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
|