Calling Larry Holmes A Greater HW Than Jack Dempsey?

[sonnyboyx2]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised anymore but I actually am surprised anyone with any kind of boxing knowledge would ever rate Dempsey over Holmes. Holmes was an amazing boxer and had the power to keep Dempsey from trying to over run him. Dempsey was like a good tough man contestant, never even fought the best black fighters of his day. Exciting fighter but way over rated. And there's people that think Marciano would have beat Tyson. lol I'd say compare Marciano to Demsey, thats a tough one.

If anything Holmes lacked power... You need to do educate yourself on the history of boxing and in particular why it is that fighters from pre 1930 are rated so highly.. Let me give you one or two reasons.

Back in those days they used one fixed camera (if any) which was fixed at a position at the back of the arena and was the old flicker camera in B&W where today we use around 50 cameras with technicians standing in the corners with hand-held cameras as well as overhead and zoom lense cameras from almost every conceivable angle and in HD picture quality.

Today we do not have the great boxing trainers like we did back in the old days, guys like Ray Arcel & Doc Bagley who taught fighters the art of boxing, conditioning, counter-punching etc. fighters had stamina & toughness back then were they don't today and fighters was more interested in making a living than protecting their `O` Larry Holmes was a prime case of a fighter who was only interested in his unbeaten record which is why he would not fight the fighters who was "At the Top of their Game" during the 1980s... Jack Dempsey fought for "Food Money" during the years of the Great Depression, Fighters never suffered injuries back then like they do today because they was trained & conditioned correctly..

Here is an article which i hope can give you a little insight into what i am talking about.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/ironmen.html

[JAB5239]

If anything Holmes lacked power... You need to do educate yourself on the history of boxing and in particular why it is that fighters from pre 1930 are rated so highly.. Let me give you one or two reasons.

Back in those days they used one fixed camera (if any) which was fixed at a position at the back of the arena and was the old flicker camera in B&W where today we use around 50 cameras with technicians standing in the corners with hand-held cameras as well as overhead and zoom lense cameras from almost every conceivable angle and in HD picture quality.

Today we do not have the great boxing trainers like we did back in the old days, guys like Ray Arcel & Doc Bagley who taught fighters the art of boxing, conditioning, counter-punching etc. fighters had stamina & toughness back then were they don't today and fighters was more interested in making a living than protecting their `O` Larry Holmes was a prime case of a fighter who was only interested in his unbeaten record which is why he would not fight the fighters who was "At the Top of their Game" during the 1980s... Jack Dempsey fought for "Food Money" during the years of the Great Depression, Fighters never suffered injuries back then like they do today because they was trained & conditioned correctly..

Here is an article which i hope can give you a little insight into what i am talking about.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/ironmen.html

While I disagree about Dempsey beating Holmes, this is a very good post and something a lot of younger fans don't understand or simply look past when judging fighters from bygone era's.

[Wild Blue Yonda]

Dempsey fought & beat better competition --- at least on the way upto, & through, the title. He had the better career overall. Holmes' competition is usually not scrutinised enough.

As for head-to-head, I can honestly see a pretty convincing argument for both men. There is a lot in Dempsey's arsenal which should worry Holmes. There is a lot in Holmes' arsenal which should worry Dempsey.

[sonnyboyx2]

Here is an interesting link on Holmes standing among historians:

http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=5605

[mrboxer]

i can recall awhile back and the claims you made about Furlano

what claims, i said that furlano gave pryor[who was pound for pound the best fighter at the time]a good fight and many boxing historians would agree with me

[StarshipTrooper]

I have no problem if you rate Holmes higher, I am no Demopsey apologist firstly but if they are wrong supporting jack , then so are you putting a selective list of fighters, and quoting a loss of man which was viewed with su****ion back then, and also of a man who was clearly underfed, if not starving going into a fight.

Jack's level of competition is not far away from Holmes. Atleast not so much as some fans like to make out, to show Holmes in better light.

In the case of not rating Dempsey (or any fighter from that era or earlier) I think there's a general lack of understanding of the culture that he fought in and I may touch on that a little later: I'm taking my finacee to lunch for her birthday in an hour and don't have time ATM to go into it. Hopefully I'll have time between getting back from lunch and the time I have to leave to go see the hockey game this evening.

Culturally we expect different things now than they did back then. We generally judge fighters by what they do AFTER they become champion. In the first half of the 20th century it was the opposite: Fighters were expected to make their reputation on what they did BEFORE they won the title.....after they became champions it was more or less expected that they would rest on their laurels. It wasn't until the 1940s and a man named Louis started changing those cultural expectations. It was the same in the Chess world during that same period: The Grandmasters established themselves as greats BEFORE they won the title and rarely played after they had won it. The title was seen as the ultimate reward for a great career not the gateway to bigger and better things.

An important factor that Sonnyboyx touched on is the nature of the fight game back then as compared to more modern eras. Before WWII fighters had to fight a lot. Not only for their suppers but because that's how they learned their trade.....by fighting. You see a lot of "(old-time fighter) lost to (obscure old-time fighter) and (modern fighter) would NEVER have lost to a scrub like that" on these forums. My response is who do you know? If the modern fighter in question was having to fight 12-24 times a year how does one know that they wouldn't have lost? The more frequently you fight the greater the mathamatical probablity of taking losses. More to the point, maybe the modern fighter beat someone who worked him over to the body real good and now he has another fight 4 days later: Do you think his chances of losing that next fight didn't just shoot up? Or maybe put that modern fighter in the ring on back-to-back-to-back nights? Do you think just possibly he might actually lose the 3rd fight regardless of the quality of the opponent? Especially if that opponent is relatively fresh? Or how about taking a modern fighter and putting him in the ring after not having any food 4 days and having him fight so he can have some supper: Could it possibly be the modern fighter might lose under such circumstances? These things need to be considered and all to often are completely ignored because too many posters do their thinking in a vacuum.

Poet

[Greatest1942]

Culturally we expect different things now than they did back then. We generally judge fighters by what they do AFTER they become champion. In the first half of the 20th century it was the opposite: Fighters were expected to make their reputation on what they did BEFORE they won the title.....after they became champions it was more or less expected that they would rest on their laurels. It wasn't until the 1940s and a man named Louis started changing those cultural expectations. It was the same in the Chess world during that same period: The Grandmasters established themselves as greats BEFORE they won the title and rarely played after they had won it. The title was seen as the ultimate reward for a great career not the gateway to bigger and better things.

An important factor that Sonnyboyx touched on is the nature of the fight game back then as compared to more modern eras. Before WWII fighters had to fight a lot. Not only for their suppers but because that's how they learned their trade.....by fighting. You see a lot of "(old-time fighter) lost to (obscure old-time fighter) and (modern fighter) would NEVER have lost to a scrub like that" on these forums. My response is who do you know? If the modern fighter in question was having to fight 12-24 times a year how does one know that they wouldn't have lost? The more frequently you fight the greater the mathamatical probablity of taking losses. More to the point, maybe the modern fighter beat someone who worked him over to the body real good and now he has another fight 4 days later: Do you think his chances of losing that next fight didn't just shoot up? Or maybe put that modern fighter in the ring on back-to-back-to-back nights? Do you think just possibly he might actually lose the 3rd fight regardless of the quality of the opponent? Especially if that opponent is relatively fresh? Or how about taking a modern fighter and putting him in the ring after not having any food 4 days and having him fight so he can have some supper: Could it possibly be the modern fighter might lose under such circumstances? These things need to be considered and all to often are completely ignored because too many posters do their thinking in a vacuum.

Poet

I agree. See when you fight the best around and fight frequently you are going to lose some. There is no way otherwise. Who is the best heavy we have today ? Wlad? Well he lost his share ain't he? Atleast he took on some good contemporaries.. I have often stated if you put Wlad in Dempsey's, Louis's era he would have lost a hell of a lot more.

Those guys were not protected and never got much money so that they could rest (except the champ). When you fight godd fighters n times they are going to clean you up sooner or later, since they will know you as much as you do them.

Dempsey faced incredible hardships when he grew up and was as tough as they come. Holmes had some power but I don't see him him KO Jack. Jack had good physical dimensions in Holmes era he will weigh easily 210 or above, not 190 as some point out ignorantly. Conversely Holmes will weigh less in Jack's era, 200 pounds or around. And Jack could box, could box very well, it would not be easy to outpoint him. Could Holmes beat Jack? hell yea he could. Is it guarenteed? My word , its never guarenteed when two boxers meet at their primes with comparable abilities and no major stylistic abilties (I don't see Jack's style illsuited to Holmes, infact it makes for an exciting match). Its saddenning to how some guys really devalue older greats achievments.

[StarshipTrooper]

Jack had good physical dimensions in Holmes era he will weigh easily 210 or above, not 190 as some point out ignorantly. Conversely Holmes will weigh less in Jack's era, 200 pounds or around.

I've made this type of point around a million times before getting tired of having to repeat myself. Usually I would get one of two responses:

A) A denial that the fighters would weigh any different if they fought in a different era.

B) Claims that these matchups must be made in a vacuum.

Given the level of ignorance those two types of responses reflect and the fact I would get them every time it's no wonder I stopped bothering. It's nice to see someone else who thinks along those lines though

Poet

[McGoorty]

Can it be justified? I get the feeling not many think this.

But could you say Holmes had the more impressive HW career with the better resume of wins than Dempsey? Does anyone actually think this anyway?

The best thing for me about Larry was that he was dangerous and looked the epitome of a skilled boxing champion and most of all a very active one. Dempsey was the epitome of an invincible Champ for 2 or 3 years then got rich, lazy and ended up a bit disappointing but his Legacy was far in excess of Larry. Jack Dempsey turned boxing from a sport that "higher people" turned down their noses at but with the euphoria from the end of World War people wanted to live hard and forget. Jack Dempsey helped them to. Boxing had Superstars before but Jack the first megastar who made boxing BIG BUSINESS. This wouldn't mean much if they fought, Jack the power puncher would be giving away the physical difference in Larry's favor, and it may have been brilliant fight and very close, question is, is Larry Too BIG ?????

[McGoorty]

I don't really know if there is a legitimate argument for saying that Dempsey was better than Holmes. Resume-wise and skills-wise, it's sort of a landslide for Holmes. Jack Dempsey was a vicious, mean son of a ***** and his book (Championship Fighting) is awesome. But I think he gets overrated a little bit. He wouldn't really stand much of a chance against most other great heavyweights simply because of the size. See this? This is me daring somebody to compare Lennox Lewis and Larry Holmes to Jess Willard because I already know that it's going to be brought up. Now put Dempsey at Cruiser and you have a BEAST of a fighter, maybe the greatest ever. Him vs. Evander Holyfield at 185 would have been the perfect fight, maybe.

You are so right man, Jack Dempsey is a true Cruiserweight I have said before that somebody should base all the Marquis of Queensbury Heavyweights in three different Categories, namely, 1.- Cruiserweights where you can have your smallest heavies like Burns, Fitzsimmons, Tunney, Charles, Gibbons, Corbett, Marciano and say,.... Dempsey to go with moderns like a prime Evander, Spinks, Tarver, Green and Qawi etc.,,,,,,, 2nd. - Genuine Heavy.,,,,,,,and a Super Heavy ( or maybe MASTODON WEIGHT ) where you can have guys like the Klitchko's, Lewis, Valuev, Fulton, Carnera, Buddy Baer, Willard and the likes of Nino Valdes. Then if some new genius kid that's Dempsey's weight comes along he can prove the smaller man really can compete by winning all three weight classes AND be undisputed we could really get excited, I'm waiting for the next big thing.