Thoughts/Views On Jack Dempsey's Resume Of Wins?

[crold1]

Langford fought many heavyweight who was far bigger than Jim Jeffries... to name but a few who Langford fought on many many occasions:

Bill Tate
George Godfrey
Harry Wills
Fred Fulton
Gunboat Smith

Uh huh. I wasn't noting anything about that. I was just noting that he did not fight Johnson on multiple occasions.

[~Chump]

Sam Langford fought Jack Johnson on several occasions and Johnson is a heavyweight, Langford fought lots of Heavyweights during his career so because i stated i did not give him much hope of beating Jack Dempsey you claim i am a fool eh... lol Chump your funny mate lol i have just started a thread for you with a link where you can read about Langford fighting Heavyweights

Langford fought Johnson once (not several occasions as you claim, unless you can prove history otherwise) and that was one year after Jeffries first retired.

Even then, Johnson wasn't as big or a dominant heavyweight as Jeffries had been years earlier and he beat the much smaller Langford, who weighed in below the middleweight limit.

Not to mention that the much bigger Johnson was the only top heavyweight Langford faced, at that point. Before that, his biggest fights were with lightweights and welterweights (in other words, people his own size). But still, being such a smaller fighter and going up against heavyweights is outstanding. So you really shouldn't call a welterweight a ducker for not fighting the heavyweight champion of the world, since not only was it not demanded, but it wasn't even considered.

Langford went on to fight plenty of top heavyweights, later in his career, because he became a full heavyweight then.

Let me simplify it for you:

1905

Langford = welterweight/middleweight
Jeffries = retired heavyweight

Understand?

[sonnyboyx2]

langford fought johnson once (not several occasions as you claim, unless you can prove history otherwise) and that was one year after jeffries first retired.

Even then, johnson wasn't as big or a dominant heavyweight as jeffries had been years earlier and he beat the much smaller langford, who weighed in below the middleweight limit.

Not to mention that the much bigger johnson was the only top heavyweight langford faced, at that point. Before that, his biggest fights were with lightweights and welterweights (in other words, people his own size). But still, being such a smaller fighter and going up against heavyweights is outstanding. So you really shouldn't call a welterweight a ducker for not fighting the heavyweight champion of the world, since not only was it not demanded, but it wasn't even considered.

Langford went on to fight plenty of top heavyweights, later in his career, because he became a full heavyweight then.

Let me simplify it for you:

1905

langford = welterweight/middleweight
jeffries = retired heavyweight

understand?

lol........

[~Chump]

lol........

No rebuttal? That means you know you're wrong, but you won't admit it.

[Greatest1942]

[/B]

I think Willard would have been in alot worse shape if it was used than losing teeth. He also felt the gloves before the fight, and sports illustrated was later sued by Dempsey due to the story that Kearns made up. Which was sad, since before Kearns died he begged Dempsey for money in Dempsey's restaurant, and Dempsey gave him the money although they no longer were associated with each other.

I put that story aside as i said, but i cited several other fights where the decisions were questionable. You never heard of Tunney being pushed back into the ring after a KD or a history of low blows. Tunney was a squeaky clean fighter.

Like i said in the first post, i felt Dempsey had a solid resume, but was not a top 10 P4P, more closer to top 25.

The legacy of Langford and Wills is a sad chapter in the history of the sport. Dempsey did admit he would lose to Langord, but was confident he could beat Wills, i think he should have taken the fight, but the Sharkey win over WIlls made the whole fight than meaningless.

Dempsey fought rough I never denied that.
Tunney was squeaky clean and Dempsey not okay..So were not Saddler,Fullmer,Greb and a host of other great fighters
Saddler = top two featherweight
Greb = ATG P4P great
Fullmer = ATG middle

If being dirty does not affect their rankings why Dempsey only? And Dempsey IMO was never as dirty as Greb(thumbing people in the eye) or Saddler. Why should it only affect his legacy.

Then we really have to change their ranking too. Will you be interested in hearing what Ray Arcel (who saw all from Ali to Dempsey) says of his ability ? All his contemporaries Jack Sharkey,Gene Tunney, Greb, Arcel , Sam Langford held him in the highest regard and I believe he did not get their respect by being dirty.

[Greatest1942]

Marquez who fought both Mayweather and Pacquiao, thinks Mayweather would beat Pac, DLH who fought both May and Pac also states the same, does their opinion count as fact?

I don't agree with triangle theories or always opinions on what fighters say. Pavlik thought since he beat Taylor and BHOP loss to Taylor, he would beat BHOp, and look how that turned out?

I never stated specifically that WIlls would beat Dempsey. Dempsey IMHO was a bit rusty in the first Tunney fight since he was idle for three years, and Wills would have fought him before losing to Sharkey for a title and not a non title fight. On paper, Dempsey has a good shot at winning, but sports are decided in the ring and in the field and not on paper.

As for no one ranking Dempsey a top 10, look at Sugar top 100 list, and Dempsey has been in the top 10 for years.

I am telling no one ranking dempsey a top 10 p4p I dont care about Bert's list. But a top 10 heavy he is

I asked you simple question will you favour the Dempsey who fought Sharkey over the Willis who fought Sharkey? Please answer this I am waiting.

As fro triangle theories I quoted Sam, who fought Willis around 15-16 time lost 13, so this is just not a one fight feedback far from it.

And Willis was shot after 1925 thats it. He wont have any chance against that version of Dempsey. I did give you the reasons I thought may be for which Dempsey never fought Willis. I just stated Johnson was more guilty of it as is evidence of his ducking of Sam McVea, Joe Jeanette, and Langford.

For the record Langford fought Johnson on 1905 when he was 156 lbs> he was never at his peak then , the period I alluded too is of 1909-1911 when Sam was ridely regarded as the best Heavy to challenge Johnson and JohnSon ducked him...Don't distort fact by saying he fought Johnson multipe times...

[crold1]

I am telling no one ranking dempsey a top 10 p4p I dont care about Bert's list. But a top 10 heavy he is

I asked you simple question will you favour the Dempsey who fought Sharkey over the Willis who fought Sharkey? Please answer this I am waiting.

As fro triangle theories I quoted Sam, who fought Willis around 15-16 time lost 13, so this is just not a one fight feedback far from it.

And Willis was shot after 1925 thats it. He wont have any chance against that version of Dempsey.

For the record Langford fought Johnson on 1905 when he was 156 lbs> he was never at his peak then , the period I alluded too is of 1909-1911 when Sam was ridely regarded as the best Heavy to challenge Johnson and JohnSon ducked him...Don't distort fact by saying he fought Johnson multipe times...

I rate Dempsey right at 10; dude was sick even with some flaws: //krikya360.com/?m=show&id=26161

10) Jack Dempsey (1914-27)
Record: 62-6-9, 51 KO, 6 No Decisions
World Champion 1919-26, 6 Defenses
Heavyweight Champions/Titlists Faced ?3: (Jess Willard, Gene Tunney, Jack Sharkey)

Born in Colorado, the “Manassas Mauler?fought with the wild abandon dreamed into the dying embers of the mythical west, a fulcrum point between the sports roots and its rapid modernization. Fighting for wagers in bar rooms, riding the rails as a hobo, and shacking up with the learned in brothels during his teens, Dempsey’s legend begins to be traced at around age 19, his prodigious power already being displayed. While pseudonyms and unrecorded backroom contests make his true record hard to trace in the early years, Dempsey’s official record shows a slew of knockouts, a spattering of draws, and one official loss over four rounds through 1916. Some learning stumbles came in 1917. Facing a vastly more experienced Jim Flynn in February, Dempsey was caught cold and knocked out in one, his only knockout loss. In his next seven contests through September, he’d lose on points, draw twice, and win once all over a four round distance to Willie Meehan while drawing twice against Al Norton before solving him with a first round knockout. Hooking up with manager Jack Kearns around the time, Dempsey would rarely stumble again. From late September 1919-September 1926, through just shy of forty official contests, Dempsey would lose only once (yet another four round loss to Meehan) and contest on even terms with Billy Miske in a ten round no decision contest while scoring 29 knockouts, 19 in the first round. Most of those contests came before he won the title. While any such collection of knockouts will include its share of lesser foes, it also encompassed many of the day’s top contenders. A first round avenging of the Flynn loss; a first round leveling of Fred Fulton just a year after Fulton stopped the great Sam Langford; a sixth round knockout of Bill Brennan in their first meeting; knockout and decision wins over Gunboat Smith; a third round knockout of reigning Light Heavyweight king Battling Levinsky. All of this led up to a shot at the World title in July 1919 where Dempsey, an underdog at 6? and 187 lbs., stepped in with the almost 6? 245 lb. Jess Willard. It was no contest, Dempsey flooring Willard seven times in the first with literally bone breaking blows and stopping him in the third. The to-then highly active Dempsey became a sparse commodity as champion, with variable levels of competition, while enriching himself as many champions had before with an active exhibition schedule. His first defense resolved issues with a Miske he’d not quite solved in two previous encounters, knocking him out in three in September 1920; in December it was a rematch with Brennan, this lasting into the twelfth before Dempsey lowered the boom. Dempsey would fight officially only once each in 1921 and 22, both bouts in July, with over 80,000 fans paying to see him run through Light Heavyweight champion Georges Carpentier in four and a veritable exhibition win over Jimmy Darcy in four rounds. 1923 was perhaps the most memorable year of his reign, a fifteen round decision over Hall of Famer Tommy Gibbons in the infamous “Sack of Shelby?followed with a wild war against Luis Firpo at the Polo Grounds in September. Trading knockdowns in round one, Firpo was down seven times, Dempsey twice including being knocked out of the ring. Two more knockdowns of Firpo followed in round two, Dempsey winning by knockout in just shy of four minutes of wild action. It would be his last title defense for over three years and the last time he’d leave the ring as champion. Returning to real competition in September 1926, Dempsey was easily outboxed by Gene Tunney in ten. Having packed over 120,000 into the stands the first time, a rematch was an economic must but first Dempsey had to get through rising future champion Jack Sharkey in July 1927 and did just that, coming from behind on points to send Sharkey into the floor in round seven. He’d drop Tunney as well in their rematch two months later, the infamous “Long Count?in round seven denying Dempsey the chance to become the first two-time king at Heavyweight. It would be the only round he’d win in twenty against Tunney and Dempsey wouldn’t return to active competition.

Why He’s Here: A star every bit as big in his time as baseball’s Babe Ruth, Dempsey was at the heart of the “Golden Age of Sport.? In terms of his significance to the game, Dempsey stands with a handful of the most important fighters of all time. Separating the magnitude of his star from his body of work can be difficult but, when done, the star appears just a little bit brighter. Dempsey’s resume in the ring has a gaping hole. While there isn’t a color line drawn across the entirety of his career, Dempsey did not fight the better black fighters of his time as a contender or champion, including the leading contender for the bulk of his title reign, Harry Wills. There are political, social, and economic reasons to explain this problem in the context of the times and Dempsey likely didn’t care much who he fought. It doesn’t erase or excuse the lacking because the same can’t be said of Miske, Gibbons, Smith, Flynn, Carpentier, Fulton, or Levinsky among others. That Dempsey’s opponents made fights against the likes of Langford and Kid Norfolk among others, and won their share amongst many other quality wins, speaks to how good they were as Dempsey opponents. However, it would be a mistake to give Dempsey credit for beating his opponent’s opponents when he didn’t. There is also the lack of a title defense against Middleweight and Light Heavyweight great, Harry Greb, who longed for a shot and beat many of the same leading Heavyweights of the day Dempsey. The good still outweighs the bad. Possessing tremendous speed, power, and underrated boxing ability behind a thrilling pressure style, Dempsey’s run from the second half of 1917-23 was every bit as jaw dropping as the peak runs posted by Joe Louis and Mike Tyson after him. His ability to beat larger men translates well in comparisons to other eras; it’s not hard to imagine Dempsey running someone as timid as today’s Wladimir Klitschko right out of the ring. Sitting on the title for the second half of his reign doesn’t erase a first half where he fought and dominated mostly legitimate contenders or the run to the title where he did the same. Dempsey was an inaugural member of the International Boxing Hall of Fame (IBHOF) in 1990.

[Greatest1942]

Dempsey may have been rough and dirty, but a lot of fighters were back then, and many greats were (Greb was dirty, Saddler was dirty,...), so I do believe you cannot use the fact that he was dirty to devaluate his achievements

And you got to protect yourself at all times, something Sharkey didn't do when he turned his head towards the ref after getting hit low by Jack

I fully expected many to say that. You also can't hit a man low which is something that goes back to the days of the Marquess of Quensberry rules, so the guy is looking at the referee since he was hurt. I think he should have hit him low back intead of looking at the ref, so i would agree there.

People talk about the dirty fighters back than as Greb and Wolgast, but those guys got disqualified in fights. With all due respect, you think the biggest cash cow of the sport who brings in record million dollar gates and over record capacity crowds was getting DQ? Dempsey knew he was big star and could get away with some of those fouls. Michael jordan had the jordan rules and got the favorable calls, so was the same as Dempsey.

1) Yep you cannot hit them low
as you cannot

1) Hold them behind their head to push their head down;
2)Thumb them to blind them (Greb,Kid Norfolk and ahost of others)
3)headbutt them(too many to state)
4)Foul in other ways

Dempsey fouled why are you caught up in that he was not the first nor the last ATG (cash cow or what ever) to do that

[HaglerSteelChin]

I am telling no one ranking dempsey a top 10 p4p I dont care about Bert's list. But a top 10 heavy he is

I asked you simple question will you favour the Dempsey who fought Sharkey over the Willis who fought Sharkey? Please answer this I am waiting.

As fro triangle theories I quoted Sam, who fought Willis around 15-16 time lost 13, so this is just not a one fight feedback far from it.

And Willis was shot after 1925 thats it..

This is how you mix up the facts. The Dempsey who fought Sharkey is NOT....the Dempsey who would have fought Wills. The Dempsey who fought Tunney and LOST every round in the first fight is the one who would have fought Wills. Yes Wills was alot older back in 1926, but he was a risk and that is why Dempsey and his handlers feared losing the title to a black fighter.

Wills defeated Firpo a guy who had defeated Dempsey until he was pushed back in the ring by the guys in the writers table. I think Wills beat Firpo back in 1924 or 25, he was past his prime in 1926, but not shot. In addition, Dempsey was idle for three years in 1926, while Wills was on a winning streak and didnt lose in years, even if he was old. Moreover, many of Wills losses in that era were DQ's and not KO's. Wills would have been the FIRST opponent for Dempsey after being idle for three years.

I don't think Dempsey beating Wills in 1926 is a foregone conclusion. The fact that despite being older-wills was still winning and would be very motivated against Dempsey for a title fight. While Dempsey was doing Hollywood for three years and possibly could have been rusty as he was in the first Tunney fight.

The answer to your question is that the fight was about 50-50, and also Demspey didn't look great against Sharkey either. You also must put into the equation that WIlls was fighting Sharkey for a non title fight, and must have felt pissed that he didn't get Dempsey and a title shot, he could have been less motivated. Think about it he was in has late 30's and denied another shot at the title, he knew at that time, he was NEVER going to get a title shot.

Here is my question for you: If Wills was so shot than why Dempsey didn't take the fight? Afterall, there was no possibility he would have to worry about a black winning the title since he was an old shot fighter? But as Dempsey said "If I lose the entire business goes down." He felt that he could win, but there was also a chance he could get KTFO. That speaks volume.

[Greatest1942]

This is how you mix up the facts. The Dempsey who fought Sharkey is NOT....the Dempsey who would have fought Wills. The Dempsey who fought Tunney and LOST every round in the first fight is the one who would have fought Wills. Yes Wills was alot older back in 1926, but he was a risk and that is why Dempsey and his handlers feared losing the title to a black fighter.

Wills defeated Firpo a guy who had defeated Dempsey until he was pushed back in the ring by the guys in the writers table. I think Wills beat Firpo back in 1924 or 25, he was past his prime in 1926, but not shot. In addition, Dempsey was idle for three years in 1926, while Wills was on a winning streak and didnt lose in years, even if he was old. Moreover, many of Wills losses in that era were DQ's and not KO's. Wills would have been the FIRST opponent for Dempsey after being idle for three years.

I don't think Dempsey beating Wills in 1926 is a foregone conclusion. The fact that despite being older-wills was still winning and would be very motivated against Dempsey for a title fight. While Dempsey was doing Hollywood for three years and possibly could have been rusty as he was in the first Tunney fight.

The answer to your question is that the fight was about 50-50, and also Demspey didn't look great against Sharkey either. You also must put into the equation that WIlls was fighting Sharkey for a non title fight, and must have felt pissed that he didn't get Dempsey and a title shot, he could have been less motivated. Think about it he was in has late 30's and denied another shot at the title, he knew at that time, he was NEVER going to get a title shot.

Here is my question for you: If Wills was so shot than why Dempsey didn't take the fight? Afterall, there was no possibility he would have to worry about a black winning the title since he was an old shot fighter? But as Dempsey said "If I lose the entire business goes down." He felt that he could win, but there was also a chance he could get KTFO. That speaks volume.

Who was exactly Willis beating post 1925?in 1926 he got pummeled by Sharkey.The next year, Willis was knocked out by heavyweight contender Paolino Uzcudun . He fought Firpo on 1924 sorry 2 years before 1926.I expilictly stated for a match in 1926 OKAY?
1924 Sept 1 - Harry Wills floors Luis Firpo and then dominates no-decision 12 rounder, Jersey City. . no-decision

Do you have even a idea how old was Willis? Dont bother he was 37 in 1926. Age doesnt have any factor right ring rust has...Please state Harry's great activity from 1924 on please... Okay moving on

So my assuming that Dempsey will beat a past prime old slow Willis is confusing facts???

Fred Fulton --> Dempsey 1, Harry 3
Firpo -->Dempsey KO, Harry nO Decision
Sharkey -->Pummels Willis,jack stops him

Facts these are facts. Unlike you I dont guess since this was so and so...This would have been so and so.....and so.....

You start again on why Dempsey not fighting Willis? Okay..Read the thread from the start
Oh!!! Why did Willis duck George Godfrey?

And Gene Tunney was the #1 contender for the title (after the Willis Deal fell through, there are too many sources on it do have a read).Dempsey fought him.
Next he fought Jack Sharkey, who pummeled Willis. He should have fought Willis the loser then fought Sharkey again right ? He knocked him out. Next he very unwisely fought Tunney what to do the title was with that Marine...

Tunney did agree to fight Harry Wills as part of a tourney for the right to meet Dempsey. Wills considered himself the #1 contender and already had Jack signed to meet him in an aborted title challenge years earlier, so wouldn't agree to the tourney. But the deal fell through with Jack getting bested, sharkey pummelling Willis , Jack losing again and later sharkey becoming champion and Willis fading away. Its sad but thats what happened. Why dont you go to the white people of those days and say to them that they are rasict for not allowing a black to fight a white champion? Why don't yougo and tell Jack Johnson to behave a bit better ? And why dont u tell the promoter to let Jack fight Willis because 100 years later someone sitting from his room will say why didnt jack do that and this override them etc etc...You or me cant even comprehend the rasicm of those times.

So Willis ducked Tunney?