Jack Dempsey vs Today's Heavyweights

[creekrat77]

First off, I don't think for one second that Dempsey could have dominated HW today. But again: His style and attributes would be more suited to the HW division than Kovalev. It's as simple as that.

Kovalev doesn't give us an idea of how Jack would do at HW today, because apart from being physically similar, they are completely different.

Again: Kovalev could not get inside of a bigger guys reach like Dempsey could. And in my opinion, he wasn't as fast and he didn't hit as hard.

You're only looking at their height, reach and weight.

It tells us nothing.

Styles make fights.

Joe Frazier wasn't as big as Kovalev, and he only weighed just over 200 pounds in his first fight against Ali. That was only about 10 pounds heavier than some of Kovalev's recorded fight night weights. And as we know: there's also CW's out there who were bigger than what Joe was.

People forget how the sweet science works and the kinetic essence of size and skill. Once you get above 6'2 speed, reflexes and stamina drop way off. To be smaller in size like Frazier, Louis or Baer I would think they'd have a wider avenue to excel against a let's say Wladimir. If Dempsey can close the distance and slip inside the guard of bigger fights and let loose all night then yea, I think he definitely could dominate the Heavyweight division. These big fighters of today aren't used to exchanging at the speed and volume of the smaller fighters, plus the different angles too. Henry Langford, a former 5'7 featherweight dominated big guys at heavyweight. He dominated the division to the point of being ducked by Dempsey and Johnson

[M Bison]

What was great about it?

Why couldn't Dempsey have beaten Joshua?

You're living in cloud cuckoo land If you think a 175-180lbs small Jack Dempsey could beat Anthony Joshua, its nothing to do with skill alone but Joshua is smart enough to likely land a massive shot on someone like Dempsey and put him out to sleep.

Stop being biased.

[M Bison]

People forget how the sweet science works and the kinetic essence of size and skill. Once you get above 6'2 speed, reflexes and stamina drop way off. To be smaller in size like Frazier, Louis or Baer I would think they'd have a wider avenue to excel against a let's say Wladimir. If Dempsey can close the distance and slip inside the guard of bigger fights and let loose all night then yea, I think he definitely could dominate the Heavyweight division. These big fighters of today aren't used to exchanging at the speed and volume of the smaller fighters, plus the different angles too. Henry Langford, a former 5'7 featherweight dominated big guys at heavyweight. He dominated the division to the point of being ducked by Dempsey and Johnson

Blah blah blah its all good saying that but why aren't there no smaller, lighter heavyweights holding a world title and don't use the B.S. no skilled enough fighters being about.

We're in an era where we have super heavies who dethroned Wladimir?
It was a big man, the best hope to suit your thinking would have been Haye winning but it wasn't even close.
It'd be the same thing with those smaller guys from back then coming into this era, they'd get beaten to a pulp it would be absolutely unfair, weight classes exist for a reason.

Ffs Haye is much bigger, quicker and skillful than Dempsey and you lot want to pretend to yourself.

[Joe Beamish]

I see a decline in skill among heavies, a pretty steady decline, among giants and not-so-giants. A young prime Tyson would have feasted on Wlad, and so would have Dempsey. Dempsey would have killed any guy, at any size, who only brings jab-and-grab skills into ring. But there's no Dempsey today, no Tyson, no Ali, no Holmes, nothing.

Heavyweights suck today like nobody's business.

[creekrat77]

Blah blah blah its all good saying that but why aren't there no smaller, lighter heavyweights holding a world title and don't use the B.S. no skilled enough fighters being about.

We're in an era where we have super heavies who dethroned Wladimir?
It was a big man, the best hope to suit your thinking would have been Haye winning but it wasn't even close.
It'd be the same thing with those smaller guys from back then coming into this era, they'd get beaten to a pulp it would be absolutely unfair, weight classes exist for a reason.

Ffs Haye is much bigger, quicker and skillful than Dempsey and you lot want to pretend to yourself.

Why there's no smaller heavyweights? Because boxing has taken a real beating since the golden age of Ali. Great athletes from that point on gravitated much much more towards football, basketball, baseball and other sports. Boxing produces it's greatest fighters from extreme poverty stricken areas where it encompasses the viciousness and starvation a person as to have to achieve success. The greatest physical specimens (under 6'3) decades ago were steered towards boxing because that is where the money was. Now a days the money isn't there compared to other sports. On top of that the stigma of boxing being a meat grinder that will chew you up and spit you out, both physically and financially, has taken the biggest toll.
Haye more skilled than Jack Dempsey? Are you kidding? David Haye is a one trick pony who can fight only one way. He's chinny counter puncher who is dependent on his outside game. I mean just look at this fight with Wlad. He has almost no ability to be the aggressor and fight on the inside. All Wlad had to do is be on the back foot and counter all night to throw a wrench in Hayes retreating jab-over hand right style.
Not saying that's how Dempsey would beat Haye but how Haye is not a dynamic fighter.
The many smaller heavies of the past would merc someone like chinny Wladimir who can be blown out if given the right aggressor. Max Baer, Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Joe Frazier, Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Earnie Shavers would all take him down like the slow limited fighter he is

[Elroy The Great]

We also know that boxing doesn't progress in the same way that technology does.

no but technology helps a human. in that theres no question.

[Kigali]

no but technology helps a human. in that theres no question.

So where is the proof of this in the ring??

I don't see ****.

Name these technologically advanced fighters.

[ShoulderRoll]

Ffs Haye is much bigger, quicker and skillful than Dempsey and you lot want to pretend to yourself.

If Haye knew how to move his damn head and counter off of slips even half as good as Dempsey then he wouldn't have looked like such a prat against Wlad.

[Elroy The Great]

So where is the proof of this in the ring??

I don't see ****.

Name these technologically advanced fighters.

1st off, most of the equipment they used back then wouldnt cut in it in a persons basement today. the key reason....IMPROVEMENTS.

simple example, how long did it take a person to put wheels on luggage ?!?!?!?

is it a coincidence our athletes are bigger, stronger, faster ?
life expectancy climbing (even with all of the bad food and pollution)
1950's = 66
today = 76

medicine has grown leaps and bounds.
newer/better exercising techniques AND equipment.

the back in the day guys were limited to what they had. the computer was as good as a trip to mars back then. we have every benefit known to man.....from all over the world. at out finger tips.

and none of this is supposed to make an athlete better....

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/09/24/the-history-of-physical-fitness/

[IMG]https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoyAmxVNeDyrdD4XHaqsC6tQ8SnJdQq lO0D***fzEeL5M9SncF[/IMG]




^^^ always cracks me up

[ShoulderRoll]

1st off, most of the equipment they used back then wouldnt cut in it in a persons basement today. the key reason....IMPROVEMENTS.

simple example, how long did it take a person to put wheels on luggage ?!?!?!?

is it a coincidence our athletes are bigger, stronger, faster ?
life expectancy climbing (even with all of the bad food and pollution)
1950's = 66
today = 76

medicine has grown leaps and bounds.
newer/better exercising techniques AND equipment.

the back in the day guys were limited to what they had. the computer was as good as a trip to mars back then. we have every benefit known to man.....from all over the world. at out finger tips.

and none of this is supposed to make an athlete better....

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/09/24/the-history-of-physical-fitness/

[IMG]https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoyAmxVNeDyrdD4XHaqsC6tQ8SnJdQq lO0D***fzEeL5M9SncF[/IMG]




^^^ always cracks me up

If we are so advanced then why is the art of shifting in boxing considered to be lost?

Why can't most fighters today employ a method that was commonplace back in the day? Is that a sign of advancement or of regression?