Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dempsey Overrated?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Felix25 View Post
    Maybe youre right... maybe Tunney wasnt just trying to "blow his own horn" but was simply offering his honest opinion. I would like to believe that! Still, the thing about Dempsey being able to "flatten all the current heavyweights in one night"... well, to me It sounds a bit strange that a serious person would make an over-the-top claim like that! However, I dont want to pass judgement on anyone, without knowing the full story... so when, and in what context, did Tunney actually say that (a link would be appreciated, if possible)?
    Here is the exact quote, I messed it up slightly. Tunney actually said that Dempsey would flatten all the top 4 heavyweights of that time in one night.




    In a 1952 interview with ‘Look’ magazine, Gene spoke of Dempsey thus: “Jack Dempsey, I’m convinced, was our greatest heavyweight champion. In his prime, when he knocked out Jess Willard to win the title in 1919, he would have taken the four leading heavyweights of today – Jersey Joe Walcott, Rocky Marciano, Harry (Kid) Matthews and Ezzard Charles – and flattened them all in one night.

    “These four men are honest, earnest, capable professionals. If they are not touched with ring genius, neither are they stumblebums. So I do not mean to deprecate them when I say Dempsey would have levelled them all in the same evening as follows: Matthews, two rounds. Charles, two rounds. Walcott, five rounds. Marciano, one round.

    “A total of ten rounds. Even then, I don’t consider I’m giving Dempsey any the best of it. He might have demolished each of the four in less than one round. He was eminently equipped to do it. He had many championship gifts, including a great fighting heart and the ability to absorb a tremendous punch and recuperate astonishingly fast.

    “He learned his trade the hard way against fighters of all sizes, shape and brands from mining camp, deadfall and dance hall to huge arena and stadium.

    “Jack was no wild slugger. He was an extremely clever fusion of fighter and boxer. He fought out of a peculiar weave and bob and was very difficult to hit with a solid punch. In the 20 rounds I fought him – 10 at Philadelphia in 1926 and 10 at Chicago the following year – I never did get a clean shot at his jaw. He was always weaving and bobbing away from the direct line of fire.

    “Dempsey was criticised for not being able to knock out Tommy Gibbons – one of the all-time great boxers. Actually, that fight was one of Jack’s most impressive performances. Unable to reach his clever opponent with a knockout punch, he was still a fine enough combination of fighter and boxer to outscore Tommy all the way.

    “But it was Dempsey the savage puncher, the scowling attacker, who thrilled the sports world. He was a great hitter. His right hand to body or jaw was explosive. Even more devastating was his left hook to liver and jaw. Weaving and bobbing, he feinted opponents into leads, slipped those leads and jolted home his short punches to body and head. He hurt and stunned opponents. He knocked them down and, eventually, kept them down.

    “The most remarkable thing about Dempsey’s fighting make-up was the shortness of his punching. His blows seldom travelled more than six inches to a foot. He had a trick of hooking his left to the body and then to the head in practically the same movement.

    “In his fight with Luis Firpo, Jack floored the huge Argentinian seven times in the first round and twice in the second before knocking him out. Yet, of all the punches he threw, only the last – a right to the jaw – was a long one.

    “All the others were short, murderous jolts and digs to the heart and the kidney and the jaw. This ability of Dempsey to generate such punishing power over a few inches of swing, without seeming leverage, traced from a quick power inherent in his unusual shoulder conformation, with its high and bulging deltoid muscles.

    “Beating Dempsey in his prime probably would have been something beyond them all, including Jack Johnson, Jim Jeffries and Joe Louis. My friend Harry Grayson, sports editor of the Newspaper Enterprise Association, may be right when he says that Louis would go in the first flurry of punches.”


    http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxin...seyFeature.htm
    Last edited by ShoulderRoll; 09-30-2014, 08:15 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Short & compact punches that had bad intend on them ALL the time.
      Dempsey destroys the guys today as they "travel back to fight him then"!
      They will get hit right away and they will know what their in for right away too.
      The only fighter that comes close to Dempsey's ferocity is Tyson and Tyson was just mimicking him.
      Ray

      Comment


      • #33
        Thanks a lot, ShoulderRoll - very interesting read!

        ... though I fail to see how Tunney's excessive praise of Dempsey can be interpreted as anything but an obvious attempt to talk himself up! Marciano, Walcott, Charles and Harry (Kid) Matthews would all be flattened, on the same night, in a total of no more than 10 rounds... and its even possible that Dempsey would actually demolish each of them inside a round?!! WOW... its not every day you get to read nonsense like that!

        Incidentally, in the same article Ray Arcel offers his opinion on Dempsey... who, acording to Arcel, would have beaten any heavyweight that came after him, "without a doubt". He would have "killed" guys like Louis and Foreman, "murdered" Marciano, and as for Tyson... well, he "might have got through a round with Dempsey, maybe two". Jesus Christ... can it get any more silly than this?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Felix25 View Post
          Thanks a lot, ShoulderRoll - very interesting read!

          ... though I fail to see how Tunney's excessive praise of Dempsey can be interpreted as anything but an obvious attempt to talk himself up! Marciano, Walcott, Charles and Harry (Kid) Matthews would all be flattened, on the same night, in a total of no more than 10 rounds... and its even possible that Dempsey would actually demolish each of them inside a round?!! WOW... its not every day you get to read nonsense like that!

          Incidentally, in the same article Ray Arcel offers his opinion on Dempsey... who, acording to Arcel, would have beaten any heavyweight that came after him, "without a doubt". He would have "killed" guys like Louis and Foreman, "murdered" Marciano, and as for Tyson... well, he "might have got through a round with Dempsey, maybe two". Jesus Christ... can it get any more silly than this?
          You are a real piece of work. Arcel speaking nonsense as well as anyone else no matter how knowledgeable about boxing. You see how silly you sound? These are guys who saw the fighters they speak of keep that in mind

          Comment


          • #35
            He's been called "overrated' so often that he's become underrated by a lot of people. Same with Mike Tyson, Rocky Marciano, and to a lesser extent, pretty much any name fighter. Who is doing the rating?

            Dempsey brought a more modern style to boxing and beat some quality fighters in impressive fashion. He deserves credit for what he did, and in regards to him not facing Wills, Greb, and other top fighters...well I think much of the blame for the Wills fallout belongs to Tex Rickard. Even if you don't fault Dempsey much for that, what are you supposed to do? Give him credit for what he MAY have done?
            Last edited by Thread Stealer; 02-05-2015, 11:56 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              No. Dempsey deserves all credit due, he was a great champion. Top ten heavyweight, all time.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
                You are a real piece of work. Arcel speaking nonsense as well as anyone else no matter how knowledgeable about boxing. You see how silly you sound? These are guys who saw the fighters they speak of keep that in mind
                So do you believe that hes knocking out all those guys in one night then? like Tunney said? he couldnt knock out Tommy Gibbons but he's knocking out Jersey Joe Walcott someone who had the type of style to keep Dempsey fits Kid Matthews Rocky Marciano and Ezzard Charles? This is a perfect example of old fighter hyperbole, like that boxing trainer who said that Rocky Graziano would beat Marvin Hagler, statements like that should be taken with a pinch of salt.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by kendom View Post
                  So do you believe that hes knocking out all those guys in one night then? like Tunney said? he couldnt knock out Tommy Gibbons but he's knocking out Jersey Joe Walcott someone who had the type of style to keep Dempsey fits Kid Matthews Rocky Marciano and Ezzard Charles? This is a perfect example of old fighter hyperbole, like that boxing trainer who said that Rocky Graziano would beat Marvin Hagler, statements like that should be taken with a pinch of salt.
                  What I believe in is context. Hyperbole is employed at times and is an acceptable part of social intercourse...."I am so hungry I could eat a horse", "I would give my right arm to get her in the bedroom for a spell."

                  What you have done here is use your own ignorance in reading something literally that was said tongue in cheek, to cast aspersions on the opinion of a trainer who is not only well respected for his opinions....but actually viewed the fighters he is commenting upon.

                  Furthermore you seem incensed that Arcel is an "old" trainer and imply that old trainers engage exclusively in hyperbole that should all be taken with a grain of salt. That type of attitude is anathema to progress....Its why, for example, even though Plato was writing as a historian when describing Egypt and notions of Atlantis, he was dismissed because "only modern historians describe things as they really are, objectively."

                  These type biases are just that....biases.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    nope very much underrated due to his small size

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by AlexKid View Post
                      nope very much underrated due to his small size
                      6'1" is small? He's not a big heavyweight but that's not small.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP