Jack Dempsey vs James Toney @ 190 Catchweight

[rusak]

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

Toney can get a little overrated. Great talent and great skills, but CW and above he was nothing sensational. I think he lacks the discipline and is too stationary to outpoint Dempsey. He'll get outworked.

Since when is Dempsey an outside fighter? Toney won't have to look for him at all. Dempsey will just get countered to death. Demps would have a somewhat better chance in those tiny 5 ounce gloves, but Toney's power would be considerably upped as well.

[rusak]

In terms of resumes, Toney's wins over Ruiz and old Holy are better than anything on Dempsey's resume.

[Unforgiven]

Dempsey would beat Toney up.
Toney was not much good above middle or super-middle, even with the boat load of steroids he was taking. The credit his gets is laughable. It's always true in boxing that a big mouth can go a long way in building a reputation.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by rusak

In terms of resumes, Toney's wins over Ruiz and old Holy are better than anything on Dempsey's resume.

Oh please, not even close!

[janitor]

Originally Posted by brnxhands

Nothing special crusier and above? Why did he take out the best cruiser in the world undefeated Jirov. Beat samuel peter. beat rahman, beat ruiz. More like underrated. He should have been champion .

Dempsey was champion.

[Johnstown]

dempsey was also a high level catch as catch wrestler...in a street fight he would choke Toney out..boxing he is too fast....Dempsey would crowd him and batter him down....

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by brnxhands

Nothing special crusier and above? Why did he take out the best cruiser in the world undefeated Jirov. Beat samuel peter. beat rahman, beat ruiz. More like underrated. He should have been champion .

He didn't beat Rahman when Rahman was any good. He beat an over-the-hill Rahman in a meaningless fight between two has-beens in 2008 (actually changed to an NC, when Rahman quit with a cut after 3 easy rounds). They fought over two years earlier, and Rahman was unlucky to only get a draw, imo. I thought Rahman beat Toney quite clearly in 2006.

Officially he went 0-2 against Peter, but I thnk he won the first fight, making it 1-1. He beat Peter, imo, in a close fight in 2006, but in the rematch a few months later he was beat in a clear and decisive manner.

He beat Ruiz fair enough. And Jirov was his best win ever above 160.
But I'm not sure this record proves him to be anything special.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by rusak

In terms of resumes, Toney's wins over Ruiz and old Holy are better than anything on Dempsey's resume.

Strange statement.
Holyfield was 41 years old hadn't a convincing legitimate win over a ranked heavyweight in 5 or 6 years (unless you count the headbutt TD over Rahman, 18 months earlier). He was at least 10 years past his prime. His fight against Toney is sandwiched between two horrible defeats to Byrd and Donald.
As great as Holyfield was, he hardly had a pulse at this point in his career.

Dempsey beat "live" versions of Jack Sharkey and Fred Fulton, top contenders of the day.

[nufc_jay]

So.... it'd be close....

[McGrain]

I think it's pretty unlikley it would be close actually nuff. I thin it's more likely that one side or the other is really really wrong here. Dempsey was regarded in his own time as the most devastating offensive machine in boxing, ever. This remained the opinion of most up until Louis, and for some mis-guided souls, even longer.

People who are picking Dempsey are doing so because they believe that opinion was nulled by advances in the sport. People who are picking Dempsey believe that those observations are still basically valid. Either one is wrong or the other is wrong, and the wrong party will see their fighter get spanked IMO.

[Unforgiven]

I'm not sure Dempsey was the greatest offensive machine ever up to his time, never mind up to more recently.
But he looks to be far too much for the likes of James Toney, from where I'm sitting anyway.

Toney's one of those fighters who gets over-rated for his cute moves. People tend to ignore the times he gets hit or his glaring flaws, because when his cute moves work it looks so easy, and so cute.

I watched his fight with Jirov recently. And that was a good performance. But no way can I see that guy beating a Dempsey. He's hardly got any legs, what's he going to do ? Jirov hurt him a few times with body shots, I hate to think what Dempsey would do to that fat belly.
Dempsey was described as a 'mauler' quite aptly. You can only be so cute when you're standing toe to toe with a mauler, and there's no doubt that Dempsey will be able to close on Toney. Ugly often beats cute.
Guys like Tunney and Gibbons were tough men and clever boxers but they knew better than to attempt to fight Dempsey without a lot of foot movement. They didn't stand a chance going to the ropes and trying to counter punch.
Toney's going to be standing on the ropes, tryin to be cute and pot-shot, and he'll get eaten up by a very vicious 190 pound fighter.

[FastHands(beeb)]

I believe Unforgiven has pretty much nailed this subject with his posts. Hat doffed, for sure.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by janitor

Oh please, not even close!

40 year old Holyfield was far better than a semi-retired, 37 year old Willard who never did much outside of outlasting an old Johnson in Havana sun. Head to head, resume-wise, however you care to measure it up.

[rusak]

Originally Posted by rusak

In terms of resumes, Toney's wins over Ruiz and old Holy are better than anything on Dempsey's resume.

[HOUDINI]

As per Fleischer who watched both men in training and was at ringside for the fight....Willard was fit as anyone who ever fought for the hwt championship the day he fought Johnson. He absorbed a horrible beating and did not wilt and came back to ko the great champion. Today it's typical to put Wilard down and not appreciate this accomplishment. Not many in boxing history that could absorb that kind of beating the first 20 rounds and come back to win by ko in the 26th.