was dempsey a bum?

[brownpimp88]

Jack Sharkey is considered one of the biggest wasted potentials in heavyweight history. I really need to avoid discussing boxing history with you. You're not an idiot, but you really don't have a firm grasp of these eras and the fighters that populated them. No offense meant but you're just out of your element here.

Rid**** Bowe was a wasted potential to but, it still doesnt change the fact that he would have crushed many of the old timers. Sharkey isnt even top 20. I try and focus on the 70's and 80's cuz IMO those two decades produced the best fighters from most weight classes and they had the best fights. The 1920's is never considered a great era, its just the decade in which the sport finally started to evolve from idiots hitting each other to a real sport with skill and technique.

[Kid Achilles]

No offense meant but you're just out of your element here.

[brownpimp88]

No offense meant but you're just out of your element here.

Name one decade better than the 80's when it came to talent in all weight classes, there is none. It may have been the best decade for non- heavyweight fighters.

[RockyMarcianofan00]

I love reading these old threads

It shows how ignorant Butterfly was...

haha, dempsey is unskilled, but marciano is skilled? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
that was the funniest crap i've ever heard, period! marciano had no skilld, whatsoever, period. he just relied on brute strength. marciano was low as hell. if you want to talk about a fighter being slow, then watch marciano fight. even a 137yr. old joe louis made him look ****** before rocky caught up to him. dempsey was lightning fast, almost as fast as mike tyson! and you know tyson was real damn fast. marciano is p4p by far the slowest fighter period. marciano had no defense. if you weren't dead, you could hit him. even someone like gene tunney could beat him, and tunney is a lhw, which is pretty friggin sad. dempsey would totally outclass marciano and then brutally ko him.

look at the ignorance...I'm glad butterfly has matured since then...

[hemichromis]

I love reading these old threads

It shows how ignorant Butterfly was...


look at the ignorance...I'm glad butterfly has matured since then...

WAS?!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BrooklynBomber]

I love reading these old threads

It shows how ignorant Butterfly was...



look at the ignorance...I'm glad butterfly has matured since then...

thats what the history forum is about, some boxing education.

[hemichromis]

Name one decade better than the 80's when it came to talent in all weight classes, there is none. It may have been the best decade for non- heavyweight fighters.

i have to agree with you there welter -supermiddle had some fantastic fighters and fights and of course tyson was coming up he was one of the most exciting heavy's of all time

[brownpimp88]

i have to agree with you there welter -supermiddle had some fantastic fighters and fights and of course tyson was coming up he was one of the most exciting heavy's of all time

Not just that, you had pryor, arguello, spinks, salvador sanchez, wilfredo gomez and all those guys at 147-160. It was the best non heavyweight decade of all times.

[SABBATH]

Not just that, you had pryor, arguello, spinks, salvador sanchez, wilfredo gomez and all those guys at 147-160. It was the best non heavyweight decade of all times.

Larry Holmes, Michael Spinks, Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, Sugar Ray Leonard, Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran, Aaron Pryor, Alexis Arguello, Salvador Sanchez, Eusebio Pedroza, Wilfredo Gomez, Azumah Nelson, Jeff Chandler, Lupe Pintor...some pretty damn good fighters for sure.

[Yogi]

I have an old issue of The Ring from Jan of 1982 lying around here somewhere, and I can remember doing a count of the fighters listed in their monthly rating and found that their were, I think, 17 different fighters that are now a member of the HOF (or will be, in the case of Holmes & Hearns)...And the great thing about that is every single one of them were at or very near their absolute primes as fighters, save maybe Duran, who was still in the midst of representing himself as a great fighter no matter what career stage he was in.

The depth of boxing at the time was just incredible (whether as a whole or per most of the divisions), says I, and I'm by far from the only one who'll think that.

Mind you, I think the 1920's were incredible, as well, and it's often referred to as the "golden age" of the sport and for many good reasons, whether it be the amount of great fighters (apx 20 HOF'ers listed in The Ring's 1924 annual rankings), participation likely at an all time high (love reading about those many hometown rivalries at the numerous small town boxing clubs in existince at the time), fighter purses not seen for nearly 40 years after (Tunney made just short of a million for the Dempsey rematch, with Liston & Patterson the first to crack a million in purses), the fact that it WAS the biggest sport of it's time, etc., etc., and etc.

Both could be classified as a "golden age" to me, as could a couple of other eras (40's/50's another one...great HOF fighters abound, with boxing making it's first appearance on television with shows practically ever Friday evening).