Dempsey's vaunted run to the Title - Page 19

Flea Man · 01-23-2013, 03:41 AM

I'm with Seamus.

Unforgiven · 01-23-2013, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrain

No, you are right - but I don't think anyone has accused Dempsey of feasting on leftovers where Brennan is concerned? More just registering general astonishment at his taking on the guy who had been thrashed four times the year before rather than the guy who actually won

It was supposed to be an easy defence. It didn't quite work out that way.

McGrain · 01-23-2013, 03:59 AM

Brennan was a good fighter. Dempsey beat a good fighter there. But it's just another case of very very strange happenings during the Dempsey reign. Look at 1919. Was there ever a champion that had two contenders duking it out the year before that many times and takes on the loser? I mean has a HW champion even taken on the loser of a trilogy in these circumstances? It's fucking freaky.

Manassa · 01-23-2013, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Lee Ramage would be about 5 years old in 1918, so no.

Surely you know what I meant.

KuRuPT · 01-23-2013, 01:55 PM

Do the pro dempsey camp even admit that he had a poor pre title run and a poor title run? I hope they can at least admit that. Even if they want to go with the romantic writing of the day and some hyperbole from others as the basis for his greatness.. I hope they can at least see his resume, is well, not that stellar.

Unforgiven · 01-23-2013, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manassa

Surely you know what I meant.

yeah, he was a good fighter.

Unforgiven · 01-23-2013, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

Do the pro dempsey camp even admit that he had a poor pre title run and a poor title run? I hope they can at least admit that. Even if they want to go with the romantic writing of the day and some hyperbole from others as the basis for his greatness.. I hope they can at least see his resume, is well, not that stellar.

He didn't have a 'poor pre-title run'. Compared to who ?
I mean, he KO'd Fred Fulton, who you could call the legit #1 or #2 contender, in a few seconds.
He was busy and knocking fighters out, even if most were second- and third-raters, and some were better than that. It's not a 'poor run'.

KuRuPT · 01-23-2013, 02:38 PM

What would you call it.. and average run? Regardless, even if we use that term.. average run and poor tittle run /= the adjectives.. best ever... or even one of the best ever.. wouldn't you agree?

Unforgiven · 01-23-2013, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

What would you call it? An Average run?

It was a good run.

If a heavyweight came along today and went 19-1-1 (17 KOs) in a twelve month period, with a 1st round KO over a top 2 contender, and some other KOs against top 20 guys, and a series of 'keep busy' KOs over second-raters IT WOULD BE PRETTY FUCKING AMAZING !
In my humble opinion.

Manassa · 01-23-2013, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

yeah, he was a good fighter.

Yeah, I was just thinking a decent prospect like Ramage should at least have been about equal to a couple of the faded notables on Dempsey's record.

KuRuPT · 01-23-2013, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

It was a good run.

If a heavyweight came along today and went 19-1-1 (17 KOs) in a twelve month period, with a 1st round KO over a top 2 contender, and some other KOs against top 20 guys, and a series of 'keep busy' KOs over second-raters IT WOULD BE PRETTY FUCKING AMAZING !
In my humble opinion.

I edited my post... but still.. I disagree on using the adjective Good run.. and instead would use the term average run.. But still even using the term good.. you would agree his title run was pretty piss poor. So we have a "good" pre title run and a "poor" title run.. how does those equal terms like.. best ever.. or one of the best ever.. or even.. top 10 hw of all time?

Unforgiven · 01-23-2013, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

So we have a "good" pre title run and a "poor" title run.. how does those equal terms like.. best ever.. or one of the best ever.. or even.. top 10 hw of all time?

Because ....

PowerPuncher · 01-23-2013, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrain

The Gibbons thing is interesting because he beat Greb. That fight in the rain was not seen as that satisfactory, proven by Gibbons being the favourite going into their title eliminator, which Greb won very clearly. Still, Greb did better against Gibbons during Dempsey's title reign.

So yeah, you could argue that Dempsey was at Greb's leftovers but Greb was at Gibbons' leftovers, but then Greb thrashed Gibbons.

To be fair to Dempsey, I think (not sure) the bout with Gibbons was signed and in the process before the 4th Greb bout.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

I think the one thing that is harshly criticised and something I'm also guilty of, is his domination of Willard. He was seen as a dominant champ at the time who was too big for his challengers. I don't think it's wrong to say he was seen as head and shoulders above his peers. I'm not saying he was a wlad klitschko, I'm saying he was perceived to be the best out there.

Was Dempsey still considered a dominant champ during his Hollywood years? I'm not sure and I'd have to look into that.

I think the praise Dempsey received during his prime was justified. I think it's shambolic that he never faced Wills nor Greb but i do think the things they said are true, it's just that people have since overtook him.

Willard was not seen as a dominant champ LUFC, he avoided his top contenders in Wills, Fulton and Langford, not fighting anyone of note since his win over Johnson 3 years ago. He was also inactive for those 3 years and 37

ChrisPontius · 01-23-2013, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

It was a good run.

If a heavyweight came along today and went 19-1-1 (17 KOs) in a twelve month period, with a 1st round KO over a top 2 contender, and some other KOs against top 20 guys, and a series of 'keep busy' KOs over second-raters IT WOULD BE PRETTY FUCKING AMAZING !
In my humble opinion.

What if before that year, he lost by first round knockout to Allan Green?

KuRuPT · 01-23-2013, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

To be fair to Dempsey, I think (not sure) the bout with Gibbons was signed and in the process before the 4th Greb bout.

Willard was not seen as a dominant champ LUFC, he avoided his top contenders in Wills, Fulton and Langford, not fighting anyone of note since his win over Johnson 3 years ago. He was also inactive for those 3 years and 37

I think that is more in retrospective view though.. I don't believe the people at the time thought he was a garbage champion.

01-23-2013, 03:41 AM	#271
Flea Man มวยสากล East Side VIP Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: @ferociousflea Posts: 44,047 vCash: 75	Re: Dempsey's vaunted run to the Title I'm with Seamus.
Top

01-23-2013, 03:59 AM	#273
McGrain Diamond Dog East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 63,251 vCash: 1000	Re: Dempsey's vaunted run to the Title Brennan was a good fighter. Dempsey beat a good fighter there. But it's just another case of very very strange happenings during the Dempsey reign. Look at 1919. Was there ever a champion that had two contenders duking it out the year before that many times and takes on the loser? I mean has a HW champion even taken on the loser of a trilogy in these circumstances? It's fucking freaky.
Top

01-23-2013, 01:55 PM	#275
KuRuPT Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,588 vCash: 500	Re: Dempsey's vaunted run to the Title Do the pro dempsey camp even admit that he had a poor pre title run and a poor title run? I hope they can at least admit that. Even if they want to go with the romantic writing of the day and some hyperbole from others as the basis for his greatness.. I hope they can at least see his resume, is well, not that stellar.
Top

01-23-2013, 02:38 PM	#278
KuRuPT Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,588 vCash: 500	Re: Dempsey's vaunted run to the Title What would you call it.. and average run? Regardless, even if we use that term.. average run and poor tittle run /= the adjectives.. best ever... or even one of the best ever.. wouldn't you agree? Last edited by KuRuPT; 01-23-2013 at 03:00 PM.
Top