Jack Dempsey's Head Movement

[McGrain]

Unparalleled at the weight?

A while back someone opened a thread carrying footage of Dempsey sparring. Somehow the thread ended up being about how Dempsey would do against Foreman - it was suggested that he would fare similairly to Joe Frazier, but I didn't like that idea. The reason why was Dempsey's movement going in. Looking at Frazier, he bobs/weaves a load coming in but he has a real rythym to his movement and Foreman was able to pick it. I think Janitor has offered up Fraziers bob/weave as being of the charts number wise but basically that isn't going to make a lot of difference if your man knows where you will be next - or has a general idea.

That is not the case with Dempsey. The only footage I have is Willard, Firpo and Tunney but nowhere does his head movement bob/weave become rythmic. It's almost entirely random. It's pretty impressive.

Though Tyson's head movement is more extreme and he does shuck a bit, I still think there is a rythym to his movements. I think Lewis caught him in round 1 of their fight (where Tyson restored his legendary head movement for a single round) by picking this rythym (throwing his uppercut when he knows Tyson is likely to be on the way down).

So my question for you Dempsey experts is, have you seen a pattern emerge in any of Dempsey's fights? If so, which ones?

For all you guys who know Tyson and Dempsey equally, who do you think has the better head movement? And do you think that they are the divisions #1 and #2?

[dado]

^^^^^^^you are a fucking retard,,, foreman would eat dempsey and firpo in the same round,, those old skool bums couldnt throw two punches properly, and yeh for the question,, dempseys head movement doesent rate at number 1 or 2 those spots are taken by tyson and frazier.

[McGrain]

equally shitty opponents.

If his opponents were equally shitty then you'd be looking at about as many wins as losses, whichi s not the case. Do you see Foreman as a good fighter? What I mean is, are you running him down in the light of comparisons with ATG heavyweitgts, or do you rate him alongside guys like Sprott and Wepner, guys like that?

[Duodenum]

The movie footage is really needed to see Dempsey's head movement to best effect. When he set Tunney up for the Long Count KD, he canted his head to the inside of Tunney's jab, and as it went sailing harmlessly past, slammed his right home, from the outside of Tunney's extended arm, to Gene's temple, wobbling him from mid ring to the ropes. In that momentary instant, his weaving reverted to that of his peak years.

One of the first exchanges in Dempsey/Willard shows Jack ducking Willard's jab, then striking up with a counter hook. I suspect Dempsey picked up a lot of his opponents punching cues from their foot positioning.

Jack didn't parry jabs much. Like Jack Johnson, his preferred tactic was to intercept a jab by punching his right into his adversary's left bicep as he started one. The reason this didn't work against Tunney was because of Dempsey's ring rust, and especially diminished reflexes and timing. But at his peak, his speed and quick reflexes would have been more than sufficient to thwart a jab from the outset. (Years later, the day after he refereed Max Baer's loss to Loughran, he famously showed Max how to stop a jab in this way. But Baer didn't quite have the reaction time of a peak Dempsey.)

Frequently, Jack's approach was based on slipping another boxer's shots, and responding with counters as he moved in. Evasive head movement is essential for this. The best example of calculated head movement from Frazier is probably from the second match with Foreman. Generally though, Joe's head movement was indeed more rhythymic and predictable.

[McGrain]

^^^^^^^you are a fucking retard,,, foreman would eat dempsey and firpo in the same round,, those old skool bums couldnt throw two punches properly,

Out of I Am Legend's statement about Foreman and your appraisal of the "old skool bums" I find your statement more ridiculous.


dempseys head movement doesent rate at number 1 or 2 those spots are taken by tyson and frazier.

You don't think that Frazier's head movement was a bit arbitrary?

[achillesthegreat]

Dempseys head movement ranks with other good guys like Frazier, Tyson etc On his day it was superior.

[Little_Mac]

So my question for you Dempsey experts is, have you seen a pattern emerge in any of Dempsey's fights? If so, which ones?

For all you guys who know Tyson and Dempsey equally, who do you think has the better head movement? And do you think that they are the divisions #1 and #2?

Not really... I haven't picked up alot on any patterns

Tyson's head movement had some finesse- but he was more predictable at times. Dempsey's movement seemed a little more practical, efficient, and ultimately random.

Yes I believe for head movement they are the HW divisions #1 (Dempsey) and 2 (Tyson).

[hobgoblin]

Tyson loses a lot of points from me because he did not regularly bob and weave and certainly went flat footed after 5 rounds. Consistency is an intrinsic element of bobbing and weaving IMO.

It really depends on the situation. However, against guys like Ali & Holmes - Frazier's defense is better than Tyson's. Reflexes alone will not be able to hande that kind of handspeed and that is why Douglas succeeded. Joe Frazier's defense would have proved much superior to Tyson's in Tokyo. When the opponent has such good timing, accuracy, punch output, and speed - you should use Frazier's method. If the figher is someone like George Foreman who throws lesser punches and these are slower haymakers - Tyson's type of defense works better and is more efficient too. Excellent reflexes can handle someone like Foreman or Ruddock as we saw. Dempsey and Tyson were similar (by inspiration) but Dempsey was more consistent. So I rate Dempsey's bob better strictly for that reason. I wouldn't say that Tyson revived his bob and weave for even round 1 against Lewis because an integral part of that "head movement" was his speed and reflexes that were no longer in 2002.

Since whose defense is better i.e Frazier or Dempsey (Dempsey and Tyson are the same type as Tyson was inspired by Dempsey) depends on the opponent, I won't pick a #1 or #2. Additionally, I think you have to take into account chin with the defense. The bob and weave was vulnerable uppercuts - Tyson could get away with being a sucker for uppercuts because he had the best chin of the three IMO.

[robert ungurean]

^^^^^^^you are a fucking retard,,, foreman would eat dempsey and firpo in the same round,, those old skool bums couldnt throw two punches properly, and yeh for the question,, dempseys head movement doesent rate at number 1 or 2 those spots are taken by tyson and frazier. You dont know a thing about Dempsey do you.

[ironchamp]

Tyson loses a lot of points from me because he did not regularly bob and weave and certainly went flat footed after 5 rounds. Consistency is an intrinsic element of bobbing and weaving IMO.

It really depends on the situation. However, against guys like Ali & Holmes - Frazier's defense is better than Tyson's. Reflexes alone will not be able to hande that kind of handspeed and that is why Douglas succeeded. Joe Frazier's defense would have proved much superior to Tyson's in Tokyo. When the opponent has such good timing, accuracy, punch output, and speed - you should use Frazier's method. If the figher is someone like George Foreman who throws lesser punches and these are slower haymakers - Tyson's type of defense works better and is more efficient too. Excellent reflexes can handle someone like Foreman or Ruddock as we saw. Dempsey and Tyson were similar (by inspiration) but Dempsey was more consistent. So I rate Dempsey's bob better strictly for that reason. I wouldn't say that Tyson revived his bob and weave for even round 1 against Lewis because an integral part of that "head movement" was his speed and reflexes that were no longer in 2002.

Since whose defense is better i.e Frazier or Dempsey (Dempsey and Tyson are the same type as Tyson was inspired by Dempsey) depends on the opponent, I won't pick a #1 or #2. Additionally, I think you have to take into account chin with the defense. The bob and weave was vulnerable uppercuts - Tyson could get away with being a sucker for uppercuts because he had the best chin of the three IMO.



Frazier's CONSTANT bob and weave was actually quite predicatable which is why early on in fights he would seldom win the first round mostly to adjust his timing on his bob and weave. Its effectiveness didnt lie in that method rather it relied on the consistency of that method to truly work. Consistent pressure followed by perputual motion forced fighters to eventually fight Joe's fight and it made them uncomfortable doing so (to Joe's credit). Joe was never known for his right hand, he was notoriously known for his left hook yet despite this knowledge oppenents were seldom able to stop him. As rounds progressed Joe doesnt necessarily get better or do anything spectacular rather he continues to apply the SAME constant pressure that he's been applying from the start that DOES NOT allow his opponents to rest or change the pace of the fight without getting nailed often which is what eventually breaks down his opponents and see's Joe to victory.


Tyson on the other hand uses his SPORADIC bob and weave which I find more effective because; its economical (he only bobs and weaves when he needs to thereby expending less energy). It always leaves him in a position to punch and to counter (hence the impeccable accuracy which I should add is better than Fraziers) and eliminates the need for a feel out process which is why Mike always started Fast. And Dempsey too for that matter. Most importantly it allows him to create openings rather than to take advantage of them.

The problem with Joe's constant bob and weave is that it takes time depending on the opponent to become very effective. Hobgoblin said that Frazier would have beaten Douglas that night. No there no doubt about that but Tyson didn't lose becuase of a disadvantage in style. He lost because of conditioning and a poor workrate. Tyson was clearly lazier than Joe so at times he'd just wing it. But Tyson's bob and weave matched with his superb reflexes were just far more effective and far more efficient than Frazier's. If it were him facing Ali he'd find openings faster and would have done a better job.

Dempsey has random movement which I appreciated more than Tyson's or Frazier's because he's more difficult to time.

[Duodenum]

Out of I Am Legend's statement about Foreman and your appraisal of the "old skool bums" I find your statement more ridiculous.If I was Foggy Frog, I'd be really pissed with dildo for trying to upstage me!

[Duodenum]

what upstaging? the hatred of foreman isnt a gimmick, its the truth. Foreman was probably the least techincally sound champion of any era of any weightclass.You've lost McGrain's contempt for your comments to an upstart! (Now, you need to state something REALLY provocative to get that attention back. And you're right, Dempsey does mash Foreman. It would be Toledo all over again. Dempsey had too much speed and mobility for Lurch.)

[janitor]

Unparalleled at the weight?


In my opinion yes.

I also think that Dempseys infighting ability is unparaleled at heavyweight and that his footwork is the best of any ofensive heavyweight.

Combine these variables and it is easy to see why Arcel and others rated him so highly.

[PowerPuncher]

Best Headmovement?

Dempsey, Tyson, Toney

Frazier is a level below those choices

[McGrain]

I also think that Dempseys infighting ability is unparaleled at heavyweight and that his footwork is the best of any ofensive heavyweight.

Incredibley, I think you may be underestimating Joe Louis in this department, though broadly speaking, I think I agree. I'd like to see him matched with Lewis in this department - I think that Lewis' defensive infighting may be a match for Dempsey's offensive infighting.

Combine these variables and it is easy to see why Arcel and others rated him so highly.

I've rated Dempsey outside my top 10 since I was around 16. He is creeping back up. An astonishing offensive fighter.

[McGrain]

Frazier is a level below those choices

Though given his blindness, I think it's the best system that could have been constructed.

[McGrain]

. And you're right, Dempsey does mash Foreman. It would be Toledo all over again. Dempsey had too much speed and mobility for Lurch.)

This is my feeling too.

Though perhaps a less clean victory.

[janitor]

Incredibley, I think you may be underestimating Joe Louis in this department, though broadly speaking, I think I agree. I'd like to see him matched with Lewis in this department - I think that Lewis' defensive infighting may be a match for Dempsey's offensive infighting.


I always asumed that Louis was the best of the heavyweight infighters in terms of ability to throw compact punches.

Recent analysis of film by Michael Hunnicut suggests that Jack Dempsey threw more punches that traveled under 12" than any other heavyweight with Louis as a close second.

If you put either of these guys in a telephone box with another heavyweight then they would be the one who would walk out of it. It is things like this that act as a chiling echo of the claims that the old timers made for Dempsey.

[Duodenum]

This is my feeling too.

Though perhaps a less clean victory.Now, when did Dempsey ever score a "clean" victory?:bbb:!:

[OLD FOGEY]

The movie footage is really needed to see Dempsey's head movement to best effect. When he set Tunney up for the Long Count KD, he canted his head to the inside of Tunney's jab, and as it went sailing harmlessly past, slammed his right home, from the outside of Tunney's extended arm, to Gene's temple, wobbling him from mid ring to the ropes. In that momentary instant, his weaving reverted to that of his peak years.

One of the first exchanges in Dempsey/Willard shows Jack ducking Willard's jab, then striking up with a counter hook. I suspect Dempsey picked up a lot of his opponents punching cues from their foot positioning.

Jack didn't parry jabs much. Like Jack Johnson, his preferred tactic was to intercept a jab by punching his right into his adversary's left bicep as he started one. The reason this didn't work against Tunney was because of Dempsey's ring rust, and especially diminished reflexes and timing. But at his peak, his speed and quick reflexes would have been more than sufficient to thwart a jab from the outset. (Years later, the day after he refereed Max Baer's loss to Loughran, he famously showed Max how to stop a jab in this way. But Baer didn't quite have the reaction time of a peak Dempsey.)

Frequently, Jack's approach was based on slipping another boxer's shots, and responding with counters as he moved in. Evasive head movement is essential for this. The best example of calculated head movement from Frazier is probably from the second match with Foreman. Generally though, Joe's head movement was indeed more rhythymic and predictable.

How do you know that this cutting off the jab with the right to the biceps didn't work against Tunney because Tunney was faster than the men Dempsey had fought and it was a tactic that would have never worked against Tunney?

[McGrain]

I always asumed that Louis was the best of the heavyweight infighters in terms of ability to throw compact punches.

Pretty much the crucial factor for me.


Recent analysis of film by Michael Hunnicut suggests that Jack Dempsey threw more punches that traveled under 12" than any other heavyweight with Louis as a close second.

But what is the significance of this distance? I'd guess not much as according to punches thrown 14". Where Louis may - may - exceed Dempsey and does in terms of destruction.

Seriously, let's give Dempsey the doubt over 12" - can you really give him the doubt over 14"?

If you put either of these guys in a telephone box with another heavyweight then they would be the one who would walk out of it. It is things like this that act as a chiling echo of the claims that the old timers made for Dempsey.

If Louis and Dempsey were in the phonebox?

[McGrain]

Now, when did Dempsey ever score a "clean" victory?:bbb:!:

I knew you were going to say that.

[Duodenum]

How do you know that this cutting off the jab with the right to the biceps didn't work against Tunney because Tunney was faster than the men Dempsey had fought and it was a tactic that would have never worked against Tunney?It may not have. Inch 4 inch, Tunney may have had the best jab in HW history, making Dempsey wholly dependent on slipping that jab in order to counter. But it's all speculation now. I believe Toledo Jack would have stopped the Tunney of the Heeney fight, primarily by getting under, or weaving to the sides of Gene's jab, then stunning him repeatedly with devastating counters. (Have you ever seen the grimace on Tunney's face when he delivered his jab? A very ill-intentioned slam to the head!)

For all we know, the Dempsey of the Willard fight may have been faster than anybody Tunney ever faced. (Jack was certainly the hardest puncher. He only needed to connect two solid punches on Gene to land him, for the only time in Tunney's career. Gene would have had to withstand considerably more than that from the Dempsey of Toledo.)

[Duodenum]

I knew you were going to say that.Damn. I've gotta stop telegraphing my shots!

[McGrain]

Damn. I've gotta stop telegraphing my shots!

As long as they're accurate, you don't have to worry.

[OLD FOGEY]

It may not have. Inch 4 inch, Tunney may have had the best jab in HW history, making Dempsey wholly dependent on slipping that jab in order to counter. But it's all speculation now. I believe Toledo Jack would have stopped the Tunney of the Heeney fight, primarily by getting under, or weaving to the sides of Gene's jab, then stunning him repeatedly with devastating counters. (Have you ever seen the grimace on Tunney's face when he delivered his jab? A very ill-intentioned slam to the head!)

For all we know, the Dempsey of the Willard fight may have been faster than anybody Tunney ever faced. (Jack was certainly the hardest puncher. He only needed to connect two solid punches on Gene to land him, for the only time in Tunney's career. Gene would have had to withstand considerably more than that from the Dempsey of Toledo.)

Yes, but a year before Toledo, Dempsey went to a ten round draw with Billy Miske. Miske's record at the time was not that outstanding, and the Dempsey draw was sandwiched between losses to Kid Norfolk, and followed by losses to Harry Greb. Dempsey overpowered the slow moving Willard, but his performances against Miske in 1918 and Brennan in 1920 certainly leave openings for those who would consider him more vulnerable than you would allow to smaller, faster men with better boxing skills.

I don't think it likely, although without film I guess there is no way of proving it, that Dempsey was faster or had better reflexes than Harry Greb.

[Duodenum]

Yes, but a year before Toledo, Dempsey went to a ten round draw with Billy Miske. Miske's record at the time was not that outstanding, and the Dempsey draw was sandwiched between losses to Kid Norfolk, and followed by losses to Harry Greb. Dempsey overpowered the slow moving Willard, but his performances against Miske in 1918 and Brennan in 1920 certainly leave openings for those who would consider him more vulnerable than you would allow to smaller, faster men with better boxing skills.

I don't think it likely, although without film I guess there is no way of proving it, that Dempsey was faster or had better reflexes than Harry Greb.True, Willard was ready to be transformed into the biggest pinata in heavyweight history, but the version of Dempsey he faced was honed to a razor's edge, surely the utmost peak of Jack's career. (Too bad we saw so little of it, thanks to Kearn's recklessly stupid gamble. It would have been extremely revealing to see him go a more calculated distance against the endurance champion of the Havana heat.)

[OLD FOGEY]

True, Willard was ready to be transformed into the biggest pinata in heavyweight history, but the version of Dempsey he faced was honed to a razor's edge, surely the utmost peak of Jack's career. (Too bad we saw so little of it, thanks to Kearn's recklessly stupid gamble. It would have been extremely revealing to see him go a more calculated distance against the endurance champion of the Havana heat.)

Dempsey certainly looks impressive slaughtering Willard, but Jess was pushing 38, hadn't fought in 3 years, and appears, off the film, to have not been in anything like top shape. I don't see how one can reasonably extrapolate a victory over Tunney from this fight.

[Duodenum]

Dempsey certainly looks impressive slaughtering Willard, but Jess was pushing 38, hadn't fought in 3 years, and appears, off the film, to have not been in anything like top shape. I don't see how one can reasonably extrapolate a victory over Tunney from this fight.Mainly because Jess was also an insanely tough sonofagun, who held the most cherished prize in all sports. In connecting with him, Dempsey inflicted substantial physical damage. Gene was considerably smaller, yet still boxed tall. Dempsey's footwork and mobility against Willard was considerably superior to what the rusty and misfiring version brought to Sesquicentennial Stadium and Soldier Field.

We already know for a fact that a shot version of Dempsey still had the firepower necessary to stun and drop Tunney. Improve his speed, reflexes, accuracy, sharpness, and subtract seven years from his age, and Tunney would really have his hands full. He would not have limited Dempsey to landing just two hard headshots.

[OLD FOGEY]

Mainly because Jess was also an insanely tough sonofagun, who held the most cherished prize in all sports. In connecting with him, Dempsey inflicted substantial physical damage. Gene was considerably smaller, yet still boxed tall. Dempsey's footwork and mobility against Willard was considerably superior to what the rusty and misfiring version brought to Sesquicentennial Stadium and Soldier Field.

We already know for a fact that a shot version of Dempsey still had the firepower necessary to stun and drop Tunney. Improve his speed, reflexes, accuracy, sharpness, and subtract seven years from his age, and Tunney would really have his hands full. He would not have limited Dempsey to landing just two hard headshots.

I do think your arguement here is similar to the "Cooper dropped Ali and so Liston will kill him" line of reasoning. I don't dispute that Dempsey had gone back, but he still might well have caught Tunney with the best punch he ever had in his arsenal and who knows if a younger Dempsey could automatically have done better. The fact is, Dempsey
hit Tunney with his best shot and Tunney got up and danced away. The Long Count clouds the whole issue, I know. I think Tunney would have beaten a regular count. I understand that many disagree.

[Duodenum]

I do think your arguement here is similar to the "Cooper dropped Ali and so Liston will kill him" line of reasoning. I don't dispute that Dempsey had gone back, but he still might well have caught Tunney with the best punch he ever had in his arsenal and who knows if a younger Dempsey could automatically have done better. The fact is, Dempsey
hit Tunney with his best shot and Tunney got up and danced away. The Long Count clouds the whole issue, I know. I think Tunney would have beaten a regular count. I understand that many disagree.I believe Tunney could have gotten to his feet about as fast as Ali did against Frazier, or Holmes did against Shavers. Dempsey knew it too. He had a genuine killer instinct, and knew when his victim could beat the count. He walked away from the final knockdown of Firpo, and the knockdown of Sharkey, because he knew they couldn't get up before ten. I think he was really trying to pull a fast one on Dave Barry. It's my supposition that the Long Count was much ado about nothing, and whether Dempsey had immediately gone to a neutral corner, or there had been no neutral corner rule in place, events would have otherwise unfolded as they actually did.

My contention is that peak Demspey would have stunned Tunney like that repeatedly, and eventually forced a stoppage, a position you've reasonably raised questions about.

Having stated what I have on the issue, it also needs to be expressed that Tunney was a late bloomer who was actually still an improving boxer at the time of his retirement, so while we saw a glimpse of how good Dempsey could be at his peak, we don't know how much better Tunney would have gotten before any noticable decline. (I've speculated that Louis would have been the challenger to ultimately dethrone Gene.)