Wlad v Dempsey

:deal

 

Sir, David slew Goliath. Read up...

 

That story, much like Dempsey's, was also a fable.

 

S, just to keep the record straight !
Do you in your infinite wisdom think that a Sam Langford ,a Mickey Walker, a Gene Tunney, a Jack Sharkey, a Max Schmeling, a Ray Arcel, and a slew
of veteran sports writers ,all who voted the prime Jack Dempsey as the best heavyweight they had WITNESSED, somehow believed in fables,
whilst YOU basking in your so called hatred of Dempsey , are on a higher
plane of wisdom, than these men who witnessed the peak Manassa Mauler.? Well my money is on the great fighters who saw him in action...:good

 

Which Dempsey fights have you watched?

just curious

 

What were these guys thoughts on Klitschko? Ali? Holmes? Tyson?

I can quote you articles written by astute commentators in the 1930's about how Charlie Paddock was the greatest sprinter of all time... Am I supposed to think he beats Usain Bolt?

 

I have also spoken to some of the most well respected minds in boxing, one of them being Ray Arcel who said you had to be there and see Dempsey to know how great he was. Nat Loubet also thought highly of him as well as the old time writers at RING back in the early 70's

 

S, wrong analogy. You cannot compare the respective time of a charley Paddock with Bolt as a time clock doesn't lie, though the track might be
faster today without doubt...
But boxing has certain skills, stamina, heart, styles that transcend
weight, peds etc. Am I wrong to think that SEVENTY years after I saw
Ray Robinson fight ringside, I vehemently still consider SRR the best
fighter I ever saw, though accordingly to you, the latest has to be the greatest... Nonsense ! There are certain individuals who are born with
certain traits that seldom are repeated if ever as a Beethoven, Caruso, Einstein etc show us...And Jack Dempsey, lean, taut, tough and
vicious was an example....:hi:

 

Miske and Wills didn't have much of a problem with him.

He put together some decent runs but proved a bit fragile and not quite elite over the distance.

 

So, what you are saying is that thanks to the fact that boxing is not a timed or measured event we have permission to cling to our sentimental estimations. If that is your argument, I will offer no refutation.

 

Corrected on the 1918 fight. But it was a draw and the return was a KO1. So, in the balance, Miske comes out pretty far ahead. Still, the Fulton KO by Dempsey is probably his most impressive performance. Willard was both very old and terribly rusty. The Carpentier, Brennan and Firpo defenses do little for me.

More interesting to me is your holding Fulton's record over Miske's... I would do the reverse but that's probably a different thread.