Dempsey Overrated?

[K-DOGG]

I have yet to see anyone prove that Dempsey is not overrated.. If you think he is a top 10 ATG at heavy then yeah your overrating him,, even top 20 would be overrating him imo

Was he the biggest draw of his era, yes of course.. Was he a legend, yes.. But is an a true ATG, no, the evidence is just not there..

Opinions from famous names in boxing is not evidence, and claiming they are experts like the ones used in court is mostly wrong.. Experts in court are used to determine scientific fact, not judgement if a guy is guilty or innocent.. If that was the case, every murder trial would use a former top level homicide detective with decades of experience and have him get on the stand and declare someone innocent or guilty based on his opinion... Experts are used to determine facts and probabilities, not innocence, guilt, atg, or not atg...

If Dempsey is compared to other heavys throughout history, he falls woefully short of atg status..
Great offensive fighter, but not an elite one... Oscar was a great offensive fighter, so was pryor, and both have wins as good arguably as Dempsey has, but they aren't considered elite..
I think you can put Dempsey in the same category as tito Trinidad, great offensive monsters, but not elite atg fighters and could be dissected by elite boxers ie Tunney hopkins

Just so I know what your parameters are, how do you rate greatness in a fighter? What are YOU specifically looking for from a boxer to rate him where you think he belongs?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Just so I know what your parameters are, how do you rate greatness in a fighter? What are YOU specifically looking for from a boxer to rate him where you think he belongs?

Combination of actual career achievements, opponents, and h2h skill..



And like I said earlier, I'm comparing him to other greats, not just any random fighter.. Of course he outshines them but compared to ATGs I think he falls short of being a top 10

[phallus]

One thing you gotta remember about Dempsey was he was a product of a very different era.
He rode trains across America with hobos as a teen, lived on the streets, probably had his first few fights just for food and money to stay somewhere the night. The kind of intensity that breeds can't be underestimated. If Dempsey could somehow fight today, he sure as hell wouldn't be turning up just for a pay check, he would be trying to fcking kill the other guy.

I actually think hes underrated in todays world.

The old films are hard to watch, but when you get used to them you start knowing what to look for, which isnt as easy the first time around. He's really skilled, above average certaintly.

He's had some iffy fights, but we have to remember there were certain times he would fight withou eating and things like that. Out of his recorded fights, which arent many, he has a very big number of put downs from body shots alone. And he throws so many short hard punches its hard to pick up which one did it. And he throws them in variety.

His footwork and balance is always on point and fast. He bobs, weaves, blocks, boxes, and does every right. He can take a shot, he has speed, stamina, a very good balance overall.

Incidently there is no excuse for not reading that book because it is avialable for free on line. It is indeed very well written....Dempsey writes methodically like a martial artist and makes some very keen observations about stupid habits people were acquiring back then. Unfortunately I don't have a link for the book but I bet it can be googled easily. He wrote several books this one was his best by most accounts.

the Dempsey book is very good, I downloaded a copy a few years ago. we can't really get a good look at Dempsey's skills because those old films are so bad, I have Dempsey vs. Willard and even watching it many times there are parts where its so grainy its hard to see any detail. if we could watch Dempsey in HD like the modern guys, we'd see his skills.

Tunney is considered the greatest of all time by some experts, that and Dempsey's intangibles like his heart and aggression along with the points made above mean he's not overrated in my opinion

[Bundana]

We are talking about someones like Ray Arcel. The actual memory jumps are not that great. Trainers who saw Dempsey via Jack Johnson had worked with both guys. then trainers who started with Dempsey carried up to the seventies and had seen all fighters up to the seventies. In both cases you had active men in the field evaluating based on a rubric of skills and....where you take issue, recollections.

One could find fault with recollections, but there are categories of skills that are described including footwork, different skills in defense, parrying, technique etc. For example, One thing about Dempsey was his untelegraphed punches and how destructive they were. This is not recollection this is understanding technique and can be evaluated as objectively as watching the films you give as an example.

52 years ago, back in 1963, my dad took me to my first pro show - which happened to feature a prime Emile Griffith in the main event, where he outclassed a Dane of modest ability, Christan Christensen.

I was just a young lad then, and I remember being unbelievably impressed. But that is all I remember! I have no recollection of how Griffith actually boxed, his style, etc. All I remember is that he had this incredibly wide back and shoulders, tapering down to a wasp-like waist, which made him look fantastic... that is what has stuck in my mind all these years!

Today I of course know about his style, the way he moved, etc., because of the footage that is available of some of his fights. I also know, that while he was certainly an excellent boxer and fine champion, he was probably not the best there has ever been! But if he had retired after the Christensen fight, and no film of him existed... I would probably be sitting here today, arguing that he was the greatest fighter who ever lived. Because that was what a young, impressionable kid saw half a century ago.

In evaluating Jack Dempsey - a great champion for sure - I would trust my own judgement, from the film I have seen... rather than the opinion of a veteran trainer (no matter how respected he was in the boxing community), who had been awed by Dempsey many years earlier, when he himself was a young man.

[K-DOGG]

Combination of actual career achievements, opponents, and h2h skill..



And like I said earlier, I'm comparing him to other greats, not just any random fighter.. Of course he outshines them but compared to ATGs I think he falls short of being a top 10

I, personally, do not think that Dempsey is overrated when compared to other greats; and here's why.

First off, his fighting style is comparable to modern boxers. In fact, I would go so far as to say, he was the first of his kind, the modern fighter, and the blue print for fighters to come such as, Rocky Marciano, Joe Frazier, and most notably as well as most similarly, Mike Tyson, whose monicker, "Iron Mike", was taken from the nickname of Dempsey's right hand.

It is my belief, based on my own observation, that Dempsey would have destroyed most of the heavyweights who followed him up into the modern era. He was fast of hand and foot, threw multi-punch combinations, as opposed to the old "one-two, was extraordinarily allusive as the progenitor of the bob-and-weave assault to get inside, as well as tough, with extraordinary recuperative powers when hurt. And, he was vicious. He never stopped coming and had incredible stamina.

Also, he was smart, as he proved in his prime against cagey boxer, Tommy Gibbons. When his initial assault failed to stop Gibbons, who had never been halted previously, Dempsey settled into "boxing" and outpointed his man over 15 rounds.....not unlike Mike Tyson against Tony Tucker, upon the advice of Kevin Rooney at the and of Round 5, I believe.

Dempsey undoubtedly had somewhat easier pickings, presumably, during his era than he would have had few years ago against some bigger elite boxers; but I, personally, see no evidence that the much larger men of today present any such exceptional skill level, with a few exceptions, as to confound the much faster 6'2" Dempsey, who could have easily carried another 20 lbs or more, if he so chose, today.

While I will admit its a shame Dempsey never faced off against Harry Wills, George Godfrey, or even an old but still dangerous Sam Langford, I would not hold it against him as his reign came in the wake of Jack Johnson's reign of terror which left an incredibly bad taste in the mouths of the White populace, and there was no rush to give another Black fighter a shot at sport's richest prize, with very few exceptions.

It is my belief that Jack Dempsey changed the game in more ways than one and help set the stage for the modern star boxer and mult-million dollar paydays, with no small amount of help from legendary promoter, TeX Rickard; but, more importantly than that, I feel Dempsey had the heart, the will, and the skill set to compete and potentially defeat any heavyweight who has ever lived, including our modern collosases.

And that is why I do not think he is overrated.

[billeau2]

In regards to various technique and skills someone like Arcel still has to remember how proficient a certain fighter was at said technique and skills and then compare that with whomever they are watching at present. How could anyone possibly do that? Sure he can question the current fighters competency in various ways but how can he remember the older fighters accurately? All he will 'remember' is the good stuff and forget the bad. That phenomenon happens all the time, if someone tries to compare Golovkin to Hagler they will correctly point out faults in Golovkin but then have some idealized memory of Hagler, forgetting how imperfect Hagler was too. The reality is that even the 'good' that someone like Arcel 'remembers' is likely to be inflated in his mind.

Kdog gave a great response to this to which I may add: Dempsey also was literate so there is a paper trail for some of his technical musings as well. among the things that come to light are issues that are quantitative and and not qualitative in nature:

When jjohnson fought he could block jabs with his parrying hand, he could fight inside and use his jab as a lead hand strong shot. After Johnson retired many trainers felt like some of the parrying tecniques and lead hand techniques, among others....were being lost. Dempsey talks about this and spends a great deal of time detailing how a jab with little effect was replacing the powerful lead hand strike. Dempsey also had short hook punches, shovel punches I think he called them, and other infighting techniques. These skills were not qualitative, i.e. they did not depend on a fighters interpretation, vis a vis a trainer's eye.....they were a matter of whether a fighter could do certain things in the ring.

After Dempsey many parrying techniques and other such skills were not being taught to fighters and this was not a matter of perspective. The Samurai not only valued technique but....in the classical battlefield arts are a written record of these techniques and how they were done. Dempsey as a literate fighter had the same effect. Namely one can see a description of his techniques and how he applied them. furthermore one can see
if these techniques were applied and there is corraberating anecdotal information that strongly suggests that these techniques were not used and presented as a shortcoming for fighters.

[billeau2]

52 years ago, back in 1963, my dad took me to my first pro show - which happened to feature a prime Emile Griffith in the main event, where he outclassed a Dane of modest ability, Christan Christensen.

I was just a young lad then, and I remember being unbelievably impressed. But that is all I remember! I have no recollection of how Griffith actually boxed, his style, etc. All I remember is that he had this incredibly wide back and shoulders, tapering down to a wasp-like waist, which made him look fantastic... that is what has stuck in my mind all these years!

Today I of course know about his style, the way he moved, etc., because of the footage that is available of some of his fights. I also know, that while he was certainly an excellent boxer and fine champion, he was probably not the best there has ever been! But if he had retired after the Christensen fight, and no film of him existed... I would probably be sitting here today, arguing that he was the greatest fighter who ever lived. Because that was what a young, impressionable kid saw half a century ago.

In evaluating Jack Dempsey - a great champion for sure - I would trust my own judgement, from the film I have seen... rather than the opinion of a veteran trainer (no matter how respected he was in the boxing community), who had been awed by Dempsey many years earlier, when he himself was a young man.

But there is corraberating evidence. That makes a big difference even if we grant that the eyes of a fan are the same as the eyes of a mature trainer.

[Humean]

But still, actually being an eye witness and having years upon yeas of corner work and gym work and eating, sleeping breathing the sport as Parcel did is voting to count for more than some fanboys opinion.....by a long shot; and will be about as close to the truth as you can come on a subjective matter such as this.

No amount of activity in boxing can give a man the sort of memory needed for these opinions to be of value.

Kdog gave a great response to this to which I may add: Dempsey also was literate so there is a paper trail for some of his technical musings as well. among the things that come to light are issues that are quantitative and and not qualitative in nature:

When jjohnson fought he could block jabs with his parrying hand, he could fight inside and use his jab as a lead hand strong shot. After Johnson retired many trainers felt like some of the parrying tecniques and lead hand techniques, among others....were being lost. Dempsey talks about this and spends a great deal of time detailing how a jab with little effect was replacing the powerful lead hand strike. Dempsey also had short hook punches, shovel punches I think he called them, and other infighting techniques. These skills were not qualitative, i.e. they did not depend on a fighters interpretation, vis a vis a trainer's eye.....they were a matter of whether a fighter could do certain things in the ring.

After Dempsey many parrying techniques and other such skills were not being taught to fighters and this was not a matter of perspective. The Samurai not only valued technique but....in the classical battlefield arts are a written record of these techniques and how they were done. Dempsey as a literate fighter had the same effect. Namely one can see a description of his techniques and how he applied them. furthermore one can see
if these techniques were applied and there is corraberating anecdotal information that strongly suggests that these techniques were not used and presented as a shortcoming for fighters.

There is a difference between technique and skill. Difference techniques, different ways of doing things, have no doubt changed over time to some degree but that does not mean these things are being 'lost'. Do you really think the high point of boxing technique was the 1920s? A lot of these old trainers' complaints are the complaints of older men who think things were better in the past when they were younger, a recurring theme in life about pretty much everything. To take these opinions at face value like you and some others do is really pretty preposterous.

Besides the difference between technique, or techniques, and skill is vitally important. Skill is about competency in those technique plus, and probably more importantly, in competency in aspects that cannot really be trained as such. I'm talking about things like spatial awareness, anticipation and timing and general coordination. A trainer can help develop these things but not by actually teaching them, plenty of people will never develop these things sufficiently to become formidable boxers. It is to a large extent these things, exhibited in a fight, that an old trainer would have to have a memory of to thus compare with present fighters. It just cannot be done. It is a difficult enough job being able to perceive that at present, nevermind trying to remember it from decades past. In truth the only sure fire way you could tell who is better is having two men actually fight.

[billeau2]

No amount of activity in boxing can give a man the sort of memory needed for these opinions to be of value.



There is a difference between technique and skill. Difference techniques, different ways of doing things, have no doubt changed over time to some degree but that does not mean these things are being 'lost'. Do you really think the high point of boxing technique was the 1920s? A lot of these old trainers' complaints are the complaints of older men who think things were better in the past when they were younger, a recurring theme in life about pretty much everything. To take these opinions at face value like you and some others do is really pretty preposterous.

Besides the difference between technique, or techniques, and skill is vitally important. Skill is about competency in those technique plus, and probably more importantly, in competency in aspects that cannot really be trained as such. I'm talking about things like spatial awareness, anticipation and timing and general coordination. A trainer can help develop these things but not by actually teaching them, plenty of people will never develop these things sufficiently to become formidable boxers. It is to a large extent these things, exhibited in a fight, that an old trainer would have to have a memory of to thus compare with present fighters. It just cannot be done. It is a difficult enough job being able to perceive that at present, nevermind trying to remember it from decades past. In truth the only sure fire way you could tell who is better is having two men actually fight.

This is an innane post beyond measure....First you set up a false dichotomy, then you try to costruct some semi-semantic digressive argument about skill versus technique, and then want to try to create a context where we have no capacity for memory....ridiculous. And no....Trainers used to function more than simply athletic supervisors teaching techniqe which is, alas a function an expression of skill. Blckburn showed louis how to box, or example.

But the real stupidity is where you basically argue that skill cannot be taught...Well i guess if you are trying to argue that technique is divorced from skill (ridiculous) then skill indeed could not hypothetically be taught...Fortunately for this world technique and skill can be taught to varying degrees....to polish a diamond in the rough, to make a poor fighter mediocre, etc.

There is no high point of boxing technique. There are many things an apprenticeship learning a martial way can accomplish, particularly when started at a young age and with trainers who understand technical applications and physiology. creating a false center line is an old boxing technique....that Bernard hopkins uses. Its why he doesn't get hit so much. Proper arm placement on hooking blows via the primitives of the bare knuckle days is taught to Mexican fighters...its why so many of them are able to use hooks to the body, to double up on hooks so effectively. Etc etc etc....Don't tarnish my ears with such poppycop!

[young_robbed]

It is not indisputable that Tunney couldn't have beaten the count. He wasn't stretched out on the canvas or anything. And Dempsey signed off on the rules before the fight. Besides the knockdown, he lost every round to Tunney.

yeah, i'm not arguing that. just saying that the result could eaaaasily be different, or if Dempsey was allowed to swing on him before Tunney got up.

I think Sugar Adam Ali is way off. How can somebody really say Kovalev would beat Dempsey.. really bruh? Povetkin KOs him 4 rounds?