Jack Dempsey v Muhammad Ali

Some points

1. Byrd was much harder to hit than Dempsey and stylistically very different. Dempsey has worse losses than this
2. Willard was 37, inactive for years and unskilled. Firpo was not a SHW being only 6'2 and nowhere near as skilled. Fulton was fragile and ko'd easily by many. Vitali is in a different league to these men.

 

Were they at their absolute best? Probably not, that doesn't mean they were ever that much better.

 

I look at the circumstances and find myself impressed, you don't.

The jeffries victory was the final requirement to sealing his legacy.

100 years on people might downplay it, but at the time the fight was seen as a necessity probably between the two best heavyweights in history. It was the original fotc and the outcome dictated championship policy for the next quarter century.

I don't have an overt desire to justify choices I make since I embrace the subjective nature of the sport.

I see something I like, you see something you don't. **** happens.

 

1. Byrd demonstrated that a small man who isn't aggressive can get inside vitali and dictate the action. Jack's defence was miles behind byrd's but vitali is very slow. Jack's handspeed can match chris's and his power can better it. He'll hit vitali as often as chris did.

2. Again, skillwise I consider vitali inferior to jack. I used to favour him based on size. I see the flaw in my pryor thought process now.

 

Wow.

 

there are no flaws in pryor thought...

This content is protected

 

"Wow" what? :huh

PP made some valid statements, which I agreed with.

 

It's Dempsey season again, eh?

 

I don't think it's comparable since I wouldn't have thought that ali was one of the guys of larry's era(78-85).
Ofcourse torrecampo gets credit. It's probably his career highlight.

If we as a public demanded lewis leave retirement and challenge wlad. If we considered these the two greatest and the winner the goat. If we were to consider it the crowning achievement of a great career, I certainly would classify it significant.

Foreman is one of holy's best victories, as is holmes.

Taking out men who were or would be the top ten of your era is a great achievement.

Boring it would be.

 

This is the "Dempsey Forum" now....

It´s cool anyway..he is one my favorites....

 

If it makes ya feel better, on another thread i'm arguing louis batters jack and yesterday I argue wlad pushes his **** in.

 

Your reply came BEFORE his post.

You a time traveler?

 

Jeffries skills were coming to their peak around the time he retired. HE had 1 of the hardest longest training camps in his career. Now in his prime he was probably fitter but he still looked in great physical shape for Johnson

Langford was only 155 but Johnson was only 185. Langford was also much more experienced. He also looks a bit fleshy in some pictures in his later career so some of that 185 may have been overweight

Now again neither were 100% of their powers but dominating them both says allot.

Then looking at the likes of JEanette and Mcvey also get disparaged as wins. Both men probably had many more fights than listed although Mcvey young and pre-prime. Jeanette I believe has been proven to be 180+ when he fought Johnson