Originally posted by robertzimmerman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Jack Dempsey vs Today's Heavyweights
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by robertzimmerman View PostWhat was great about it?
Why couldn't Dempsey have beaten Joshua?
Stop being biased.Ascended likes this.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by creekrat77 View PostPeople 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
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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Red-Cyclone View PostBlah 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 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
Last edited by creekrat77; 01-22-2017, 11:24 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Red-Cyclone View PostFfs Haye is much bigger, quicker and skillful than Dempsey and you lot want to pretend to yourself.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kigali View PostSo where is the proof of this in the ring??
I don't see ****.
Name these technologically advanced fighters.
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/2014/0...sical-fitness/
[IMG]https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoyAmxVNeDyrdD4XHaqsC6tQ8SnJdQq lO0D***fzEeL5M9SncF[/IMG]
^^^ always cracks me up
Comment
-
Originally posted by SemiGreat View Post1st 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/2014/0...sical-fitness/
[IMG]https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoyAmxVNeDyrdD4XHaqsC6tQ8SnJdQq lO0D***fzEeL5M9SncF[/IMG]
^^^ always cracks me up
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?
Comment
Comment