New To Me!

[Willie Pep 229]

I don't see your point Marg. If My observation is special it is because history gave us a window for those who have anecdotal opinions to share... Not because of any consensus of opinion per se. So, if you are "picking" on me it would have to be because I feel this window of opportunity, a historical blue moon, is worth noting. The fact that so many trainers felt Dempsey was the man? Just an interesting aside worth noting...

I think what made Dempsey's legend is the same that made Tyson's legend. Brutal KOs!

His run to the championship was Tyson like. Something like 16 (mostly first or second round) KOs over 18 months.

He followed that up with KOing four of his next five defenses.

People made a really big deal that Gibbons lasted 15 rounds with Dempsey. It was seen as a moral victory just to go the distance with Dempsey. (Probably because Dempsey had not fought in two years July '21 to July '23.)

Doesn't that sound a lot like how we viewed Tyson in the late 80s? A "wow" factor that caught the nation's attention.

Today casual (or even non) fans are still much more likely to recognize Tyson's name than Holyfield's.

Dempsey is legendary because he brought great drama to the game.

The resume guys just can't wrap their heads around the fact that this is prize fighting not a boxing league. Wins will only get you so far in the fight game. You have to bring drama if you want the big bucks; want to be remembered as great.

Winning by points excites the resume guys, drama puts 126K butts in the seats and makes you "great."

Drama is one part of being great, something these guys can't catch on to.

In some ways I think we are saying the same thing. It is the "wow" factor of their contemporaries that made Dempsey and Tyson great. The resume boys always miss that.

[billeau2]

I think what made Dempsey's legend is the same that made Tyson's legend. Brutal KOs!

His run to the championship was like Tyson like. Something like 16 (mostly first or second round) KOs over 18 months.

He followed that up with KOing four of his next five defenses.

People made a really big deal that Gibbons merely lasted 15 rounds with Dempsey. It was seen as a moral victory just to go the distance with Dempsey. (Probably because Dempsey had not fought in two years July '21 to July '23.)

Doesn't that sound a lot like how we viewed Tyson in the late 80s? A "wow" factor that caught the nation's attention.

Today casual (or even non) fans are still much more likely to recognize Tyson's name than Holyfield's.

Dempsey is legendary because he brought great drama to the game.

The resume guys just can't wrap their heads around the fact that this is prize fighting not a boxing league. Wins will only get you so far in in the fight game. You have to bring drama if you want the big bucks; want to be remembered as great.

Winning by points excites the resume guys, drama puts 126K butts in the seats and makes you "great."

Drama is one part of being great, something these guys can't catch on to.

In some ways I think we are saying the same thing. It is the "wow" factor of their contemporaries that made Dempsey and Tyson great. The resume boys always miss that.

Absolutely. Regarding how men who saw so many champions determine who was the best is complicated, but probably considers some of the same understanding that ties Dempsey to Tyson.

[Mr Mitts]

Not necessarily mutually exclusive Points of view. JJ had an ego, so did Louis. I do not think it is that important not nearly as much as discussing some of the finer points of technical analysis which IMO is important. There is no doubt there were fundamental differences regarding how fighting technique changed. And that is what matters to me.

One big question being: When Dempsey and the post classical emphasis on punching changed the sport, did it make it better? This is one of those tricky ones that is easy to answer and seems a no brainer but alas, levels to the game. I mean emphasizing the punches is an evolution of the sport right? Levels to the game... A lot of the footwork, hitting dynamics and timing developed from bare knuckle and fencing was actually great stuff and much better for combat. Using your feet as defense for one thing, punching straight with structural dynamics and not "swinging your fists" like two sledgehammers, for another. Look at any preclassical fighter in pose and they are balanced properly (as Johnson said) their knee is aligned so the front foot is a virtual site (as Johnson also said), punches are thrown anatomically and physiologically in accord with efficiency and effectiveness.

When gloves got bigger one could no longer punch properly... One had to create more and more speed and mass to generate more power. Instead of hitting points like a martial art, you had to whip the skull around, or crack the head back from below... An original KO was to hit the tip of the chin, drop the person with a shot to the temple, neither of which would work with large mufflers. For the body, originally you dropped a person with a shot to the chest, or cracked the floating ribs, which became a more pronounced and general attack to the ribs and (in both styles) a liver shot.

Too many good points to point to. I trust your analysis. Johnson was a showman, Joe a mummy of the white man. I think that would have bothered Johnson. Johnson too proud to look forward, Joe too controlled to reach back.

Anyway, I believe your key point was that they were both fighting correctly for their eras. At the border of old and new (in any field or subject) there is always resistance and misunderstanding, jealousy at the beginning. That fits with the world I know. Jack had fallen behind. Even in race relations the world had left the man with the golden tooth behind.

He was such a player, who can know if he 100% believed what he was saying by that time? He was a keen boxing mind and had seen the new guys and what they could do. Notice he alludes to Corbett not Tunney. I know they were essentially using similar strategies, and Tunney was known to consult or consort with Corbett, at least in public a few times. But I imagine there could have been enough differences for Jack to choose Jim over Gene. How great was that difference in stance and application?

It might partially be that the show had to go on, Johnson had to uphold his shtick, earn money, etc. Probably a good portion of both. If he had been treated like the grand old man of boxing like he wanted (because who wouldn't, right?) he would have mellowed considerably. But things went another way.

[Anomalocaris]

Uh, or how about he was just telling the truth as he saw it? He was probably jealous of Louis's popularity, if anything, not his stance. I personally believe Louis is overrated too.

His trainers and managers were fighting hard for a good image, and that specifically meant staying away from JJ and being his polar opposite, in which they instructed him. He was never to stand over a fallen opponent gloating. He was always to be a good boy and never gain the ire of whites with any action or statement. Joe was a good student. Top 10 heavyweight.

Who do I think probably beats him?

Ali
Marciano
Liston
Tunney
Johnson
Dempsey
Foreman
Holmes

And possibly others too, like Frazier, who I think always gets short shrift around here. Joe KO's the dumb Klits easily enough though, especially so with Vlad, who could never take a punch. Or maybe Sanders punches better than Louis.. Something tells me he doesn't.

Head to head and greatness amongst heavyweight are very different things because of the gradual increase in size.

Of those you listed Ali, Liston, Foreman and possibly Holmes could beat him.

The others get knocked out early.

[billeau2]

Too many good points to point to. I trust your analysis. Johnson was a showman, Joe a mummy of the white man. I think that would have bothered Johnson. Johnson too proud to look forward, Joe too controlled to reach back.

Anyway, I believe your key point was that they were both fighting correctly for their eras. At the border of old and new (in any field or subject) there is always resistance and misunderstanding, jealousy at the beginning. That fits with the world I know. Jack had fallen behind. Even in race relations the world had left the man with the golden tooth behind.

He was such a player, who can know if he 100% believed what he was saying by that time? He was a keen boxing mind and had seen the new guys and what they could do. Notice he alludes to Corbett not Tunney. I know they were essentially using similar strategies, and Tunney was known to consult or consort with Corbett, at least in public a few times. But I imagine there could have been enough differences for Jack to choose Jim over Gene. How great was that difference in stance and application?

It might partially be that the show had to go on, Johnson had to uphold his shtick, earn money, etc. Probably a good portion of both. If he had been treated like the grand old man of boxing like he wanted (because who wouldn't, right?) he would have mellowed considerably. But things went another way.

Corbet was actually an "elder" lol, a mentor of sorts for Tunney, they were not contemporaries as fighters. Corbet also gets a lot of credit for developing a brainy approach to the division as opposed to brawn (how true that is is debatable).