What if Vitali's comeback opponent had been Jack Dempsey?

[Boogie Nights]

When it comes down to it, Wladimir's best win is over Chris Byrd, who is not a big heavyweight by today's standards, while Vitali's is over 38 year old Corrie Sanders.

I can be an ****** and make a point about Louis' best win being over a glorified journeyman who was beaten by other fighters, and another guy who was from a different division, being barely over a supermiddleweight limit by today's standards.

I can also say Jack's best wins came against 2 fighters who were light heavyweights, and he lost twice to the same former light heavyweight.

[them_apples]

Vitali is only a bit better skillwise than Willard, Vitali is very robotic and not that fast. He's light years better in the conditioning department however, so I don't see dempsey hurting Vitali that bad in this fight like he did Willard, esp with new boxing gloves.

[TheGreatA]

I can be an ****** and make a point about Louis' best win being over a glorified journeyman who was beaten by other fighters, and another guy who was from a different division, being barely over a supermiddleweight limit by today's standards.

Except I wasn't being an ****** and stated the way it is. Louis beat Max Schmeling and Jersey Joe Walcott, who will go down as greater fighters than Chris Byrd and certainly Corrie Sanders. An objective observer can see that Walcott was far from a glorified journeyman. Billy Conn wasn't Louis's best win, but he had success at heavyweight, scoring 8 stoppages in his 10 heavyweight wins.

I can also say Jack's best wins came against 2 fighters who were light heavyweights, and he lost twice to the same former light heavyweight.

But then Dempsey did not hold a significant weight advantage over them unlike Wladimir did, outweighing Byrd by 30 pounds.

[Boogie Nights]

Except I wasn't being an ****** and stated the way it is. Louis beat Max Schmeling and Jersey Joe Walcott, who will go down as greater fighters than Chris Byrd and certainly Corrie Sanders. An objective observer can see that Walcott was far from a glorified journeyman. Billy Conn wasn't Louis's best win, but he had success at heavyweight, scoring 8 stoppages in his 10 heavyweight wins.



But then Dempsey did not hold a significant weight advantage over them unlike Wladimir did, outweighing Byrd by 30 pounds.

i didnt call you an ******. Dempsey, never being a big guy, still had at least 10-15 pounds on them with the exception to Tunney.
jersey Joe was a great heavyweight, but louis didnt uncover any mystery that 11 others already havent before him when he beat Walcott. One could also argue that he lost the first fight to jersey.
now a lot of people here are not too fond of Wlad's competition, but im sure critics would have their glory E-moments the day Wlad would fight someone who had more than a dozen loses on his record being considered a serious challenger. Better yet, if Wlad himself had 11 loses, he'd be the worst champion in their eyes no matter if he beat God if he ever came down to earth.

Dempsey didnt even have the slightest success against Tunney, Wladimir dominated Byrd twice, a fighter who to this day holds wins over Tua, Holyfield, McCline, Williamson all of whom were significantly bigger than him. I dont think Byrd's lack of size was a tremendous handicap to make one think that Wlad beat an outsized opponent who was never worth his salt.

I can also bring up Liston and Holmes into this, but it would be an all night discussion.

[Steak]

yeah, but considering that Wladimir was green and fights absolutely nothing the way he does today, and was beating the holy shyt out of purity prior to the stoppage id say it's a little bit different. I was comparing it to the fashion in the way Dempsey lost and not Louis, but i hear what you're trying to say.

Dempsey didnt even have the slightest success against Tunney, Wladimir dominated Byrd twice, a fighter who to this day holds wins over Tua, Holyfield, McCline, Williamson all of whom were significantly bigger than him. I dont think Byrd's lack of size was a tremendous handicap to make one think that Wlad beat an outsized opponent who was never worth his salt.

although I agree wholeheartedly that Dempsey is overrated, lets not forget that arguably Byrd should have lost to McCline, Golota and even Fres Oquendo. Im not saying they were flat out robberies: but Im saying they were controversial.

he was better in his younger days.

as for the first quote, I just have to brign up the fact that Purritty was not even semi-close to being a top fighter, and Schmeling was very accomplished already and considered one of the best Europeans of all time.
and the Louis changed a LOT after the first Schmeling fight, as shown in the rematch.

[Levcon8686]

Vitali is only a bit better skillwise than Willard, Vitali is very robotic and not that fast. He's light years better in the conditioning department however, so I don't see dempsey hurting Vitali that bad in this fight like he did Willard, esp with new boxing gloves.

This statement is just ridiculous if you ask me. Vitali is a much better boxer than Willard was. Willard only started fighting at 30 years of age I believe, whereas Vitali has boxed/kickboxed since a young age. The videos I've seen of Willard make him nothing more than a freak show, huge size with next to nothing technique.

I think both Klitchkos beat dempsey 9 out of 10 times they fight.

This is a 24 year old Dempsey putting his shots together as well as he ever did. Crude punching style to say the least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VawHgrLvbD4

[TheGreatA]

i didnt call you an ******. Dempsey, never being a big guy, still had at least 10-15 pounds on them with the exception to Tunney.

I don't think much of Dempsey's win over Carpentier. The win over Tommy Gibbons was legit, despite Gibbons being the smaller man. Harry Wills actually refused to face Tommy. Still, it wasn't an impressive performance. Dempsey was at his best against men who were bigger than him.

jersey Joe was a great heavyweight, but louis didnt uncover any mystery that 11 others already havent before him when he beat Walcott. One could also argue that he lost the first fight to jersey.

I'd argue that the 11 others that beat Walcott previous to him fighting Louis wouldn't have uncovered the mystery to beat Walcott that night either. He was basically fighting for food in the 1930's, and the only losses that he had since his comeback were thought to have been robberies which Walcott had avenged. He did a very good job of cleaning out the heavyweight rankings in the mid 1940's.

now a lot of people here are not too fond of Wlad's competition, but im sure critics would have their glory E-moments the day Wlad would fight someone who had more than a dozen loses on his record being considered a serious challenger. Better yet, if Wlad himself had 11 loses, he'd be the worst champion in their eyes no matter if he beat God if he ever came down to earth.

Today's practise is to be undefeated in 15-20 fights, without having faced any top contender and get outclassed by the Klitschko brothers for million dollar paydays. "Back in the day" the fighters did fight more times and usually against top contenders which explains the losses. I don't put as much stock into what the record coming into the fight looks like as I do on the substance behind that record. Losing 10 times is fine with me when it's against fighters greater than you or at a similar level. Glen Johnson is certainly no joke despite his amount of losses. He was better with the 10+ losses than he was while 32-0 (a record built up facing nobodies) against a far more experienced opponent in Bernard Hopkins, who outclassed him in every category.

Dempsey didnt even have the slightest success against Tunney, Wladimir dominated Byrd twice, a fighter to this day who holds wins over Tua, Holyfield, McCline, Williamson all of whom were significantly bigger than him. I dont think Byrd's lack of size was a tremendous handicap to make one think that Wlad beat an outsized opponent who was never worth his salt.

I can also bring up Liston and Holmes into this, but it would be an all night discussion.

I'd say that knocking down Tunney for more than 10 seconds counts as atleast slight success, not that I consider it a legitimate knockout as Tunney could have gotten up at any point after 5-6 seconds. I can imagine a young, determined Dempsey catching Tunney the same way and finishing him off. I can imagine Tunney outboxing a young Dempsey as well, but Tunney was great.

Byrd was also blown away by Ike Ibeabuchi in 5 rounds. He has some quality wins, although the quality of those wins will drop off when you see how he achieved many of them (the fights against McCline, Williamson and Oquendo were dreadful). Still, the best win for Wladimir Klitschko but I don't think Byrd rates among the greatest heavyweight champions. The Ruiz-Byrd era rates as one of the worst in heavyweight history, certainly for excitement. You don't have to take it from me, take it from Emmanuel Steward, Wladimir's trainer, who feels that today's era is worse than the 80's and 30's, mainly because the talent isn't being developed and fights aren't getting made.

[TheGreatA]

This is a 24 year old Dempsey putting his shots together as well as he ever did. Crude punching style to say the least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VawHgrLvbD4

That's the only part where Dempsey looks crude in that fight. The moment he dropped Willard, all of the skill and technique was thrown out of the window and what remained was a beast trying to finish off the stunned giant in any way he could.

You'd have to know the background to really understand what was going on. Let's just say that Dempsey went in there with a kill or be killed attitude.

I hate seeing Dempsey being made out to be more than he is, there is probably more mythology about him than any other fighter, as an example the great Ray Arcel thought Dempsey would KO any other heavyweight in 3 rounds, but he was a very good fighter and skilled in what he did, if not among the greatest technicians. He even wrote a book on boxing technique. His left hook was a great punch. You think Tyson would idolize just any wild-swinging slugger? Along with complete films of his fights, there's footage of sparring, training and boxing exhibitions that you should check out before making up your mind on Dempsey's ability.

[Scott9945]

This statement is just ridiculous if you ask me. Vitali is a much better boxer than Willard was. Willard only started fighting at 30 years of age I believe, whereas Vitali has boxed/kickboxed since a young age. The videos I've seen of Willard make him nothing more than a freak show, huge size with next to nothing technique.

I think both Klitchkos beat dempsey 9 out of 10 times they fight.

This is a 24 year old Dempsey putting his shots together as well as he ever did. Crude punching style to say the least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VawHgrLvbD4

Willard's career record was a very mediocre 23-5. Take away his win over a weary Jack Johnson and he didn't do spit. He looked like crap in his filmed fights too. Comparisons to the K brothers indicate a clear anti Klitschko agenda, IMO.

[Levcon8686]

That's the only part where Dempsey looks crude in that fight. The moment he dropped Willard, all of the skill and technique was thrown out of the window and what remained was a beast trying to finish off the stunned giant in any way he could.

You'd have to know the background to really understand what was going on. Let's just say that Dempsey went in there with a kill or be killed attitude.

I hate seeing Dempsey being made out to be more than he is, there is probably more mythology about him than any other fighter, as an example the great Ray Arcel thought Dempsey would KO any other heavyweight in 3 rounds, but he was a very good fighter and skilled in what he did, if not among the greatest technicians. He even wrote a book on boxing technique. His left hook was a great punch. You think Tyson would idolize just any wild-swinging slugger? Along with complete films of his fights, there's footage of sparring, training and boxing exhibitions that you should check out before making up your mind on Dempsey's ability.

Fair point. I've seen most youtube footage of him but must admit I should find more.

I still maintain (as of now) that Wlad and Vitali's mix of size and skill would be too much for Dempsey though.