The Manassa Mauler-Jack Dempsey (July 4,1919) vs Sonny Liston (March 21,1959)who wins

[META5]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Liston has the physical advantage in every category mentioned with the exception of stamina and speed, and perhaps punching 'effectiveness' as was mentioned. He would have to be heavily favored against Dempsey.

Would he beat Dempsey? Now that's a different question.

As stated, I was going to argue on behalf of Tyson over Dempsey. The reason is two-fold. The first is that it annoys me when the untried and untested out here on ESP just pick "their man" with no argument and by devestation. The second is that Tyson, though a devestating puncher and I think the most devestating puncher in HW history, was an insecure child between the ears. Dempsey was as tough as a man can get... he was a teenager fighting in those old "smokers" and challenging anyone in a barroom to a brawl. Unlike John L., this ass-whipper was 130 pounds. His money shot then was a left hook to the body.

I truly believe that men were tougher then. And the Mauler was a hobo who had to fight and win to eat. Tyson better get him out early or else Dempsey could very possibly tear away that Man Facade layer by layer and round by round until the child underneath is exposed.

Liston was tougher than he is given credit for out here. He suffered in his life and not a little, and he had the misfortune of getting caught in Carbo's net and it isn't like you could walk away from that. Liston had character and I don't see him wilting under the Dempsey onslaught. Liston was demonstrably composed under fire from larger men who hit harder -like Williams particularly. Dempsey's strange weaving style out of a low crouch was complex stuff. He pivoted very well and found angles to throw everything in every shot. It is not easy to cope with and I don't see Liston's jab as much of a factor.

Patterson actually made Liston miss a little before being caught. On the notion that Cus trained both Patterson and Tyson to somewhat resemble Dempsey stylistically, is it absurd to suggest that when making Liston miss, Dempsey would additionally be "making him miss and making him pay" with counter punches?

I do think, however, that Dempsey could be vulnerable to the short hook, which Liston threw excellently, when seeking to weave under and explode upwards with his own excellent left.

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Liston would have to bull him backward and catch him with short uppercuts, which were Dempsey's stylistic vulnerability. His face was hanging out there parallel with the canvas. The sparring match with Bill Tate tells us much. Dempsey's style was incredibly effective in my opinion against boxers... against physically superior guys like Liston, Dempsey may not be allowed his requisite forward motion. Liston, unlike Tate here, would not be moving backward.

This is one of the reasons that I disagree the emphatic opinion that Dempsey "DESTROYS" Foreman ... Foreman for all of his criticism was very accurate with the uppercuts and very adept at bulling his man to set the punches up.

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Many people think that Tunney simply outboxed Dempsey. This is not altogether true.. sure, he stepped around him and out of range and put together combinations, but Tunney was most effective when he was coming forward and Dempsey was going backwards. He was able to land his shots because Dempsey wasn't as defensively or offensively sound when not being aggressive. Much like Tyson. Tunney's plan resembled Holyfield's against Tyson.

I'd have to say that Liston would likely hurt Dempsey enough to either stop him or take a decision.

I mentioned the uppercut and short left hook for a specific reason ... you've explicitly and implicitly addressed this. The straight right was mentioned because if memory serves me correctly, it's a punch that Tunney caught Dempsey with on a number of occassions and a punch that Dempsey was open to in general. I wonder how much a fighter like Liston's ability to land the punch would be a factor in such a fight.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Firpo did not hit as hard as Cleveland Williams.

I would dispute that.

Firpo seems from the contemporary acounts to have hit like an elephant gun. He is reported to have killed bulls with his fists.

Dempsey said that he was glad he was going backward when Firpo clocked him.

Firpo had only a rudimentary understanding of how to punch.

He was rough around the edges like most South American heavies. Sort of a hybrid between Oscar Bonavena and Ron Lyle.

He was sly incidentaly. He knew how to throw sneak punches and often did. He was a rough guy who ocasionaly turned cute.

Dempsey was a hard man in a hard time. What is boxing if it is not a character sport?

Dempsey was one scary guy mentaly. Give me equal opponents with diferent minds from various heavyweight champions and I would perhaps fear him the most.

Liston was pushing 40 against Leotis. Dempsey wasn't fighting after he lost a step with age.

I accept your point but the facts that I have outlined nigle at the back of my mind.

And Liston's chin is not overrated, it's woefully underrated.

that is a possibility that I am prepared to consider.

I have great respect for Dempsey's style, but it was one-dimensional and based on aggressive and evasive forward motion. It worked very well for him, but it had holes and simply didn't work if he wasn't coming in. Liston was better-schooled.

You have correctly identified Dempseys principal weakness. However good he was he could get caught coming in. This weakness is inherant to all come forward fighters.

I think that from a stylistic point of view he was much more refined than Liston.

Although Dempsey gets an undeserved bad rap these days, he was nowhere near the level of skill of Duran. Duran was a brawling pressure fighter, a puncher, a boxer-puncher, and a counterpuncher as the situation required. And his defense was excellent.

So what was Dempsey?

He was good on the inside, the outside and in between.

He was probably the best pure infighter the heavyweight division has ever seen.

He outboxed some of the better pure boxers of the day like Tommy Gibbons.

He could counter with devastating effect and put his entire body into it when he did without missing.

This guy was as near to a heavyweight Duran as you will get.

[Ted Spoon]

A few members need to calm down their extremist views as it skewers the debate from being objective.

Liston was a big boy, but Dempsey never bit off more than he could chew.

The idea that the larger object in Liston will prove a barricade that needs to be tactically approached is not so. Dempsey had the kind of dynamic attack that could blast anyone who was standing in front of him.

It would be a fire blitz in there.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by META5

Patterson actually made Liston miss a little before being caught. On the notion that Cus trained both Patterson and Tyson to somewhat resemble Dempsey stylistically, is it absurd to suggest that when making Liston miss, Dempsey would additionally be "making him miss and making him pay" with counter punches?

I'll tell you this: Dempsey would connect on Liston's skull and Liston would be surprised by the force of it. Dempsey's relative smallness would make any modern HW think that he wasn't going to do much damage. I think that Dempsey's punching were the "shock and awe" type and the best of anyone under 200 pounds -ever. And that includes Roy Jones and Marciano. He punched on slings and pivots -he literally slinged (slung?) himself into those hooks and like old-school fighters would turn the fist around so that you got the back of the knuckles where there is less padding on the glove. Robinson did this with his right hooks to the body.

Originally Posted by META5

I do think, however, that Dempsey could be vulnerable to the short hook, which Liston threw excellently, when seeking to weave under and explode upwards with his own excellent left.

Potentially, yes, but prime Dempsey's head was like a bobble on a rubber band. Hard to hit and simultaneously rolling with the shot while gaining leverage to land his own.

Originally Posted by META5

This is one of the reasons that I disagree the emphatic opinion that Dempsey "DESTROYS" Foreman ... Foreman for all of his criticism was very accurate with the uppercuts and very adept at bulling his man to set the punches up.

I think that Foreman would beat Dempsey easier than Liston would. It would be a clash yes... but if an enraged grizzly clashes with an enraged wolverine, its a foregone conclusion.

Originally Posted by META5

I mentioned the uppercut and short left hook for a specific reason ... you've explicitly and implicitly addressed this. The straight right was mentioned because if memory serves me correctly, it's a punch that Tunney caught Dempsey with on a number of occassions and a punch that Dempsey was open to in general. I wonder how much a fighter like Liston's ability to land the punch would be a factor in such a fight.

The right and the short hooks would work for Liston, but Liston would be well-advised to launch these while rushing Dempsey and forcing him backwards. Liston will get nailed if he is launching anything from a stationary position.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by janitor

I would dispute that.

Firpo seems from the contemporary acounts to have hit like an elephant gun. He is reported to have killed bulls with his fists.

Dempsey said that he was glad he was going backward when Firpo clocked him.

He was rough around the edges like most South American heavies. Sort of a hybrid between Oscar Bonavena and Ron Lyle.

He was sly incidentaly. He knew how to throw sneak punches and often did. He was a rough guy who ocasionaly turned cute.

Firpo killing bulls is likely written off as the era's journalistic hyperbole. His shots were hard, yes, but wild and thrown from out of position.
Ring has him at 79 and Cleveland at 49 for what that's worth. I'd be inclined to agree obviously.

Originally Posted by janitor

Dempsey was one scary guy mentaly. Give me equal opponents with diferent minds from various heavyweight champions and I would perhaps fear him the most.

---yet he was kind and thoughtful by nature! He later stated that he wasn't trying to be menacing so much as he only "knew how to fight one way." AHEM.

Originally Posted by janitor

I think that from a stylistic point of view he was much more refined than Liston.

Okay. I'd say that Dempsey's style was highly developed for what it was. But his array of skills were not what Liston's was.

Originally Posted by janitor

So what was Dempsey?

He was good on the inside, the outside and in between.

He was probably the best pure infighter the heavyweight division has ever seen.

He outboxed some of the better pure boxers of the day like Tommy Gibbons.

He could counter with devastating effect and put his entire body into it when he did without missing.

This guy was as near to a heavyweight Duran as you will get.

Offensively, he was. Thus you have correctly covered one aspect of Duran's repertoire... his offense. Duran is among the greatest counter punchers ever, Dempsey is not. Duran is among the great defensive technicians, ever, Dempsey was not. You are also forgetting the wide gap in competition, adaptability in the ring and in terms of style, and longevity.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by Ted Spoon

A few members need to calm down their extremist views as it skewers the debate from being objective.

Liston was a big boy, but Dempsey never bit off more than he could chew.

Which begs the question: Dempsey avoided Lanford. Would he avoid Liston?

Originally Posted by Ted Spoon

The idea that the larger object in Liston will prove a barricade that needs to be tactically approached is not so. Dempsey had the kind of dynamic attack that could blast anyone who was standing in front of him.

It would be a fire blitz in there.

Dempsey was Dempsey. I don't think it would be wise to have him box Liston or change anything. It would indeed be intense in there, but it is quite unlikely that Liston would get blown out, or would be unable to move Dempsey backward. It would also be unlikely that Liston would not eat vicious hooks and overhands, or would tame Dempsey with that telephone pole jab. Dempsey's style was designed to get under and around the jab and zero in on the holes that appear by the extended left.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Firpo killing bulls is likely written off as the era's journalistic hyperbole. His shots were hard, yes, but wild and thrown from out of position.

Not wild so much. In terms of his style his shots ranged from rough to positively calculated.

Ring has him at 79 and Cleveland at 49 for what that's worth. I'd be inclined to agree obviously.

Neither ranking was apropriate.

---yet he was kind and thoughtful by nature! He later stated that he wasn't trying to be menacing so much as he only "knew how to fight one way." AHEM.

If that dosnt scare you nothing will.

Okay. I'd say that Dempsey's style was highly developed for what it was. But his array of skills were not what Liston's was.

It is not an easy comparison!!

Offensively, he was. Thus you have correctly covered one aspect of Duran's repertoire... his offense. Duran is among the greatest counter punchers ever, Dempsey is not.

I would dispute this.

Duran is among the great defensive technicians, ever, Dempsey was not.

I would dispute this also.

He was at least the best offensive heavyweight in terms of defence.

You are also forgetting the wide gap in competition, adaptability in the ring and in terms of style, and longevity.

Competition -Dempsey

Adaptability-Dempsey (though Liston is under rated in this respect)

Longevity-Nobody

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by janitor

Not wild so much. In terms of his style his shots ranged from rough to positively calculated.

How about... telegraphed....

Originally Posted by janitor

I would dispute this.

I would dispute this also.

He was at least the best offensive heavyweight in terms of defence.

You would dispute that Dempsey, p4p all-time, was close to Duran in terms of countering and defense?

Heavyweights as a group don't rank high in terms of defense or offense... so to dispute Duran's superior defense over Dempsey by asserting that Dempsey was the "best offensive HW in terms of defense" isn't saying much.

Originally Posted by janitor

Competition -Dempsey

Adaptability-Dempsey (though Liston is under rated in this respect)

Longevity-Nobody

These categories were meant for the comparison between Dempsey and Duran...

[ChrisPontius]

Stonehands, as much as i disagree on your views on Carnera, i can only agree with what you say here.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Stonehands, as much as i disagree on your views on Carnera, i can only agree with what you say here.

Pontius, you aren't easy to debate, so appreciate the support -and the respite!

Ray Arcel once said of Duran, "he's like a lightweight Dempsey !"

Of Dempsey, he said "the one who had the most of everything".

Dempsey had it all, and was an amazing instinctual fighter, natural ability, sheer talent, skill and know-how, like Duran.

Watching a clear film of Dempsey-Gibbons, I cant see how anyone would doubt his counter-punching, his defense, his intelligence and slickness in the ring - and many observers thought that was a sub-par (straight off a 2 year layoff!) Jack Dempsey !
Dempsey was a tremendous all-rounder, only his sheer aggression and power obscures that.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

How about... telegraphed....

I dont think that Dempseys punches were telegraphed at all. He threw more short punches traveling under 18" than any other heavyweight champion in history. On the outside he ocasionaly commited verry heavily to a punch but that dose not mean that it was not calculated or delivered with acuracy.

You would dispute that Dempsey, p4p all-time, was close to Duran in terms of countering and defense?

He comes as close to it as any heavyweight dose. I am in no doubt on that point.

Heavyweights as a group don't rank high in terms of defense or offense... so to dispute Duran's superior defense over Dempsey by asserting that Dempsey was the "best offensive HW in terms of defense" isn't saying much.

It is when we are comparing him to Liston.

These categories were meant for the comparison between Dempsey and Duran...

Would you think badly of me if I suggested that Dempseys head movment was as good as Durans or better?

[JohnThomas1]

[quote=janitor]

I dont think that Dempseys punches were telegraphed at all. He threw more short punches traveling under 18" than any other heavyweight champion in history. On the outside he ocasionaly commited verry heavily to a punch but that dose not mean that it was not calculated or delivered with acuracy.

I reckon Stoney is talking about Firpo

[janitor]

[quote=JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by janitor

I reckon Stoney is talking about Firpo

Right.

Yes Firpos punches were often telegraphed but at the same time he could be sneaky and his unorthodox style seemed to give people problems.

[Ted Spoon]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Which begs the question: Dempsey avoided Lanford. Would he avoid Liston?

While Dempsey held Langford in the highest respect, and vice versa, their proposed match-up in 1916 would of done Dempsey no good. His circumstances at that time were V. poor. Certainly not good enough to legitimately sanction a fight against that calibre of opponent.

Dempsey was Dempsey. I don't think it would be wise to have him box Liston or change anything. It would indeed be intense in there, but it is quite unlikely that Liston would get blown out, or would be unable to move Dempsey backward. It would also be unlikely that Liston would not eat vicious hooks and overhands, or would tame Dempsey with that telephone pole jab. Dempsey's style was designed to get under and around the jab and zero in on the holes that appear by the extended left.

Now that's a fairer outlook on the fight.