Jack Dempsey and the All-Time Greats

 

By Eric Jorgensen
Boxing Historian

When Jack Dempsey flashed out of America's wild west and into its sporting conscience in the late teens, no one had ever seen anything like him. He combined the right hand of John L. Sullivan, the left hand of Jim Jeffries, the speed of Jim Corbett, the cunning of Bob Fitzsimmons and the ferocity of Stanley Ketchel. He was almost instantly acclaimed the greatest fighter of all-time and remained the consensus selection in that regard well into the 1960s, when those who saw him fight began dying out. (In the Associated Press Mid-Century Poll conducted in 1950, for example, Dempsey received 251 votes as history's number 1 fighter, pound-for-pound; distant runner-up Joe Louis received only 104 votes and 3rd choice Henry Armstrong only 16.) To me, Dempsey remains unique, and he is still the all-time pound-for-pound champion. Nor does he rank much lower, if at all, as a heavyweight.

Old-Timers vs Moderns

These days, one reads a lot about how the old-time heavyweights were too small and too primitive stylistically to compete with their "modern" counterparts. I submit, however, that the foregoing grossly oversimplifies the analyses. While it is certainly true that Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, and most heavyweights of the pre-Sonny Liston era, would have conceded a lot of weight were they campaigning today, it is also true that ability can overcome weight. For a variety of reasons, it seems to me that the old-time fighters were superior pound-for-pound to today's fighters such that the best of them could have more than held their own against their bigger successors.

For one thing, boxing was far more popular in the old days than it is now. More athletes were competing, fight clubs flourished, and, perhaps most importantly, there were fewer divisions and fewer champions. Nowadays, football, basketball, tennis, and other, safer sports attract the athletic talent, so overall competition quality has declined in the ring. Thus, the champions of old had to climb a higher mountain than the champions of today have to climb.

Moreover, the old-time fighters had far more fights in their careers, as a rule, than do their modern counterparts (for many reasons, primarily economic). Thus, those fighters became truly skilled and seasoned while still at their physical peaks. Dempsey, for example, had 60 or 70 professional fights (at least) by the time he won the title at age 24. Thus, he had a career's-worth of experience and his in-prime body at the same time. These days, a fighter can become a millionaire after 20-30 fights, or fewer, and so often loses some of his ambition. Thus, he slips into semi-retirement, fighting once a year or so, without ever learning some of the finer skills mastered by the busier fighters of legend. Mike Tyson and Riddick Bowe are perfect examples of this. Both began losing strength and speed to age while they still had a lot to learn.

Nor have training techniques changed all that much. Boxers were way ahead of the times in recognizing the value of cardio-vascular conditioning (even John L. Sullivan skipped rope and did roadwork). Conversely (and bizarrely), they have been among the last to abandon old superstitions concerning weight-training. Angelo Dundee still thinks lifting makes a fighter "musclebound" (i.e., slow and clumsy). Thus, boxers have by and large failed to benefit from modern training methods the way other athletes have.

Proponents of the modern boxer often respond to arguments like the ones I've just set forth with comments along the lines of: Awell, you can theorize all you want, but all I have to do is take one look at the films to know Jack Johnson wouldn't have lasted 15 seconds with Mike Tyson. But, films can be deceiving. Though the old-timers may appear "awkward" on film (at least sometimes), the careful analyst must reason his way beyond mere appearances. He should think of the silent film era movies he has seen. The movements of the actors appear disjointed and clumsy -- almost cartoonish. They appear grossly uncoordinated and inept when performing even the most rudimentary physical feats. Yet, would anyone conclude that Clint Eastwood walks more skillfully than Charlie Chaplin walked? Of course not; to do so would belie all common sense. The difference, then, is not in the actor but in the quality (primarily the speed) of the film capturing the act.

Jack Dempsey In Particular

With respect to Dempsey, there is an additional "biasing factor" relating to films. The film clip most people see is the second half of his first round against Jess Willard, when Dempsey had Willard reeling around the ring and ready to go. Yes, he looks wild, perhaps even "crude", as The Ring's editor-n-chief Nigel Collins contends, but pretty much every fighter looks that way in such circumstances. Anyone troubling himself to view the second and third rounds of that fight, when Dempsey was catching his breath after his premature victory celebration following his apparent 1-round win had left him a bit winded, would have to concede that Dempsey appears highly skillful bouncing nimbly beyond Willard's reach, deftly slipping punches, etc.

In fact, Dempsey was an extremely skilled and versatile fighter all around, more along the lines of a heavyweight Roberto Duran than a prehistoric version of Marciano and Frazier (as many today seem to believe). He had the same granite jaw, remarkable stamina, and indomitable will that Marciano and Frazier had, but was quicker, a much better boxer, and, consequently, much harder to hit than either one of them. Also, he neither cut like Marciano nor swelled like Frazier. Finally, whereas Marciano and Frazier tended to wear their opponents down over the course of a fight, Dempsey had one-punch power in both hands (indeed, he was one of the very few fighters in heavyweight history who hit equally hard from each side). He demolished big, modern-sized heavyweights (Willard, Carl Morris, Fred Fulton, and Luis Firpo, among others) in record time. And, whatever their merits as overall fighters (and I submit that they have been underappreciated by boxing historians), those fighters were tough and strong, and these fights demonstrate that Dempsey's power would have proven effective against today's heavyweights. Dempsey possessed an extraordinary combination of skills which allowed him to handle any style he encountered.

Dempsey is often criticized for avoiding Harry Wills (as well he should be), but the fact is that very few experts of the day thought Wills would give Dempsey a run for his money. Indeed, Dempsey regularly destroyed the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best black fighters of the day (George Godfrey, Big Bill Tate, and Larry Gaines) in sparring sessions, and Wills was not much better than any of them, if at all. At bottom, Dempsey was just so much better than any other fighter of the day that no one particularly cared against whom he defended. Though Wills unquestionably deserved a shot at the title, he wouldn't have lasted 5 rounds.

Dempsey vs The All-Time Greats

There are only a few champions of any era whom I consider worthy to be compared with Dempsey. In chronological order, they are: Jim Jeffries, Jack Johnson, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Sonny Liston, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, and Larry Holmes. I will also discuss my views on how Dempsey compares with Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield, since those two get a lot of attention from sportswriters today.

Dempsey vs Jeffries: These days, Jeffries is the forgotten man of heavyweight greats. However, those who saw him fight swore he was an awesome figure: powerful (particularly, though not exclusively, with the left), durable (indestructible?), virtually tireless, defensively adept, and underrated in terms of speed. Tex Rickard, who saw Johnson, Dempsey, and Tunney at their best, always picked Jeff as the greatest, as did Dan Morgan, John D. McCallum, and many other boxing experts during the course of the last century.

Great as Jeffries was, though, I do not think he could have defeated Dempsey. I feel that Dempsey would have proven too quick for Jeffries to pick off at long range or to keep on the end of the jab. At close range, I do not think Jeffries could have handled a fighter who hit as hard as he did, but whose hands were much faster than his were. I think Dempsey would have swarmed all over Jeffries (just as Tom Sharkey did), landing heavily and often. I disagree with the classic argument advanced by Jeffries proponents that, even though Jeff would likely have taken a beating in the early going, he would have survived it and gotten Dempsey after Dempsey had tired. Again, Jack could box when he had to, and he did have sense enough to pace himself when an early kayo was not going to happen (as he did against Bill Brennan, Tommy Gibbons, Billy Miske the 1st time, and Morris the 1st time); there is no question in my mind that Dempsey would have had plenty left at the end. This is not to suggest that Dempsey would not have experienced some rough moments, but, ultimately, he would have ground Jeffries down. The only question is whether Jeff could have hung in there long enough to hear the final bell. Close, but I doubt it.

Result: Dempsey TKO14 over Jeffries

Dempsey vs Johnson: Experts down through the ages have lauded Johnson's defensive ability, and I'm not going to argue with that assessment here. Further, that Johnson was rated as the greatest by the likes of Nat Fleischer and Stanley Weston carries a fair amount of weight with me. Certainly, he had superb reflexes, a terrific all-purpose right hand (straight right, right cross, right uppercut), textbook left jab, nimble feet, and excellent stamina.

However, Johnson did have one glaring weakness in his (in)ability to withstand punishment, as evidenced by his knockout losses to over-the-hill middleweight Joe Choynski (from a body blow) and to third-rater John "Klondike" Haynes, and by the knockdown he suffered against middleweight Stanley Ketchel. Unfortunately for Johnson, this is the worst possible weakness to have when competing against someone as fast and hard-hitting as Dempsey was. For all his speed and defensive technique, I simply cannot envision Johnson avoiding Dempsey completely for an entire fight (don't forget that even ponderous Marvin Hart was able to connect eventually). As one commentator put it, Dempsey hurt everyone he ever hit, and he hit everyone he ever fought -- including Tunney. Nor was Johnson a big enough hitter himself to simply blow Dempsey out of the ring before getting hit in the first place (again, witness the Hart fight). Sooner or later, after Dempsey's legendary body attack had taken some of the spring out of Johnson's legs, Dempsey would have started nailing Johnson, much in the way Frazier started nailing Ali in 1971. However, Dempsey hit harder than Frazier did, and could do it with either hand, and, again, Johnson did not take remotely the punch that Ali took.

Result: Dempsey KO8 over Johnson

Dempsey vs Tunney: I regard Tunney as a souped-up version of Jim Corbett: every bit as fast, probably an even better boxer (he had more fights and, overall, fought rougher opponents), a far better puncher (who threw every punch in the book), and much more durable (I think Tunney had one of the greatest chins of all-time -- never knocked out, knocked down only by Dempsey -- and his stamina was amazing).

That having been said, though, I have to favor an in-prime Dempsey to catch Tunney based on how close the past-prime Dempsey came to catching him. Unlike Louis and Marciano, Dempsey had quick feet, and so was not overly troubled by "speedy boxers", as his wins over the likes of Miske, Gibbons, Gunboat Smith, and Georges Carpentier attest. [Willie Meehan did give him trouble, but those fights were only 4-rounders (Meehan would not have survived 10) and Dempsey was arguably robbed in those two "losses" anyway (he was absolutely robbed in the two "draws").] The films of the Dempsey-Tunney fights show me that Tunney won on superior reflexes more than anything else -- an advantage I don't think he would have enjoyed to anywhere near the same extent (if, indeed, he enjoyed it at all) against the Dempsey who demolished Fulton and Willard. The way I see it, that Dempsey would have landed to the body early and to the head late, and even the great Fighting Marine would have fallen.

Result: Dempsey KO12 over Tunney

Dempsey vs Louis: This fight would have been very close. Mobility (Louis's weakness) would not have been an issue since both fighters would have been moving forward. Louis's hands may have been even quicker (if only barely) than Dempsey's, so he may have been the first to land. As hard as Louis hit, that might have been the deciding factor, particularly considering that Louis may have been the only heavyweight in history who really did throw every single punch in the book perfectly.

However, Louis was never comfortable against fighters who fought from a crouch, he did not have the best chin, and he was vulnerable to right hands. Dempsey fought from a crouch and his right was a lot better than Max Schmeling's. I suspect Dempsey would have stayed upright long enough to have caught Louis at some point or another, particularly if the fight turned into a brawl, and then taken him on out of there. I wouldn't put any money on the outcome, though; it could easily have gone the other way.

Result: Dempsey KO9 over Louis.

Dempsey vs Marciano: Marciano was a true warrior and an indisputably great fighter. His inhuman stamina allowed him to hurl really hard punches at an incredible rate (in terms of volume, if not speed). Though his wildness meant it usually took him a while to find the range, he always did find it, and there's no denying the guy could hit.

Still, if there is one great whom I am convinced Dempsey could have beaten every night of the week, it's Marciano. Basically, everything Rocky could do, Jack could do better. Specifically, if you took Marciano as a baseline, juiced up his right hand a bit and his left hand a lot, tightened his defense, doubled his reflexes, and gave him skin that didn't cut, then you'd have Dempsey. Dempsey and Marciano would have collided at center ring, whereupon Marciano would have started missing and Dempsey would have started landing. Very quickly, Marciano would have busted up and blacked out. Fundamentally, if Walcott and Moore could hurt Marciano, then Dempsey could have hurt him severely; and if Dempsey could survive Firpo, then he could have survived someone who took 9 rounds to polish off Don Cockell. A furious fight, but a short one.

Result: Dempsey TKO4 over Marciano

Dempsey vs Liston: Liston would have been tough; he was a more skilled, if less powerful, version of Foreman, and his straight left hand would have caused Dempsey problems (although, like Tunney did and Jeffries would have, Liston would have had a hard time planting that left on Dempsey's quick-moving chin). Still, Liston was not the hardest guy in the world to hit, a big minus against Dempsey. And, extenuating circumstances or not, one has to question Liston's heart based on his two pathetic surrenders to Ali (remember, unlike the other fighters on this list, Liston never won a tough fight in his whole career). In the final analysis, I see Dempsey as simply too tough and too determined to lose to Liston; I see him getting by the jab and out-quicking Liston on the inside until Sonny either burned out or quit.

Result: Dempsey KO10 over Liston

Dempsey vs Ali: Styles make fights, at least when the combatants are in the same "class", to borrow a term from horse racing, and Dempsey had the style to give Ali trouble. Dempsey would have fought Ali the same way Frazier did, hustling forward, keeping the pressure on, throwing a lot of left hooks, which Ali didn't like. Ali did not really have the punch to keep Dempsey honest, and so would have had difficulty the whole fight. Also, I keep thinking of the trouble Ali had with Henry Cooper. Dempsey was the same size as Cooper and had the same left hook. But, Dempsey had a right hand to go along with it, was much more durable, and, above all, didn't cut. Ultimately, I think Ali's lightning hands and iron chin would have earned him a close decision, but, as with the Louis fight, I wouldn't put any money on it.

Result: Ali W15 over Dempsey

Dempsey vs Frazier: Frazier was similar to Marciano in terms of style and ability. Frazier was 20 lbs. heavier and so probably stronger, and didn't cut. Marciano was probably a little better boxer and a better 2-handed puncher (Rocky's left hook being superior to Joe's right cross). Both had solid chins (you can't fault Frazier for falling to Foreman, a puncher far, far beyond the magnitude of anyone Marciano ever fought), and both had wonderful endurance. Against Dempsey, Frazier, like Marciano, would have found himself in a heated brawl early on in which he would have been unable either to land cleanly on his speedy attacker or to avoid getting hit himself. Tough as Frazier was, he could only have hung in there so long.

Result: Dempsey TKO7 over Frazier

Dempsey vs Foreman: Until the last couple of years, Foreman was severely underrated by boxing experts (he was a great fighter as well as a great puncher), and he surely had the potential to simply bomb Dempsey, or anyone else (except maybe Ali), out of there early on any given night. More often than not, though, I think Dempsey would have had the sense and skill to stay out of Foreman's way for the 6-7 rounds it would have taken him to wind down, which Frazier did not have the versatility to do. After Foreman tired, Dempsey would have overcome him.

Result: Dempsey KO7 over Foreman

Dempsey vs Holmes: I think Dempsey-Holmes would have been fairly one-sided. Though he had fast hands and elegant boxing skills, Holmes was not exceptionally quick afoot and did not possess a big punch. Thus, he had trouble with aggressive fighters who put the pressure on him, like Ken Norton, Mike Weaver, and Earnie Shavers. Fortunately for Holmes, those guys all had glass jaws and (except for Norton) no stamina, and so ultimately wilted beneath Holmes' steady barrage. No one ever accused Dempsey of lacking either chin or stamina, however, and he would not have wilted. Moreover, Dempsey could lay on more pressure than all three of those guys put together. Further, he was harder to hit than any of them (Tunney, a quicker and more accurate puncher than Holmes, once said he was only able to catch Dempsey "cleanly" a couple times in their fights), so Dempsey would have paid a lower price for his aggression than those guys did. Finally, don't forget Holmes's career-long tendency to get hit by right hands over his left jab (Kevin Isaac, Renaldo Snipes, Duane Bobick (in the Olympic Trials), Shavers, Tyson), which punch was a specialty of Dempsey's. Any way you look at, Holmes would have been in trouble, though his great chin and heart would have kept him on his feet for a while.

Result: Dempsey KO11 over Holmes

Dempsey vs Tyson: As one writer recently put it, Dempsey was everything Tyson wanted to be, but never could be. At his best, Tyson was hard to hit cleanly, had fast hands, and, with either one of them, could hit harder than almost anyone who ever lived. But, he had some weaknesses. His biggest was his heart -- he got discouraged when the other guy fought back. In addition, his stamina was suspect, as was his ability (and willingness) to absorb punishment over the long-haul. Buster Douglas did not lay enough on him to have phased Frazier, Holmes, or Dempsey, but Tyson crumbled. Holyfield couldn't drop over-weight and over-the-hill light-heavyweight Bobby Czyz, but he dropped Tyson. Finally, Tyson seems unable to function in the face of aggressive counter-punching; he basically freezes until the other guy is finished. Tyson's loss to glass-jawed second-rater Douglas, when in shape (220 lbs. even) and in his prime (25 years old), demonstrates conclusively that he is not of the same caliber as the others herein discussed. He was a great puncher, but not a truly great fighter; highly overrated.

Tyson would have come roaring out of his corner, missed with a few bombs, gotten hit back a few times (far harder than he ever expected), and then reverted into the tentative, one-punch-at-a-time fighter that he became against Douglas and Holyfield. Dempsey -- more than tough enough (despite his 30 pound disadvantage on the scales) to handle the occasional bomb with which Tyson might clip him -- would have spent the fight dashing in and out, mixing his punches to the head and body, and getting bolder and bolder as Tyson got more and more timid. Soon, Tyson would have become tired, dizzy, and discouraged. In short, out-toughed and out-classed.

Result: Dempsey KO6 over Tyson

Dempsey vs Holyfield: Yes, Holyfield surprised everyone by dismantling Tyson, and, yes, we all like and root for him, but I just don't see him as belonging among the true elite of the division. The real surprise of Holyfield-Tyson was the evidence that the Douglas fight was no fluke, and that Tyson has been vastly overrated for most of his career. A victory over Tyson, without more, does not qualify a fighter for ranking among the top 10 of all-time (see Douglas). Nor does the rest of Holyfield's career justify that lofty position. Remember, he had a great deal of trouble with Foreman and Holmes when each was well into his 40s. Looking at those fights, one has to figure that both those guys would've handed Holyfield his head when in their primes. Remember also the trouble he had against Bert Cooper, Michael Moorer, and Vaughn Bean, none of whom exactly qualifies as a hall-of-famer. Holyfield hits hard, but he is not a devastating puncher; he's quick, but I've seen quicker; he's a good boxer when he's paying attention, but he gets careless and can be hit; he's well-conditioned, generally, but I've seen him fade in the later rounds of a number of fights; he has heart, but I've seen him wobbled by mediocre punchers. In short, he is a first-rate heavyweight who stopped just a shade short of true greatness.

Dempsey did everything better than Holyfield does, and would have stopped him within 5 rounds. Unlike Tyson, Dempsey wouldn't choke or become unglued at the first sign of resistance.

Result: Dempsey KO5 over Holyfield

In the final analysis, Dempsey belongs in the very highest echelon of heavyweight greats; a champion among champions. For the record, I rate the all-time heavyweights as follows:

1- Muhammad Ali
2- Jack Dempsey
3- Joe Louis
4- Jack Johnson
5- Jim Jeffries
6- George Foreman
7- Rocky Marciano
8- Joe Frazier
9- Gene Tunney
10- Larry Holmes
11- Sonny Liston
12- Riddick Bowe
13- Evander Holyfield
14- Mike Tyson
15- Sam Langford