What was so bad with Dempsey vs Gibbons?

[dmt]

Please answer

Let's analyze:

Dempsey was 28 years old when he met Gibbons, still close to his physical prime but also a little on the slide having gone into a two year layoff, not quiet as sharp as he had been 4 years ago. Yet Dempsey won 12 or 13 rounds against Gibbons, not managing aknocout. So
Just because he was a ko artist does not mean he has to blow away everyone infront of him. People say “he struggled,” “Gibbons made him look bad”. Utter rubbish. When u win nearly all of the rounds then it’s hardly struggling.

Now……………
Jim Jeffries, at 220 pounds, had a 50 pound weight advantage on an over the hill middle Choynski and fought to a draw
Jack Johnson fought a nd vs O’Brien as champion, a newspaper draw vs over the hill middleweight and some actually thought O’Brien won. Although he clearly beat Sam Lanford, despite a 30lb advantage Sam lasted the distance vs him.
Gene Tunney failed to ko middleweight Harry Greb in all of their meetings, even when Tunney weighed over 185 lb.
Joe Louis was behind on points vs 174lb Billy Conn after 12 rounds. Sure Louis won by ko but atleast Dempsey was never behind vs Gibbons.
Rocky Marciano failed to ko Ezzard Charles in their first meeting whereas Ezzard, as great as he was, had suffered a ko defeat by Walcott at heavy and was coming of a loss to Valdez. The Charles-Marciano fight went the distance and it was actually a close fight!
Muhammad Ali, at over 210lb from memory, went the distance with, and had a close fight with cruiser Doug Jones who he enjoyed a 20 or so lb advantage over.
Marvin Hagler went the distance with former lightweight Duran, failing to win by ko and it was a close fight. I don’t care if you think Duran is a top 5 fighter of all time, he is not an atg middleweight, and was over 24lb ablove his natural weight and was competitive

So before u blame Dempsey for his fight v s Gibbons please look at all these other examples. Regards, dmt

[Duodenum]

I believe having 15 solid rounds of achievement is crucial to Dempsey's legacy. Without Gibbons, people would forever be asking questions about his endurance. Gibbons is important insofar as he was able to last the distance. This allowed Dempsey to demonstrate that he could perform at a fast pace for an extended period. (At that particular time in boxing, few could or would have taken Dempsey to the end of 15 rounds.)

Marciano's finish at the conclusion of the first Charles match is critical for the same reason. !5 rounds is what separates the men from the boys.

[C. M. Clay II]

Ali weighed 202 against Jones, not 210.:rolleyes:

[dmt]

ok but Ali still had a fair weight advantage over Jones

[janitor]

I believe having 15 solid rounds of achievement is crucial to Dempsey's legacy. Without Gibbons, people would forever be asking questions about his endurance.

I agree.

Although this performence is often criticised it is crucial to Dempsey's legacy because-

A. It proved that he could go a hard fifteen rounds.

B. It proved that he could outbox and not just outpunch a master boxer.

[UpWithEvil]

Let's not forget that Gibbons himself was an outstanding fighter, never KO'd until the very last fight of a career spanning over 100 bouts and the proud owner of victories over such excellent fighters as Harry Greb, Kid Norfolk, Billy Miske, and Battling Levinsky.

Had Dempsey *not* fought Gibbons, I have little doubt the contemporary revisionists would accuse Jack of having ducked him.

[JimmyShimmy]

What was bad with the fight:

1) It killed Shelby, Montana as both a future fighting venue and a town.

2) Gibbons did not get paid

3) Because Gibbons was unranked and facing the 'destructive champion' it looked bad when he went the distance.

In retrospect, as UpWithEvil pointed out, had Dempsey not fought Gibbons, he would have remained one of the genuinely good fighters that he never faced along with Wills and Greb.

It's an ugly fight that was filmed from too far away, but Dempsey used his strength and inside fighting ability to bully the game and very talented Gibbons out of the fight.

All things considered it was a good performance, just not typical electrifying Mauler stuff. Watching Dempsey fight was a big n' rare event. It's easy to understand the criticism that followed this one despite the fact it's probably his finest championship win.

[Duodenum]

The naysayers might argue that Greb also won 12 of 15 rounds in Tommy's last decison loss before Dempsey. But that was merely another payday for Gibbons. This title fight was for the whole shebang, and the late peaking 83-3-2 Gibbons was prepared for the performance of his career. Tommy would go on to get the best of Carpentier, and kayo the younger Kid Norfolk in six. Dempsey may have been the only man then in boxing who could get the better of Gibbons that day in Shelby. While Jack gets criticized for who he didn't face, he deserves tons of credit for putting the title up against a challenger his handlers wanted no part of. (Jack was also the only man to defeat Billy Miske by stoppage, and the only man to officially defeat Miske in his final 53 fights, 23 of which came after Billy's title shot.)

In 1923, Dempsey outboxed Gibbons, then outslugged Firpo. Not a bad year at all.

[UpWithEvil]

If Dempsey were this world class killer heavyweight then he should have taken apart this light heavyweight.

If you were more accurate with your squirting flower you'd have graduated Magna Cum Clowny at Ringling Brothers.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
"No! Wait! Give me another chance! I can do this!"

[UpWithEvil]

I'm guessing it's you, clownshoes.

[UpWithEvil]

And, as usual, you would be wrong.

Being called "wrong" by you is like Dubya Bush calling someone dimwitted. The irony of your complete lack of self-comprehension make such claims laughable, and not in a "laughing with you" sort of way.

Get yourself a mirror. Look in it.

Oh, Narcissus!

That ugly mug you see is who I'm talking about.

See, that's what I'm talking about Clownshoes. You don't know me, you've never met me, but you're perfectly happy to claim I'm ugly. It's just like your ill-conceived boxing confabulations - no proof, just your own ignorant assertions wrapped in baloney and foisted off as some sort of informed opinion, rather than the delusional rantings they are.

That's why you'll always be Perfesser Clownshoes. You're here to entertain with your clownish antics; serious debate obviously isn't in your repetoire, but you'll throw the heck out of a pie.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
"Yoohoo! It's me! Revolver! But don't tell anybody!"

[Dempsey1238]

Dempsey Gibbons was a pretty good fight. Sure it did not have the action of the Firpo fight or the Carp fight. or even the Willard fight. but for 15 rounds, Gibbions would hold and try to tie up Dempsey's arms, and Dempsey would score with boby punchings and rabbit punchings. As Jimmy said, it was a bad fight, and it was film far away. Did they ever heard of close ups in that era lol.

[dmt]

The problem is that Gibbons was a light heavyweight who lost to Harry Greb the year before - Gibbons only weighed 171 lbs for his fight with Greb. Greb only weighed 163 lbs. Gibbons weighed 175 for the Dempsey fight. If Dempsey were this world class killer heavyweight then he should have taken apart this light heavyweight. Marciano's first fight with Charles is similarly revealing. Charles was shot, and had a glass jaw, yet Marciano could not put him away.

The Gibbons fight reveals what the Charles fight reveals: both Dempsey and Marciano are overrated.
Duran was a former lightweight, had lost to Benitez before Hagler, then was destroyed by Hearns. This shows Hagler was over rated

[dmt]

Only if you think Duran and Gibbons are comparable. But that would be a ridiculous comparison. Hagler would destroy a fighter of Gibbons' ability.you are not feeling well today, r u? Gibbons would box circles around Hagler and win an easy decision. If Hagler could not ko an overweight Duran, then he could never ko the speedy Gibbons. No way :good

[janitor]

The problem is that Gibbons was a light heavyweight who lost to Harry Greb the year before - Gibbons only weighed 171 lbs for his fight with Greb. Greb only weighed 163 lbs. Gibbons weighed 175 for the Dempsey fight. If Dempsey were this world class killer heavyweight then he should have taken apart this light heavyweight. Marciano's first fight with Charles is similarly revealing. Charles was shot, and had a glass jaw, yet Marciano could not put him away.

The Gibbons fight reveals what the Charles fight reveals: both Dempsey and Marciano are overrated.

So what dose the fact that Larry Holmes, not only got taken the distence by a light heavyweight but lost his title to him reveal?

That Holmes was beyond overrated or that you aply double standards?

[janitor]

Only if you think Duran and Gibbons are comparable. But that would be a ridiculous comparison. Hagler would destroy a fighter of Gibbons' ability.

How many world class light heavyweights did Marvin Hagler beat?

that's right, none!

It is a bit of a leap of faith therfore to asume that he would beat Tommy Gibbons.

[dmt]

How many world class light heavyweights did Marvin Hagler beat?

that's right, none!

It is a bit of a leap of faith therfore to asume that he would beat Tommy Gibbons.hh is getting owned here :yep

[janitor]

hh is getting owned here :yep

What if his existing owners on the forum refuse to share him with me?

[Sizzle]

So what dose the fact that Larry Holmes, not only got taken the distence by a light heavyweight but lost his title to him reveal?

That Holmes was beyond overrated or that you aply double standards?

There is a big difference between a fighter who fought most of their career at light heavyweight, and an ACTUAL lightheavyweight.

Gibbons was an actual lightheavyweight - He weighed 175lbs on fight night. In fact, he'd weigh a good ten pounds less than what most modern LHW's will weigh on fightnight. Some supermiddleweights would outweigh him.

Michael Spinks did fight most of his career at lightheavyweight, but he weighed in at 213lbs in his last fight Vs Tyson, and at 200lbs against Holmes, i.e., he weighed more than Jack Dempsey did for most of his career.

Michael Spinks was not a lightheavyweight Vs Holmes. Gibbons was an unranked lightheavyweight Vs Dempsey

[Bummy Davis]

Please answer

Let's analyze:

Dempsey was 28 years old when he met Gibbons, still close to his physical prime but also a little on the slide having gone into a two year layoff, not quiet as sharp as he had been 4 years ago. Yet Dempsey won 12 or 13 rounds against Gibbons, not managing aknocout. So
Just because he was a ko artist does not mean he has to blow away everyone infront of him. People say “he struggled,” “Gibbons made him look bad”. Utter rubbish. When u win nearly all of the rounds then it’s hardly struggling.

Now……………
Jim Jeffries, at 220 pounds, had a 50 pound weight advantage on an over the hill middle Choynski and fought to a draw
Jack Johnson fought a nd vs O’Brien as champion, a newspaper draw vs over the hill middleweight and some actually thought O’Brien won. Although he clearly beat Sam Lanford, despite a 30lb advantage Sam lasted the distance vs him.
Gene Tunney failed to ko middleweight Harry Greb in all of their meetings, even when Tunney weighed over 185 lb.
Joe Louis was behind on points vs 174lb Billy Conn after 12 rounds. Sure Louis won by ko but atleast Dempsey was never behind vs Gibbons.
Rocky Marciano failed to ko Ezzard Charles in their first meeting whereas Ezzard, as great as he was, had suffered a ko defeat by Walcott at heavy and was coming of a loss to Valdez. The Charles-Marciano fight went the distance and it was actually a close fight!
Muhammad Ali, at over 210lb from memory, went the distance with, and had a close fight with cruiser Doug Jones who he enjoyed a 20 or so lb advantage over.
Marvin Hagler went the distance with former lightweight Duran, failing to win by ko and it was a close fight. I don’t care if you think Duran is a top 5 fighter of all time, he is not an atg middleweight, and was over 24lb ablove his natural weight and was competitive

So before u blame Dempsey for his fight v s Gibbons please look at all these other examples. Regards, dmt

You are on to something, and even today, How overweight is 39 year old 5"9 James Toney at 239 lbs, yet he stop Evander,and Gave Heavyweight Peter 2 good close fights(I thought he won the 1st one) a lot of times its how good the smaller guy is but also how he uses his Disadvantage? which could sometimes be an advantage

[janitor]

There is a big difference between a fighter who fought most of their career at light heavyweight, and an ACTUAL lightheavyweight.

Gibbons was an actual lightheavyweight - He weighed 175lbs on fight night. In fact, he'd weigh a good ten pounds less than what most modern LHW's will weigh on fightnight. Some supermiddleweights would outweigh him.

Michael Spinks did fight most of his career at lightheavyweight, but he weighed in at 213lbs in his last fight Vs Tyson, and at 200lbs against Holmes,

Yes but if you take a natural light heavyweight and bulk him up to 200lbs you do not end up with a natural 200lb fighter you just get a pumped up light heavyweight.

Chris Byrd bulked up to 210 lbs but he still couldn't knock a heavyweight's hat off and he might well have been better off keeping his weight low to preserve his advantages of speed and mobility.

Do you think for example that Billy Conn would have fared better against Joe Louis if he had bulked up to 200lbs?

[joe33]

You're not fooling people, dmt. I have seen film of Gibbons. Hagler would beat him at 175 lbs. Hagler was faster, stronger, better, and more durable.


How much film is here though,its also mostly old and from shitty fixed positions,hardly fair to use that to judge the man,id say the fight would be close as hell,i think your just a hater on the old guys from the past,no one can prove shit either way,but you keep going on about the old guys getting destroyed by anyone from the 70s or on,and i think thats pathetic.To knock a guy whos had 100 pro fights in a seriously hard era of history is weird mate,he was not a fucking novice or a fool,grow up for gods sake,the guy was tough as hell.

[UpWithEvil]

Tommy Hearns, a man who held both the WBA and WBC world light heavyweight title.

So Hearns at 160lb qualifies as a "lightheavyweight" because he eventually fought at 175?

Now I need to go back and give Montell Griffin credit for beating top heavyweight contender James Toney.

[Dempsey1238]

So Hearns at 160lb qualifies as a "lightheavyweight" because he eventually fought at 175?

Now I need to go back and give Montell Griffin credit for beating top heavyweight contender James Toney.

:rofl Thats just pretty funny right there. We all know were Toney got the extral weight anyway. Burger King.

[UpWithEvil]

Are you living in a complete fantasy world

I'll know for sure as soon as you seem credible or a pig flies past my window.

Hearns is a two-time light heavyweight champion. If that doesn't qualify you as a world class light heavyweight then nothing does.

Beating a 160lb fighter who, some two years later, weighs 175 doesn't qualify as beating a lightheavyweight. You're sniffing glue to think otherwise. Who the hell would claim that because Sugar Ray Leonard TKO'd a 147lb Hearns that Leonard owns wins over great lightheavyweights?

In fact, Hearns had an 11-1 (8 ) record at cruiserweight!

Oh! Well! Then let me amend my statement:

Who the hell would claim that because Sugar Ray Leonard TKO'd a 147lb Hearns that Leonard owns wins over great cruiserweights?

[dmt]

Gibbons would easily beat Hagler. HH has a more terrible logic then anyone

[Sizzle]

Yes but if you take a natural light heavyweight and bulk him up to 200lbs you do not end up with a natural 200lb fighter you just get a pumped up light heavyweight.

Chris Byrd bulked up to 210 lbs but he still couldn't knock a heavyweight's hat off and he might well have been better off keeping his weight low to preserve his advantages of speed and mobility.

Do you think for example that Billy Conn would have fared better against Joe Louis if he had bulked up to 200lbs?

Yes.

Byrd bulked up to 210lbs for a reason.

Weight-classes also exist for a reason.

I don't believe in "Natural weight" - What is natural weight? Our weight is a product of our frame, diet and exercise. Are you telling me Spinks looks unnatural as 6'3 213lbs heavyweight? If anything Tyson is the one in that fight whose "weight" looks "unnatural"

Vargas walks around at close to 200lbs, but fights at 154lbs, so what is his "natural" weight? He doesn't have one. A natural size perhaps, but weight-training and nutritional breakthroughs has given modern fighters a better ability to "control" their weight. I'm not saying the fighters are better, but I think Roy Jones is a good example of how this has favoured modern athletes.

Oh, and I wouldn't deny that steroids have played a major role in the "weight regulation" of some boxers.

[janitor]

[quote=Sizzle]Yes.

Byrd bulked up to 210lbs for a reason.


Maybe it was the wrong reason. However much he bulked up he was never able to hurt Wladamir Klitschko or handel him in the clinches.

If he had worked on his speed more he could have given him some problems.

I don't believe in "Natural weight" - What is natural weight?

The minimum weight that a fighter can make without detriment to their performence. In Spink's case it is under 175 lb's making him naturaly smaller than say Sam McVea who fought at 211 lb's.

Oh, and I wouldn't deny that steroids have played a major role in the "weight regulation" of some boxers.

Me neither.

[Sizzle]

[quote]


Maybe it was the wrong reason. However much he bulked up he was never able to hurt Wladamir Klitschko or handel him in the clinches.

If he had worked on his speed more he could have given him some problems.



The minimum weight that a fighter can make without detriment to their performence. In Spink's case it is under 175 lb's making him naturaly smaller than say Sam McVea who fought at 211 lb's.



Me neither.

You're telling me Byrd put weight on to fight at heavyweight for the WRONG REASON? Janitor, every modern lightheavyweight/cruiserweight/middleweight that fights at heavyweight puts on weight to fight in that division - Moorer, Byrd, two fighters that have been very successful as heavyweight, then Roy Jones, Toney etc etc.

Name me one modern athlete, who with the advantages of weight training, hasn't bulked up to fight at heavyweight? There are none. You can't possibly argue it'd be beneficial for the likes of Moorer to stay at 175lbs, it'd be suicide for them.

Yeh, Byrd lost to the best heavyweight of his era (apart from Lewis), but he still accomplished a lot, he was ranked the No.1 heavyweight in the world by the Ring going into 2006. I'm not saying he was an all-time great, but he was good.

Also, "natural fighting weight" and "natural weight" are two different concepts in my opinion, each an area as grey as the other.

Natural fighting weight is dependant very much so on age - Ask De La Hoya if he'd still like to make 130, ask Edison Miranda how tough it was for him all of a sudden to make 160 - Other factors also play a role, e.g., diet and amount of training. I really believe the "natural weight" theory is a myth.

[dmt]

you don't win any arguments HH, u just get owned

[dmt]

All i can say is that ur a good poster is when u r talking about fighters that u like but u r far too harsh on fighters u don't like