Did janitor.....

[joe33]

.....Ever mention the so called fact he had about dempsey that he said would knock him lower on some peoples top 10 ATG lists:think

I tried looking but cant find the old thread,was he just fucking about?,and if not what was this world beating fact he reckons he had hiding away? and that seeminly Jack tried to hide from the public

For me it will not matter any way,im a HUGE JD fan,even if i do wish he had took on some of the top black fighters of the time,and made more defences,to me the way he ripped through to the title was simply awesome and maybe bar tyson doing the same in the 80s cant be beat,pity theres not any footage(or is there?) of his crushing wins over fred fulton in 18 seconds,seen pics of him standing over him i beleive

[fists of fury]

...Come to think of it, I don't think he did.

[klompton]

No footage is known to exist of the Dempsey-Fulton bout. It was filmed but as it only lasted 18 seconds it was deemed too short too be able to market and so the film was probably scrapped.

[Maxmomer]

No footage is known to exist of the Dempsey-Fulton bout. It was filmed but as it only lasted 18 seconds it was deemed too short too be able to market and so the film was probably scrapped.

I would like more than anything in the world to see that fight. And his first fight with Brennan and second with Smith.

[Marciano Frazier]

Perhaps he was simply jerking everyone around to see the response.

[Maxmomer]

Perhaps he was simply jerking everyone around to see the response.
I actually think he did, but I don't know. I know I know, but I knew even before the whole thing ever started, I just didn't know that at the time.

[Ted Spoon]

The Fulton fight was a spectacular performance, but it is well read.

It was a three-punch fight; a right to the chest, a left hook to the jaw and then a right swing to the jaw.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

On the bottom you can see them shaking hands, and then an over confident Fulton, who was said to have been smiling, give way to a rushing Dempsey near the ropes.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Trapped on the ropes, Dempsey landed a left hook which shook Fulton to his boots and then a right swing put him down in a tangled mess near the ropes. He vainly attempted to rise, but to no avail.

Dempsey's fights against Homer Smith, Bill Brennan I, Gunboat and Carl Morris, a man he admitted to hating, as well as the Miske bouts would be essential viewing.

[bman100]

No footage is known to exist of the Dempsey-Fulton bout. It was filmed but as it only lasted 18 seconds it was deemed too short too be able to market and so the film was probably scrapped.


Sorry I know this thread is old but im a big Dempsey fan and i would just like some more info on this, i heard the fight belonged to Jim Jacobs who sold it to ESPN... is it for certain the film was destroyed?

[McGrain]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
.

Top photograph. Absolutley epic.

[bman100]

Top photograph. Absolutley epic.


yes indeed, but what a tease, 18 seconds of PRIME dempsey and its nowhere to be found...

[joe33]

Man keeping your hands low against a guy like dempsey was one fucking silly tactic

[burt bienstock]

The Fulton fight was a spectacular performance, but it is well read.

It was a three-punch fight; a right to the chest, a left hook to the jaw and then a right swing to the jaw.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

On the bottom you can see them shaking hands, and then an over confident Fulton, who was said to have been smiling, give way to a rushing Dempsey near the ropes.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Trapped on the ropes, Dempsey landed a left hook which shook Fulton to his boots and then a right swing put him down in a tangled mess near the ropes. He vainly attempted to rise, but to no avail.

Dempsey's fights against Homer Smith, Bill Brennan I, Gunboat and Carl Morris, a man he admitted to hating, as well as the Miske bouts would be essential viewing.
The Jack Demposey of this fight was 23 years old and at the high water mark of his career, as is the Joe Louis ko of Max Baer in 1935...They were at their lightest weights and combined lean bodies and destructive power
in their punches...I believe "bigger is not always better "...

[teeto]

Great photos them, especially the knockout one.

[teeto]

Cute photo until you realize Fulton sucked. So Jack Dempsey knocked him out. Doesnt prove a thing.
Good post until i realised it was shit and off topic. Doesn't hold any relevance.

[itrymariti]

At least Pachilles, frankenfrank etc. can be funny. This Norton geezer's just an irritating tosspot.

[SuzieQ49]

The Jack Demposey of this fight was 23 years old and at the high water mark of his career, as is the Joe Louis ko of Max Baer in 1935...They were at their lightest weights and combined lean bodies and destructive power
in their punches...I believe "bigger is not always better "...

Sorry Burt, but I get a bit agitated when you keep comparing Jack Dempsey to Joe Louis. I personally feel Joe Louis was the clear better, more proven fighter. I personally do not see the comparison. One was a great long reigning heavyweight champ who fought virtually everybody, the other a lazy playboy party animal who sat on his throne and avoided the best out there. Just food for thought.

[itrymariti]

Well said SQ. Louis was entirely another class of fighter.

[Dempsey1238]

Not sure we learn any thing more with the Fulton fight if the film made it today.

I mean it didnt even make it to the min mark lol. Sure it would be impressive, but it would be viewing Tyson Spinks or something in that regard.

I think we caught the perfect glimpse of a prime Dempsey with Jess Willard to Carpentier imo.

From 1919-1921 Dempsey was active, in shape and pre dated that long lay off of 2, and than 3 years after Gibbions and Firpo.

[Boilermaker]

Cute photo until you realize Fulton sucked. So Jack Dempsey knocked him out. Doesnt prove a thing.
Which fights of Fultons can i watch to draw this conclusion?

[burt bienstock]

Sorry Burt, but I get a bit agitated when you keep comparing Jack Dempsey to Joe Louis. I personally feel Joe Louis was the clear better, more proven fighter. I personally do not see the comparison. One was a great long reigning heavyweight champ who fought virtually everybody, the other a lazy playboy party animal who sat on his throne and avoided the best out there. Just food for thought.
Sorry you are agitaded...But so am I agitated...To say that Jack Dempsey's title reign was not as impressive as Joe Louis's is probably correct...I loved Joe Louis as he was my idol growing up...A great fighter and America loved him...But let me explain my agitation to you pronto...When comparing the two great heavyweights, my criteria is what did most of the writers who saw the TWO fighters at their best think of a clash between the two...After all they saw them fight..You and I did not...The majority in 1950 picked Dempsey over Louis were they to have met...And so do I because of styles, I think that Dempsey's bob and weave and tremendous fast start would be first to strike and hurt Louis.
leading to an eventual kayo...In my minds eye I see a faster and much more devastating Arturo Godoy getting low under Louis's jab,and blasting away inside where Dempsey was supreme...If I am wrong in my assumption, than I am in the majority who saw them both...
My father and his contemporary's,and a majority of seasoned boxing experts were somehow less knowledgeble than you, ninety years later, doesn't smack of common sense...The Dempsey at his Willard and before was a great fighter, who YOU and I never saw on film...But I take the words of eyewitnesses of that time...To say Louis would have licked Dempsey is fine , but to say the Manassa Mauler was not in the same class is to revise history and the past, and I don't want any part of that...Keep punching though....

[janitor]

Janitor is sorry that he started that thread.

His dirt on Dempsey was not that good.

[mcvey]

Janitor is sorry that he started that thread.

His dirt on Dempsey was not that good.

"Won't dish the dirt ,with the rest of the boys, that's why Janitor is a tramp".
If you want any dirt, ask Russell . He da man.:good

[punchy]

Sorry you are agitaded...But so am I agitated...To say that Jack Dempsey's title reign was not as impressive as Joe Louis's is probably correct...I loved Joe Louis as he was my idol growing up...A great fighter and America loved him...But let me explain my agitation to you pronto...When comparing the two great heavyweights, my criteria is what did most of the writers who saw the TWO fighters at their best think of a clash between the two...After all they saw them fight..You and I did not...The majority in 1950 picked Dempsey over Louis were they to have met...And so do I because of styles, I think that Dempsey's bob and weave and tremendous fast start would be first to strike and hurt Louis.
leading to an eventual kayo...In my minds eye I see a faster and much more devastating Arturo Godoy getting low under Louis's jab,and blasting away inside where Dempsey was supreme...If I am wrong in my assumption, than I am in the majority who saw them both...
My father and his contemporary's,and a majority of seasoned boxing experts were somehow less knowledgeble than you, ninety years later, doesn't smack of common sense...The Dempsey at his Willard and before was a great fighter, who YOU and I never saw on film...But I take the words of eyewitnesses of that time...To say Louis would have licked Dempsey is fine , but to say the Manassa Mauler was not in the same class is to revise history and the past, and I don't want any part of that...Keep punching though....

To say Dempsey was not in the same class as Louis is wrong Louis is the superior fighter in most people's opinions but Dempsey is a great also and up until the time of Louis was considered by most as the greatest Heavyweight to have lived, time and video have not been kind to Dempsey's rating, my father who was about ten years younger than Dempsey and who boxed as an amateur always revered Dempsey and Johnston but said Louis was the greatest this is the opinion of some one who lived in this era.

[Dempsey1238]

Sorry you are agitaded...But so am I agitated...To say that Jack Dempsey's title reign was not as impressive as Joe Louis's is probably correct...I loved Joe Louis as he was my idol growing up...A great fighter and America loved him...But let me explain my agitation to you pronto...When comparing the two great heavyweights, my criteria is what did most of the writers who saw the TWO fighters at their best think of a clash between the two...After all they saw them fight..You and I did not...The majority in 1950 picked Dempsey over Louis were they to have met...And so do I because of styles, I think that Dempsey's bob and weave and tremendous fast start would be first to strike and hurt Louis.
leading to an eventual kayo...In my minds eye I see a faster and much more devastating Arturo Godoy getting low under Louis's jab,and blasting away inside where Dempsey was supreme...If I am wrong in my assumption, than I am in the majority who saw them both...
My father and his contemporary's,and a majority of seasoned boxing experts were somehow less knowledgeble than you, ninety years later, doesn't smack of common sense...The Dempsey at his Willard and before was a great fighter, who YOU and I never saw on film...But I take the words of eyewitnesses of that time...To say Louis would have licked Dempsey is fine , but to say the Manassa Mauler was not in the same class is to revise history and the past, and I don't want any part of that...Keep punching though....


Just because they saw 2 fighters lived does not mean they would know who would win in this clash of punchers, I think the one that gets in a good punch or hurts the other first can finish the fight. With punchers like these 2, almost any thing goes in chooseing the winner.

They have as much of a guess as a Louis Dempsey fight as you or I in picking a winner.

[burt bienstock]

Just because they saw 2 fighters lived does not mean they would know who would win in this clash of punchers, I think the one that gets in a good punch or hurts the other first can finish the fight. With punchers like these 2, almost any thing goes in chooseing the winner.

They have as much of a guess as a Louis Dempsey fight as you or I in picking a winner.
The point I was making is that Dempsey was certainly in the same class of great heavyweights as Louis...What is unreasonable for me to agree with the majority who SAW them both twenty years apart and claimed Dempsey would of probably beaten Louis at their best ?I have never seen old Albert Einstein, but I take the experts of his time, that he was agreat scientist...Ido not say i am sure Dempsey would have licked the great Louis, but I will not abide by the statement that Dempsey is not in the same class as Louis...That arbitrary statement defies the majority of
great boxing writers and people such as Ray arcel, Lou Stillman,Damon Runyon, Jack Sharkey, Gene Tunney etc. Boxing figures who SAW them both...Who am I or todays naysayers to know more than they...Dempsey
was not perfect but he was lauded as a great fighter while he fought ,
and I'll go along with that opinion NOW !!

[SuzieQ49]

The point I was making is that Dempsey was certainly in the same class of great heavyweights as Louis.

Well, the consensus today is Louis and Ali are the clear top 2 heavyweights of all time. Dempsey is not up there with them.

[burt bienstock]

Well, the consensus today is Louis and Ali are the clear top 2 heavyweights of all time. Dempsey is not up there with them.
Ali is not in this debate...We are talking about Louis and Dempsey...I believe that the opinions of the people who SAW THEM in their primes
have TWICE the validity of todays fickle fans, who have NEVER seen the Jack Dempsey of his prime.Except for the Willard fight we now see with the hand cranked camera of 1919,you and THEY have never seen what
the Dempsey who flattened large men as Carl Morris Gunboat Smith, Arthur Pelkey, Bill Brennan etc in one rd or more...Do you think that allthese men suffered a heart attack in the ring ?Why not give Jack Dempsey credit that everyone who saw him demolish these large and tough men did ? Say what you want about Jess Willard..But he was never dropped in his life and old Jack Dempsey dropped him seven times in the first round...Today it would be a first round knockout...
Do you think that it would take Jack Dempsey thirteen rounds to kayo.
the large clumsy Abe Simon, or six rounds to ko a Primo Carnera ? NO
WAY... But it took Joe Louis that many rounds for him to stop these
slow behomeths..Dempsey would have flattened these guys in short order
I say...I will say once more, I place much more faith in the opinions of
great boxing experts who SAW Dempsey and Louis multiple times, than
todays fans...Just as I who have seen Ray Robinson in his great prime
four times, can evaluate his abilities better than todays youngsters
sixty five years later...So with Dempsey, would he have beaten Joe Louis
in their primes ?Toss up maybe. but he was CERTAINLY in Louis's class!!
Contrary to todays revisionists....

[teeto]

My opinion is humble, and i agreement, yet it spawns no disrespect whatsoever to the subject.

[PowerPuncher]

todays fickle fans, who have NEVER seen the Jack Dempsey of his prime.,you and THEY have never seen what
the Dempsey who flattened large men as Carl Morris Gunboat Smith, Arthur Pelkey, Bill Brennan etc in one rd or more......

Here's some footage of Prime Dempsey we 'fickle fans' have seen, including the Brennan fight. Perhaps you haven't, as you were under the misapprehension there was no Prime Dempsey footage, enjoy:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Either way we know these men weren't the best contenders of his era and had been beaten by Greb and Tunney

[burt bienstock]

Here's some footage of Prime Dempsey we 'fickle fans' have seen, including the Brennan fight. Perhaps you haven't, as you were under the misapprehension there was no Prime Dempsey footage, enjoy:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Either way we know these men weren't the best contenders of his era and had been beaten by Greb and Tunney
Thanks for these clips..I have of course seen them many times.
The prime Dempsey i refer to was the Dempsey of 1918 -1919 up to the Willard slaughter in 1919...Aside from the Willard fight, there is no available film of Dempsey at his best Koing in 1918
Flynn 1rd
Brennan 6 rd
Pelkey 1 rd
Fulton 1 rd
Levinsky 3 rd
Morris 1 rd
1919 Willard 7 knockdowns 1st rd
None of those films exist to show what the prime active Mauler was like
in his heyday...The film of the Brennan fight was taken in 1920,their 2nd fight...I try to compare fighters at their absolute primes...
Sidenote-Example, the young tigerish Louis who destroyed Max Baer in 1935, would have caught Billy Conn early and flattened Conn in a few rounds...His reflexis was at his best then, unlike the slower Louis of 1941.

[Pachilles]

At least Pachilles, frankenfrank etc. can be funny. This Norton geezer's just an irritating tosspot.

Im always flattered to see my name dropped in threads im not involved with. But its always the case, that i am being used as a gauge to how big an asshole a person is.:yep

[The Morlocks]

Sorry Burt, but I get a bit agitated when you keep comparing Jack Dempsey to Joe Louis. I personally feel Joe Louis was the clear better, more proven fighter. I personally do not see the comparison. One was a great long reigning heavyweight champ who fought virtually everybody, the other a lazy playboy party animal who sat on his throne and avoided the best out there. Just food for thought.
"Lazy, playboy, party animal...". I've never heard the great Dempsey described in that way before. Now, John Belushi yes, but...

[The Morlocks]

Sorry you are agitaded...But so am I agitated...To say that Jack Dempsey's title reign was not as impressive as Joe Louis's is probably correct...I loved Joe Louis as he was my idol growing up...A great fighter and America loved him...But let me explain my agitation to you pronto...When comparing the two great heavyweights, my criteria is what did most of the writers who saw the TWO fighters at their best think of a clash between the two...After all they saw them fight..You and I did not...The majority in 1950 picked Dempsey over Louis were they to have met...And so do I because of styles, I think that Dempsey's bob and weave and tremendous fast start would be first to strike and hurt Louis.
leading to an eventual kayo...In my minds eye I see a faster and much more devastating Arturo Godoy getting low under Louis's jab,and blasting away inside where Dempsey was supreme...If I am wrong in my assumption, than I am in the majority who saw them both...
My father and his contemporary's,and a majority of seasoned boxing experts were somehow less knowledgeble than you, ninety years later, doesn't smack of common sense...The Dempsey at his Willard and before was a great fighter, who YOU and I never saw on film...But I take the words of eyewitnesses of that time...To say Louis would have licked Dempsey is fine , but to say the Manassa Mauler was not in the same class is to revise history and the past, and I don't want any part of that...Keep punching though....
Well said and I agree wholeheartedly. Dempsey was great and even the respected and great himself Ray Arcel said that a prime Dempsey would have beaten Ali and Frazier. What is never said is that until Dempsey, noone had ever seenhandspeed like Jack had. I have 5 books on the guy as well as about 50 books on overall boxing and heavweight history and noone takes the guy lightly except the clown that wrote "Kings of the Ring". They say in a lot of books and old newspaper clippings that Dempsey's hands were a blur. Combine that w/ crippling power, a great chin and the most viscious blackout killer instinct in the sport's history (of this there is little doubt if you read anough history by the historians), and you have a hard man to fight. The films of the fighters of yesteryear (of which I have many) are not the great film and timing of the films from the 70's on, so you don't really see in real time the action. Just time the fightfilms of that time and they are invariably off of today's timing.

[bman100]

the best footage of dempsey we have available to us today is probly him sparring big bill, IMO. But it would be great to see him pre-1919, if the fulton fight does still exist, it sucks that is hasnt been released yet, it maybe only 18 seconds but it is considered one of his best fights in his whole career by many historians.

This extract from an article by Mike Casey sums up the Fulton fight and how it was seen as an amazing display from Dempsey:

'Back in the summer of that year, on July 27 at Harrison, New Jersey, Jack had conceded nearly twenty pounds to the hard-hitting Fred Fulton and destroyed him in just a fraction over eighteen seconds. A sharp intake of breath was heard across America and not just from the easily impressed.

When Fulton crashed to the canvas, writer Robert Edgren was sitting close enough at ringside to be able to reach out and touch the fallen giant. Edgren, as knowledgeable and eloquent a scribe as there ever was on boxing, was objective yet lavish in his praise for the lithe and vicious young tiger of a man who had inflicted the damage.
Now Edgren completely understood what sparring partner Chief Turner had said of Dempsey. “This is the most wonderful fighter I have ever seen,” revealed the Chief. “I think I have done mighty well to last through a week of training with him. He’s an awful hitter.”

Edgren wrote: “Dempsey makes the same impression on trainer or fighter. He is not a boxer in the ordinary sense of the word. And yet it is foolish to say that he doesn’t know how to box. He is a natural boxer. He uses his hands as naturally as a tiger uses its claws.

“The Dempsey fight against Fulton was the finest exhibition of the fighting art that I have ever seen, for Dempsey didn’t waste a single movement in the short time it lasted. His action was the soul of simplicity. And fighting effectiveness isn’t in the step-and-tap-and-block taught by boxing instructors, but in direct action along the lines of mechanical force.

“Bob Fitzsimmons was the greatest master of that. And if this Dempsey lad continues as he has begun, he will eclipse even the great Bob.”

Emphasising Dempsey’s economy of movement, Edgren noted that the Mauler covered the minimum of ground in the short time it took him to bomb out Fulton. Jack was careful to come out of his corner a little slower than big Fred. Dempsey had advanced just four or five short steps as Fulton met him and missed with a jab. Jack moved forward one step. Fulton tried to tie him up, but as Dempsey wrenched his arms free he fired a left upwards to Fulton’s head. The punch travelled no more than a foot but jerked Fred’s head back and shook him badly. The big man moved out to long range and started backing up towards the ropes. He managed to get a lock on Dempsey’s arms for a few seconds before breaking away and retreating across the ring to his own corner. Jack pivoted and advanced three or four steps to within hitting range. It was then that Robert Edgren observed something that intrigued him.

“Dempsey has a trick of shifting that is similar to that of Fitzsimmons and Stanley Ketchel, except that Jack doesn’t reverse his footing but merely drops his left shoulder back beyond the right and then puts the pivoting swing of his whole body into a two-foot blow.

“Dropping that left shoulder back, Dempsey drove his left fist into Fulton’s body. It was a tremendous blow and Fulton caved in at the waist. Instantly Dempsey whipped another left up to Fulton’s head, knocking him over sideways, and quicker than a flash shot his straight right across to Fulton’s jaw. Fulton fell, completely knocked out, struck in a half-hitting position, neck against the ropes and went on until he lay flat on his shoulder blades.”'

The way the fight is described here, shows how people were impressed with Dempsey at the time, its a real shame its not be seen for like ninety years, sounds like a brilliant fight, all 18 seconds of it.

[PowerPuncher]

Thanks for these clips..I have of course seen them many times.
The prime Dempsey i refer to was the Dempsey of 1918 -1919 up to the Willard slaughter in 1919...Aside from the Willard fight, there is no available film of Dempsey at his best Koing in 1918
Flynn 1rd
Brennan 6 rd
Pelkey 1 rd
Fulton 1 rd
Levinsky 3 rd
Morris 1 rd
1919 Willard 7 knockdowns 1st rd
None of those films exist to show what the prime active Mauler was like
in his heyday...The film of the Brennan fight was taken in 1920,their 2nd fight...I try to compare fighters at their absolute primes...
Sidenote-Example, the young tigerish Louis who destroyed Max Baer in 1935, would have caught Billy Conn early and flattened Conn in a few rounds...His reflexis was at his best then, unlike the slower Louis of 1941.

I can understand the argument he was past prime in 1923, although I do not see why anyone would consider the 1920 or 1921 Dempsey Past Prime, when he was 25-26yo and finally able to get a better diet and eat properly. Also bare in mind in 1917-1918 he lost twice to Meehan and in 1917 he lost by first round KO to Flynn. Based on this surely his prime was the 1919-1921 period?

I agree a younger Louis may have ko'd Conn quicker but then again movers would always give Louis stylistic problems

[djanders]

All time rankings are sometimes based on resume, not head to head potential. If we are talking resume, then I am going with Joe Louis...and I have him rated above Dempsey on my all-time list for that reason. Now, if we are talking about a head to head match up (prime for prime) Dempsey vs Louis, that could be a different story. I wouldn't count Jack out in such a match, and, as such, he is definitely in the same class as Louis.

[bman100]

Il admit Louis looks better on film,its quite hard to see the punches in the fight with firpo for example, with dempsey, the punches that really KO firpo, were thrown from the inside, the man was always inside clinching and punching, plus there was just a lot of brawling its not LOOKING very good, yet Dempsey still rates very highly because of his fighting skill.



BTW, here is the full article containing the extract that I used in my previous post concerning what other old fighters and trainers said about Dempsey, very good read IMO. Has stories and viewpoints from greats such as Arcel, Tunney, Sharkey etc.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[RockysSplitNose]

Cute photo until you realize Fulton sucked. So Jack Dempsey knocked him out. Doesnt prove a thing.

kind of a cute name you have by the way until you realise Ken Norton really did suck - but hey so do you so it kind of fits i guess - loser...your bus is leaving! :smoke

[burt bienstock]

the best footage of dempsey we have available to us today is probly him sparring big bill, IMO. But it would be great to see him pre-1919, if the fulton fight does still exist, it sucks that is hasnt been released yet, it maybe only 18 seconds but it is considered one of his best fights in his whole career by many historians.

This extract from an article by Mike Casey sums up the Fulton fight and how it was seen as an amazing display from Dempsey:

'Back in the summer of that year, on July 27 at Harrison, New Jersey, Jack had conceded nearly twenty pounds to the hard-hitting Fred Fulton and destroyed him in just a fraction over eighteen seconds. A sharp intake of breath was heard across America and not just from the easily impressed.

When Fulton crashed to the canvas, writer Robert Edgren was sitting close enough at ringside to be able to reach out and touch the fallen giant. Edgren, as knowledgeable and eloquent a scribe as there ever was on boxing, was objective yet lavish in his praise for the lithe and vicious young tiger of a man who had inflicted the damage.
Now Edgren completely understood what sparring partner Chief Turner had said of Dempsey. “This is the most wonderful fighter I have ever seen,” revealed the Chief. “I think I have done mighty well to last through a week of training with him. He’s an awful hitter.”

Edgren wrote: “Dempsey makes the same impression on trainer or fighter. He is not a boxer in the ordinary sense of the word. And yet it is foolish to say that he doesn’t know how to box. He is a natural boxer. He uses his hands as naturally as a tiger uses its claws.

“The Dempsey fight against Fulton was the finest exhibition of the fighting art that I have ever seen, for Dempsey didn’t waste a single movement in the short time it lasted. His action was the soul of simplicity. And fighting effectiveness isn’t in the step-and-tap-and-block taught by boxing instructors, but in direct action along the lines of mechanical force.

“Bob Fitzsimmons was the greatest master of that. And if this Dempsey lad continues as he has begun, he will eclipse even the great Bob.”

Emphasising Dempsey’s economy of movement, Edgren noted that the Mauler covered the minimum of ground in the short time it took him to bomb out Fulton. Jack was careful to come out of his corner a little slower than big Fred. Dempsey had advanced just four or five short steps as Fulton met him and missed with a jab. Jack moved forward one step. Fulton tried to tie him up, but as Dempsey wrenched his arms free he fired a left upwards to Fulton’s head. The punch travelled no more than a foot but jerked Fred’s head back and shook him badly. The big man moved out to long range and started backing up towards the ropes. He managed to get a lock on Dempsey’s arms for a few seconds before breaking away and retreating across the ring to his own corner. Jack pivoted and advanced three or four steps to within hitting range. It was then that Robert Edgren observed something that intrigued him.

“Dempsey has a trick of shifting that is similar to that of Fitzsimmons and Stanley Ketchel, except that Jack doesn’t reverse his footing but merely drops his left shoulder back beyond the right and then puts the pivoting swing of his whole body into a two-foot blow.

“Dropping that left shoulder back, Dempsey drove his left fist into Fulton’s body. It was a tremendous blow and Fulton caved in at the waist. Instantly Dempsey whipped another left up to Fulton’s head, knocking him over sideways, and quicker than a flash shot his straight right across to Fulton’s jaw. Fulton fell, completely knocked out, struck in a half-hitting position, neck against the ropes and went on until he lay flat on his shoulder blades.”'

The way the fight is described here, shows how people were impressed with Dempsey at the time, its a real shame its not be seen for like ninety years, sounds like a brilliant fight, all 18 seconds of it.
Bman100, this article you posted which I have read many times by a great boxing writer Mike Casey,expresses what I wish to convey,but cannot...
Casey's viewpoint was the norm point of view of the great Manassa Mauler from his prime, to the 1950s...It kills me emotionally when todays
ignorant detractors of Jack Dempsey, try to rewrite the greatness of Dempsey,ninety years later, defying the vast majority of hard nosed boxing writers who SAW Dempsey and Joe Louis in their respective primes
...I love Joe Louis as a fighter and a MAN who had dignity and character.
I think that Dempsey in his fast punching prime, had the style to kayo Joe Louis, but I think the Brown Bomber had a more impressive title reign...
And I think Louis could knock out anyone he could hit including Ali,and Dempsey, but styles make fights I believe...
What galls me is not the fact that Louis would beat Dempsey [an opinion
not shared by most who saw both ], could be, but to say that Dempsey
was overated, and was not EVEN in Joe Louis's class, well thyat I cannot abide by...Thanks for posting the article, the memory of Dempsey deserves that....b.b.

[manbearpig]

Louis KO1 Dempsey

[djanders]

Bman100, this article you posted which I have read many times by a great boxing writer Mike Casey,expresses what I wish to convey,but cannot...
Casey's viewpoint was the norm point of view of the great Manassa Mauler from his prime, to the 1950s...It kills me emotionally when todays
ignorant detractors of Jack Dempsey, try to rewrite the greatness of Dempsey,ninety years later, defying the vast majority of hard nosed boxing writers who SAW Dempsey and Joe Louis in their respective primes
...I love Joe Louis as a fighter and a MAN who had dignity and character.
I think that Dempsey in his fast punching prime, had the style to kayo Joe Louis, but I think the Brown Bomber had a more impressive title reign...
And I think Louis could knock out anyone he could hit including Ali,and Dempsey, but styles make fights I believe...
What galls me is not the fact that Louis would beat Dempsey [an opinion
not shared by most who saw both ], could be, but to say that Dempsey
was overated, and was not EVEN in Joe Louis's class, well thyat I cannot abide by...Thanks for posting the article, the memory of Dempsey deserves that....b.b.

Good points, Burt. I had the pleasure of speaking with Jack on more than one occasion. I found him to be a class act all the way. I asked him once about a Dempsey - Louis fight. He said: "I can tell you one thing for sure! With 2 punchers in there like Joe and I, it's not going to the cards the way that computer had it! What? Joe and I both lost our punches in that fight?" (...referring to the Murray Woroner computer outcome, in the late 60's, where Jack defeated Joe by a 15 round decision.)

[Dempsey1238]

Dempsey's prime did not end in 1919 like some claim.

I think his prime was 1918-1921. During thsos years, he was active and fighting and busy, also in shape, and retain his speed and skills.

Once his break started in 1922, was when he was past prime imo.

[mcvey]

Well, the consensus today is Louis and Ali are the clear top 2 heavyweights of all time. Dempsey is not up there with them.
He is with me No 3, Louis no 4. I'm not much of a consensus guy .

[burt bienstock]

I can understand the argument he was past prime in 1923, although I do not see why anyone would consider the 1920 or 1921 Dempsey Past Prime, when he was 25-26yo and finally able to get a better diet and eat properly. Also bare in mind in 1917-1918 he lost twice to Meehan and in 1917 he lost by first round KO to Flynn. Based on this surely his prime was the 1919-1921 period?

I agree a younger Louis may have ko'd Conn quicker but then again movers would always give Louis stylistic problems
First of all, to bring up the arguement that Willie Meehan beat Jack Dempsey twice in 1917,is not a valid point in determining the ability of Jack Dempsey ar 22 years of age..
For Pete's sake they were FOUR round bouts,and Willie Meehan was a rubber ball smothering fighter...Were they to have fought the normal
rounds o0f a fight Dempsey would have certainly caught up to Meehan and destroyed him in a ten or more round bout....
Louis would have lost to Pastor, Conn, Walcott, Godoy etc,after four rounds...Ali to Norton, and others after four rounds, so the old bromide
that Dempsey was overated because "he lost to Fat Willie Meehan ",
is silly....Every Great Fighter in history would have lost many bouts
after four rounds, no doubt...
As for Dempsey's ko loss to Flynn in 1917--His first wife who divorced Dempsey claimed that Dempsey threw that fight because of "money
problems", at there their trial proceedings in court...True or not, Dempsey
one year later flattened Fireman Flynn in one round...

[SuzieQ49]

"Lazy, playboy, party animal...". I've never heard the great Dempsey described in that way before. Now, John Belushi yes, but...

He certainly became that way in the 1920s when he discovered Hollywood no?

No one is questioning Dempseys toughness/hard work he went through during the teen years to get on top.

A bit like Rocky III saga. "You ain't been hungry since ya won the belt!"

[SuzieQ49]

Fulton wasn't a worthless piece of trash. He was a top contender, 6'4 210lb, and had just knocked out the great Sam Langford. It was a big win for Dempsey, and he knocked him out in an astounding 18 seconds!

[janitor]

Anyway...........

I found out that some obscure fighter dropped Dempsey repeatedly early in his career that wasnt generaly known about.

[SuzieQ49]

What's his name?

[Bokaj]

Anyway...........

I found out that some obscure fighter dropped Dempsey repeatedly early in his career that wasnt generaly known about.

Wasn´t it the first round KO he suffered? By Meehan, wasn´t it?

[burt bienstock]

Wasn´t it the first round KO he suffered? By Meehan, wasn´t it?
No Meehan never stopped young Dempsey..He won 4 rd decisions ..You are talking about Jim Flynn who KOd Dempsey in 1rd in 1917 in suspicious
circumstances.[Dempseys 1st wife at the divorce hearings testified it was a dive}.One year later Dempsey kod Flynn in one rd...

[burt bienstock]

Ohhh Jack Dempsey's wife said it was a dive? Wow so we know it must be true. The truth is a guy with a subpar record like Jim Flynn knocked Dempsey stiff in 1 round. Yep Dempsey is a world class, all time great.
Oh yes ,you forgot to mention the world is FLAT...

[Vockerman]

Well, the consensus today is Louis and Ali are the clear top 2 heavyweights of all time. Dempsey is not up there with them.

Oh yeah - he doesn't rank at all does he suzie - JEEBUS!

International Boxing Research Org top 10 all time heavies
# Joe Louis
# Muhammad Ali
# Jack Johnson
# Jack Dempsey
# Rocky Marciano
# Larry Holmes
# James J. Jeffries
# George Foreman
# Sonny Liston
# Joe Frazier

Wait a few years till the revisionists get a hold of ALI :)

What do Ken Norton, Joe Frazier, Leon Spinks, Trevor Burbick and Larry Holmes all have in common? WTF? How can anyone lose more than 1 fight and be an ATG? Don't ALL the modern greats finish with NO LOSSES today. Managers have learned to maximize wins in a way the older boxers never imagined. Some of them old timers MIGHT have gone undefeated also if they knew what we have since learned. How can anyone lose to Neon Leon and even be any GD good? The greatest? No Way! Overrated by the old farts who saw him when they were growing up - romanticized - he isn't even in the Dreadnought class today! Not big enough or heavy handed enough to compete today = oh yeah he was good for his time but a boring "defense first" kind of guy. He would have benefited from modern discoveries in MMA.

just wait - ITZ COMMING - lol

[Dempsey1238]

Ali compare to today's supersize heavyweights is pretty small.

[djanders]

Oh yeah - he doesn't rank at all does he suzie - JEEBUS!

International Boxing Research Org top 10 all time heavies
# Joe Louis
# Muhammad Ali
# Jack Johnson
# Jack Dempsey
# Rocky Marciano
# Larry Holmes
# James J. Jeffries
# George Foreman
# Sonny Liston
# Joe Frazier

Wait a few years till the revisionists get a hold of ALI :)

What do Ken Norton, Joe Frazier, Leon Spinks, Trevor Burbick and Larry Holmes all have in common? WTF? How can anyone lose more than 1 fight and be an ATG? Don't ALL the modern greats finish with NO LOSSES today. Managers have learned to maximize wins in a way the older boxers never imagined. Some of them old timers MIGHT have gone undefeated also if they knew what we have since learned. How can anyone lose to Neon Leon and even be any GD good? The greatest? No Way! Overrated by the old farts who saw him when they were growing up - romanticized - he isn't even in the Dreadnought class today! Not big enough or heavy handed enough to compete today = oh yeah he was good for his time but a boring "defense first" kind of guy. He would have benefited from modern discoveries in MMA.

just wait - ITZ COMMING - lol

Amen! I have seen it happen to great fighters over and over again! :hi:

[Unforgiven]

I agree with burt bienstock and others here : Dempsey is in the top echelon of heavyweight greats.
Dempsey is in the same class as Louis.