Jack Dempsey vs Today's Heavyweights
Collapse
-
Wilder is garbage.
He's struggled with B and C class guys.
Dempsey would have given him hell with his style. He was short, coming in low at speed, and he bobbed and weaved to get inside, with aggression and pressure.
Wilder would have found him extremely difficult to time.
Are you going to tell me that Mike Tyson was too small for Wilder, and that he'd have struggled today too?
You seriously think that anyone in today's top 20 would have killed Dempsey?
Ha!
Again, I think you need to look who's ranked in the top 20.
Outside of the top fighters, there's not much there.
Just to give you an idea, if you look at the Ring's current ratings, along with ESPN's, they have the likes of Pulev, Ruiz Jnr, Whyte and Breazeale in their top 10.
If you think all of those guys as well as the rest of the top 20 would have easily have beaten Dempsey, then you need to educate yourself or find another sport to follow.
A man of 6'1, with a 77" reach, would not be too small to compete with the B and C class HW's of today.
Andy Ruiz is the same size as Dempsey, but he's heavier due to the body fat that he's carrying.Last edited by robertzimmerman; 06-29-2017, 04:57 AM.Comment
-
Lol @ you trying to tell me about my sport. Get real. Too small. Not skilled enough. Joe Louis wouldn't crack the top 5 today even. Modern athletes are bigger, more athletic and plain old smarter. None of those fighters would be competitive in today's hw div where the champions are 6 foot 4-7 and weigh close to 250 lbs or more with huge reach.
Sorry but that's real truth.
You are just embarrassing yourself.
Joe Louis wouldn't have cracked the top 5 today?
My god, Deontay Wilder is an uncoordinated HW who is universally recognised as being in the top 2. He won his belt against a B class out of shape HW in Stiverne, who himself won a vacant belt against Chris Arreola. Since then, Wilder has looked limited, and has even struggled at times, against B and C class guys. He throws wild punches and is off balance. He constantly has to rely on his great power to save the day, because he lacks skills.
I can only hope for your own sake that you are just trolling us all for a joke.Comment
-
Wilder is big with huge power, but severely limited.
My argument isn't that Dempsey would have beaten all of today's HW's.
My arguments are:
The perfect blend of styles and ability, can overcome even huge disparities in size.
Dempsey would have been able to have beaten SOME guys ranked in today's top 20.Comment
-
What i do know the most on this thread is Kigali ( known as the worst poster on this site)...DagoWop...A.K.A Mojo rising ( who thinks Lewis at 6'0 tall would be more effective than at 6'5 inches tall) are both in agreement with you....and your not to far behind of being such an imbecile...though theres NO way you can exceed them no matter how hard you are trying here!
Maybe you can surpass Mr.steele above who is using a fat out of shape past prime Johnson as a showcase for how good Willard was ( even though JJ threw the fight..lol)!
I'm not interested in what others do.
Back on topic, with the attributes that he had, Dempsey would have been able to have beaten SOME of today's HW's.
Mike Tyson was only 5'10, with a reach of just 71"
Size alone does not win fights.Comment
-
I don't care who's in agreement with me, and Johnny Steele is an obvious troll. He's currently trolling in 2 other threads that I've posted in.
I'm not interested in what others do.
Back on topic, with the attributes that he had, Dempsey would have been able to have beaten SOME of today's HW's.
Mike Tyson was only 5'10, with a reach of just 71"
Size alone does not win fights.
On todays HW's? Im not going to continue to reiterate common sense to you ,if your that gullible /oblivious / etc ........thats on you and your in the wrong section bc this one uses logical and realistic views moreso than the History section which really this thread belongs even if you get less info on this topic there .Comment
-
And neither would a sub 190 pounder crude skills ,not accurate at all against movers nor good at ring cutting which ALL points EQUAL Dempsey who would lose to half the guys Tyson fought .
On todays HW's? Im not going to continue to reiterate common sense to you ,if your that gullible /oblivious / etc ........thats on you and your in the wrong section bc this one uses logical and realistic views moreso than the History section which really this thread belongs even if you get less info on this topic there .
Common sense is looking at two guys and looking at how they would match up stylistically.
Dempsey would lose to some HW's of today, but he would also beat some of them too.
If you don't realise that, then it's pointless taking things any further. It's just a waste of my time.Comment
-
Lol @ you trying to tell me about my sport. Get real. Too small. Not skilled enough. Joe Louis wouldn't crack the top 5 today even. Modern athletes are bigger, more athletic and plain old smarter. None of those fighters would be competitive in today's hw div where the champions are 6 foot 4-7 and weigh close to 250 lbs or more with huge reach.
Sorry but that's real truth.Comment
-
What i do know the most on this thread is Kigali ( known as the worst poster on this site)...DagoWop...A.K.A Mojo rising ( who thinks Lewis at 6'0 tall would be more effective than at 6'5 inches tall) are both in agreement with you....and your not to far behind of being such an imbecile...though theres NO way you can exceed them no matter how hard you are trying here!
Maybe you can surpass Mr.steele above who is using a fat out of shape past prime Johnson as a showcase for how good Willard was ( even though JJ threw the fight..lol)!Comment
-
Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argument Strawman argumentComment
Comment