How would Jack Dempsey do against Sonny Listons opposition?

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Muhammad Ali of 1964 would have embarrassed any version of Dempsey

I doubt it. Ali was just one fight removed from being on the deck against Henry Cooper.
Liston really didn't put up much of a fight, he quit quite pathetically, and was horribly slow in 1964 in comparison with a prime Dempsey.

[PowerPuncher]

Ali was overconfident against Cooper and took his foot off the gas as he didn't want to stop Cooper until it was the round he predicted. If he was 100% focused neither Cooper or Dempsey would be putting him down

Dempsey wasn't really quicker than Liston either and Liston had a jab the quickest punch in boxing, Dempsey didn't. A hook is much easier to avoid than a jab

[McGrain]

He would do extremely well. I think that the Dempsey that beat Sharkey would be in a wonderful fight with Clarke.

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Ali was overconfident against Cooper and took his foot off the gas as he didn't want to stop Cooper until it was the round he predicted. If he was 100% focused neither Cooper or Dempsey would be putting him down

He didn't look too hot in his fight before Cooper either (v. Jones). He was put down because he just open to left hooks.

Dempsey wasn't really quicker than Liston either and Liston had a jab the quickest punch in boxing, Dempsey didn't. A hook is much easier to avoid than a jab

A prime Dempsey was a lot quicker than Liston , imo.

Dempsey had a jab but he didn't use it like Liston used his. Both jabs and hooks are hard to avoid. A well-delivered left hook you won't even see coming.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by Legend X

He didn't look too hot in his fight before Cooper either (v. Jones). He was put down because he just open to left hooks.

A prime Dempsey was a lot quicker than Liston , imo.

Dempsey had a jab but he didn't use it like Liston used his. Both jabs and hooks are hard to avoid. A well-delivered left hook you won't even see coming.

Ali was in a way open to left hooks because of low hands but no more so than Gene Tunney. Both used footwork and the right hand to control left hookers. Past his best against Frazier the left hook wasn't really an issue for the first 7 rounds until he gassed, the left hook wasn't really an issue in the Cooper rematch either and Liston had an excellent left hook of his own ofcourse

You seem to conveniently ignore the lackadaisical approach to the Cooper fight, the rematch shows Ali when focused deals with Cooper easily as he was for much of their first fight. The fight with Doug Jones was competitive but Jones was a top technician. You're picking holes in wins at the end of the day, which I suppose shows weaknesses but if anything 'Prime Dempsey' shows many more weaknesses

The fight we're talking about anyway is against Liston a man many at the time thought was the best of all time. That performance was a great one and Clay rose to the occasion

Dempsey threw a grand total of something like 2 jabs on film, no he didn't use it like Liston did he. I'd say never throwing a jab amounts to not having a jab. I'm also not sure where this myth of Dempsey having great handspeed comes from, he isn't that quick, I think it must be from fighting someone as slow as Willard and Firpo.

You won't see a left hook coming? If you box it's the easiest punch to see coming because of the wider arc travelled, you can also see them moving to their left to set it up which makes them open to the counter right on the way in if they don't jab their way in. Leading with the left hook while dispensing with the jab is fundamentally bad boxing form unless you're much quicker than your opponent. Dempsey also never mastered cutting off the ring against a man who circles him

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Ali was in a way open to left hooks because of low hands but no more so than Gene Tunney. Both used footwork and the right hand to control left hookers.

Tunney didn't face a prime Dempsey. He may well have been nailed very quick by a devastating left hook from a prime Dempsey.
Dempsey took 17 rounds to catch Tunney when they did fight. If it was prime v prime, this may have been achieved in 3 or 4 rounds, since Dempsey's foot speed had diminished considerably.

You seem to conveniently ignore the lackadaisical approach to the Cooper fight, the rematch shows Ali when focused deals with Cooper easily as he was for much of their first fight. The fight with Doug Jones was competitive but Jones was a top technician. You're picking holes in wins at the end of the day, which I suppose shows weaknesses but if anything 'Prime Dempsey' shows many more weaknesses

I'm not picking holes for the sake of it. I'm just saying I'm not convinced Clay of February 1964 was ready to be favoured against a prime Jack Dempsey.

The fight we're talking about anyway is against Liston a man many at the time thought was the best of all time. That performance was a great one and Clay rose to the occasion

I don't think it was that great. Ali moved very well but I don't think he did an awful lot to Liston. The fight finished prematurely. Liston just upped and quit. Clay's best round was the 3rd where, after hurting Liston he allowed Sonny to get the better of him in the later stages of the round. This showed his inexperienced more than anything. The 6th Clay looked good too, by default ... Sonny had slowed down to a snail's pace.

Anyway, Dempsey's a completely different fighter. It's a different style.

Dempsey threw a grand total of something like 2 jabs on film, no he didn't use it like Liston did he. I'd say never throwing a jab amounts to not having a jab

He threw a lot more than 2 jabs on film.

You won't see a left hook coming? If you box it's the easiest punch to see coming because of the wider distance travelled, you can also see them moving to their left to set it up which makes them open to the counter right on the way in if they don't jab their way in. Leading with the left hook while dispensing with the jab is fundamentally bad boxing form unless you're much quicker than your opponent

You've perhaps boxed guys who throw swings rather than hooks.
A well-delivered left hook is the shortest distance travelled of just about any punch. The fist travels very little distance - the body might turn considerably though, and the follow-through makes up most of the arc.
You know this too - because you watch boxing.

Tyson, Dempsey, Louis, Liston ... these guys often landed lead hooks or hooks off a feint.

Joe Frazier chipped away at every man he every fought with a steady stream of left hooks. It the punch was easy to avoid, Frazier would have been a ham-and-egger.


Anyway, the point is, DEMPSEY WAS QUICKER THAN LISTON, especially on his feet. He had a completely different style to Liston. A prime Dempsey would have been a far more difficult challenge that the Liston of 1964, for the '64 version of Clay.

[SuzieQ49]

1964 Sonny Liston and 1964 Cassius Clay would have both stopped Jack Dempsey.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Legend X

Tunney didn't face a prime Dempsey. He may well have been nailed very quick by a devastating left hook from a prime Dempsey.
Dempsey took 17 rounds to catch Tunney when they did fight. If it was prime v prime, this may have been achieved in 3 or 4 rounds, since Dempsey's foot speed had diminished considerably.

This is a very big shout and i'm not convinced myself.

Demspey was extremely good at what he did. Tunney was extremely good at what he did. Tunney was also brilliant when Dempsey did eventually catch him in those moments right afterewards. In a ten round fight i'm not convinced that Dempsey should be heavily favoured against Gene Tunney prime-for-prime, though i agree it would be a very different fight.

Would have to be. Tunney totally dominated Dempsey.

[LittleRed]

47-6-1

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by Legend X

Tunney didn't face a prime Dempsey. He may well have been nailed very quick by a devastating left hook from a prime Dempsey.
Dempsey took 17 rounds to catch Tunney when they did fight. If it was prime v prime, this may have been achieved in 3 or 4 rounds, since Dempsey's foot speed had diminished considerably.

Speculative in favour of Dempsey and the evidence just doesn't suggest that. Prime Miske took Dempsey to a draw, Meehan beat/drew him without Dempsey catching up to him, Brennan took him into the late rounds. None of these are as good as Tunney

Originally Posted by Legend X

I'm not picking holes for the sake of it. I'm just saying I'm not convinced Clay of February 1964 was ready to be favoured against a prime Jack Dempsey.

I don't think it was that great. Ali moved very well but I don't think he did an awful lot to Liston. The fight finished prematurely. Liston just upped and quit. Clay's best round was the 3rd where, after hurting Liston he allowed Sonny to get the better of him in the later stages of the round. This showed his inexperienced more than anything. The 6th Clay looked good too, by default ... Sonny had slowed down to a snail's pace.

Offensively it was a great performance, Liston did quit but that doesn't take away from the beating Clay gave him earlier in the fight putting on a clinic. I think it was near prime Ali

Originally Posted by Legend X

Anyway, Dempsey's a completely different fighter. It's a different style.

Indeed

Originally Posted by Legend X

He threw a lot more than 2 jabs on film.

What 3? Dempsey doesn't have a jab, he doesn't use it to control a fight, close distance or set up other punchers. He's the definition of not having a jab, even if he could perhaps throw 1 once in a blue moon, it’s irrelevant to how it would influence a fight

Originally Posted by Legend X

You've perhaps boxed guys who throw swings rather than hooks.
A well-delivered left hook is the shortest distance travelled of just about any punch. The fist travels very little distance - the body might turn considerably though, and the follow-through makes up most of the arc.
You know this too - because you watch boxing.

Tyson, Dempsey, Louis, Liston ... these guys often landed lead hooks or hooks off a feint.

Joe Frazier chipped away at every man he every fought with a steady stream of left hooks. It the punch was easy to avoid, Frazier would have been a ham-and-egger.

A hook on the inside/mid range, is a short punch, but you have to get inside, so if you don’t throw anything prior to that you’re either leading with wide hooks or walking into punching rage. Both make you easy to outbox by straight punches

You listed Frazier, but Frazier took punches to land punches, his style inherently with it’s flaws, having to walk through fire against both Ali and Quarry, being destroyed by Foreman

Dempsey too throughout his career was picked off from range and not just by Tunney but by lower tier types like Brennan and even Firpo smashed him on the way in. It seems Miske earned his draw with the same tactics

Tyson and Louis did use the jab much much more, but when Tyson led with hooks against Holyfield and Douglas it made him easier to counter punch and/or control with the jab

Originally Posted by Legend X

Anyway, the point is, DEMPSEY WAS QUICKER THAN LISTON, especially on his feet. He had a completely different style to Liston. A prime Dempsey would have been a far more difficult challenge that the Liston of 1964, for the '64 version of Clay.

He was quicker on his feet, defensively he was pretty hittable. Ali is the much bigger stronger man too aswell as being the all time fastest with great lateral movement.

Nightmare style for Dempsey and frankly a difference in class

[Swarmer]

fighters i like KO4 fighters you like

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by McGrain

This is a very big shout and i'm not convinced myself.

Demspey was extremely good at what he did. Tunney was extremely good at what he did. Tunney was also brilliant when Dempsey did eventually catch him in those moments right afterewards. In a ten round fight i'm not convinced that Dempsey should be heavily favoured against Gene Tunney prime-for-prime, though i agree it would be a very different fight.

Would have to be. Tunney totally dominated Dempsey.

I'm not 100% convinced either. I totally respect Tunney's chances. But Dempsey could well have caught him sooner - and more often.
Dempsey in his prime is a far cry from Dempsey of 1927, imo.
And Dempsey of 1927 did have Tunney in serious trouble.

I didn't bring Tunney up.
He shouldn't really be brought up regarding any hypothetical match-up of a 'prime Dempsey', imo.
Or at least brought up only with qualifiers.

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Speculative in favour of Dempsey and the evidence just doesn't suggest that. Prime Miske took Dempsey to a draw, Meehan beat/drew him without Dempsey catching up to him, Brennan took him into the late rounds. None of these are as good as Tunney

Dempsey also dominated Tommy Gibbons.
He dominated Brennan in their first meeting from all accounts.
He KO'd Fred Fulton (a reknowned left jabber with massive reach) within a few seconds.

Actually he did have Meehan dumped on the canvas and in all sorts of trouble in their 1918 match, but was outpointed in the other 3 rounds.

Jack Dempsey may have shaded Miske, I don't know.

Tunney was in his absolute prime in 1926-'27. Dempsey was considerably past his. And still Dempsey had Tunney on the deck (the ONLY man to ever do so). That needs to be acknowledged.

What 3? Dempsey doesn't have a jab, he doesn't use it to control a fight, close distance or set up other punchers. He's the definition of not having a jab, even if he could perhaps throw 1 once in a blue moon, it’s irrelevant to how it would influence a fight

Well, I'm not as concerned about it as you are. But he threw more jabs than you give him credit for. Dempsey boxed just fine.

Dempsey too throughout his career was picked off from range and not just by Tunney but by lower tier types like Brennan and even Firpo smashed him on the way in. It seems Miske earned his draw with the same tactics

All aggressive fighters get hit on the way in sometimes. Holyfield got hit plenty. Foreman got hit. Frazier, as you mentioned. Tyson - in spite of the mythical version of his defensive abilities, could be picked off at range.
I make no alibis for Dempsey's flaws - all fighters have flaws/
Ali was open to a quick left hook.
A guy with a fast accurate left hook, long arms and fast feet .... eg. Dempsey ... would be a serious challenge for the immature Clay of Feb.'64.

In my opinion.