I mean, I have no problem with him being an ATG, he was famous! everyone knew about that guy, everyone loved to see a smaller guy beat the stuffing out bigger guys. what irritates me is when people claim Dempsey should be rated so highly, and then turn around and say that Tyson is not an ATG. Am I missing something? Tyson is one of the most famous atheletes of all time, and he was smaller than most the guys he fought but destroyed them on a regular basis. He defended his title more times than Dempsey in about half the time, defeated other fairly good opponents and won it back. people will probebly bitch about level of competition but lets be serious... Tucker, Berbick, Holmes, Tubbs, Bruno, Ruddock, Spinks(he dominated basically all of them) is better than Dempsey's best wins. I dont mind Dempsey being an ATG due to how famous he was, but he doesnt deserve to be a top ten heavyweight based on his accomplishments.

My thoughts are that Dempsey's manager is to blame as well as Dempsey himself, but I put blame on the fighter first since as he has to take control of his career...the blame is on both. Boxing started to get big again (since it was big in the ancient times) with John L., but Dempsey, led by his Manager/Promoter, made boxing World-Wide. He was a true Celeb. His big paydays allowed for future big paydays. His style was perfect for the time, perfect to promote the sport. If anything, his "importance" is key. For Johnson: it would have been the right thing to do to rematch the top black fighters, but I still give him a great deal of credit for fighting them in the first place (even though he had no choice anyway)...and, he did want a fight with Jeffries while Jeff was still Champion. After Jack won the title, I don't think he wanted to risk losing the belt he had worked so long and hard to get against the top black fighters, for low money. In addition, he took great pleasure in beating the "White Hopes" I expect. Your other points are very good as well with Foreman (and I would add in Shavers), Marciano, and many others. In addition, it was good to note that Dempsey had been off for 3 years and was not the same mentally because of his new, improved life-style. People look at numbers/stats to much without looking further into the story. Good post gooood post i agree

Mostly because of his effect on the sport, he was hugely popular and destroyed his often bigger opponents in exciting fashion. Dempsey beat most of the top fighters of his era aside from Harry Wills who he could be accused of ducking. Sam Langford was already an old man by the time Dempsey arrived on the scene, Dempsey destroyed Fred Fulton who knocked out the old Langford. The giant Willard who had knocked out Jack Johnson was destroyed in 3, Georges Carpentier was knocked out in 4, Jack Sharkey (who beat Harry Wills) was knocked out in 7, Tommy Gibbons lost to Dempsey by a decision and Firpo who destroyed Willard was knocked out by Dempsey in two. I'm not sure if I would rate Dempsey as top 5 but maybe top 10, definitely top 15. It all depends on how you like to rank top HW's. Wow. Someone who actually knows something about something.

You asked who did Dempsey beat and why is he an all time great and I gave you the answer. Dempsey beat top contenders and world champions in exciting fashion. Langford was over the hill and was beaten twice easily by Fred Fulton who was destroyed by Dempsey in the first round. Langford wasn't ducked, he was an old, blind man by the time Dempsey was the champion. Harry Wills was the only man Dempsey should've fought but even then Dempsey knocked out Jack Sharkey who beat Wills. That proves Dempsey could beat Wills as well but we never saw it and it doesn't count. A win over Wills could've put Dempsey even higher on the top HW lists but Dempsey's resume is good enough to be considered a top HW and an ATG even without that big win over Wills.

were any of those guys black that he faced and beat? im not concerned about other fighter who fought Langford and Wills and beat them. im talking about Dempsey himself. hell Roberto Duran beat Iran Barkely who KO'd Tommy Hearns twice. and Hearns brutally KO'd Duran. so what logic does "since he beat the fighter who beat the other fighter" make?

For your information Jeffries admitted that Johnson was the better fighter EVEN ON HIS BEST DAY. SIX YEAR LAYOFF, nuff said. And Johnson also said Jeffries was the greatest HW champ ever. Mayweather said Hatton was one of his toughest fights. Your point is?

Duh, I guess you chose to soundly ignore all the points I was making. Dempsey is considered an all-time great because of his effect on the sport, because he beat all the top contenders of his era (except Harry Wills), because he was an inventor, because of the exciting way he dispatched most of his often much bigger opponents and because he was a world heavyweight champion for 7 years (4 if you want to take off the 3 year break). Dempsey beat: Fireman Flynn, Willie Meehan, Bob McAllister, Gunboat Smith, Carl Morris, Bill Brennan, Billy Miske, Fred Fulton (who beat an old Sam Langford), Battling Levinsky, Jess Willard (world champion who beat an aging Jack Johnson), Georges Carpentier (World LHW champion at the time), Tommy Gibbons, Luis Firpo (KO'd Jess Willard) and Jack Sharkey (went on to become a world champion, beat Harry Wills). Dempsey retired with a record of 66 wins (51 KO's) and only 6 losses. I think Dempsey has a good enough resume to be considered an all-time great

That's a very nice story. But prime Jim Jeffries (not the farmer that fought Johnson after a SIX YEAR LAYOFF with not a single tuneup fight) was a beast and would have destroyed Langford. And that's why Sam wanted no part of it. For your information Jeffries admitted that Johnson was the better fighter EVEN ON HIS BEST DAY.

Tthe Langford/Jeffries match up. the only ways Jeffries would fight Langford was in a locked basement and the winner would walk out only when the other man is left lying and unconscience! picture this Langford whoops his ass walks out as champ and a thousand angry white men jump his ass for beating their beloved champ. Besides i didnt make this thread about any other fighters. i simply wanted opinions on what makes JD an ATG? not who he or any other fighter duck. why did the HW champ take 3 yrs off when their were worthy opponents? Long count? i think there was a long count in Tyson vs Douglas as well. no one ever brings that up. why is that so infamous. Dont get me wrong he did well as far as his career and after his career. but as a fighter why is he considered an ATG? That's a very nice story. But prime Jim Jeffries (not the farmer that fought Johnson after a SIX YEAR LAYOFF with not a single tuneup fight) was a beast and would have destroyed Langford. And that's why Sam wanted no part of it.

I have been triung to figure ** If triung was pesos there's no doubt you'd be a pessillionaire. I've replicated your question in the historical forum where it belonged in the beginning. Please do try to pay attention and feel free to ask for directions.

fighters back in those days are nothing compared to todays type of fighters, back then they were bums as champions... really, joe louis was a bum? how about SRR? willie pep? have some respect, and get a clue! this is one of the dumbest things i have ever heard around here! that says alot to, because i hear some ridiculous shit here on a daily basis! wow!

I actually meant that kericuss should criticize Sam Langford for not fighting Jeffries. Langford said he would take on anyone except Jim Jeffries. There were always some fighters who were avoided and didn't get their shot at top fighters and world titles. Jack Johnson, Jess Willard and Gene Tunney didn't want to fight Harry Wills either. Atleast Dempsey beat the man who beat Harry Wills, Jack Sharkey. Tthe Langford/Jeffries match up. the only ways Jeffries would fight Langford was in a locked basement and the winner would walk out only when the other man is left lying and unconscience! picture this Langford whoops his ass walks out as champ and a thousand angry white men jump his ass for beating their beloved champ. Besides i didnt make this thread about any other fighters. i simply wanted opinions on what makes JD an ATG? not who he or any other fighter duck. why did the HW champ take 3 yrs off when their were worthy opponents? Long count? i think there was a long count in Tyson vs Douglas as well. no one ever brings that up. why is that so infamous. Dont get me wrong he did well as far as his career and after his career. but as a fighter why is he considered an ATG?

Hi biography is a fantastic read. Read it years ago and it really was a thrilling story. Noone currently has battled odds and hardship like those guys.

For Johnson: and, he did want a fight with Jeffries while Jeff was still Champion. I actually meant that kericuss should criticize Sam Langford for not fighting Jeffries. Langford said he would take on anyone except Jim Jeffries. There were always some fighters who were avoided and didn't get their shot at top fighters and world titles. Jack Johnson, Jess Willard and Gene Tunney didn't want to fight Harry Wills either. Atleast Dempsey beat the man who beat Harry Wills, Jack Sharkey.

You should've read my post. Sam Langford was a nearly 40-year old man when Dempsey arrived on the HW scene and lost to Fred Fulton who Dempsey completely destroyed. Langford said Fulton was going to be the next HW champion. Harry Wills is the only man who Dempsey didn't fight in that era and Dempsey destroyed Jack Sharkey who beat Harry Wills. But it's true that Dempsey should've fought him, it just never happened, just like many other fights never happened. When Dempsey fought Tunney he had been inactive for 3 years. In their rematch Dempsey dropped Tunney for the 'long' count, in his prime Dempsey would've done a lot better against Tunney. If you want to criticize Dempsey for not fighting Wills, why not criticize Johnson for not giving rematches to McVey and Langford, Langford for not wanting to fight Jim Jeffries, Larry Holmes for not fighting Thomas, Marciano for not fighting Nino Valdes, Foreman for not fighting Quarry, Holmes and Shavers and so on. There have always been top fighters who never got their title shots. My thoughts are that Dempsey's manager is to blame as well as Dempsey himself, but I put blame on the fighter first since as he has to take control of his career...the blame is on both. Boxing started to get big again (since it was big in the ancient times) with John L., but Dempsey, led by his Manager/Promoter, made boxing World-Wide. He was a true Celeb. His big paydays allowed for future big paydays. His style was perfect for the time, perfect to promote the sport. If anything, his "importance" is key. For Johnson: it would have been the right thing to do to rematch the top black fighters, but I still give him a great deal of credit for fighting them in the first place (even though he had no choice anyway)...and, he did want a fight with Jeffries while Jeff was still Champion. After Jack won the title, I don't think he wanted to risk losing the belt he had worked so long and hard to get against the top black fighters, for low money. In addition, he took great pleasure in beating the "White Hopes" I expect. Your other points are very good as well with Foreman (and I would add in Shavers), Marciano, and many others. In addition, it was good to note that Dempsey had been off for 3 years and was not the same mentally because of his new, improved life-style. People look at numbers/stats to much without looking further into the story. Good post

You should've read my post. Sam Langford was a nearly 40-year old man when Dempsey arrived on the HW scene and lost to Fred Fulton who Dempsey completely destroyed. Langford said Fulton was going to be the next HW champion. Harry Wills is the only man who Dempsey didn't fight in that era and Dempsey destroyed Jack Sharkey who beat Harry Wills. But it's true that Dempsey should've fought him, it just never happened, just like many other fights never happened. When Dempsey fought Tunney he had been inactive for 3 years. In their rematch Dempsey dropped Tunney for the 'long' count, in his prime Dempsey would've done a lot better against Tunney. If you want to criticize Dempsey for not fighting Wills, why not criticize Johnson for not giving rematches to McVey and Langford, Langford for not wanting to fight Jim Jeffries, Larry Holmes for not fighting Thomas, Marciano for not fighting Nino Valdes, Foreman for not fighting Quarry, Holmes and Shavers and so on. There have always been top fighters who never got their title shots.

so he fought some big clumsy guys and beat em. he suppsedly ducked one of his biggest threats. and lost twice to a "boxer" in tunney? im guessing his popularity has more to do with boxing being a big time sport in those days and he was the champ. plus the fact that jack johnson was the champ and was black, when Willard "defeated" Johnson the "white" american public wanted a champ they could cheer for. and thats where Dempsey came in. why he didnt fight Wills or Langford was b/c he and his handlers didnt want to lose the title to another black man. as long as there was a white champ america was happy. when joe louis won the belt from max baer he was told told to act a certain way in order to be accepted.

You really can't compare boxers from different eras against each other. The only real way to rank a fighter is how well did he dominate the era in which he boxed in. Using that criteria you have to put Dempsey in the top 10.