Jack Dempsey vs Today's Heavyweights

[Kigali]

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/2014/0...sical-fitness/






^^^ always cracks me up

Name some fighters that have benefited from all that??

Jack Johnson had most of what fighters today have.

Double end bag
Speed bag
heavy bag
jump rope
medicine ball
Sparring
Trainer's mitts

He had to do roadwork...eat right...sleep right..ect ect

[Elroy The Great]

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?

show me what you mean

[Kigali]

show me what you mean

Name the guys at 175(for example) that can beat Archie Moore or Bob Foster.

Since they have better training techniques and nutrition ect ect

[ShoulderRoll]

show me what you mean

[Elroy The Great]

Name some fighters that have benefited from all that??

Jack Johnson had most of what fighters today have.

Double end bag
Speed bag
heavy bag
jump rope
medicine ball
Sparring
Trainer's mitts

He had to do roadwork...eat right...sleep right..ect ect

nevermind. we all have our opinion only i also posted pictures showing obvious progression and a link to support my pov. ive showed how we live longer, are in fact bigger, faster and stronger....

i will now excuse myself from the yes/no session. feel free tpo say how ''owned'' i was.

dempsey vs our top 15 hws......cause of dempseys death ? massive head trauma.

[Prince Madison]

Another clueless post to add to your ever growing list.

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.

[Fury4daWIN]

I agree with almost everything you've said, but I believe that Jack could still have beaten some of today's top 15 guys.

What do you mean the physical difference between his opponents wasn't as great?

In terms of what?

Strength?

Weight?

Mike was smaller, with less reach.

I believe Jack was very strong.

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.

[M Bison]

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

Yet the vast majority out of those names would either get KOed or lose on wide points, its easy to say what you think will happen when you know there is no way to proving other than hypothetically.
Wladimir has fought plenty different types of heavyweights and beat them all.

[robertzimmerman]

I dropped a **** load of knowledge you've just knit picked. Lewis = Gold, Joshua = Gold, Wladimir = Gold even Deontay = Bronze. They possess more talent in their pinkys than all of the 'super' hws from post World War 1 and pre World War 2 combined. They all know how to gauge distance and use their size to their advantage. Something Dempseys foes struggled to grasp.

Crude??? That whole era was crude. They were essentially the beginning (on film). Please watch Willard vs Dempsey. If Wilder is crude then my god that era was cringe worthy.

You didn't drop any knowledge, only ignorance.

If you want to label guys like Willard as being crude, that's up to you. But don't tell me that Dempsey would only have lasted a few guys with this guy:

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

[robertzimmerman]

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

Good post.

A lot of people don't realise that being big can sometimes also work as a disadvantage.

Too much emphasis is put on size.