Jack Dempsey vs Today's Heavyweights

[robertzimmerman]

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.

He weighed 185-200 pounds, and there's no logical reason why he wouldn't have had a chance of beating him.

[robertzimmerman]

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.

Haye's not through yet.

Let's see how he does against Joshua and Wilder.


Why are you so obsessed with size?

Corrie Sanders took out Wlad.

Many people think that Ray Mercer beat Lennox.

There's countless examples to give.


Each case has to be looked at individually.


Your basic argument is:

Smaller fighters from yesteryear couldn't possibly win today, because today's guys are much bigger. But as yet, guys like Wilder and Joshua have done nothing.

[robertzimmerman]

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

Only to a certain extent in regards to boxing.

[robertzimmerman]

No its people like you are clueless, may aswell not bother with weight divisions if you dont think weight matters much. Its not really a coincidence is it that the current and recent beltholders have been giants is it (fury, klitscko, joshua, wilder) all twice the size of dempsey. Its because size matters. And your tyson comparison is ridiculous, guy was double the size of dempsey in terms of muscle.

I never said size didn't matter. I said size alone doesn't determine the outcome of a fight.

How was my Tyson comparison ridiculous?

I wasn't comparing him DIRECTLY to Dempsey, I just noted that they had similarities, and it proves that the right blend of skills and style can overcome even huge weight disparities.

Mike was only 5'10, with a reach of only 71" which is about the same size as Gennady Golovkin's and Floyd Mayweather's. He also only weighed 215-220 in his prime.

He was physically outsized in every department, in almost every fight. Yet we know what happened.

[robertzimmerman]

No, he was shorter, not smaller. Any more than Joe Frazier was a smaller man than Bob Foster. In every other respect Tyson was the larger man. He was wider, bigger boned, had thicker joints, denser musculature, denser everything really. The fact that he weighed in the 220s without an ounce of fat on him while Dempsey barely scaled the 190 mark is proof of that. Tyson has the strength and resiliency to compete at heavyweight as the shorter man, Dempsey doesn't.

I agree with your assessment of Mike, but you are talking like Dempsey never fought at HW.

Why couldn't Dempsey have had success against some of today's HW's?

He had the attributes.

This one of today's best HW's, who's looking to unify:

http://vk.com/doc63714817_182352769?...6aa50684a10600

[Ray Corso]

"Fear is a normal emotion Ray. When Mike Tyson was crying on Teddy Atlas's shoulder before his fights why was that exactly"?


Insecure and concerned with failing his mentor Cus D'Amato.

Mike Tyson and my son fought on the same team for years (Region One) that I happened to be the coach of. Teddy doesn't work Tysons corners at the Nationals without me so I know all about Mikes concerns back then.

Ray

[Dr Rumack]

Ray Arcel says Dempsey would have beaten Ali (but not Louis). Emanuel Steward said Dempsey was overrated and was more of a sensation than a truly great fighter. I think it's fair to say that there's room for disagreement on this matter.

[Kigali]

Ray Arcel says Dempsey would have beaten Ali (but not Louis). Emanuel Steward said Dempsey was overrated and was more of a sensation than a truly great fighter. I think it's fair to say that there's room for disagreement on this matter.

Steward was overrated.

You couldn't pull back with your hands down against Dempsey....or that beast in your Avi.

[KeyboardWarrior]

I'd take Joe Louis over most if not all of today's hw division.

[billeau2]

Ray Arcel says Dempsey would have beaten Ali (but not Louis). Emanuel Steward said Dempsey was overrated and was more of a sensation than a truly great fighter. I think it's fair to say that there's room for disagreement on this matter.

Thats basically a fair statement with the following caveat: When Tyson ruled the roost there were a few trainers around who had actually seen the tail end of Jack Johnson, seen everyone from Dempsey up through to Tyson... it was just one of those bones the great creator throws us once in a while to shed some light on life's mystery's You know like when we receive a signal that originated at the start of the big bang? so we can tell something about the composition of the universe?

Well...it so happened by this trick of fate, synchronicity that we had a handful of guys who had seen all the great heavies fight...Dempsey, louis, Ali, up through to Tyson. Even a few, if memory serves correct, who had seen Jack Johnson at the tail end of his career. Now by and large these guys felt that Dempsey was the best...a few thought Louis was the best. If Dempsey wasn't the best he was up there...

being that these men saw the guys all fight...I trust their opinions. Film makes things look silly, but nothing substitutes for being there. I also don't trust Stewart. RIP, he was a mensch, but his thing to me was not the heavy weights. He basically had Vlad take a shortcut and many feel that Lewis could have been better.