Jump to content

Jack Dempsey HD Tribute


reznick
 Share

Recommended Posts

Re: Jack Dempsey HD Tribute

 

--- Dempsey one of the deadliest combination punchers in heavyweight history.

 

Dempsey very underrated by moderns because of his dispute with Doc Kearns and Tex Ricard over wanting to fight Wills. He signed twice for that fight, but promoters couldn't get the backing from money men because of the politics of the day that wouldn't sanction that fight. Oddly, Wills got $50K up front for the first fight that he invested in an apartment building that saw him through the depression years when millionaire Benny Leonard was forced back into the ring after losing his stake in the stock market crash.

 

I have Dempsey #3 or 4 on my all time heavy list. He became one of the best ever boxing emissaries for the sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Jack Dempsey HD Tribute

 

--- Dozens of sites pertaining to Wills and Dempsey.

 

Joe Jeannette also did well during the Depression because he was invest in his own Chauffeur service at a time when big shots were losing their fancy cars and needed special transportation. Peers Sam Langford and Jack Johnson suffered in comparison. Can't tell of Wills also had a white wife, but here she is looking good no matter how old her era gets.

 

http://beatsboxingmayhem.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/dempsey_wills_contract.jpg

 

220px-Harry_Wills_with_wife_1918_passport.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Jack Dempsey HD Tribute

 

I was amazed to read a part of this article

The Only Contender: Harry Wills Might Have Been Heavyweight Champion of the World. but the World Wouldn't Let Him

 

By Smith, Eugene R.

Read preview

Article excerpt

 

New York was suffering a newspaper strike when Harry Wills died in December of 1958, and therefore not everyone in the city of his residence knew he was gone. Elsewhere the obituaries uniformly highlighted the designation that followed him for more than thirty years: He was the man Jack Dempsey ran away from.

Dempsey never claimed otherwise. "He was gypped out of his crack at the title," Dempsey wrote in his autobiography. There was a reason. "I never fought Wills... because he was a Negro." In this regard Dempsey was following the lead of the first recognized heavyweight champion of the world, the Great John L. "I will not fight a Negro," Sullivan declared in 1892. "I never have and I never shall." His immediate successors followed his example.

Then, in 1908, Tommy Burns, trailed to Australia by Jack Johnson, gave a black man his chance, a guaranteed payday of thirty thousand dollars proving too much to resist. Burns earned his money.

 

THIS NEXT PART AMAZED ME

It had been a given in boxing for a century and more that while black boxers opposing one another could fight to kill, against a white man their style must not be too aggressive. Otherwise there'd be no further bouts for them. The accepted modus operandi for a black meeting a white was to fight defensively--slipping punches, blocking, ducking. One won not by doing but by suggesting what one could do, by letting the white man beat himself until, exhausted by his own efforts and sliced up by jabs and weakened by body blows, he eventually succumbed.

Edited by chaconfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Jack Dempsey HD Tribute

 

You seem to always have a grievance with the boxers I mention. So far you have had a major dig at Holmes and Ali, you say Hagler should have been knocked down, when he wasnt and now you are saying Johnson ducked the top black guys, but from what I have read, it seems that the white race was fuming that a black man had become champion, and were doing everything they could, to get a white guy back as champ again.

Johnson only got a title shot in the first place because he did a Shannon Briggs on Tommy Burns, and followed him all the way to Australia, and then Burns was offered a sum he could not turn down.

White people brought a guy out of retirement, and even put a middleweight in with him, with the proviso that Johnson was not allowed to punch hard. Johnson fought many good black guys, so it was not that he was afraid of them, it was because they did not want a black guy to replace the black guy. Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Jack Dempsey HD Tribute

 

--- Let's be clear, I post factual content to back my assertions, so it's not about what I think, it becomes conclusions based on what actually occurred in context to the larger picture.

 

Marv I rate very highly no matter if Roldan KDed him or not. Ali and especially Holmes less so. I've seen most every fight.

 

Johnson looks very poor on video and had a very weak title record no matter that Fleischer ranked him #1.

 

Boxing fans are behind the stat curve that baseball fans have, but clearly Langford and even Jeannette have better career records by the sheer number of fights and HOFers they faced.

 

We see time and time again that often the champ ain't the best in his division as Ali and Leon made crystal clear as one example...context is everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Jack Dempsey HD Tribute

 

Surprise surprise, I don't agree, again. You obviously DO NOT post factual content to back your assertions.You use bias in all your assessments, plus You were wrong about the Hagler knockdown and the Ali knockdown, you said Holmes never beat a defending champ, but was bias in ignoring the fact that just about everyone, agreed that he won the rematch with Spinks. You used bias in your assessment of Fraziers knockdown of Ali, you were wrong about Wepners weight and again you were unfair and used bias regarding Jack Johnson, and many other things. When I fully explain something, you merely try to re word your original comments, or say that I am going into too much detail, you used different terminology of course. You also use bias in assessing boxers you admire, and negative bias in those you do not. I pointed out that I dislike Tyson, but I still defended him, I don't dislike Ali, but I am not a fan, and again I defended him. Now you are decrying Nat Fleishers abilty to judge a great champ, even though he was there to see these guys live. All you have seen is extremely old footage that does not run at the correct speed, since they were often hand cranked. James J. Jeffries stated that he could not have beat Johnson even when he was at his best, he said he wouldn't be able to touch him, and Jeffries was an all time great. Peace

Edited by chaconfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Jack Dempsey HD Tribute

 

--- You're welcome to show the content where I was "wrong."

 

I posted the extensive facts surrounding Ali's recorded 4 KDs, I was right about Roldan KDing Marv, only mistaking that the ref ruled a slip when in fact it was a KD. Holmes never fought Leon but once well past when Leon held his title and well after Coetzee knocked him out in the first round, never a rematch of Holmes' early KO and why should there be? Leon was burnt to a crisp by then.

 

You don't have to defend Tyson to me, I rate him highly in spite of his obvious problems that I don't care for. And no, not everyone thought Holmes won the rematch against Spinks anymore than they thought he beat Witherspoon or Carl Williams. I don't dislike Ali, but he deserves his obvious weaknesses, and BTW, Fleischer also publicly defended Ali during his draft woes but never rated him and why should he. Nat only rated retired fighters, not active ones.

 

Jeffries is also on record as saying he could have done things differently instead of focusing on starving to lose 100 lbs after being 6 yrs inactive.He was likely trying to quell the race riots then going on after that fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Jack Dempsey HD Tribute

 

I pointed out things you were wrong about, and you try to talk your way out of it each time. You WERE wrong regarding that knockdown, no matter if you were wrong about the ref being a doofus.You were not right about Roldan knocking down Hagler either, he did not knock him down, just because the ref said that he did. I have the fight in USA and UK versions and on every replay, it is obvious that he slipped as he ducked, and Roldans forearm hepled pull him down as it grazed the back of his head. You said that a punch landed on Haglers ear, which was incorrect, and if it had done so, Hagler would have been knocked to the right, but he went straight down. He also would have been a little dazed at the very least, but he jumped straight back up, and instantly said, "it was a slip".

You mentioned (with disdain) that a liquor salesman decked Ali, but ignored the obvious fact totally, because you wanted to demean Ali.

You are definitely wrong about just as many people thinking Carl Williams beat Holmes as thought Holmes won his title back v Spinks. I still have all my magazines, that universally wrote stories about why they gave it to Spinks, it is one of the major controversial bad decisions in heavyweight history. If you type in on google boxings worst decisions of all time, there are only two heavyweight matches ranked above it, so yes, you are wrong.

Jeffries 100% stated that he could not have beaten Johnson even when he was at his best, I will post the article if you like. Lastly Fleischer might well have only ranked retired fighters, but at least he saw them fight live, and had he lived to see the whole of Ali's career, he would undoubtedly have ranked him highly, once he retired.

Edited by chaconfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Jack Dempsey HD Tribute

 

--- Looksy heresy palsy, boxing is the dirtiest human sport in the world, always has been.

 

You love to quote official results while ignoring official results that don't pass your critique, which is fine as that's the way boxing wants it, an anarchic state of competition where anything goes. Boxing makes it's biggest money in unreported betting totals, hence incomprehensible subjective scoring rules that are broken when financially convenient and dubious referee calls and interventions. In a typical 115-113 score with no KDs or fouls, over 90% of the points are matching between the boxers, ie worthless. It reads like a basketball score that at least translates to goals the the public can see and track on a scoreboard, similar to football, baseball, and hockey. The only controversies are the odd call in a close game where up to half the players may be involved in fouls or otherwise cheating that are too numerous to properly track.

 

I got everything right according to the official results and only added my own summation of what I viewed. I googled your suggestion and got a blizzard of competing bad decisions. Here is one goof posting his, half of which I agree with, half not, so what? As long as scoring remains subjective, judges and refs can bet on the outcome, and lower tier fighters are bound by low money near slave level contracts, nothing really changes, but we do have the fights and the live and video evidence to talk of which should be the only discussion per say most of the time.

 

Most Disputed Decisions in Boxing History

 

Going back to 2015, the biggest fight by far in modern times, Manny vs TUE 49-0, boxing completely blew it's credibility in order to cash in on a fight years past it's relevence. It was so bad that over a half billion dollars of law suits have been filed by the fight betters, GoldenBoy, and Top Rank.

 

Here shows the official winner of the bout BEFORE the card was altered to give the new result, only in boxing:

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/05/04/17/284D9B6B00000578-3067387-image-m-2_1430755908818.jpg

 

Added on to the TUE revelations of USADA and Mayweather, the whole fight stinks as the near billion dollar lawsuits attest. We don't see this in other major sports.

 

Let me know when you really want to talk about boxing and not just your wholly subjective view of boxing. I post the facts as they currently exist to underscore my conclusions and you can't say otherwise. You usually just post your unsubstantiated opinion, which is fine, but does little to enlighten the discussion. BTW, Fleischer thought quite highly of Ali, he just refused to entertain him as an all time great like his idolaters wanted, but Nat died before Ali made his comeback, so his position was the right one at the time.

Edited by LondonRingRules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Jack Dempsey HD Tribute

 

I really do not think I will ever get on with you. You contradict yourself in your last post, in your desperate attempt to make me look wrong and you right. First you started off with.."You love to quote official results while ignoring official results that don't pass your critique", then you counter your own statement with this gem, "You usually just post your unsubstantiated opinion". So are you accusing me of stupidly agreeing with that which is official, or that I dare to have my own opinion, which is unsubstantiated, because you say differently. You said the ref was a doofus for not calling it a knockdown when Hagler slipped against Roldan, so I substantiated my view, by referring to the video replays, and seeing that the ref was not a doofus at all. How is THAT having an unstantiated opinion?

All you do is get things wrong, then try to make out that you meant something else. You were wrong when you called the ref a doofus, wrong about Hagler being knocked down, wrong about Ali being knocked down by Wepner, or should I say that you chose to ignore the obvious, so you could seem right in your assessment of Ali's chin, or in your opinion, lack of one. Was it you who was also wrong about Reggie Johnson knocking down Toney with a body shot? Wrong that Jack Johnson avoided black fighters, wrong about many other things, but you have an excuse for all of it, and I don't want to spend my time on here arguing with you. I only like straight people, not blaggers.

You say, "Let me know when you really want to talk about boxing and not just your wholly subjective view", Does this mean that when you said that I love to quote official results, that I am being "wholly subjective"? If you want people to just accept that only what YOU say matters, and that only what YOU say is right, then you should join the communist party.

I also cannot see what you are trying to prove with your picture of the Pacquiao scorecard. It looks to me, like Mayweather won on those cards, and if my unsubstantiated opinion is allowed, I seem to recall, that was the OFFICIAL result.

You are a moderator, therefore you have power over me, but I am not going to suck up to anyone. If I get banned, I get banned.

Edited by chaconfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Jack Dempsey HD Tribute

 

--- First off, as mod I've only edited one post for language and never banned nor asked for anyone to be banned least of all you.

 

PAC was in the red corner and the red corner won the fight on the cards. Details may not mean much to you, but rest assured that most screams of robbery are self serving by those having $$$ on the outcome.

 

Because of the stupidity of those involved, boxing is near as low as ever, ESP American boxing.

 

I suggest you return to new topics and use better documentation or explanation when you wish to contest something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Jack Dempsey HD Tribute

 

I don't know what you want explaining better. I thought I was very thorough, in doing so.

I certainly don't know why you would think that details may not mean much to me, when all my arguments are over EXACTLY that....details. You are obviously the one that thinks details are not important, as evidenced in your presumption of all those facts you guessed at. A DETAILED examination of the Ali knockdown would have revealed that it was in fact, not a legitimate knockdown v Wepner. etc etc.

The scorecards show Pac on the right and Mayweather on the left. I can only assume that this is how the mistake was made, and am doubtful that you are suggesting that Pacquiao was robbed.

Peace

Edited by chaconfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Jack Dempsey HD Tribute

 

Wrong that Jack Johnson avoided black fighters, wrong about many other things, but you have an excuse for all of it, and I don't want to spend my time on here arguing with you. I only like straight people, not blaggers.

 

--- You're welcome to show where I stated that above. Obviously Johnson's record is chock full of black fighters...duh!

 

What I stated is that he never gave the top black contenders of his day a chance at his title, specifically Joe Jeannette and Sam Langford who were the hottest things going then. He never would have fought for the title but for the English National Sporting Club fronting him the money to follow Burns to Australia with the proviso that he return to England to defend against Langford. He reneged on that deal, and again, I was right about Hagler's KD, it's official in the record books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Jack Dempsey HD Tribute

 

I explained about white people not wanting another black champ, and that would appear to be the case. Oh and regarding Hagler, its official so it MUST be fact then? So every football match where they show a goal to be offside on a replay still counts as a goal, because it is official? Joe Louis clearly lost to Joe Walcott, but everyone( including Joe Louis) says Louis lost, but because it is official it is the right decision is it?

Have you not moaned about decisions on this forum and stated that your guy was robbed? Well according to you, you are wrong, because the official verdict is all that counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Jack Dempsey HD Tribute

 

--- You Fail to support your disagreements with the record.

 

Lady Lara says he's undefeated, but in fact of his biggest fights with Paul Williams and Canelo he ran like a girl for hire on fire. I can run with the best chicken, but I'd be ashamed to make like I won, but maybe you like that style and justify it. I can't say given the limited info you provide, but this forum is to discuss such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...