Evander Holyfield - Jack Dempsey

[PowerPuncher]

Haven't seen this been done before and its an interesting match up. Both are similar size wise, with Evander being more muscled partly due to modern training and nutrition. Lets look at the break down:

General Boxing ability - the movement and jab of Holyfield edges him, footwork of both is excellent. Holyfield has more compact punches, where as Dempsey can telegraph his shots at times.

Defense - Dempsey has a little better head movement but his low guard would cost him against a great boxer every time. Dempsey would also leave himself open as he attacked his opponent

Speed - Dempsey by a tad

Strength - clearly Holyfield

Workrate - Both have a high workrate but Holyfield was more relentless and stronger in the later rounds.

Dirty Tricks - both were happy to bend the rules, Holyfield is probably the smarter fouler

Power - Many will say Dempsey, he may hit somewhat harder BUT if Holyfield faced Dempsey's opposition and Dempsey faced Holyfield's opponents Holyfield would be looking far more destructive

Can Dempsey KO Evander? I don't think so, Evander has been in with Lennox Lewis twice, Bowe 3 times, Foreman and Tyson twice and only KO'd when he was suffering from hepatitis.

Can Holyfield KO Dempsey? By records Dempsey seems to have a dentable chin (or suspect defense), down against Tunney and Firpo aswell as being ko'd by Fireman Flyn. It is unlikely Holyfield ko's Dempsey early but Holyfield may wear him down for a late KO

My pick -

Rounds 1-6 - Dempsey starts fast but has problems backing up Holyfield and getting his best shots off, Evander's jab controls the pace somewhat despite Dempseys greater speed. Both fighters get impressive combinations off to the head and body and there are heated exchanges.

6-10 - they are 3rounds a piece. Dempsey slows a little, his head movement isnt quite as good after the early rounds, his low guard makes him easy for Holyfield to get his shots off on. Holyfields strength and systematic break down behind a jab begins to make Dempsey back up more and get outlanded by Holys more compact shots. Dempsey makes a late rally in the 10th round as he is now losing the fight and try's to turn it around. He throws everything in his tank but can't hurt Holyfield and Holyfield wins the final exchange, Dempsey looks demoralised going to his corner

11-12- Dempsey looks spend after his rally in the 10th, sensing this Holyfield is really stepping up the attack and unleashing combination after combination as Dempsey backs to the ropes. Jack is floored twice at the end of the 11th. Coming out in the 12th Holyfield goes to the kill landing his biggest shots, Dempsey is knocked out

Prediction: Holyfield KO12

[mr. magoo]

I don't feel like going into a deep analysis about this right now, as I really don't think this match requires one, and you've done most of the legwork already anyway.

I agree that Holyfield takes this one, and likely by a stoppage or KO. Despite what old school advocates will say of Dempsey, I truly believe Holyfield was a higher calibur athlete from almost all perspectives. The grueling wars that Evander partook in, were arguably unmatched by most of the battles that Dempsey engaged, and I won't give much merit to the argument that the Luis Firpo, Billy Miske, jess Willard, or Gene Tunney fights were parallels to that of Holy's meetings with Bowe, Lewis, Moorer, Tyson, Dokes, qawi, etc.

[TommyV]

I think you under-rate Dempsey's power, speed and physical strength.

[Holmes' Jab]

Holyfield UD. He stops the Dempsey from the Tunney fights.

[PowerPuncher]

I think you under-rate Dempsey's power, speed and physical strength.

Is his power as good as Tyson and Lennox? No chance

Is his speed better than Tyson? No, is it better than Lennox? I dont think so, Lennox looks more explosive on film

Strength - hes lighter and gets pushed around by smaller fighters than Holy

But feel free to make an analysis

[Bokaj]

I'll go with Holyfield. Dempsey was wonderfully skilled for his time, but those were cruder times. I think the combination of Holyfield's slickness, speed, strength, stamina, durability and power would be too much for Dempsey in the end.

Willard was stronger, Tunney was faster and Firpo probably was at least Holyfield's equal in power, but they weren't as complete. And let's not fool ourselves. Dempsey's low guard would hurt him against someone with Holyfield's skill and power.

[Seamus]

Willard was possibly the strongest heavy who ever fought, discovered hauling 500 lb. bales of cotton by himself if legend is true.

And unfortunately when discussing the HW Holyfield, the ugly subject of PED's (and lots of them) rears its head.

My take is, both fighters in their natural state- with access to the same training and nutrition- and Dempsey takes this.

[robert ungurean]

Holy is there to be hit and Dempsey is there to hit him.
Holy will want to trade with Jack and because of that Jack will stop him.

[ChrisPontius]

The way Holyfield excelled against Tyson makes me pretty confident in picking him against a smaller but similar fighter in Dempsey. I think he'd cover up, counter and hold most of the time like he did Tyson.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher]Is his power as good as Tyson and Lennox? No chance

Is his speed better than Tyson? No, is it better than Lennox? I dont think so, Lennox looks more explosive on film


Is he a more effective finisher than both of them?

Absolutely.

[janitor]

The way Holyfield excelled against Tyson makes me pretty confident in picking him against a smaller but similar fighter in Dempsey. I think he'd cover up, counter and hold most of the time like he did Tyson.

There is one all important difference between Tyson and Dempsey here.

Tyson couldnt fight on the inside. He just never developed the necesary skillset.

Dempsey was probably the best infighter the heavyweight division has ever seen.

That could be decisive given Hollyfields gameplan.

You might also question whether Holyfield beat a prime Tyson.

[marciano1952]

i feel some are Giveing Holy To much Props and Demsey not enough

Dempsey had More Power than holy and was Faster than Holy

[janitor]

will say Dempsey,

Anybody living in the real world will say Dempsey.

Quite frankly I dont think that Holyfields biggest oponents were either larger or more durable than Dempseys. Willard was clearly more durable than Lewis or Bowe for example.

[Bokaj]

My take is, both fighters in their natural state- with access to the same training and nutrition- and Dempsey takes this.

This I agree with.

But since in reality there were some 80 years between them, during which both training and nutritions/supplements (legal and illegal) evolved, I favour Holyfield.

[Bokaj]

Anybody living in the real world will say Dempsey.

Quite frankly I dont think that Holyfields biggest oponents were either larger or more durable than Dempseys. Willard was clearly more durable than Lewis or Bowe for example.

Maybe he was. But, more crucially, they knew how to defend themselves. As impressive as Dempsey's destruction of Willard was I think most ATGs would give that version of him a terrible hiding.

[mcvey]

Holy is there to be hit and Dempsey is there to hit him.
Holy will want to trade with Jack and because of that Jack will stop him.
Anyone who traded with Jack ,eventually got kod.

[janitor]

Maybe he was. But, more crucially, they knew how to defend themselves. As impressive as Dempsey's destruction of Willard was I think most ATGs would give that version of him a terrible hiding.

So do I, but I dont think that Holyfield would have stopped him inside three rounds or inside ten for that matter.

I certainly dont think that Holyfield would have stopped Fred Fulton in 23 seconds.

[guilalah]

deleted by poster

[guilalah]

Not sure if Holyfield has a late work rate advantage over prime Dempsey, Jack was pretty active late against Gibbons and Brennan.

Time machined together, I might slightly favor Holyfield, guessing he might be strong enough to stiffle Jack inside. If this isn't the case, it's 50-50.

If they came along together and primed at the same time, I'd give Dempsey an edge, but with Holyfield still a very live opponent.

[he grant]

Guys are the same size , if they fought in 1919 or in 1996 .... Dempsey would take same juice ... Holyfield took an amazing punch and it would be a series that would go either way by decision many times ...

[ChrisPontius]

There is one all important difference between Tyson and Dempsey here.

Tyson couldnt fight on the inside. He just never developed the necesary skillset.

Dempsey was probably the best infighter the heavyweight division has ever seen.

That could be decisive given Hollyfields gameplan.

You might also question whether Holyfield beat a prime Tyson.
I agree that Tyson was lazy on the inside. But when Holyfield (or any skilled clincher) ties you up, you're tied up, end of. Tyson had seen better days, but he was still very good, and looked as good as he ever did against Bruno just three months before. Let's not rewrite history: Holyfield was 34 and perceived as washed up going in - not Tyson.


Holyfield is a lot more proven. He's beaten guys like Bowe and Tyson, both who are about as highly regarded or higher than Dempsey in a head-to-head sense.

Dempsey, on the other hand, never beat anyone remotely as good as Holyfield. The only one who comes close that he faced is Tunney, and the thrashed Dempsey twice. Sure, Dempsey was past it, but the fact that he couldn't manage to win a single round the first time and only one the second time doesn't exactly indicate that it would've been an easy win had he been younger.



Anybody living in the real world will say Dempsey.

Quite frankly I dont think that Holyfields biggest oponents were either larger or more durable than Dempseys. Willard was clearly more durable than Lewis or Bowe for example.

Based on what? Bowe has never been stopped during his entire career, during which in general he faced much better opponents than Willard, and only been down three times.

And Lewis has only been down two times (one of which would've definitely been allowed to continue if he fought during Willard's sadistic time), while facing punchers LIGHT YEARS ahead of what Willard had to cope with. And the best two punchers that Willard faced, stopped him anyway. Age or not, he never proved to be able to go the distance with punchers of that calibre, even in a day when a talented 210+lbs puncher was rare; unlike the monsters that Bowe and Lewis had to deal with throughout their entire careers.

[Stonehands89]

Pontius makes some good points. Holyfield's performance in the Tyson fight must give one pause before waving a flag for Dempsey.

Dempsey, however, should not be judged for his performances after 1923. For head-to-heads, I look at 2 films to get an idea of him at his best -the Willard fight and the sparring with Tate. The 1919 Dempsey was vicious. Interestingly, he had less trouble with giants than he did against boxers who were roughly his own size. You'd expect him to roll over smaller guys but he didn't. It was almost as if he was thinking too much about trying to solve them. BUT the more the opponent was aggressive, the better Jack was.

His style against aggressive guys was formidable to say the least. At his best, he's about the best offensive machine I've seen -he was very agile and elusive in his offense, and that elusivity was designed to maximize leverage in his shots.

Holyfield could box very well when he wanted to, but he was allured by the prospect of proving his power and so most often would go toe-to-toe. This would be a mistake with 1919 Dempsey -who's shots were not exactly easy to read because they looped very fast and came in combinations and at angles. Holyfield would get caught, often, if he decided to war with the smaller man.

Holyfield could clinch and maneuver Jack, but Jack knew how to relax at those times and regroup... it wouldn't necessarily be a problem and may in fact help him to conserve his energy for the next onslaught. But at long-range, Jack would bob and weave --and gallop in-- and I don't know how well Holyfield is going to deal with that kind of aggression besides trying to meet it and raise it.

Also, Holyfield had a speed advantage against every HW he faced until he aged... but that would not be the case here. Dempsey's faster. Evander's counterpunching worries me, but Dempsey presented a smaller target than anyone Holyfield ever faced -bending forward at the waist like he did and moving that head like a thrasher. The other thing is pace. I strongly suspect that Holyfield would set a serious pace and be very aggressive. Think Firpo. Aggressive guys brought out the best in Dempsey, and you can count on Evander being very aggressive in this one...

I have some hesitation, but I'd bet [Pontius'] car on Dempsey.

[SteveO]

Dempsey draws the color line so...no winner.

In all seriousness, I think Dempsey would take it.

[BlackWater]

Dempsey TKO 7

Jack doesn't fuck around.

[pugilist_boyd]

holy had a pride thing on trading you had to be a fleet footed back peddler to beat a prime dempsey and holy would get dropped trading with jack,but it would be a get fightwith holys good chin

[Maxmomer]

I think this would be a very, very entertaining fight. Dempsey by a come from behind TKO in round 9 after getting dropped in the 3rd with a right hand.

[ChrisPontius]

Interestingly, he had less trouble with giants than he did against boxers who were roughly his own size. You'd expect him to roll over smaller guys but he didn't. It was almost as if he was thinking too much about trying to solve them. BUT the more the opponent was aggressive, the better Jack was.

I have some hesitation, but I'd bet [Pontius'] car on Dempsey.

I think one reason for this is that Dempsey was very tall, especially for his time, for a swarmer. At 6'1, his bob and weave style worked much better against a big opponent than against a small one.


If this fight comes off, i wouldn't mind betting my car against yours.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
Is he a more effective finisher than both of them?

Absolutely.

Based on what is Dempsey a more effective finnished than Tyson/Lewis?

[PowerPuncher]

Maybe he was. But, more crucially, they knew how to defend themselves. As impressive as Dempsey's destruction of Willard was I think most ATGs would give that version of him a terrible hiding.

Agreed, and while the claim of Dempsey as a better finnished than Lennox/Tyson was made I would rate Lewis's destructions of Rudduck/Golotta and Tysons destructions of Berbick/Spinks as more impressive against defensively more sound fighters

[PowerPuncher]

Also, Holyfield had a speed advantage against every HW he faced until he aged... but that would not be the case here. Dempsey's faster. Evander's counterpunching worries me, but Dempsey presented a smaller target than anyone Holyfield ever faced .

I think your forgetting Tyson who was both faster and smaller than Holy and Dempsey

The 'big target' theory is BS anyway, its just usually bigger heavyweights are slower, they dont have larger heads and a larger body is countered by having more range and longer/stronger arms

[PowerPuncher]

(Willard)So do I, but I dont think that Holyfield would have stopped him inside three rounds or inside ten for that matter.

I certainly dont think that Holyfield would have stopped Fred Fulton in 23 seconds.

Holyd stopped the more impressive Douglas in 3, who was coming off a better performance and wasnt as innactive as Willard

Most top guys put Fulton away pretty quick

[PowerPuncher]

Interestingly, he (dempsey) had less trouble with giants than he did against boxers who were roughly his own size. You'd expect him to roll over smaller guys but he didn't. .

Maybe because the big heavyweights such as Firpo and Willard were simply C Class boxers, Firpo was also easily handled by a near shot Wills

[Stonehands89]

I think your forgetting Tyson who was both faster and smaller than Holy and Dempsey

The 'big target' theory is BS anyway, its just usually bigger heavyweights are slower, they dont have larger heads and a larger body is countered by having more range and longer/stronger arms
1996 Tyson was a couple of inches shorter than Dempsey, but smaller? No, he wasn't. I'm not sure about his being faster either. Tyson was also not nearly as agile as the more lithe Dempsey and his feet were not nearly as quick. Tyson and Dempsey present different problems but Holyfield's handling of the slugging, aggressive Tyson did raise many eyebrows.

[PowerPuncher]

1996 Tyson was a couple of inches shorter than Dempsey, but smaller? No, he wasn't. I'm not sure about his being faster either. Tyson was also not nearly as agile as the more lithe Dempsey and his feet were not nearly as quick. Tyson and Dempsey present different problems but Holyfield's handling of the slugging, aggressive Tyson did raise many eyebrows.

Obviously Tyson had more muscle mass but I was replying to the question of fighting Holy fighting a shorted opponent, Quawi is also a useful measuring stick

Tyson was way way faster than Dempsey, I'm suprised anyone would debate that. Plus Tyson's punches are more compact for that matter.

[Stonehands89]

Obviously Tyson had more muscle mass but I was replying to the question of fighting Holy fighting a shorted opponent, Quawi is also a useful measuring stick

Tyson was way way faster than Dempsey, I'm suprised anyone would debate that. Plus Tyson's punches are more compact for that matter.
...They were different punchers. And I am not sure that you are acknowledging Tyson's rapid devolution over his career. 1996 Tyson was formidable, but he wasn't what he was 8 years earlier -in any way.

[PowerPuncher]

...They were different punchers. And I am not sure that you are acknowledging Tyson's rapid devolution over his career. 1996 Tyson was formidable, but he wasn't what he was 8 years earlier -in any way.

No I wouldn't claim Tyson to be prime. But stylistically its an apt example, Tyson still had the speed, power, combinations, and solid technical ability, he also fights similar to Dempsey but in a more refinned manner. Both Tyson and Dempsey also faded down the stretch due to their high energy sapping styles

[Stonehands89]

No I wouldn't claim Tyson to be prime. But stylistically its an apt example, Tyson still had the speed, power, combinations, and solid technical ability, he also fights similar to Dempsey but in a more refinned manner. Both Tyson and Dempsey also faded down the stretch due to their high energy sapping styles
Yes, but there are enough differences that would suggest a different result. Dempsey's "less refined" style may work in his favor because Holyfield, though a brawler in many respects, was a technican. Tyson was as well. Dempsey was not so much. He had his own style. Those looping shots and blistering combination had murder written on them and I'm not sure that Holyfield would read them.

I don't believe that Tyson would ever have beaten Holyfield. Holyfield owned him in 2 fights and at least one sparring session when they were kids too. I strongly suspect that Tyson always had a little fear of Holyfield while Holyfield had ice water in his veins. From Tyson's backing out of the bout in 1991 to that almost meek look in his eye at ring center during the instructions, Tyson never really believed that he could take Holyfield.

A fearful Dempsey was another story altogether. It was kill or be killed for him. Despite Tyson's words to the same effect, he never really lived up to that. You could see him lose the fire in many tough fights and just go through the motions, trying -but not with fire. His endurance and power compensated, but I don't see him ever going through the hell that Dempsey did against Firpo and come roaring back...

[PowerPuncher]

Yes, but there are enough differences that would suggest a different result. Dempsey's "less refined" style may work in his favor because Holyfield, though a brawler in many respects, was a technican. Tyson was as well. Dempsey was not so much. He had his own style. Those looping shots and blistering combination had murder written on them and I'm not sure that Holyfield would read them.

I don't believe that Tyson would ever have beaten Holyfield. Holyfield owned him in 2 fights and at least one sparring session when they were kids too. I strongly suspect that Tyson always had a little fear of Holyfield while Holyfield had ice water in his veins. From Tyson's backing out of the bout in 1991 to that almost meek look in his eye at ring center during the instructions, Tyson never really believed that he could take Holyfield.

A fearful Dempsey was another story altogether. It was kill or be killed for him. Despite Tyson's words to the same effect, he never really lived up to that. You could see him lose the fire in many tough fights and just go through the motions, trying -but not with fire. His endurance and power compensated, but I don't see him ever going through the hell that Dempsey did against Firpo and come roaring back...

Looping shots are telegraphed and easier to avoid, you just quickly step back and counter when someone punches wide, not being a technician is to Dempsey's detriment, as Tunney showed (prime or not) and if anything Holyfield may completely show him up because of this.

I actually think Tyson would have beat Holyfield prime for prime. I had him winning the first 5 rounds, including staggering Evander at 1 stage. I don't think a prime Tyson fades as much

Your comparing Tyson to Dempsey making it sound like Dempsey had more heart when he didnt face the toughest of his era bar Tunney/Sharkey. At least Tyson faced his tough contemperies, Dempsey did not. Tyson did manage to turn fights around (Botha/Bruno) but never did it against a great that beat him. A 35yo past prime Tyson beats anyone Dempsey actually beat anyway. Dempsey never faced anyone as good as Holyfield/Lewis in his career, actually I could add a few more names on Tysons resume to that. You bring up Firpo but he was simply a weight lifter with little/no boxing skill.

[Bummy Davis]

I recall Holyfield fight vs Bert Cooper and picture a faster harder punching Dempsey. Evander would also be one of the best fighters Dempsey faced sos prime for prime with proper weight and era ajustments it would be a barn burner but Dempsey was more explosive and a good body puncher...those body shots would take ther toll...I like Dempsey in this one by a stop

[Stonehands89]

Looping shots are telegraphed and easier to avoid, you just quickly step back and counter when someone punches wide, not being a technician is to Dempsey's detriment, as Tunney showed (prime or not) and if anything Holyfield may completely show him up because of this.
Unorthodox shots are not so easy to evade because they're not the norm. Much of boxing is expected action-reaction, which is why a guy like Pryor was hell for Arguello.

Your comparing Tyson to Dempsey making it sound like Dempsey had more heart when he didnt face the toughest of his era bar Tunney/Sharkey. At least Tyson faced his tough contemperies, Dempsey did not. Tyson did manage to turn fights around (Botha/Bruno) but never did it against a great that beat him. A 35yo past prime Tyson beats anyone Dempsey actually beat anyway. Dempsey never faced anyone as good as Holyfield/Lewis in his career, actually I could add a few more names on Tysons resume to that.
Dempsey had a ton of heart. You should read up on his life leading up to 1919 and you'll get a better idea of just how tough he was inside and out. He got soft as champ, but what he dealt with in his formative years was 10 times worse than what Tyson ever faced.

You bring up Firpo but he was simply a weight lifter with little/no boxing skill.
You missed the point. Firpo could hit like hell and he connected on Dempsey repeatedely. Dempsey went flying through the ropes and was virtually finished ...but came back.

[PowerPuncher]

1. Unorthodox shots are not so easy to evade because they're not the norm. Much of boxing is expected action-reaction, which is why a guy like Pryor was hell for Arguello.


2. Dempsey had a ton of heart. You should read up on his life leading up to 1919 and you'll get a better idea of just how tough he was inside and out. He got soft as champ, but what he dealt with in his formative years was 10 times worse than what Tyson ever faced.


You missed the point. Firpo could hit like hell and he connected on Dempsey repeatedely. Dempsey went flying through the ropes and was virtually finished ...but came back.

1. Pryor's shots weren't telegraphed though. I'll maintain Dempsey's hayemakers see him get countered badly, maybe thats why he got KO'd in a round by Fireman Flynn?

If you want a modern example look how Barrera countered Hamed silly because of telegraphed/unorthodox shots and openings

2. OK he had a hard life, but he didnt deal with huge adversity in the ring because he didnt face good enough opponents. A hard life doesnt mean anything in the ring. It doesnt mean he can pull out a magic wand and stop himself getting outboxed.

'Heart' is the biggest overrated aspect of boxing, when your taking a controlled beating because of superior technical abilities heart doesn't mean jack, go and ask Gatti

3. Going down against Firpo is shocking in itself, its not a plus mark its minus. Tyson was hurt by Bruno/Rudduck but didnt go down, he should be given more credit for surviving against those superior fighters than Dempsey was for surviving against the weight lifter

[Stonehands89]

1. Pryor's shots weren't telegraphed though. I'll maintain Dempsey's hayemakers see him get countered badly, maybe thats why he got KO'd in a round by Fireman Flynn?
I disagree that Dempsey telegraphed his punches, you seem to be overstating this, at least.

It's more likely that he took a dive against Flynn than anything else. More than one eyewitness reporter believe that he did -and one even states it was for $500. Dempsey was an unknown then and had family back home that he was responsible for, so he took the short end money.

If you want a modern example look how Barrera countered Hamed silly because of telegraphed/unorthodox shots and openings
You're thinking statically. Barrera confirmed my belief that the technician occupies the top notch, as opposed to the athlete. But that doesn't mean that therefore, the unorthodox must always be dominated by the well-schooled, and well-drilled orthodox. Guys who throw mental shots can often connect on an experienced boxer who expects the norm. That really is beyond debate, my friend.

2. OK he had a hard life, but he didnt deal with huge adversity in the ring because he didnt face good enough opponents. A hard life doesnt mean anything in the ring. It doesnt mean he can pull out a magic wand and stop himself getting outboxed.
A hard life doesn't mean anything in the ring? I couldn't disagree more. Boxers are tough guys. Poverty and hard lives breed tough guys. There aren't a whole helluva alot of silver spoons in the sport's history ... but there are lots and lots of hobos, street kids, welfare kids, and barrio boys.

'Heart' is the biggest overrated aspect of boxing, when your taking a controlled beating because of superior technical abilities heart doesn't mean jack, go and ask Gatti
What?! Find me a fighter or a trainer who discounts the critical importance of "heart". Seriously. If you find one, tear up his license.

3. Going down against Firpo is shocking in itself, its not a plus mark its minus. Tyson was hurt by Bruno/Rudduck but didnt go down, he should be given more credit for surviving against those superior fighters than Dempsey was for surviving against the weight lifter
What are your thoughts on Tyson getting beaten by Douglas, who was at the time considered a journeyman and a 42-1 underdog?

[ChrisPontius]

I actually think Tyson would have beat Holyfield prime for prime. I had him winning the first 5 rounds, including staggering Evander at 1 stage. I don't think a prime Tyson fades as much

You mean you had him winning after 5 rounds, or had him winning all of those? Because i thought they were pretty even, perhaps a slight edge to either, but no way did Tyson won all of them.

[SuzieQ49]

I dont see why bringing up the 1996 version of tyson is similiar to a peak jack dempsey. tyson was far past his prime by 1996, his peek a boo very predictable now, his combinations to the head and body were gone, he was very rusty having been inactive 4 years, tyson basically got by just on intimidating in 1995-1997..... tyson did not beat any very good fighters in the mid 1990s. he was simply exposed for what he already was by 1996....washed up.



I think a prime jack dempsey is a different animal than a 1996 tyson

[PowerPuncher]

1. I disagree that Dempsey telegraphed his punches, you seem to be overstating this, at least.

2. It's more likely that he took a dive against Flynn than anything else. More than one eyewitness reporter believe that he did -and one even states it was for $500. Dempsey was an unknown then and had family back home that he was responsible for, so he took the short end money.

3. You're thinking statically. Barrera confirmed my belief that the technician occupies the top notch, as opposed to the athlete. But that doesn't mean that therefore, the unorthodox must always be dominated by the well-schooled, and well-drilled orthodox. Guys who throw mental shots can often connect on an experienced boxer who expects the norm. That really is beyond debate, my friend.


4. A hard life doesn't mean anything in the ring? I couldn't disagree more. Boxers are tough guys. Poverty and hard lives breed tough guys. There aren't a whole helluva alot of silver spoons in the sport's history ... but there are lots and lots of hobos, street kids, welfare kids, and barrio boys.


5. What?! Find me a fighter or a trainer who discounts the critical importance of "heart". Seriously. If you find one, tear up his license.


6. What are your thoughts on Tyson getting beaten by Douglas, who was at the time considered a journeyman and a 42-1 underdog?

1. He threw haymakers allot but didnt always telegraph, his damaging shots were usually haymakers and these dont land on great fighters. I see it as an issue against the elites

2. No proof of this, anyone who gets countered by the likes of Firpo is showing slugger

3. Well Tunney didnt have much problem anticipating Dempseys 'unorthodox' wide shots

4. No it means fuck all, Leonard was silver spooned and managed fine without it. Tysons early years were tough enough but this is a side point

5. Did you pick Gatti over Mayweather? What good was heart there. Most elite fighters have heart

6. Douglas performed fantastically looking like a great that night, Tyson underperformed. The Douglas of that night is better than anyone Dempseys beat.

[Ezzard]

Yes, but there are enough differences that would suggest a different result. Dempsey's "less refined" style may work in his favor because Holyfield, though a brawler in many respects, was a technican. Tyson was as well. Dempsey was not so much. He had his own style. Those looping shots and blistering combination had murder written on them and I'm not sure that Holyfield would read them.

I don't believe that Tyson would ever have beaten Holyfield. Holyfield owned him in 2 fights and at least one sparring session when they were kids too. I strongly suspect that Tyson always had a little fear of Holyfield while Holyfield had ice water in his veins. From Tyson's backing out of the bout in 1991 to that almost meek look in his eye at ring center during the instructions, Tyson never really believed that he could take Holyfield.

A fearful Dempsey was another story altogether. It was kill or be killed for him. Despite Tyson's words to the same effect, he never really lived up to that. You could see him lose the fire in many tough fights and just go through the motions, trying -but not with fire. His endurance and power compensated, but I don't see him ever going through the hell that Dempsey did against Firpo and come roaring back...

agreed

[Ezzard]

Both men were about the same size. I think if they train in the same era they'd be a great match. Holy has more stamina and durability; Dempsey more speed and power.

Jack is seriously underrated as a puncher these days. His left hook is arguably the greatest punch in boxing history.

It's a clsoe fight every time.

[SuzieQ49]

I think Dempseys footwork is underated. Honestly outside of walcotts and alis, its the best footwork I have seen from a HW champion. have u ever seen a swarmer swarm bouncing up on his toes gliding....i mean u know how much strain that is on your legs? try it, damm near impossible. how dempsey perfected footwork with a forward swarming style is phenominal. He will have no trouble circling around and teeing off on evander.

[Stonehands89]

1. He threw haymakers allot but didnt always telegraph, his damaging shots were usually haymakers and these dont land on great fighters. I see it as an issue against the elites
You are woefully simplifying Dempsey.

2. No proof of this, anyone who gets countered by the likes of Firpo is showing slugger
No proof about what what? The Flynn fight? There most certainly is proof. Just because it isn't conclusive, or you don't accept it, does not mean that it isn't there.

Dempsey was a slugger. No one disputes that, but he was both highly stylized and highly effective.

3. Well Tunney didnt have much problem anticipating Dempseys 'unorthodox' wide shots
You don't read carefully. Again, forget Dempsey after 1923. He was approaching ordinary.

4. No it means fuck all, Leonard was silver spooned and managed fine without it. Tysons early years were tough enough but this is a side point
Instead of throwing out an exception that proves the norm, why don't you count every champion and contender since 1920 and prove to yourself that the vast majority of them were neither aristocrats nor middle class?

5. Did you pick Gatti over Mayweather? What good was heart there. Most elite fighters have heart
Here you go again with a single example that you overgeneralize! Gatti's whole career was built on the ability to absorb punishment and a good punch. He was outclassed by Floyd. Which happens. Heart isn't a cure-all and no one said that it was.

6. Douglas performed fantastically looking like a great that night, Tyson underperformed. The Douglas of that night is better than anyone Dempseys beat.
Excuses. Biased thinking.

[PowerPuncher]

1. You are woefully simplifying Dempsey.


2. No proof about what what? The Flynn fight? There most certainly is proof. Just because it isn't conclusive, or you don't accept it, does not mean that it isn't there.

3. Dempsey was a slugger. No one disputes that, but he was both highly stylized and highly effective.

4.You don't read carefully. Again, forget Dempsey after 1923. He was approaching ordinary.

5. Instead of throwing out an exception that proves the norm, why don't you count every champion and contender since 1920 and prove to yourself that the vast majority of them were neither aristocrats nor middle class?

6. Here you go again with a single example that you overgeneralize! Gatti's whole career was built on the ability to absorb punishment and a good punch. He was outclassed by Floyd. Which happens. Heart isn't a cure-all and no one said that it was.

7. Excuses. Biased thinking.

1. No I'm explaining why his powerpunches will be ineffective, he isnt landing haymaker after haymaker on a great, these most powerful of the shots are the ones that his fans have wet dreams about btu he simply isnt landing them against top opposition

2. Actually there is no proof other than heresay, Dempsey himself didnt even claim it was a dive. There are reports that describe it as a KO. Now you are saying I'm make excuses for Tyson's Douglas loss while you peddle this BS :lol:

3. Agreed but he had his weaknesses that have been discussed, IE low guard/lack of a jab/tendency to throw wide shots

4. It ok to write off Dempsey's poor post-1923 performances but not Tysons etc, is it that Dempsey fought his best ever opponents post-1923?

5. No admit your wrong, living a hard life doesn't make you a great fighter, and doesn't necessarily help. Theres no proof Dempsey had it harder than any other champs. Mayweather grew up in the suburbs. Lennox Lewis didnt have the hardest up bringing. Muhammed Ali himself grew up in far better circumstances than most blacks did around that time. Tunney who was relatively well off himself whooped Dempsey

6. My objection was your overstating heart to the detriment of technique. And I don't see how anyone in boxing has a greater heart than Holyfield anyway, hes still giving his all to be heavyweight champ today 10-15years after his prime

7. So saying Douglas was a great fighter that night is an excuse? Yet Dempsey taking a dive against Flynn isnt an excuse? Most would agree Tyson wasnt at his best against Douglas, so that isnt biased

[Stonehands89]

1. No I'm explaining why his powerpunches will be ineffective, he isnt landing haymaker after haymaker on a great, these most powerful of the shots are the ones that his fans have wet dreams about btu he simply isnt landing them against top opposition
You speak with false authority.

2. Actually there is no proof other than heresay, Dempsey himself didnt even claim it was a dive. There are reports that describe it as a KO. Now you are saying I'm make excuses for Tyson's Douglas loss while you peddle this BS :lol:
I'm afraid that I'm dealing with an ignoramus who has an agenda. There's a whole lot more proof that Dempsey threw that fight than there is that "Dempsey isn't landing against top opposition."

3. Agreed but he had his weaknesses that have been discussed, IE low guard/lack of a jab/tendency to throw wide shots
It's clear that the phrase "stylized slugging" flew pretty far over your head.

4. It ok to write off Dempsey's poor post-1923 performances but not Tysons etc, is it that Dempsey fought his best ever opponents post-1923?
Pay attention. Tyson came into this discussion because of his fight with Holyfield ---in 1996. If you want to start a new thread with 1919 Dempsey vs. 1988 Tyson, then do it. But first, go google the "straw man fallacy".

5. No admit your wrong, living a hard life doesn't make you a great fighter, and doesn't necessarily help. Theres no proof Dempsey had it harder than any other champs. Mayweather grew up in the suburbs. Lennox Lewis didnt have the hardest up bringing. Muhammed Ali himself grew up in far better circumstances than most blacks did around that time. Tunney who was relatively well off himself whooped Dempsey
....You add a measly 4 individuals and try to revise history. Idiocy.

6. My objection was your overstating heart to the detriment of technique.
Straw man fallacy. I never said that.

And I don't see how anyone in boxing has a greater heart than Holyfield anyway, hes still giving his all to be heavyweight champ today 10-15years after his prime
Holyfield's heart? What does that matter? "'Heart' is the biggest overrated aspect of boxing" --your words. Then you turn around and say that most or all elite fighters have heart. But it doesn't matter?

....You're tying yourself up in knots.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher]Holyd stopped the more impressive Douglas in 3, who was coming off a better performance and wasnt as innactive as Willard


Douglas

A. lacked durability.

and

B. quit.

It is more than a stretch to compare this to Dempseys demolition of Willard.


Most top guys put Fulton away pretty quick


You mean apart from the many top guys he beat?

Nobody came close to putting him away like Dempsey did including Harry Wills. Fulton was seen as the the outstanding heavyweight challenger at the time incidentaly.

Holyfield would not put him away like Dempsey did. Frankly I dont know if Tyson would.

[janitor]

[quote=janitor]

Based on what is Dempsey a more effective finnished than Tyson/Lewis?

Based on the fact that he only needed a few inches of space to load up his combinations.

Short punching is the most important aspect of a master finishers game.

[Bokaj]

Tyson could throw short punches with great power. That part of his game had started to diminish somewhat when he met Holyfield, though.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]I agree that Tyson was lazy on the inside. But when Holyfield (or any skilled clincher) ties you up, you're tied up, end of.

An infighter like Dempsey can punish an oponent in the clinched and make initiating a clinch in the first place hazardous.

This is the key skill that Tyson would have needed to defeat Holyfield.


Tyson had seen better days, but he was still very good, and looked as good as he ever did against Bruno just three months before. Let's not rewrite history: Holyfield was 34 and perceived as washed up going in - not Tyson.


In hindsight though Holyfield had more left. He certainly went on to better things.


Holyfield is a lot more proven. He's beaten guys like Bowe and Tyson, both who are about as highly regarded or higher than Dempsey in a head-to-head sense.


Not by me.

Dempsey, on the other hand, never beat anyone remotely as good as Holyfield.

Hmmmm

No but some of his oponents were closer than most people think. He certainly beat guys as good as Moorer or better.


Based on what? Bowe has never been stopped during his entire career, during which in general he faced much better opponents than Willard, and only been down three times.


Much better oponents?

Outside of Holyfield and Golotta, Bowes resume is verry thin.

And Lewis has only been down two times (one of which would've definitely been allowed to continue if he fought during Willard's sadistic time), while facing punchers LIGHT YEARS ahead of what Willard had to cope with.

The point is that he was taken out by a single punch which Willard was never close to being. I would also question what punchers he faced that were light years ahead of Dempsey.

Age or not, he never proved to be able to go the distance with punchers of that calibre,

Punchers of what calibre?

Are you trying to make McCall and Ramhan into great punchers?

[janitor]

Tyson could throw short punches with great power. That part of his game had started to diminish somewhat when he met Holyfield, though.

This may in fact be the case.

I do however feel that it is the one aspect of his game that he never truly rounded off.

If DaMatto had lived longer he would have been aiming for nothing less than refining Tysons short punching technique to the Joe Louis level. I can tell you that without asking him.

[Arka]

I think Jerry Quarry critiqued Dempsey,by saying he had wide swinging punches which would be easy to time and counter.Of all the old timers he'd lose sleep only with Marciano.

[janitor]

I think Jerry Quarry critiqued Dempsey,by saying he had wide swinging punches which would be easy to time and counter.

What I wouldnt give to see him try.

[Bokaj]

This may in fact be the case.

I do however feel that it is the one aspect of his game that he never truly rounded off.

If DaMatto had lived longer he would have been aiming for nothing less than refining Tysons short punching technique to the Joe Louis level. I can tell you that without asking him.

I agree.

[ChrisPontius]

Not by me.


A lot of people here would consider Tyson and Bowe at least as good head-to-head if not better.



Hmmmm

No but some of his oponents were closer than most people think. He certainly beat guys as good as Moorer or better.


His opposition is not close to Holyfield's.


Much better oponents?

Outside of Holyfield and Golotta, Bowes resume is verry thin.


It is, but:

1. Willard's resume isn't exactly thick, either. An old, fat, unmotivated Johnson, a peak Dempsey and Firpo are the most important names on it.

2. Bowe never got stopped, whereas the two best punchers (and the only notable punchers) Willard ever faced, both stopped him.



The point is that he was taken out by a single punch which Willard was never close to being. I would also question what punchers he faced that were light years ahead of Dempsey.


Lewis faced:
Mason
Tyson
Klitschko
Tua
Bruno
Briggs
Tucker
Ruddock
Morrison
Mercer
McCall I
McCall II
Rahman I
Rahman II
Holyfield I
Holyfield II
Grant

Out of all of those, only Rahman and McCall knocked him down. Want to weigh that against the punchers Willard faced:

Dempsey
Firpo


Both of whom stopped Willard? In addition, he quit against some dude named Joe Cox, perhaps saving himself from another stoppage loss.


Want to continue this argument?



Punchers of what calibre?

Are you trying to make McCall and Ramhan into great punchers?

No, though both certainly hit like a truck while lacking in speed and overal skill. But i was talking about punchers of the calibre of Firpo and Dempsey: Willard was past his best when both of them stopped him, but he never proved he could take them in his prime, either. If Wladimir Klitschko knocks out a 50 year old average joe tomorrow, you could say that average joe is past his best. But that wouldn't mean he'd go the distance had he been in his physical prime!

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]
His opposition is not close to Holyfield's.


Why not?

Many of Holyfields oponents derive their reputations largley on their wins over Holyfield just as Gene Tunney derives his reputation largley on his win over Dempsey.

Holyfield in turn derives his reputation largley from his win over Tyson.


It is, but:

1. Willard's resume isn't exactly thick, either. An old, fat, unmotivated Johnson, a peak Dempsey and Firpo are the most important names on it.


I think that Willard had a better chin than Jack Dempsey based on his performence against common oponents and their testimonies. While the durability of Willard dosnt exactly leap out of his paper record contemporary testimonies make him out to be McCall like at his best. The guys who were putting Dempsey into a daze seemingly wernt even making Willard blink.


2. Bowe never got stopped, whereas the two best punchers (and the only notable punchers) Willard ever faced, both stopped him.


I wouldnt say they were the only notable punchers Willard faced. Jack Johnson and Gunboat Smith would have to be mentioned.

As for big punchers Willar beat:

Carl Morris 6' 4'' 235 lbs

Frank Moran 6' 1'' 210 lbs

Luther McCarthy 6' 4'' 205 lbs

Arthur Pelkey 6' 2'' 204 lbs

Its not like he was just fighting smaller guys.



Lewis faced:
Mason
Tyson
Klitschko
Tua
Bruno
Briggs
Tucker
Ruddock
Morrison
Mercer
McCall I
McCall II
Rahman I
Rahman II
Holyfield I
Holyfield II
Grant

Out of all of those, only Rahman and McCall knocked him down. Want to weigh that against the punchers Willard faced:

Dempsey
Firpo


Both of whom stopped Willard? In addition, he quit against some dude named Joe Cox, perhaps saving himself from another stoppage loss.


Lewis has certainly faced more punchers but McCall and Ramhan arnt exactly way beyond anything Willard has faced.

Call it a product of depth of resume if you like but it is still a question mark over his chin.

I do not think that Willard would have gone the distance against Dempsey in his prime but it is no inconceivable that he could have stretched Firpo or even beaten him.

[Arka]

What I wouldnt give to see him try.
Hehe.This is the full quote from the Ring Magazine Sept 200.The article is "Boxing Old-Timers - 'Magical or Mythical'" by Phil Berger

'Back in '68,heavy-weight contender Jerry Quarry would tell me:"Dempsey's hands were bunched close against his chest.He came straight in at you ,low,with the weave,of course,and the hook started from out to the side of his body-not a quick chop,but a real sidearm swing,which wasted space and wasted time.Sure,he hit hard when he landed.But against the quick,sharp guys around today,Dempsey would be knocked flat on his duff the moment he got halfway into that hook-by a fast move in,and a right hand crossed to his head.
"And I've seen the rest of them on film... Baer, Carnera, Willard, Firpo, Sharkey... They fought with their hands down,like a bunch of washerwomen. Forget it,Friend.Of the old bunch,the only one who would bother me,mentally,in advance,would be Marciano.The rest I'd figure to take out without much trouble."'

[janitor]

Hehe.This is the full quote from the Ring Magazine Sept 200.The article is "Boxing Old-Timers - 'Magical or Mythical'" by Phil Berger

It seems that every era has sombody troting out that argument whether it is Jim Corbett talking about how he was more modern than Jem Mace, or Evander Holyfield making the same argument today.

The irony is that Quarry specialised in leading chin first more than virtualy all the champions who presceeded him.

[PowerPuncher]

1. You speak with false authority.


2. I'm afraid that I'm dealing with an ignoramus who has an agenda. There's a whole lot more proof that Dempsey threw that fight than there is that "Dempsey isn't landing against top opposition."

3.It's clear that the phrase "stylized slugging" flew pretty far over your head.

4. Pay attention. Tyson came into this discussion because of his fight with Holyfield ---in 1996. If you want to start a new thread with 1919 Dempsey vs. 1988 Tyson, then do it. But first, go google the "straw man fallacy".

5. ....You add a measly 4 individuals and try to revise history. Idiocy.

6. Straw man fallacy. I never said that.


7. Holyfield's heart? What does that matter? "'Heart' is the biggest overrated aspect of boxing" --your words. Then you turn around and say that most or all elite fighters have heart. But it doesn't matter?

....You're tying yourself up in knots.

1. No I'm putting and end to your Dempsey masterbation session

2. No proof of a dive, heresay and fans excuses does not equal proof, do you also think Wlad was drugged against Brewster. Dempsey lost against Flyn in his prime, he offered no excuse. Your simply excuse making, theres heresay around every excuse, but thats all they are

3. "stylized slugging" = losing to bums like Flynn and nearly losing to another bum in Firpo

4. No you pay attention, your excuse for Dempsey when he steps up against top opposition and loses while being schooled is 'past prime', while ignoring the fact prior to this he avoided the best opposition of his day

5. 'Dempsey is the bestest bestest ever because he had a hard life and that means he beats technically superior, stronger fighters because he had it harder' STFU retard

6. Your points add up to rating Dempsey wins on heart despite having inferior technique

7. You pick Dempsey based on the assumption he had a greater heart, while ignoring who had the greater technical and physical ability. Dempsey's heard certainly isnt proven given the ducking tactics. Its the same prediction method Gatti fans used who predicted a win over Mayweather. Heart doesn't stop you getting your ass whipped

[PowerPuncher]

'Back in '68,heavy-weight contender Jerry Quarry would tell me:"Dempsey's hands were bunched close against his chest.He came straight in at you ,low,with the weave,of course,and the hook started from out to the side of his body-not a quick chop,but a real sidearm swing,which wasted space and wasted time.Sure,he hit hard when he landed.But against the quick,sharp guys around today,Dempsey would be knocked flat on his duff the moment he got halfway into that hook-by a fast move in,and a right hand crossed to his head.
"And I've seen the rest of them on film... Baer, Carnera, Willard, Firpo, Sharkey... They fought with their hands down,like a bunch of washerwomen. Forget it,Friend.Of the old bunch,the only one who would bother me,mentally,in advance,would be Marciano.The rest I'd figure to take out without much trouble."'

This is the point I was making from a great contender, although Jerry could be cocky and I wouldn't pick him over Dempsey, the others he mention I would pick him to outbox and outcounter

[PowerPuncher]

Nobody came close to putting him away like Dempsey did including Harry Wills. Fulton was seen as the the outstanding heavyweight challenger at the time incidentaly.

Holyfield would not put him away like Dempsey did. Frankly I dont know if Tyson would.

Fulton was a china chin, Wills put him away in 3 and Wills wasnt that aggressive, Tyson puts him away in 5seconds, Holyfield probably takes his time and puts him away in 2miniutes ofthe first

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher]Fulton was a china chin, Wills put him away in 3 and Wills wasnt that aggressive,

Wills could be agresive when he wanted to and was probably a harder puncher than Holyfield.

Tyson puts him away in 5seconds,

No would class heavyweight has ever been put away in 5 seconds by anybody. You are just spouting random nonsense here.

Holyfield probably takes his time and puts him away in 2miniutes ofthe first

When has Holyfield put any world class oponent away in one round however weak his chin was?

Honestly you are just talking out of your ars* here.

[McGrain]

Dempsey is hsyterically overated - the most overated fighter of all - in terms of greatness. But he is hideously underated head to head. The board shows again and again an inability to bridge the gap between the two, that is the very reason Demspey threads go so.

I suggest everyone moves Demspey down three spots on their ATG lists, so even McVey's looks sane, and everybody who's been picking Hollfyield to beat Dempsey easily admits they are on the windup.

But basically gents, until you all do one or the other, you'd be as well sending smoke signals to each other.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
1. Wills could be agresive when he wanted to and was probably a harder puncher than Holyfield.

2. No would class heavyweight has ever been put away in 5 seconds by anybody. You are just spouting random nonsense here.

3. When has Holyfield put any world class oponent away in one round however weak his chin was?

Honestly you are just talking out of your ars* here.

1. Theres no evidence of Wils being a harder puncher than Holyfield

2. Im having a laugh with you here Janitor, Tyson would certainly put Fulton away inside the round though and quite possibly inside a miniute

3. Not sure Fulton and 'World Class' belong in the same sentence :hey Holyfield didnt usually put away his man that quick but then again hes been matched ultra hard since before he fought Qawi for a world

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher][quote=janitor]

1. Theres no evidence of Wils being a harder puncher than Holyfield


I will try to tie this in to point 3.


2. Im having a laugh with you here Janitor, Tyson would certainly put Fulton away inside the round though and quite possibly inside a miniute


That I can agree with.

Dare I suggest that even Tyson might not have matched Dempseys 23 second demolition?

3. Not sure Fulton and 'World Class' belong in the same sentence :hey

Going into the Dempsey fight Fulton was regarded as being second only to the champion (Willard) among the contemporary heavyweights. Rightly or wrongly.

People thought Fulton Dempsey was a 50/50 type fight.

In hindsight Harry Wills was obviously a much better fighter than Fulton though he was having a slow patch at the time and Fulton was on a high.


Holyfield didnt usually put away his man that quick but then again hes been matched ultra hard since before he fought Qawi for a world


Wills was arguably matched harder than any other heavyweight in history.

Like Holyfield he generaly broke em down but I would draw atention to the following:

Going into the fight with Harry Wills Fulton had only one stopage loss in the past 3 years and 38 fights. That was of course at the hands of Dempsey. I think Wills should get some credit for this demolition.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
[quote=PowerPuncher]

I will try to tie this in to point 3.

1. That I can agree with.

Dare I suggest that even Tyson might not have matched Dempseys 23 second demolition?

2. Going into the Dempsey fight Fulton was regarded as being second only to the champion (Willard) among the contemporary heavyweights. Rightly or wrongly.

3. People thought Fulton Dempsey was a 50/50 type fight.

4. In hindsight Harry Wills was obviously a much better fighter than Fulton though he was having a slow patch at the time and Fulton was on a high.

5. Wills was arguably matched harder than any other heavyweight in history.

6. Like Holyfield he generaly broke em down but I would draw atention to the following:Going into the fight with Harry Wills Fulton had only one stopage loss in the past 3 years and 38 fights. That was of course at the hands of Dempsey. I think Wills should get some credit for this demolition.

1. Yes but would Dempsey take out Spinks as fast? The speed of a KO isnt that indicitive of a fighters power/offense. Sometimes you can just be 'caught cold' in the first round and smashed before your properly warmed up. Wasnt Fullton supposed to be clowning in the first?

2. I would say Fulton was considered the second best white heavyweight because surely Wills was rated above him with anyone with any objectivity

3. Interestingly Lennox-Golotta, Lennox-Rudduck and Tyson-Spinks were seen largely as 50-50 type fights

4. Wills was already far more proven and accomplised than Fulton

5. Wills matched harder than any HW? No chance, the HWs he faced lack variety of depth and simply werent as great, there is an argument he didnt face prime fighters and didnt face the best white heavies (not his fault). I'm a big admirer of WIlls and think hes criminally underrated legacy wise but the depth of his resume is a little lacking

6. Yes Fulton had a good run but his chin seems suspect, from his performances against Dempsey/Wills/Miske

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher]
1. Yes but would Dempsey take out Spinks as fast?


Not necisarily. But that is just the point.

Both are all time great demolitions that you couldnt count on anybody to duplicate.


The speed of a KO isnt that indicitive of a fighters power/offense. Sometimes you can just be 'caught cold' in the first round and smashed before your properly warmed up. Wasnt Fullton supposed to be clowning in the first?


Not from what I have read. Fulton was a mouse who went straight for the cheese on the mousetrap on this ocasion.

He bit on Dempseys first feint, when he thought he had an opening, and three punches later it was over.

Fulton didnt realise quite how dangerous Dempsey was early and got caught on the first possible opening.

Fluke?

Perhaps but either way it would be almost impossible to repeat.


2. I would say Fulton was considered the second best white heavyweight because surely Wills was rated above him with anyone with any objectivity


In hindsight obviously Wills was better.

Fulton had just dominated an old Sam Langford while Wills went on to have trouble with him. This made people think that Fulton was the real deal and the coming man.

When Dempsey destroyed him everybody was stunned.


3. Interestingly Lennox-Golotta, Lennox-Rudduck and Tyson-Spinks were seen largely as 50-50 type fights


They are good analogies.


4. Wills was already far more proven and accomplised than Fulton


Yes he was but he wasnt really going anywhere. He was just beating up washed up versions of Langford and McVea repeatedly and not getting fights with the top white contenders. Some people thought him a spent force.

After Dempsey won the title he staged a surge like invasion of the white heavyweight ranks beating guys like Fulton and Firpo.


5. Wills matched harder than any HW? No chance, the HWs he faced lack variety of depth and simply werent as great, there is an argument he didnt face prime fighters and didnt face the best white heavies (not his fault). I'm a big admirer of WIlls and think hes criminally underrated legacy wise but the depth of his resume is a little lacking


OLD FOGEY did some superb analysis of competition of top heavyweights which produced some interesting conclusions. He compared the number of wins that various fighters had over top 10 ranked oponents using a conservative estimate of which fighters would break the top 10 prior to ring magazines rankings. Guess who came on top?

1. Harry Wills
2. Muhamad Ali
3. Joe Louis

While we will all form different interpretations of the era Wills fought in his depth of fights against the best of his era is literaly incredible.

This is not a top 20 all time heavyweight he should be in your top 15.


6. Yes Fulton had a good run but his chin seems suspect, from his performances against Dempsey/Wills/Miske


All great fighters.

You are right of course. His chin was cr4p. I will make the point however that top fighters of that era with cr4p chins get knocked out a lot early and late in their careers (due to harsh matching). But there is a period around their primes where they only get stopped by the best fighters.

[Bokaj]

Dempsey is hsyterically overated - the most overated fighter of all - in terms of greatness. But he is hideously underated head to head. The board shows again and again an inability to bridge the gap between the two, that is the very reason Demspey threads go so.

I suggest everyone moves Demspey down three spots on their ATG lists, so even McVey's looks sane, and everybody who's been picking Hollfyield to beat Dempsey easily admits they are on the windup.

But basically gents, until you all do one or the other, you'd be as well sending smoke signals to each other.

I actually think that Dempsey, in terms of ability for his time, probably easily qualifies for top 10. But since he was lazy and didn't take on the best he had to face (used the colour line) I can't put him there with good consciense.

But if you transport the Dempsey from 1919 into a ring with Holyfield in 1991 I think Holyfield beats him simply because boxing evolved during those years. I won't say that Quarry would beat Dempsey, but I do think he had a point.

[Bokaj]

OLD FOGEY did some superb analysis of competition of top heavyweights which produced some interesting conclusions. He compared the number of wins that various fighters had over top 10 ranked oponents using a conservative estimate of which fighters would break the top 10 prior to ring magazines rankings. Guess who came on top?

1. Harry Wills
2. Muhamad Ali
3. Joe Louis


Isn't it just too sad that Wills didn't get the chance he deserved. He should get into my top 10, maybe my top 3 from the looks of it. If you have any film of him, please post it.

[mcvey]

[quote]


Why not?

Many of Holyfields oponents derive their reputations largley on their wins over Holyfield just as Gene Tunney derives his reputation largley on his win over Dempsey.

Holyfield in turn derives his reputation largley from his win over Tyson.



I think that Willard had a better chin than Jack Dempsey based on his performence against common oponents and their testimonies. While the durability of Willard dosnt exactly leap out of his paper record contemporary testimonies make him out to be McCall like at his best. The guys who were putting Dempsey into a daze seemingly wernt even making Willard blink.



I wouldnt say they were the only notable punchers Willard faced. Jack Johnson and Gunboat Smith would have to be mentioned.

As for big punchers Willar beat:

Carl Morris 6' 4'' 235 lbs

Frank Moran 6' 1'' 210 lbs

Luther McCarthy 6' 4'' 205 lbs

Arthur Pelkey 6' 2'' 204 lbs

Its not like he was just fighting smaller guys.




Lewis has certainly faced more punchers but McCall and Ramhan arnt exactly way beyond anything Willard has faced.

Call it a product of depth of resume if you like but it is still a question mark over his chin.

I do not think that Willard would have gone the distance against Dempsey in his prime but it is no inconceivable that he could have stretched Firpo or even beaten him.
Gun- boat Smith said Willard could take his best punch without any reaction,and Smith was a banger

[mcvey]

I think Jerry Quarry critiqued Dempsey,by saying he had wide swinging punches which would be easy to time and counter.Of all the old timers he'd lose sleep only with Marciano.
Quarry was quoted as saying he was certain he could beat Marciano.

[couch13]

1. No I'm putting and end to your Dempsey masterbation session

I challenge you to watch dempsey knocking down Willard for the first time and Tunney. Now I would like you to tell me if any of those punches was telegraphed.

2. No proof of a dive, heresay and fans excuses does not equal proof, do you also think Wlad was drugged against Brewster. Dempsey lost against Flyn in his prime, he offered no excuse. Your simply excuse making, theres heresay around every excuse, but thats all they are

Near his prime???? WTF do you think a prime is? He was on his way up and lost. He later redeemed himself. End of story.

3. "stylized slugging" = losing to bums like Flynn and nearly losing to another bum in Firpo

1. No, it means he does better than losing to bums like Douglas.

2. WTF does everyone have against firpo? We all know he was wild and unorthodox and lacked great skills. Yet, Oscar Bonavena fought with the EXACT same style and it took 15 rounds for Ali to put him away and Joe Frazier got knocked down twice by him and nearly lost thier first encounter. On top of all this, Bolavena was quite a bit smaller than Firpo (4 inches shorter and 12 pounds lighter). Does this mean Joe Frazier and Ali suck?

4. No you pay attention, your excuse for Dempsey when he steps up against top opposition and loses while being schooled is 'past prime', while ignoring the fact prior to this he avoided the best opposition of his day

No he didn't. The person to whom you are refering is Harry Wills, and Wills got his ass kicked by Jack Sharkey in 1926, had issues beating Big Bill Tate in 1922 and barely beat Firpo in a decision.

5. 'Dempsey is the bestest bestest ever because he had a hard life and that means he beats technically superior, stronger fighters because he had it harder' STFU retard

Maybe you should learn some develpmental psychology before you open you mouth about how hard living makes a person mentally more willing to fight, retard.

6. Your points add up to rating Dempsey wins on heart despite having inferior technique

No his points add up to Dempsey wins on a combination of heart, power and unorthodox technique

7. You pick Dempsey based on the assumption he had a greater heart, while ignoring who had the greater technical and physical ability. Dempsey's heard certainly isnt proven given the ducking tactics. Its the same prediction method Gatti fans used who predicted a win over Mayweather. Heart doesn't stop you getting your ass whipped

Go back and read the actual analysis by Demsey supporters. Head movement, power and heart, as well as having a style built around fast movement (circling, etc) and unorthodox and powerful strikes delivered from various angles.

[Maxmomer]

Harry Wills, and Wills got his ass kicked by Jack Sharkey in 1926, had issues beating Big Bill Tate in 1922 and barely beat Firpo in a decision.

Wills kicked Firpo's ass, actually, and was far past his best against Sharkey.

[Seamus]

Quarry was quoted as saying he was certain he could beat Marciano.

And Quarry was a font of intelligence and analytical acumen.

[Arka]

Holyd stopped the more impressive Douglas in 3, who was coming off a better performance and wasnt as innactive as Willard

Most top guys put Fulton away pretty quick
But Douglas came in as a whale in that fight.
I spent a few years in India and for some reason Douglas-Holyfield was shown live there.

[Arka]

And Quarry was a font of intelligence and analytical acumen.

Well more from that article I was quoting from..

'When I (Phil Berger) passed on commment deriding Fleischer's favored fighters to him,The Ring editor refused to budge from his views that those early 20th-century warrior were the best.Prompting Jim Jacobs to say:"I'll tell you what that reminds me of.There was a time when Cus D'Amato was talking boxing and Cus mentioned how great he thought Tony Canzoneri was.So I said,'Let's take a look.I have 10 of his fights on film.'
"Well,I put them all up on the screen.And you know what Cus said,which is typical of his flexibility?
"He said,'You know,Jim.I don't remember him fighting this way.'He said,You know,over the past 40 years I've learned a great deal more about boxing than when I was watching Canzoneri.While I still admire the fury with which he fought,I realize that technically he didn't have the skills which I remembered him to have.'" '

[couch13]

Wills kicked Firpo's ass, actually, and was far past his best against Sharkey.

Wills got a decision. He couldn't put away Firpo the so called bad fighter. I put 1926 there for a reason, Wills was slated to fight Dempsey in 1925. He wasn't the top competition like Power puncher said.

[pugilist_boyd]

couch13 man u slaughterd on yer post,i new everything u said but im very underskilled on the computer,its good to see someone who actually judges by more than the first 2 rounds of the willard fight,as ive stated dempsey may take some punchs but he ko,s holy inside of 8

[ChrisPontius]

Wills got a decision. He couldn't put away Firpo the so called bad fighter. I put 1926 there for a reason, Wills was slated to fight Dempsey in 1925. He wasn't the top competition like Power puncher said.

Wrong. The Wills fight was (rightfully) being called for as early as 1920. But yes, since Dempsey ducked him, they still wanted him to fight Wills five years later, in 1925.

And what is your source for the Wills vs Firpo fight being a close contest? Everything i've read on it always indicated it was a clear victory for Wills, who was not knocked down twice and had to be illegally helped back into the ring by thirds.

[PowerPuncher]

1. I challenge you to watch dempsey knocking down Willard for the first time and Tunney. Now I would like you to tell me if any of those punches was telegraphed.

2. Near his prime???? WTF do you think a prime is? He was on his way up and lost. He later redeemed himself. End of story.

3. No, it means he does better than losing to bums like Douglas.

4. WTF does everyone have against firpo? We all know he was wild and unorthodox and lacked great skills. Yet, Oscar Bonavena fought with the EXACT same style and it took 15 rounds for Ali to put him away and Joe Frazier got knocked down twice by him and nearly lost thier first encounter. On top of all this, Bolavena was quite a bit smaller than Firpo (4 inches shorter and 12 pounds lighter). Does this mean Joe Frazier and Ali suck?

5. No he didn't. The person to whom you are refering is Harry Wills, and Wills got his ass kicked by Jack Sharkey in 1926, had issues beating Big Bill Tate in 1922 and barely beat Firpo in a decision.

6. Maybe you should learn some develpmental psychology before you open you mouth about how hard living makes a person mentally more willing to fight, retard.

7. No his points add up to Dempsey wins on a combination of heart, power and unorthodox technique

8. Go back and read the actual analysis by Demsey supporters. Head movement, power and heart, as well as having a style built around fast movement (circling, etc) and unorthodox and powerful strikes delivered from various angles.

1. Dempsey telegraphed plenty against Willard, its just Willard didnt have a defense, Tunney had good defense and that was the difference (Dempsey was past prime but a landslide loss like this is disturbing)

2. Dempsey was ko'd 2years before his absolute prime, is his prime only for 1year? He also lost the year prior to his prime

3. Douglas showed more skill and ability against Tyson than any of Dempsey's opponents.

4. Bonavena has the same style as Firpo :lol: Bonavena has more in common with Loche than Firpo. He has far far more skill than Firpo, just because both are argies doesnt make them the same. Bonavena had good shoulder roll defense, quite fast hands, good counters. Poor comparison and doesnt change the fact Firpo was a crude big brute with no skill

5. Wills had arguably been the number 1 heavyweight since 1914 when he lost to Sharkey way past his prime, he was way past prime and probably shot

BARELY BEAT FIRPO - What a bone faced lie you've resorted too, it was a 1 sided schooling and Wills was way past his prime. Oh did I mention Wills didnt get smashed outside the ring by Firpo?

6. I'm pretty sure I've studied physchology to a higher level than yourself but this is irrelevant. Living a 'hard life' is irrelevant to the discussion, if Dempsey doesn't have the skills to win and hes getting badly outboxed, heart isnt going to help.

7. Heart, power and telegraphed punching beat similar heart, boxing skill, near similar power and defense :lol: Ok its clear you haven't boxed, NEXT

8. I have no problem with analysis that doesnt focus on heart as the determining factor. It would be a wrong analysis but wouldnt be completely retarded at leastMy analysis makes this a close fight in the early going because of Dempsey's attributes, which I do not discount. However Dempsey could not keep up his high energy output into the late rounds and this is where his lower technical skills let him down.

[janitor]

Isn't it just too sad that Wills didn't get the chance he deserved. He should get into my top 10, maybe my top 3 from the looks of it. If you have any film of him, please post it.

Make no mistake about Wills. He was a great great fighter.

[couch13]

Wrong. The Wills fight was (rightfully) being called for as early as 1920. But yes, since Dempsey ducked him, they still wanted him to fight Wills five years later, in 1925.

And what is your source for the Wills vs Firpo fight being a close contest? Everything i've read on it always indicated it was a clear victory for Wills, who was not knocked down twice and had to be illegally helped back into the ring by thirds.

The point was that he was able to get a decision against a supposedly bad fighter. Someone of Wills caliber should have been able to put him away, but he didn't. Therefore, either Firpo was a good figher or Wills was a bad fighter. Take your pick.

BTW, how do you have a contest when no promoter will either follow through on thier finacial obligations or promote a mixed bout?

[couch13]

1. Dempsey telegraphed plenty against Willard, its just Willard didnt have a defense, Tunney had good defense and that was the difference (Dempsey was past prime but a landslide loss like this is disturbing)

No, I just watched the first round in HD and you know what, he only telegraphed when either throwing from behind Willard or after he landed jarring non-telegraphed punches. A lose in the first fight (with dempsey fat and out of shape) and a controversy in the second. Also, that knockdown in the seventh was very non telegraphed.

2. Dempsey was ko'd 2years before his absolute prime, is his prime only for 1year? He also lost the year prior to his prime

2 years is a long time to change and get better. It was a match that Dempsey is recorded to have been starving before. Have you ever fought with out having eaten for days?

His prime was from 1919-1923.

3. Douglas showed more skill and ability against Tyson than any of Dempsey's opponents.

Bullshit, Miske and Brennan were both very skilled opponents. Also, Carpentier, Gibbons and Sharkery were all more skilled than Douglas.

4. Bonavena has the same style as Firpo :lol: Bonavena has more in common with Loche than Firpo. He has far far more skill than Firpo, just because both are argies doesnt make them the same. Bonavena had good shoulder roll defense, quite fast hands, good counters. Poor comparison and doesnt change the fact Firpo was a crude big brute with no skill

Bonavena wasn't crude? Bonavena didn't throw telegraphed punches that still knocked down Frazier twice? Firpos hands weren't slow in the least, rather, they were somewhat fast. The one thing I really see different between the too is that Bonavena jabbed with much more percision (and didn't seem to hit as hard).

5. Wills had arguably been the number 1 heavyweight since 1914 when he lost to Sharkey way past his prime, he was way past prime and probably shot

BARELY BEAT FIRPO - What a bone faced lie you've resorted too, it was a 1 sided schooling and Wills was way past his prime. Oh did I mention Wills didnt get smashed outside the ring by Firpo?

Congrats, you are able to realize that a fucking giant wasn't knocked out of the ring. Look, Wills couldn't put Firpo, the "bad fighter" away. If Wills was the number one, then he should have been able to KO him like he was doing to most the guys he was fighting from 1922 until he lost to Sharkey. Dempsey puts Firpo away in two rounds. Your two choices are a) Firpo is a good fighter with a solid chin and Wills was the number one, which also means Dempsey was a great fighter for putting away Firpo in two rounds, or b) Firpo sucks and Wills wasn't a good enough fighter to put him away meaning Wills isn't a good fighter.

6. I'm pretty sure I've studied physchology to a higher level than yourself but this is irrelevant. Living a 'hard life' is irrelevant to the discussion, if Dempsey doesn't have the skills to win and hes getting badly outboxed, heart isnt going to help.

Okay, I'll give you the ability to abosorb punishment won't win it for you if you can't catch your opponent who is then out boxing you.

7. Heart, power and non-telegraphed punching (fixed that for ya) beat similar heart, boxing skill, near similar power and defense :lol: Ok its clear you haven't boxed, NEXT

Its clear you failed English 101. I'll make this really simple for you.

Dempsey: Powerful hitter, excellent at hitting from angles, a better infigher, moves with both speed and skill, and has near equal heart and defense with Holyfield.

Holyfield: A not so powerful hitter, will somewhat better striking skills. Who has been Knocked Out twice.

8. I have no problem with analysis that doesnt focus on heart as the determining factor. It would be a wrong analysis but wouldnt be completely retarded at leastMy analysis makes this a close fight in the early going because of Dempsey's attributes, which I do not discount. However Dempsey could not keep up his high energy output into the late rounds and this is where his lower technical skills let him down.

Here is where the real good analysis comes in from you. The one thing you're wrong on is endurance (and in my opinion skill level being closer than you say). Dempsey while suffering from ring rust (yes, yes we all know he was an idiot for not fighting more often) outpointed Tommy Gibbons for fifteen rounds. Thats why I think Dempsey could win, he could keep up a high energy output for fifteen full rounds.

[Seamus]

Steroids. Steroids. Steroids.

Please address the elephant in the fucking room!

Give Dempsey some Winstrol/Stanozol or whatever Holy used for two decades and you would have a fighter more vicious than Tyson or... or Dempsey.

This debate is pointeless without addressing this issue.

[Maxmomer]

Wills got a decision. He couldn't put away Firpo the so called bad fighter. I put 1926 there for a reason, Wills was slated to fight Dempsey in 1925. He wasn't the top competition like Power puncher said.

If you read any reports of the Wills-Firpo fight you'll find it's described as nothing short of a shut-out. He dominated Firpo. Credit Firpo with being able to stay in there for 12 rounds, though, as Wills was an excellent puncher. Makes Jack Dempsey's KO even more impressive to me. Anyway, Wills certainly was the top contender almost throughout Dempsey's entire title run, up until he lost to Sharkey when he was shot.

[Maxmomer]

Steroids. Steroids. Steroids.

Please address the elephant in the fucking room!

Give Dempsey some Winstrol/Stanozol or whatever Holy used for two decades and you would have a fighter more vicious than Tyson or... or Dempsey.

This debate is pointeless without addressing this issue.

A roided up Dempsey.... Nightmarish.

[Stonehands89]

1. No I'm putting and end to your Dempsey masterbation session
Here's what you don't know: I rank both Holyfield and Tyson over Dempsey. What say you now?

2. No proof of a dive, heresay and fans excuses does not equal proof, do you also think Wlad was drugged against Brewster. Dempsey lost against Flyn in his prime, he offered no excuse. Your simply excuse making, theres heresay around every excuse, but thats all they are
I have to question your intelligence. Seriously. You force me to with off-the-wall retorts like this one.

3. "stylized slugging" = losing to bums like Flynn and nearly losing to another bum in Firpo
How about beating Miske? How about beating a giant in Willard? How about a KO in 1 round of Carl Morris and Fred Fulton -6'4, 6'6 respectively, in 1918?

You know dink about Dempsey.

4. No you pay attention, your excuse for Dempsey when he steps up against top opposition and loses while being schooled is 'past prime', while ignoring the fact prior to this he avoided the best opposition of his day
Dempsey was better around 1918-1919 than he was after 1923. Those are beyond debatable. They aren't excuses.

5. 'Dempsey is the bestest bestest ever because he had a hard life and that means he beats technically superior, stronger fighters because he had it harder' STFU retard


Have you received your GED yet? Consider posting elsewhere until you get a high school diploma or its equivalent.