Thoughts/Views On Jack Dempsey's Resume Of Wins?

[sonnyboyx2]

Dempsey used several top rated Black fighters as his sparring partners notably Bill Tate & George Godfrey

[HaglerSteelChin]

And yes about the plaster of Paris :-
IT HAS BEEN conclusively PROVEN WRONG
AN IMPOSSIBILTY STATED BY THE INVENTOR OF THE PRODUCT WHEN SWORN UNDER OATH
AND TESTED BY BIG CAT WILLIAMS ON THE HEAVY BAG.

I think Willard would have been in alot worse shape if it was used than losing teeth. He also felt the gloves before the fight, and sports illustrated was later sued by Dempsey due to the story that Kearns made up. Which was sad, since before Kearns died he begged Dempsey for money in Dempsey's restaurant, and Dempsey gave him the money although they no longer were associated with each other.

I put that story aside as i said, but i cited several other fights where the decisions were questionable. You never heard of Tunney being pushed back into the ring after a KD or a history of low blows. Tunney was a squeaky clean fighter.

Like i said in the first post, i felt Dempsey had a solid resume, but was not a top 10 P4P, more closer to top 25.

The legacy of Langford and Wills is a sad chapter in the history of the sport. Dempsey did admit he would lose to Langord, but was confident he could beat Wills, i think he should have taken the fight, but the Sharkey win over WIlls made the whole fight than meaningless.

[Greatest1942]

you will definitely hurt the feelings of some nostalgic fans

Dempsey may have been rough and dirty, but a lot of fighters were back then, and many greats were (Greb was dirty, Saddler was dirty,...), so I do believe you cannot use the fact that he was dirty to devaluate his achievements

And you got to protect yourself at all times, something Sharkey didn't do when he turned his head towards the ref after getting hit low by Jack

"What did you want me to do, send him a letter?" Jack Dempsey on being asked by a reporter why he hit Sharkey when he was not looking

[~Chump]

Langford refused fights for the heavyweight title against Jim Jeffries and i rate Dempsey a far more dangerous fight for Langford who was at the tail-end of his career in the mid 1920s whereas Dempsey was at his ultimate prime at that time, IMO Dempsey would have murdered Langford

You have no idea what you're talking about. Jeffries retired as heavyweight champion in 1905. In 1905, Langford was barely a middleweight. So go ahead and try to put shame on a welterweight/middleweight for refusing to fight the heavyweight champion of the world. See how that works out for you.

Even if Langford was past best, by the time Dempsey became champion, he was still good enough to make Dempsey avoid him. This is a quote from Dempsey himself:

“The hell I feared no man. There was one man I wouldn't fight because I knew he would flatten me. I was afraid of Sam Langford.” - Jack Dempsey

How you think a fantasy fight would go doesn't erase the fact that Dempsey wanted nothing to do with Langford.

[HaglerSteelChin]

Dempsey may have been rough and dirty, but a lot of fighters were back then, and many greats were (Greb was dirty, Saddler was dirty,...), so I do believe you cannot use the fact that he was dirty to devaluate his achievements

And you got to protect yourself at all times, something Sharkey didn't do when he turned his head towards the ref after getting hit low by Jack

I fully expected many to say that. You also can't hit a man low which is something that goes back to the days of the Marquess of Quensberry rules, so the guy is looking at the referee since he was hurt. I think he should have hit him low back intead of looking at the ref, so i would agree there.

People talk about the dirty fighters back than as Greb and Wolgast, but those guys got disqualified in fights. With all due respect, you think the biggest cash cow of the sport who brings in record million dollar gates and over record capacity crowds was getting DQ? Dempsey knew he was big star and could get away with some of those fouls. Michael jordan had the jordan rules and got the favorable calls, so was the same as Dempsey.

[Greatest1942]

[/B]

I think Willard would have been in alot worse shape if it was used than losing teeth. He also felt the gloves before the fight, and sports illustrated was later sued by Dempsey due to the story that Kearns made up. Which was sad, since before Kearns died he begged Dempsey for money in Dempsey's restaurant, and Dempsey gave him the money although they no longer were associated with each other.

I put that story aside as i said, but i cited several other fights where the decisions were questionable. You never heard of Tunney being pushed back into the ring after a KD or a history of low blows. Tunney was a squeaky clean fighter.

Like i said in the first post, i felt Dempsey had a solid resume, but was not a top 10 P4P, more closer to top 25.

The legacy of Langford and Wills is a sad chapter in the history of the sport. Dempsey did admit he would lose to Langord, but was confident he could beat Wills, i think he should have taken the fight, but the Sharkey win over WIlls made the whole fight than meaningless.

Not only sports Illustrated you can confirm this from a host of other sources.
Sam Langford if his is a sad legacy it was because he was ducked blatantly by Jack Johnson. Please dont blame Dempsey for racism and let papa Jack of the hook Unlike Jack who actually signed to fight Willis Johnson blatantly ducked Langford even when offered considerable amount of money to fight him.

If Langford fought Dempsey when he was champ, he would loose because by that time Sam was Blind in one eye and loosing his sight rapidly in other.

Sam himself favoured Dempsey on being asked to pick a winner amongst them if they did fight Sam said "well if they do fight,my money is on Jack, for he is thegreatest heavyweight I have ever seen". Seeing how many times he fought Willis and his ring experience (I say this because it was easy for Sam to see the holes in a boxers game easier ) I will take his opinion thank you.

Please look at Willis against Sharkey and Dempsey against Sharkey and tell me if that would have been a fight you yourself would have favoured Willis (mind you I am picking a Willis of 1926 vs Jack of the same year). 1919 I will favour Dempsey but slightly.
top 10 p4p definitely not and he is not picked that way either. Top 10 Heavy hell yea...

[sonnyboyx2]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Jeffries retired as heavyweight champion in 1905. In 1905, Langford was barely a middleweight. So go ahead and try to put shame on a welterweight/middleweight for refusing to fight the heavyweight champion of the world. See how that works out for you.

Even if Langford was past best, by the time Dempsey became champion, he was still good enough to make Dempsey avoid him. This is a quote from Dempsey himself:

“The hell I feared no man. There was one man I wouldn't fight because I knew he would flatten me. I was afraid of Sam Langford.” - Jack Dempsey

How you think a fantasy fight would go doesn't erase the fact that Dempsey wanted nothing to do with Langford.

explain to me, "What part of my post do i not know what i am talking about"?.. Are you saying that Langford was not afraid to accept a fight with Jim Jeffries?

[~Chump]

explain to me, "What part of my post do i not know what i am talking about"?.. Are you saying that Langford was not afraid to accept a fight with Jim Jeffries?

In every part of your post, you don't know what you're talking about. Everything you said was BS, all to defend a favorite fighter of yours.

Let me answer the Langford question with another question:

If Marvin Hagler refused to fight Larry Holmes, does that mean he's ducking him?

No. Because they're multiple weight classes apart. Just like Langford and Jeffries were.

[sonnyboyx2]

In every part of your post, you don't know what you're talking about. Everything you said was BS, all to defend a favorite fighter of yours.

Let me answer the Langford question with another question:

If Marvin Hagler refused to fight Larry Holmes, does that mean he's ducking him?

No. Because they're multiple weight classes apart. Just like Langford and Jeffries were.

Langford was light-heavyweight Jeffries heavyweight just like Dempsey was heavyweight

[Tiozzo]

I fully expected many to say that. You also can't hit a man low which is something that goes back to the days of the Marquess of Quensberry rules, so the guy is looking at the referee since he was hurt. I think he should have hit him low back intead of looking at the ref, so i would agree there.

People talk about the dirty fighters back than as Greb and Wolgast, but those guys got disqualified in fights. With all due respect, you think the biggest cash cow of the sport who brings in record million dollar gates and over record capacity crowds was getting DQ? Dempsey knew he was big star and could get away with some of those fouls. Michael jordan had the jordan rules and got the favorable calls, so was the same as Dempsey.

I don't know if to make it a foul war would have been the best choice for Sharkey (or any fighter), but protecting himself at all times was just a basic requirement

this is a valid point (Dempsey star power), although some refs are more tolerant to dirty tactics than others to begin with

it also depends on how obvious your fouls are
hitting just below the belt, broderline, or hitting low on the blind side and hitting straight in the balls or on the hips are different things

rubbing your glove on an opponent's cut while you're fighting inside or clinching (Saddler vs Elorde), using your body and shouders, that is very dirty, but this is not as obvious as a straight headbutt in the face