Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-17-2007, 04:39 PM   #46
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,669
vCash: 238
Default Re: Dempsey VS Today's active heavyweights

Quote:

You might think diferently if you had some better footage of Firpo. Against Willard for example he looks a lot better than the Dempsey fight would suggest.
He is still far behind Peter. Willard was an ancient monument when he fought Firpo, 42 or 43 years old.

Quote:
These pictures do not contradict anything I have said. He clearly caries excess fat around his midriff above his trunks. I could probably find some pictures from a diferent angle that look less flatering still.
Well i guess we're done discussing, then. You think that's a tire of excess fat, i think he's in good shape.


Quote:
You seem to be arguing that only the smaller fighters were talented back then despite the fact that they were taught by the same trainers as the biger fighters.

Did big fighters just not bother to learn?
Um, talent has nothing to do with learning. You either have it or you don't. And they didn't have it. A trainer cannot make a fighter more or less talented, you know that Janitor.

There were simply to little people in the higher regions. Why have we never seen a hispanic heavyweight champion and rarely a solid contender, despite there having been tons of great hispanics at lightweight etc? Because their average size is 5'6 140lb. Consequence? Very few guys are naturally big therefore there is a lack of talent in that region and they are not able to compete with the talent from other people where there is talent in the XXL size.


Quote:
Now look at a side view of him and you will se a much less flatering picture.
If he was more than 25lb overweight as you claim, then i don't think a frontal picture could hide it, unless he can carry the weight.

But here you go:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]



[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]



Quote:
Yes Galento deserved his title shot but he was ridiculed in the press for his training habits and lack of conditioning. It was not something people were used to seeing.
Yep. And still he went past twelve rounds several times if i remember correct. While i'm not advertising his conditioning, some fighters just have a different body type and boxing style and are conditioned accordingly. David Tua will always have some extra weight for exactly the same reason Galento does. Chagaev et all are a bit in between. But all of the above are fine fighters in their own right.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 09-17-2007, 04:42 PM   #47
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,669
vCash: 238
Default Re: Dempsey VS Today's active heavyweights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senya13
Galento deserved a title shot? You gotta be kidding me.
Tell me who else deserved the shot? You can only fight one at a time.
There was certainly enough interest in the fight and Galento was on a long winning streak.
There have been tons of far worse title challengers in history.


[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]





[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2007, 04:43 PM   #48
Senya13
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Russia
Posts: 3,989
vCash: 1210
Default Re: Dempsey VS Today's active heavyweights

What were Galento's three best wins, outside of the Lou Nova foulfest? Deserved it, ha!
Senya13 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2007, 04:54 PM   #49
Duodenum
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,803
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Dempsey VS Today's active heavyweights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxmomer
You're preaching to the choir their, buddy. Personally I rate Dempsey as a top 3 heavyweight of all time, second only to Ali and tied with Louis. I spent a day and a half arguing why I thought Dempsey would beat Marciano Head to Head on the general board. I want to say that Dempsey would pound all the current heavyweights to shit.
And I'm still all "punched out" from supporting you on that thread. Please feel free to draw liberally from those posts I offered up, if it will suit your purpose. (As T.S. Eliot declared, "Mediocre writers borrow; great writers steal.")
Duodenum is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2007, 04:57 PM   #50
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,548
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Dempsey VS Today's active heavyweights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senya13
Galento deserved a title shot? You gotta be kidding me.
Believe me I am not kiding.

Galento was coming off 11 consecutive knockouts including wins over several opf Louis's former title oponents.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2007, 05:04 PM   #51
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,548
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Dempsey VS Today's active heavyweights

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPontius
He is still far behind Peter. Willard was an ancient monument when he fought Firpo, 42 or 43 years old.
Firpo apears much more proficient against Willard employing feints and showing fair boxing ability.

He dose not look good against Dempsey but it is difficult to look good when you are knocked down five times inside a round and the timing of the film is shot.

Quote:
Well i guess we're done discussing, then. You think that's a tire of excess fat, i think he's in good shape.
Just look at what is in front of you!!

Study the muscle definition of both.


Quote:
Um, talent has nothing to do with learning. You either have it or you don't. And they didn't have it. A trainer cannot make a fighter more or less talented, you know that Janitor.
Right but there is no reason why the smaller fighters should have an edge in technique.

Quote:
If he was more than 25lb overweight as you claim, then i don't think a frontal picture could hide it, unless he can carry the weight.

But here you go:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]



[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
These pictures don't show much. In the first Peter is turned away slightly and in the second his arm obscures his upper body so that the belly is less emphasized but still aparent.

Quote:
Yep. And still he went past twelve rounds several times if i remember correct. While i'm not advertising his conditioning, some fighters just have a different body type and boxing style and are conditioned accordingly. David Tua will always have some extra weight for exactly the same reason Galento does. Chagaev et all are a bit in between. But all of the above are fine fighters in their own right.
They are fine fighters they just could be better.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2007, 05:34 PM   #52
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,669
vCash: 238
Default Re: Dempsey VS Today's active heavyweights

Quote:
Just look at what is in front of you!!

Study the muscle definition of both.
And then? Going by that, we'd conclude that Briggs is in excellent shape.
This is not a body building contest. Fighters need not be ripped. Fedor Emilianenko looks like a bus driver but he destroys all the 300+ lb ripped fighters they put in front of him.

Chagaev, Sultan, Povetkin et al are fighters and their bodies are a result of training for boxing, not body building. Some people have more talent for a muscular look but in the end it's the ability that counts. Which they most certainly have!

Quote:
Right but there is no reason why the smaller fighters should have an edge in technique.
Technique to a large degree comes down to talent and dedication. A guy like Carnera or Valuev will never be a smooth, technical boxer because they are simply not like that, regardless of trainer.


Quote:
These pictures don't show much. In the first Peter is turned away slightly and in the second his arm obscures his upper body so that the belly is less emphasized but still aparent.
Well, i'm not going to spend more time on this, i've provided plenty of pictures and you have made up your mind just like i have.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2007, 05:39 PM   #53
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,548
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Dempsey VS Today's active heavyweights

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPontius
And then? Going by that, we'd conclude that Briggs is in excellent shape.
This is not a body building contest. Fighters need not be ripped. Fedor Emilianenko looks like a bus driver but he destroys all the 300+ lb ripped fighters they put in front of him.

Chagaev, Sultan, Povetkin et al are fighters and their bodies are a result of training for boxing, not body building.
Their build is the norm today while Marciano's level of definition was more the norm in his era.

Quote:
Technique to a large degree comes down to talent and dedication. A guy like Carnera or Valuev will never be a smooth, technical boxer because they are simply not like that, regardless of trainer.
Carnera was a smooth technical boxer.

Quote:
Well, i'm not going to spend more time on this, i've provided plenty of pictures and you have made up your mind just like i have.
Fair enough.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2007, 07:20 PM   #54
Maxmomer
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,690
vCash: 619
Default Re: Dempsey VS Today's active heavyweights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duodenum
And I'm still all "punched out" from supporting you on that thread. Please feel free to draw liberally from those posts I offered up, if it will suit your purpose. (As T.S. Eliot declared, "Mediocre writers borrow; great writers steal.")
Thanks, your encyclopedic knowledge of Jack Dempsey is a gift to us all.
Maxmomer is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2007, 09:55 AM   #55
Duodenum
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,803
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Dempsey VS Today's active heavyweights

Quote:
Originally Posted by tobkhan
Havenīt tried that and i donīt have any intentions to try it in the future.
Just as well. I understand the pus busting body zits and hangover are awful. (Not to mention the amputated limbs, collapsed spines, deteriorating hip bones and shriveled genitals.)
Duodenum is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2007, 01:23 PM   #56
red cobra
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Sea of Tranquility
Posts: 13,382
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Dempsey VS Today's active heavyweights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxmomer
You're preaching to the choir their, buddy. Personally I rate Dempsey as a top 3 heavyweight of all time, second only to Ali and tied with Louis. I spent a day and a half arguing why I thought Dempsey would beat Marciano Head to Head on the general board. I want to say that Dempsey would pound all the current heavyweights to shit.
Archie Moore, according to a Gil Clancy interview I read once, said that Dempsey was a physically strong man, as he heard it from an old trainer acquaintence he knew. Dempsey was a hard as steel kind of guy who could capitalize in a flash on a mistake and end it all with one shot, as Jack Sharkey found out, and Gene Tunney almost found out. I think he is painfully underrated by today's brilliant boxing intelligensia, for whom boxing only began with Muhammad Ali, or the eighties. The great modern day historical revisionists of boxing.
red cobra is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 04:38 AM   #57
Duodenum
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,803
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Dempsey VS Today's active heavyweights

Quote:
Originally Posted by red cobra
Archie Moore, according to a Gil Clancy interview I read once, said that Dempsey was a physically strong man, as he heard it from an old trainer acquaintence he knew. Dempsey was a hard as steel kind of guy who could capitalize in a flash on a mistake and end it all with one shot, as Jack Sharkey found out, and Gene Tunney almost found out. I think he is painfully underrated by today's brilliant boxing intelligensia, for whom boxing only began with Muhammad Ali, or the eighties. The great modern day historical revisionists of boxing.
Well RC, once Maxmomer finishes reading all of Dempsey's instructional literature, and evaluates it against the best computer enhanced movie clips of Jack's finest filmed performances on DVD, he'll become just like the rest of the Dempsey "illuminati" (ie: Bruce Lee), no longer willing to "bang the head against the wall" in educating others about Jack's methodology, but just shaking the head in amusement, and chuckling silently at the ignorance of the Mauler's critics.
Duodenum is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013