Jack Dempsey vs Michael Spinks

[QueensburyRules]

You do realize that the last time Dempsey fought a black man, he had 3 of his ribs broken and got a draw that he thought he deserved to lose, right?

And that wasn't even Langford, Wills, Jeanette, Johnson, McVey.

- -You do realize Jack just a kid sleeping on park benches and standing in soup lines while being cheated by a NYC conartist who hustled Dempsey's real manager back to Utah so he could perpetuate the fraud, right?

Of course you did! So pray tell us how Jack left that godforsaken part of the country?

Stay tuned boys, this is gonna git good!!!

[Joe Beamish]

Spinks' record isn't any better. What was his best win? When did he ever enter the ring w/ anyone as good as Tunney? When did he ever hurt anyone like Dempsey did? What Black man before the rise of Ali, other than Joe Louis and maybe Sonny Liston, can even be considered a live opponent against Dempsey?

I'd pick Spinks in a competitive decision. He manages to avoid getting sparked in the first few rounds, and then keeps moving around the ring in his awkward way, scoring enough to win rounds while avoiding Dempsey's predictable lunges.

That said, I can envision Dempsey possibly finishing Spinks in the first couple rounds. But if not, Spinks will come away with the decision.

Dempsey was spectacular against come-forward ham and eggers. Not so much against boxers.

I consider him very overrated, even with a whopping five title defenses :0)

I get that he was a hugely popular phenomenon at the right (white) time.

Regarding your question about black opponents, I can't think of many HW title holders of any color including the few decent white ones, starting with Jack Johnson through the Klits, who wouldn't defeat Dempsey.

Of course, styles make fights. Marciano -- whom I consider a superior fighter to Dempsey -- might well get himself hurt in that matchup (well-trod in many other discussions.) But not likely. I can also see Dempsey finishing Floyd Patterson early.

But for the most part, Dempsey was a bad dude against some pretty....bad dudes.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I'd pick Spinks in a competitive decision. He manages to avoid getting sparked in the first few rounds, and then keeps moving around the ring in his awkward way, scoring enough to win rounds while avoiding Dempsey's predictable lunges.

That said, I can envision Dempsey possibly finishing Spinks in the first couple rounds. But if not, Spinks will come away with the decision.

Dempsey was spectacular against come-forward ham and eggers. Not so much against boxers.

I consider him very overrated, even with a whopping five title defenses :0)

I get that he was a hugely popular phenomenon at the right (white) time.

Regarding your question about black opponents, I can't think of many HW title holders of any color including the few decent white ones, starting with Jack Johnson through the Klits, who wouldn't defeat Dempsey.

Of course, styles make fights. Marciano -- whom I consider a superior fighter to Dempsey -- might well get himself hurt in that matchup (well-trod in many other discussions.) But not likely. I can also see Dempsey finishing Floyd Patterson early.

But for the most part, Dempsey was a bad dude against some pretty....bad dudes.

Maybe watch a Boxing match or 50 before posting? a lot of what you said makes it inconceivable that you've actually seen any of the fighters you're talking about. Read about them? Sure. Lots and lots. But it's pretty transparent, you're very confident in your ability to parrot other peoples' opinions. But you're conflating facts and confusing details. Even your sources wouldn;t make ALL the grandiose assertions you're making.

You make it sounds as if Spinks were super hype elusive fighter: like a Heavyweight Benitez. Yes, he was awkward. Yes, many fighters had trouble figuring him out. He was going to make opponents make mistakes trying to find his chin, and punish them for their mistakes. He was gritty and cagey. He knew how to make you work - work hard - for nothing.

That's not really gonna work against Dempsey, though. Not in the long-term. I think he can unload some real *******s and hurt Dempsey. Firpo did. But Dempsey was relentless. His attack was versatile. Spinks didn't have the wheels or the jab to keep Jack off of him.

Dempsey had some of the best punches going. He wasn't terribly varied in selection, but he came in w/ short punches from a variety of angles, to attack the body, arms and head. That WILL work against Spinks. It's not like Spinks was on wheels all night, or kept his man at the end of a jab w/ the same consistency and authority of Hearns or Holmes or Tunney .

It's not easy for Jack by any means. He's the smaller man, and he's gonna get a fist full of mustard every round. But eventually he makes it work.

[travestyny]

- -You do realize Jack just a kid sleeping on park benches and standing in soup lines while being cheated by a NYC conartist who hustled Dempsey's real manager back to Utah so he could perpetuate the fraud, right?

What fraud would that be? I'm sure the dude that broke 3 of Dempsey's ribs had such a great life coming up Stop with the excuses.

Of course you did! So pray tell us how Jack left that godforsaken part of the country?

How he left what part of the country? Tell us all about his opponent that crack his ribs up. The one who, according to boxrec was 11lbs lighter than Dempsey. What you got?

But hey, I'll tell you how he left that part of the country. With 3 broken ribs. He left and laid up to mend. Isn't that what happened?

Stay tuned boys, this is gonna git good!!!

It's never any good when it comes to you. Everyone knows you're a shlt poster.


Wahhhhh. Jackie Baby had it so hard.....but I'm sure it was all roses for the black dudes he was ducking/getting his ribs cracked by

[Joe Beamish]

Maybe watch a Boxing match or 50 before posting? a lot of what you said makes it inconceivable that you've actually seen any of the fighters you're talking about. Read about them? Sure. Lots and lots. But it's pretty transparent, you're very confident in your ability to parrot other peoples' opinions. But you're conflating facts and confusing details. Even your sources wouldn;t make ALL the grandiose assertions you're making.

You make it sounds as if Spinks were super hype elusive fighter: like a Heavyweight Benitez. Yes, he was awkward. Yes, many fighters had trouble figuring him out. He was going to make opponents make mistakes trying to find his chin, and punish them for their mistakes. He was gritty and cagey. He knew how to make you work - work hard - for nothing.

That's not really gonna work against Dempsey, though. Not in the long-term. I think he can unload some real *******s and hurt Dempsey. Firpo did. But Dempsey was relentless. His attack was versatile. Spinks didn't have the wheels or the jab to keep Jack off of him.

Dempsey had some of the best punches going. He wasn't terribly varied in selection, but he came in w/ short punches from a variety of angles, to attack the body, arms and head. That WILL work against Spinks. It's not like Spinks was on wheels all night, or kept his man at the end of a jab w/ the same consistency and authority of Hearns or Holmes or Tunney .

It's not easy for Jack by any means. He's the smaller man, and he's gonna get a fist full of mustard every round. But eventually he makes it work.

Oh, well that clears things up.

Spinks had a style that other fighters often struggled to figure out, but not really.

He would land some good shots on Dempsey, but not really.

Dempsey was predictable, but not really.

I need to watch more fights to learn that?

[billeau2]

I always like to look for precedent. Is there a fight that could tell us something about Spinks and Dempsey? I would say "yes." Tunney and Dempsey was that fight. So what shakes out if we compare Spinks to Tunney?

First off, Tunney was versatile. could do almost anything in the ring, and could do it according to the old and new ways! Tunney could stalk and counter, trap you like he was taught by the likes of the bare knuckle gang, including Corbet... who never actually fought a bare knuckle match professionally but was trained in the ways of those fighters. Tunney could also square up. counter punch with weight set on the front.

Spinks was also a very versatile fighter who could punch, counter well, and be tactical minded. The one big difference is in the footwork. Tunney used a lot of angles, and distancing when he fought Jack, skills that Spinks did not have. Spinks was more basic and it showed against Tyson who was very similar to how Dempsey would operate considering that Tyson practiced Jack's techniques.

Spinks would get overwhelmed going straight in and back off of Jack. Tunney against Tyson would be interesting because Tyson would not be able to overwhelm Tunney for the same reason. Angles, angles and angles. Set ups and always moving in a manner where there is a space to react to a swarmer.

And regardless of what you think of Dempsey he did not "write a book," jim Braddock, for example "wrote a book'.... and it had a nice ending and it told of his struggles and how he dealt with adversity...and it was good, it made people smile.

Jack Dempsey produced a detailed analysis of the new modern style of boxing emphasizing punching. His technical analysis detailed how to use weight, how to shift the body and taught an assortment of punches. Dempsey's work might be the single best piece of work on the subject and if it is not, it is one of the best.

Let me put this in some perspective which is lacking for some: In 99% of the cases when a fighting man says "I will teach you a skill that will make you a stone cold killer" it is pure BS. It takes years to learn how to fight properly. Dempsey's book was designed so that anyone could learn how to hit things really hard and do so in a very short time. Following dempsey's extortations one could, in a day, learn how to punch someone hard enough to break things. it takes a lot of intelligence to write something that clear about a confusing subject.

[QueensburyRules]

Dempsey was spectacular against come-forward ham and eggers. Not so much against boxers.

I consider him very overrated, even with a whopping five title defenses :0)

- -Jack was frozen out of boxing for 3 years for dropping Rickard and Kearns to try and make the Wills fight.

He took Bill Tate with him to Hollywood to get in regular sparring for that never to be bout.

5 defenses x 4 belts today = 20 defenses.

Without Jack, we'd never have the spectacle of big matches today...just sayin'...

[Rusty Tromboni]

- -Mo' Rusty porkies from you again.

Mustaffa made 175 and KOed a top 10 Mwale and at 176 when he whooped Ricky Parkey who went on to win and defend his cruiser title.

Yeah, Qawi short...Duhs for you, and Mike Katz say the KD was was questionable because Spinks had a well known bad knee that was starting to collapse on him before qawi landed a punch. Spinks was having to move to maintain his punching distance that all agree was a masterclass. Qawi put Field in the hospital on death's doorstep for comparison.

And saying Spinks quit against Tyson further strains any grade school expertise you claim. Spinks knee could never hold off a prime Tyson in full destructive pomp.

He landed a few jinx rights to no avail to be splattered in a knockout for the ages.

Still ain't told nobody where you're hiding all you Tunney and Greb video. Yeah, in a strongbox buried deep in your underground bunker in the middle of the Land of La La.

Oh, look at that everybody, Queenie can use BoxRec!

[Rusty Tromboni]

You do realize that the last time Dempsey fought a black man, he had 3 of his ribs broken and got a draw that he thought he deserved to lose, right?

And that wasn't even Langford, Wills, Jeanette, Johnson, McVey.

Show me the proof it happened.


I can at least show you the proof the dudes you named were dog shyte. Seriously, were those guys even Boxers?

They look like the sort of dudes that get offered a couple hundred bucks to fight in a gym or the backroom of a bar. After they try to smack each other around, you turn one of the local kids on them. There's "punching" and ****** monkey rasslin. But they're clearly just dopes who resort to violence (often against smaller, weaker people) because they lack social skills. Then they get their asses kicked by someone who can really fight.

We've all suckered dudes like those clowns you named, there's no shame in saying you enjoy cheap entertainment. Besides when MMA wasn't really legal, it was hard for the young kids to find an outlet. Turning them lose on some hoods was just a way of keeping them fresh threw "safe" sparring. You couldn't wear them out against the same guys, and you couldn't let them show up to the cage "cold" and get hurt.

Funny stuff to set up when your young and single. But when you're an adult you really don't have time for that life. let alone pay for it. If those dudes need money that bad, they can find real jobs.


If showing you evidence that Willis and Co. were not in Jack's league is too painful. I can also show you louis getting smoked by the big Kraut; dropped by the sloppy H'Italian, and rattled by the Pittsburgh KID. I dunno if I can find footage of Liston getting his jaw shattered, but I can definitely dig up a fight he famously threw...

[Joe Beamish]

I always like to look for precedent. Is there a fight that could tell us something about Spinks and Dempsey? I would say "yes." Tunney and Dempsey was that fight. So what shakes out if we compare Spinks to Tunney?

First off, Tunney was versatile. could do almost anything in the ring, and could do it according to the old and new ways! Tunney could stalk and counter, trap you like he was taught by the likes of the bare knuckle gang, including Corbet... who never actually fought a bare knuckle match professionally but was trained in the ways of those fighters. Tunney could also square up. counter punch with weight set on the front.

Spinks was also a very versatile fighter who could punch, counter well, and be tactical minded. The one big difference is in the footwork. Tunney used a lot of angles, and distancing when he fought Jack, skills that Spinks did not have. Spinks was more basic and it showed against Tyson who was very similar to how Dempsey would operate considering that Tyson practiced Jack's techniques.

Spinks would get overwhelmed going straight in and back off of Jack. Tunney against Tyson would be interesting because Tyson would not be able to overwhelm Tunney for the same reason. Angles, angles and angles. Set ups and always moving in a manner where there is a space to react to a swarmer.

And regardless of what you think of Dempsey he did not "write a book," jim Braddock, for example "wrote a book'.... and it had a nice ending and it told of his struggles and how he dealt with adversity...and it was good, it made people smile.

Jack Dempsey produced a detailed analysis of the new modern style of boxing emphasizing punching. His technical analysis detailed how to use weight, how to shift the body and taught an assortment of punches. Dempsey's work might be the single best piece of work on the subject and if it is not, it is one of the best.

Let me put this in some perspective which is lacking for some: In 99% of the cases when a fighting man says "I will teach you a skill that will make you a stone cold killer" it is pure BS. It takes years to learn how to fight properly. Dempsey's book was designed so that anyone could learn how to hit things really hard and do so in a very short time. Following dempsey's extortations one could, in a day, learn how to punch someone hard enough to break things. it takes a lot of intelligence to write something that clear about a confusing subject.

I agree, let's call it a "treatise." Sounds more respectable and groundbreaking than just a "book." And it's about punching with power.

It's a book. But it's a GOOD, smart book.

I think Dempsey knocked out a lot of tough hombres at the fairs and festivals. Using that awesome punching technique -- and his super hungry need to get a meal after going days without eating. I respect that. And when I look at those old pictures of the guy, he is indeed fearsome as hell.

But when it comes to the sport of boxing, I don't think he knocked out anybody really good, dig?

I get the emotion. You guys LOVE Jack Dempsey and it really gets under your skin to have somebody call him "overrated" and point out that he admitted he was "afraid" of Sam Langford.

But he avoided black fighters. Period. Maybe he was just being a man of his time. A white man. That's fine. But it doesn't really give me confidence he would do very well against the best heavyweight boxers who happen to be (all of them) black. I consider Marciano an exception, and I don't see any reason to suppose Dempsey would be able to defeat Ezzard Charles or Archie Moore. He never once faced anyone remotely similar to those fighters, except the guy he lost to. Twice.

(I know, I know. He should have got the KO in the rematch. Maybe. It actually seems Tunney was watching the count and -- like the intelligent, more modern fighter that he was, buying time to recuperate; but yes, Dempsey almost won.)

For the record, I do think a Spinks matchup is a good one.