Is Dempsey more myth than substance?

Jack Dempsey became an overnight star after beating Willard half to death in Toledo but his reign as heavyweight champ was VERY inactive. Notable wins against Firpo and Carpentier stand out as well as his 2 losses against Tunney, but he remained largely a very inactive champion. Still he is well loved and idolised. I cant get past the fact that his lack of defences work against him. Any other heavyweight champ would be tarnished with this but not Jack.

You can claim he was inactive between the Firpo and Tunney fights (prior to that he had made about 6 defences in 3 years which is standard). I dont see how it equates to him being more myth than substance. His marriage, split from management and legal issues between 1923 and 1926 also give him at least some measure of explanation for his inactivity, not to mention the issue of the potential Wills fight which was on/off during the period and that Dempsey had actually agreed to fight only for it to fall through.

Multiple wins over Miske and Brennan combined with wins over Firpo, Carpentiers, Sharkey, Gibbons, Willard, Levinsky and Fulton surely indicate subatance rather than myth?

Along with Leonard and Tunney he also brought boxing into a new era style wise. I've seen very few heavyweights who can use movement with the variety he did. He could combine side to side, in and out, with an agressive bob and weave and do it with coordination that wouldn't be matched before Ali.

Style-wise..sure they had hands down brawlers before Dempsey....

Record does suggest he's over - rated..

Tyson gets slated but his record does appear just as good on paper....

Not as romantic a fighter though..

Still he's in my top 10..

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Along with Leonard and Tunney he also brought boxing into a new era style wise. I've seen very few heavyweights who can use movement with the variety he did. He could combine side to side, in and out, with an agressive bob and weave and do it with coordination that wouldn't be matched before Ali.

Tunney was a far more accomplished fighter then Dempsey. Dempsey was a brawler through and through. Style wise he never brought anything to the table that was not brought before him. Tunney changed the game in that regard.

In short, no.

Great fighter, beat some very good fighters, revolutionary style, and nothing short of savage in his pomp.

I have no problem with Dempsey rating higher than Tunney at heavy....

Just don't see how his record is better than a Holyfield or Tyson...

Let's be honest some people rate Ketchel over Hopkins..

What chance has any present day fighter got of being fairly judged????

According to Fleischer Ali was a phoney compared to Dempsey..

Still each to his own...but you won't get any joy out of the Rowley's and Windy's with your opinion on this..

revolutionary style??????..face first brawler..

beat good fighters who Firpo, Willard????? or 170 pound Carpentier???

Nothing like backing up an argument hey??

So Tyson was also a face first brawler then, Truss, by your reckoning?

Dempsey is an ATG Heavy, it's a fact and you even say so yourself - I'd say the very fact that this is the general opinion of most boxing fans proves that there is substance, and no myth.

Truss I can't force you to actually watch his fights and see the way he moves and evades, the way he draws leads and counters. Things like that are for the individual to observe.

I love watching Dempsey footage. The guy threw so many punches and was a come forward fighter. He fought during a difficult post war and racial problem period. Jack was overweight and past it by the time he fought Tunney. A prime Dempsey would of beat him IMO. Boxings first superstar as well. So, is Dempsey more myth than substance? No

Looks like a hit 'n' run from Truss

Fists of Fury wrote:Looks like a hit 'n' run from Truss

Yep. Dropped his bomb and left pretty sharpish. As they do

No denying that Dempsey was a brilliant fighter. That said, I do agree that his standing today goes far beyond what his actual achievements as a fighter warrant.

No matter which way people paint him, or which context they try to put him in, I simply can't put Dempsey up there with the very, very elite of Heavyweights gone by. At best, he scrapes in to my top ten - but never as high as the lofty heights which others frequently award him.

Dempsey beat a lumbering giant for the title, a lumbering giant who had a good right hand and very little else. His title reign consisted of spectacularly stopping Firpo, himself not cut from the elite cloth (but very possibly a belt holder in the days of the alphabet boys), and beating natural Light-Heavyweights (albeit very good ones) such as Carpentier, Miske and Gibbons. Of course, Dempsey was hardly a man mountain of a Heavyweight himself at 6'1" and 190 lb, but why should that series of wins - even with non-title victories against Sharkey, Levinsky and Fulton - entitle him to a top ten spot?

For me, Dempsey's standing is allowed a little more leeway for the way in which he brought boxing on to a financial level that had been unimaginable only a few years previously, and because he was one of the greatest value for money fighters of them all. Had he beaten the aforementioned in a more methodical manner befitting someone such as Larry Holmes, I'm not so sure he'd be allowed that leeway. I'll give him some benefit of the doubt regarding the Wills fight never materializing, but again, why should it not detract from his legacy that he didn't defend against the man who was generally considered his biggest challenge? If Pacquiao and Mayweather never fight, we'll hear no end of people arguing that it harms their legacies (and rightly so), regardless of whose fault it is. But again, I'm not so sure those same people will be quite as stern when it comes to their stance on Dempsey-Wills.

As I said, I think Dempsey is, by the skin of his teeth, a top ten Heavyweight of all time. It's when people place him in a top five position along with the Ali's and Louis' of this world that I get a little perplexed. He wouldn't be top five in terms of quality of opposition beaten. He wouldn't be top five in terms of quality of title reign. He wouldn't (for me) be top five in a 'who beats who' table, though of course that's a little more subjective. And as such I just don't see how he can be up there with the elite, even if he did bring an excitement and ferocity to the sport which had been lacking before.

I'd never go so far as to call Dempsey a 'myth.' He was a superb fighter and a key figure in the sport. But certainly not one of it's greatest fighters, I'm afraid, and I don't think there's any doubt that his standing today owes just as much to peripheral factors as it does to his actual ring exploits.

Who are all these heavyweights with vastly better records, ability and acheivements than Dempsey?

Outside of Ali and Louis the margins get quite narrow and I think a placing in the top 5 is entirely reasonable.

Colonial Lion wrote:Who are all these heavyweights with vastly better records, ability and acheivements than Dempsey?

Outside of Ali and Louis the margins get quite narrow and I think a placing in the top 5 is entirely reasonable.

That's your opinion Colonial, and you've made a good argument above. But as you've asked, I'd say that Ali, Louis, Jeffries, Johnson, Foreman, Lewis, Marciano and Holyfield all have a win column that is superior to Dempsey's (though he claws back that deficit against some of them in other departments). In terms of the quality of his title reign, I'd say it has to be behind those of Ali, Louis, Jeffries, Holmes and Marciano, with Lewis a possibility, too.

In a who beats who argument, I make Dempsey the favorite against Marciano, Frazier, Holyfield, the Klitschkos and Walcott, but the underdog against Ali, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Lewis and Liston. Of course, that last category is very subjective, though.

Just don't see a single department where he's top five apart from impact on the sport, which I've never really taken in to account when rating someone as a boxer.

88Chris05 wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:Who are all these heavyweights with vastly better records, ability and acheivements than Dempsey?

Outside of Ali and Louis the margins get quite narrow and I think a placing in the top 5 is entirely reasonable.

That's your opinion Colonial, and you've made a good argument above. But as you've asked, I'd say that Ali, Louis, Jeffries, Johnson, Foreman, Lewis, Marciano and Holyfield all have a win column that is superior to Dempsey's (though he claws back that deficit against some of them in other departments). In terms of the quality of his title reign, I'd say it has to be behind those of Ali, Louis, Jeffries, Holmes and Marciano, with Lewis a possibility, too.

In a who beats who argument, I make Dempsey the favorite against Marciano, Frazier, Holyfield, the Klitschkos and Walcott, but the underdog against Ali, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Lewis and Liston. Of course, that last category is very subjective, though.

Just don't see a single department where he's top five apart from impact on the sport, which I've never really taken in to account when rating someone as a boxer.

Johnson?

BALTIMORA wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:Who are all these heavyweights with vastly better records, ability and acheivements than Dempsey?

Outside of Ali and Louis the margins get quite narrow and I think a placing in the top 5 is entirely reasonable.

That's your opinion Colonial, and you've made a good argument above. But as you've asked, I'd say that Ali, Louis, Jeffries, Johnson, Foreman, Lewis, Marciano and Holyfield all have a win column that is superior to Dempsey's (though he claws back that deficit against some of them in other departments). In terms of the quality of his title reign, I'd say it has to be behind those of Ali, Louis, Jeffries, Holmes and Marciano, with Lewis a possibility, too.

In a who beats who argument, I make Dempsey the favorite against Marciano, Frazier, Holyfield, the Klitschkos and Walcott, but the underdog against Ali, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Lewis and Liston. Of course, that last category is very subjective, though.

Just don't see a single department where he's top five apart from impact on the sport, which I've never really taken in to account when rating someone as a boxer.

Johnson?

Exactly what I thought

Jeanette, McVey, Fitzsimmons, Langford and Gardner is, at the very least, comparable to Dempsey's best scalps. Even if you think otherwise, there are still at least five or six who beat better men.

I think its a negative take on Demspey myself. I think his win column is comparable to most other heavyweights outside of Ali/Louis. If many of his wins are going to be labelled as against light heavies then the same has to be said of the like of Jeffries, Johnson and Marciano. Do we say Lewis' biggest win was over a natural cruiser?

Think his title reign is also comparable quality wise to most of those guys too (outside Ali/Louis), especially if you only include actual undisputed title reigns.

Looking at someone like Jeffries whos biggest wins came over mid thirties light heavies and who wasnt as skillfull a fighter for me I find it hard to see why he is ranked ahead by anything more than the wafer thin margins that come with personal preference, rather than actual ability or acheivement. Likewise people like Lewis, Holyfield, Liston, Marciano etc

The chasing pack are so close together that I dont consider Dempsey a top 5 by any real margin but neither would I classify him as a fringe top ten any more so than most of the others in the pack.

88Chris05 wrote:Jeanette, McVey, Fitzsimmons, Langford and Gardner is, at the very least, comparable to Dempsey's best scalps. Even if you think otherwise, there are still at least five or six who beat better men.

McVey and Langford he outweighed by a sizeable amount. Johnson had one of the weakest title reigns in history. He's a poor choice of example.

Not denying that Johnson's title reign was poor when you consider his talents and what went before, Baltimora - you'll see that I didn't mention him among the names who rank higher than Dempsey in that department.

But I maintain that, all told, he has a more impressive win column than Dempsey. Fitzsimmons, to me, is a better singular win than Carpentier, Miske or Gibbons. Burns, who Johnson beat to take the crown, wasn't an elite Heavyweight champion, but he was a much better one than Willard. Yes, Johnson had the weight advantages over Langford - but let's not forget that the older version of Langford wanted to fight Dempsey in the twenties, to which Dempsey's team replied that they were "looking for something a little easier", reportedly. Langford had made light of considerable weight disparity before, too.

Sorry, don't see why Dempsey's list of wins should be considered better than Johnson's. At best, I can put them on an equal footing, but to me the man from Galveston takes it. And as I said, regardless of whether or not Johnson is one of them, there are still at least half a dozen men who belong above Dempsey in that aspect, at least in my eyes.

Johnson has a strong claim to rank ahead of Dempsey but I would say its close and comes down to personal preferance and which criteria you emphasise, rather than a clear cut case.

To argue that Dempsey isnt worthy of a top 5 spot or is a fringe top ten heavyweight means that you need to build a compelling case for a host of other fighters. Ali and Louis are obvious ones but after that I dont really think there is a heavyweight with a significantly better argument. Best case scenario you could say that they edge in ahead of Dempsey rather than leave him trailing.

I personally dont think his title reign or win column lags behind the likes of Lewis, Jeffries, Marciano or Holyfield to any great extent. I think Dempsey has a good overall balance of wins, title reign and longetivity, talent and so forth. His title reign was almost 7 years and included wins over 4 Hall of Fame fighters. He defended it on average once a year which may be on the low side but the quality he faced was stronger than I think he is credited for.

Many of the criticisms used to rank him lower I think are equally applicable to other fighters.

I just dont think anyone outside Ali or Louis has a compelling argument to definately rank above him which by extention means hes a more credible candidate for a top five spot and dead cert for top ten in my eyes.

I think one could fashion a reasonable argument against him being in the top 5 but no more so than any other of the chasing pack and I would imagine whoever one prospected to place above him would be equally vulnerable if put under the microscope.

One can use the collective chasing pack to highlight various weaknesses in Dempsey but as individuals I dont think anyone outside the big two has a significantly better claim.

It isn't possible to build a case on one singular element.

Nobody disputes George Foreman's right to a place among the elite, yet his championship tenure consists of wins over José King Roman and a Ken Norton who had a habit of folding in the face of heavy artillery. His second spell as champion saw him on the right end of a shocking decision against Axel Schulz. Dempsey's title reign, by these criteria, is vastly superior.

Additionally, Foreman was seen to be lacking in versatility and ring savvy against Ali. He was there to blow Ali away, and when he couldn't he came unstuck. Contrast this, then, with Dempsey, who was also expected to blow away the cleverest fighter in the division at the time, lightheavyweight great Tommy Gibbons. Having been made to look a little foolish by the mercurial Gibbons in the early going, Dempsey settled down to controlled pressure, demonstrating solid techinique, and eventually outpointed the master boxer.

Clever boxing, also, at the beginning of the Willard fight. Say what you will about Willard, but he was a big man with a decent jab and a monstrous right hand who was seen very much as the Vitali Klitschko of his day. Dempsey's early circling, upper body movement, feinting, etc., were tools which David Haye would have desperately needed against Wlad Klitschko a few weeks ago. Having used these sound skills to draw the lead and move inside, Dempsey made every single punch count.

Tunney, as astute a fighter who ever donned gloves, remarked at how difficult it had been to catch Dempsey cleanly with head shots. No ' face first brawler,' this, but a thinking fighter who knew how to make himself a difficult target, was able to shift and show angles, who was able - unlike Tyson, for example - to sustain the bob and weave over the course of an entire fight, and who was able to deliver genuine knockout power with either hand.

On the subject of Dempsey's power, some years ago some boffins took film of the major punchers in heavyweight history and, by calculating angles, etc., were able to ( pretty much, ) scientifically establish that Dempsey was the most powerful short puncher in heavyweight history, with Joe Louis second. Such power can only be generated from a 190lb. frame courtesy of excellent technique. Coordination, speed, weight transference, etc., etc., combine to produce shuddering force which, if it cannot be immediately seen, can most certainly be felt. This would explain why so many have described being hit by Dempsey as being totally different from having been hit by anybody else.

Then we must consider resilience. Dempsey, like Holmes and Louis, could be hurt. He was no George Chuvalo or Jim Jeffries. However, like Holmes and Louis, Dempsey possessed inhuman recuperative powers. Tunney remarked that he could recover in a couple of seconds and we know this to be true from the Firpo fight. Not the occasion when Dempsey was sent hurtling through the ropes, ( that was as much due to a push as a punch, ) but, rather, the moment when Firpo catches him early on and Dempsey very briefly touches down. Dempsey always said that he didn't know where he was after that punch and had no recollection, even, of having been later put through the ropes. Whether that is to be taken literally is a matter of conjecture, but what is clear to see is that Dempsey carries on with his destruction of Firpo, regardless.

Head to heads are always something of a lottery, and I'm not about to say that I believe Dempsey blows away Sonny Liston, George Foreman or Lennox Lewis. Even then, though, I'd offer one point in Dempsey's defence. If Ray Mercer and Evander Holyfield could make life difficult for Lennox Lewis then there is reason to believe that Jack Dempsey might also have been capable of the same.

Each to his own, but I believe Dempsey to have been a very great heavyweight, and I also believe that there was a lot more substance to him than we see at a cursory glance.

I also think Dempsey is falsely lauded. Inactive and of course the colour bar. Not his fault but it should always be considered when measuring his greatness. He gets a big rep because he was an explosive and exciting fighter to watch.

Super D Boon wrote:I also think Dempsey is falsely lauded. Inactive and of course the colour bar. Not his fault but it should always be considered when measuring his greatness. He gets a big rep because he was an explosive and exciting fighter to watch.

On the issue of the 'colour bar', and going back to Johnson: Johnson also used skin colour as a reason not to fight black opponents. Sad as it is, there was an actual valid financial motivation for boxers to not fight black opponents. This is of course on top of the racist element of the era, but is nonetheless a factor.

I agree Dempsey had a fairly inactive reign, but I think the criticism he receives for having fought smaller fighters is somewhat unfair. By comparison; Jeffries and Johnson each fought a number of much lighter and smaller opponents, but don't seem to receive the same criticism for it. Dempsey by contrast was at least fighting light-heavyweights, and not middleweights.

is it dempsey week on 606v2?

I've always thought he was the beckham of his day and started an identical thread to this many moons ago on the old 606. Have to say under tutorage of some on here i've mellowed my views somewhat... but still think that on balance his myth does outweigh his actual achievements.

Still a top 10 heavy, but low end for me

I suppose what ti comes down to for me is that I would like to see these compelling cases for the many fighters that finish above Dempsey in his critics eyes.

You can make a very good case for Dempsey (as Human Windmill has done) only to have people rebuff it. But without supplying a significantly better case for someone else then it seems unsupported in some ways.

There is no doubt that there are very good arguments for other fighters, as it is I have very little seperating Dempsey from the likes of Johnson, Jeffries and Foreman. I just see it being a case of there being valid arguments for and against these kind fighters with the result being they re hard to seperate.

I wouldnt really dispute if others rated these fighters above Dempsey, but I would disagree that its by the sort of margin that makes it an automatic call (like Ali or Louis) and would argue that its only by small gaps and that Dempsey has a more than reasonable argument himself to rank above them.

Yet again another post trying pick holers in a great fighters status and record, and as been shown time and again , its not hard to do to any fighters record. Thankfully this post has atleast resulted in a great arguement defending Dempsey by Windy.

Dempsey's all action style is great to watch.

Possibly the most exciting heavyweight of all time. It's no surprise he was so popular.