Frank Loiterzo article about Jack Dempsey

[janitor]

I dont agree with many of the conclusions of this article but I will post it anyway since we all seem to have our Dempsey heads on at the minute.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Mendoza]

Frank is a good writer, and former boxer.

[janitor]

Frank is a good writer, and former boxer.

He is a good writer and a superior analyst but I have to disagree with him on a couple of points here.

[Mendoza]

He is a good writer and a superior analyst but I have to disagree with him on a couple of points here.


Which ones?

[he grant]

Pretty good article. I do feel Dempsey threw shorter , powerful punches than some of the others. The footage of the Carpentier bout, if watched in slow motion, will show terrific body work on the inside. All and all a good piece.

Now can we find a subjective one on Marciano ?

[janitor]

Which ones?

I think that Loiterzo sells Dempsey prety far short on his compact punching and infighting. I have watched the Firpo fight over and DEmpsey only throws one punch that travels more than a few inches in the entire fight. I think that comparisons with Joe Louis are justified.

I also think that he should have made a bit more of Dempseys conterpunching abilities when comparing him to other pressure fighters.

He compares Dempsey to Joe Frazier who is an inapropriate model in many ways due to differences in their style.

He makes the observation that Joe Frazier would have disposed of Tommy Gibbons inside the fifteen round limit and he is probably right but on the flip side of the coin how many of Fraziers larger and less mobile oponents would have been chopped down by Dempsey more quickly?

Also I have never been a fan of the argument that goes "which of Dempseys oponents would be expected to beat insert fighter". I would not be inclined to favour any of Joe Louis's title oponents over Joe Frazier on the night for example, but I rather doubt that he would have beaten all 25 of them back to back over the timescale in question.

[janitor]

Also Frank Loiterzo suggests that Dempsey was the first offensive heavyweight to make use of the bob and weave attacking style and to be fair to him he is confining himself to what can be demonstrated on film.

Every description that I have read of John L Sullivans fighting style suggests that he used a similar pattern of attack and defense to Jack Dempsey.

Sam McVea uses a bob and weave defence on film against Battling Jim Johnson but he ios not pressing the fight like Dempsey and is standing off at range when he slips punches.

[dmt]

frank is a good writer but i have to disagree with some of what he says. No one who saw both Dempsey and Louis considered Dempsey the more accurate puncher, yet Frank claims that some "historians" say that Dempsey threw more accurate shots then Louis. Of course he didnt but no one says it either. Which historians said this?

Besides Billy Conn was ahead on points vs Louis for 13 rds, Frazier would also have stopped Conn within five rounds, does that make Frazier a better fighter then Louis?

[janitor]

Besides Billy Conn was ahead on points vs Louis for 13 rds, Frazier would also have stopped Conn within five rounds, does that make Frazier a better fighter then Louis?

I agree that Joe Frazier would probably have got to Tommy Gibbons inside the 15 round limit but on the flip side of the coin I think that Jack Dempsey would probably have stopped Joe Bugner.

I dont think that he would have needed 11 rounds to stop Buster Mathis either.

[Mendoza]

I agree that Joe Frazier would probably have got to Tommy Gibbons inside the 15 round limit but on the flip side of the coin I think that Jack Dempsey would probably have stopped Joe Bugner.

I dont think that he would have needed 11 rounds to stop Buster Mathis either.

Agreed

[ChrisPontius]

Also Frank Loiterzo suggests that Dempsey was the first offensive heavyweight to make use of the bob and weave attacking style and to be fair to him he is confining himself to what can be demonstrated on film.


I agree, he writes off Hart and Sharkey whom there is no footage of. He includes Burns in that list which is rightfully so, in my opinion.

I will add that in all likely hood he is right, since most fought in an extremely crude, bareknuckle-style around that time, but still, there is no evidence for it. And Sam Langford, whom he forgets or dismisses, may well take the honor because he came along 10 years before Dempsey.



Also I have never been a fan of the argument that goes "which of Dempseys oponents would be expected to beat insert fighter". I would not be inclined to favour any of Joe Louis's title oponents over Joe Frazier on the night for example, but I rather doubt that he would have beaten all 25 of them back to back over the timescale in question.


I agree, that argument is full of speculation and the mistake most make is that they think someone can retain peak form over the course of many bouts. The argument is particularly boring when someone makes it to say "well, fighter X would've easily gone 49-0 against Marciano's opponents".

However, he does have a valid point that Dempsey's opposition was rather weak, and in my opinion, a weak time for heavyweight boxing. One could say, "Well, you can only beat who is around", but he didn't do that either, since he never beat Wills or Greb, who were the two best out there for several years.


On the article itself:

"If an opponent came to fight him, Dempsey was practically unbeatable."

I think this is laughable, considering the only opponent who came at him and was over 200lbs, knocked him down two or three times and arguably should've won by DQ. Flynn also came at him and blitzed him in a single round.



"In spite of Dempsey being the first true great attacker/swarmer, he's not the most effective heavyweight great in that mold. He didn't apply constant pressure, nor did he cut the ring off particularly well when he was confronted by an upper-tier boxer who used his legs and utilized steady movement as a form of defense."

Good point, but i think this has something to do with where you categorise Dempsey. Tyson in the same sense was not the most effective pressure fighter. But both him and Tyson were great explosive punchers, who were extremely dangerous during the first 5 rounds, but lost steam after that.



"Does Dempsey hit harder than George Foreman? Based on what evidence? Foreman lifted Joe Frazier off his feet with an uppercut. Could Dempsey do that? More importantly did he ever do anything like that? One can mythologize about a fighter all day, but what did he actually do in the ring? I have not seen the film of Dempsey lifting a man who weighs over 200 pounds off his feet and then bouncing him like a basketball off the canvas. Dempsey did not hit harder than Foreman, and it's doubtful he hit as hard. "

I think this is weak argument as well. First of all, this "lifting off the canvas" thing has a lot more to do with body physics, movement and body positioning during the punch than with pure punching power. Lewis also lifted McCall up in the air with a well timed uppercut, but that's not why i rank him high as a puncher.

Plus, Dempsey did bounce Willard, who was a lot bigger than Frazier, off the canvas like a basketball. The lack of a neutral corner rule played a role there... but still, this is a weak, strawman argument that somehow presumes the entire punching ability of a man is determined by whether he lifts someone off his feet with an uppercut or not. :patsch

Dempsey's power, left hook and footwork are great, but his overal resume, defence, and opposition is not.


I like that he goes against the grain by challenging the Dempsey legend and he does bring some good arguments by ignoring the words of those who saw and mythologized Dempsey, but some of his arguments are weak.

[he grant]

A few thoughts ... bravo for the writer for including the facts that Willard was 37 and had been highly inactive ... far to often ignored by Dempsey historians ... however, if so much emphasis is put on the Gibbons fight, how about highlighting Dempsey's own significant inactivity going into that bout .... I have watched as much footage as exists on the Gibbons bout and feel Dempsey actually fought a very good fight, dominating GIbbons and winning a strong decision. He looked very strong going 15 rounds , very fresh at the end ...

[dmt]

i think the Gibbons fight showed that Dempsey had much better stamina then given credit for despite not being at his absolute peak.

[mcvey]

I dont agree with many of the conclusions of this article but I will post it anyway since we all seem to have our Dempsey heads on at the minute.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Interesting stuff though:good

[My2Sense]

I think using the Gibbons fight to argue Dempsey had "trouble" with boxers is a pretty weak case, given that Dempsey completely dominated the fight. He brings up the fact that Greb beat Gibbons "easier" prior to that fight (which is a questionable statement in itself, as no footage of the fight exists), but ignores the fact that Gibbons also is credited with twice getting the better of Greb in no-decision fights; not to mention Greb is an ATG, and Gibbons only officially lost about 4 fights (including to Dempsey) in his entire career.

I think if he wanted to make a case about Dempsey and boxers, he should've pointed to the Brennan rematch, which he never even mentions.