Wlad v Dempsey

I just posted pictures of the footage. Its a serious sparring session in preparation for Willard/Dempsey in 1918. The bottom line is he fights nothing like Wlad. You can go round and round about this because he uses a jab. Big deal. Tyson used a jab, does he fight like Wlad? Willard used a jab, do you really want to argue that Willard fights anything like Wlad. The only reason you are arguing so fervently about Fulton having a similarity to Wlad is because they share a similar height and most people havent seen Fulton even move much less throw a punch. I have and Im not letting that little fiction slip. If you really want to know what Fulton looked like compared to a modern fighter then look at Andrew Six Heads Lewis' jab. Thats the closest thing to Fulton. He came forward throwing this pitty pat jab, keeping it in his opponents face. He had a wide open defense as you can see in the photos and which is well documented and had a tendency to give up his height by getting in close and going down low. None of this is anything like either of the Klitchkos. Wlad uses his jab in a classical manner to set up his other punches. Vitali uses his as a range finder. Fultons is used in a completely different manner and the mechanics of his jab are completely different as well as he would throw it side arm, landing on thumb, etc, anything to keep it in his opponents face. You have an idea in your head about what Fulton looked like fighting and Im telling you its entirely wrong. It just is. Its like the people who have this idea of Gunboat Smith (I was one of them) and then I got footage of him and he is absolutely not what you would expect, either from the reports or just looking at his record. He was gangly with a very awkward old fashioned style thats almost comical to watch and which would be wholely unsuccessful today. I love the old timers and I love Gunboat Smith but he, like Fulton, doesnt have a style that translates well against modern fighters. Anyone who knows me knows that I dont often favor modern fighters over the old timers but these are two cases that their styles are just so archaic that it doesnt bode well for them. It certainly doesnt make them a comparison for Wlad. You might as well get a 6' 6" punching bag and watch Dempsey work it and say "Here is how Dempsey would beat Wlad."

 

But Burt, you do not show credibility or intellectual rigor when you define the terms of your debate with a poster by misquoting what he said about the heat. From his very post:

"Temperatures have been recorded in Toledo since 1873 and the highest ever recorded temperature in Toledo was 105 degrees. This temperature was taken in the 1936. In fact the hottest temperature on that day recorded in the entire country was 100 degrees. In fact the high temperature for July 3 in Toledo was 94 and 90 on July 4 at noon which means if it went up at all it was likely still a good 10 degrees lower than the hyperbole that Dempsey fans always spout".

So he specifically did not argue it was even around 100, or very close to it. You put words in his mouth just because you did not pay attention.

We must consider contemporary opinions. Yet science shows how confirmation bias, various prejudices, group think, lack of analytical skills & more can make conventional opinions very mistaken. Later statistical & empirical analysis can set things right.

Dempsey did avoid fighters, sit on his title, fight unimpressive &/or smaller men & retreads. Though you can say that his signature fight he cannot help that Willard was old, long inactive & never an ATG anyway-as you can say about say Ali Cs. Cleveland Williams.

BUT when you restate te terms of any argument incorrectly, it is not just the point of how hot it was that is then put in great question. It speaks to whether one will tend to be able to be fair & accurate in considering the facts. God is in the Details, & you must be able to HEAR what is claimed directly to you.

 

I have to agree with Klompton here. I've also read the old articles and built a picture of how they fought based on that. And I've been proven wrong time and time again when viewing actual film after the fact - seeing that it was nothing like I'd imagine.

The language may be English, but the words mean completely different things today than they did a century ago. Remember that in the early 20th century, that boxing was still transitioning from generations of bare-knuckle style breeds into gloved boxing. I think Joe Louis was the first modern boxer whose style was optimized for gloved boxing.

Dempsey was ahead of his time, but watching him for instance vs Firpo or Gibbons you can clearly see the gloves-by-waiste stance and other things that generally don't work. Some might say: Ali or Vitali also do it with success! But those guys are completely different, they're very tall and generally fight on the backfoot, defensively. Modern come-forward fighters rarely fight hands-on down consistently - look at Marciano, Tyson, Frazier, etc.

Still, while Dempsey was ahead of his time, his opponents*, by definition, were not. I see no reason to believe Fulton is an exception to that. A good opponent, but no more special than a Povetkin/Chagaev/Haye/Ibragimov/Byrd/etc.

*With the exception of Gene Tunney.

 

Yeah, whatever. All you ever do is rely on cliched argument after cliched argument.

 

Way to mischaracterize everything Ive said...

You can believe what you want McGrain but Fulton fought nothing like Wlad.

As for the Greb sparring footage Im in the minority in that I think, when you fill in the gaps, it provides an interesting read on his style. While he is clearly playing with O'Brien (we can see him smile a couple of times) he also has that busy, hand waving style that is mentioned in the papers and bobs up and down (sometimes characterized as a cork on a high sea). Say what you will but it gives us more of a picture of the mans style than not having it. Same with Fulton. There is the porous defense, chin straight up, jab, etc. the difference, as chrispontious pointed out, is that you read about his style and have a preconcieved notion and its really not what you are picturing. In fact very few fighters of this era fight like I picture them once I discover footage of them.


You can say I want Dempsey to fight Wlad in order to know what he would look like fighting Wlad but in reality Im saying that: people like you who think by fighting Fulton and Willard and having success against them hes going to have the same measure of success against Wlad is ridiculous. As I said, you might as well compare Dempsey working a 6' 6" heavy bag and say thats a valid comparison to how he would look against Wlad.

I did say that you might get an idea from those fights as to how Dempsey might approach a fight with Wlad. Approach being the operative word, as in prepare, not as in what kind of success he would have.

I guess the problem I have with saying Dempsey did well with world class tall fighters is that Im not sure how world class Willard was in 1919, or Morris was 1918, or Firpo was ever. Fulton was clearly world class and the top contender but again, I dont find ANY of these four guys to be particularly good or comparable to Wlads level of ability, class, size, and athleticism etc. I mean frankly if Fred Fulton is the best of that bunch and Fred Fulton was a guy who was known as someone who could never get to the next level are these wins all that great in an all time sense where we can say Dempsey slaughters Wlad? I dont think so. Firpo was dog**** IMO. He was totally created by Rickard expressly for the purpose of being a Dempsey foil. He was an exotic brought in to take pressure off a Wills fight. Thats a simple fact. Willard was never that great but in 1919 he was old, fat, inactive, and frankly didnt care about the sport anymore as was evidenced in his lackadaisical training for it. Morris was was past his prime and never a really solid guy to begin with having lost to the best he faced more often than not. Fulton was the best of the lot and in his prime at the time but his deficiencies are well known now: weak chin, lack of defense, no heart, and he later alleged that he threw the fight to Dempsey. I take that with a grain of salt but Fulton was well known to have taken part in more than one fixed fight both winning and losing. He was never a championship class fighter and never showed an ability to really stay at the top of what would have been rankings (had they had them) during his career.

So, once again, Dempsey did well against the "world class" tall fighters of his era, which were pretty weak but that doesnt really illustrate how he would handle the entirely different proposition of Wlad. Thats my point.

 

Where does this contention that Wlad is lacking in skill come from?

Handspeed wise he is the fastest fighter over 6-4 I can remember seeing… cracking, all time great jab that hooks off with ease, great hook and guard splitting right hand. Elite footwork and use of spacing… Highly damned skilled. More skilled than a lot of the bar fighting bull**** Dempsey presents on film. Not that Dempsey didn't have skill but he game unglued too often, squared up and allowed himself to be wide open for right hands.

 

Sir, I take it from whence it comes, for you to say I "have no credibility "
and "intellectual rigor" because I question just how HOT it was in Toledo
Ohio, July 4,1919... What difference does it matter whether it was 90 to 100% hot that afternoon...Who in your majesty should berate me because
I hold Dempsey in high regard, along with thousands upon thousands of
American boxing people who saw him at ringside ? Sir I don't know who
the heck you are but I will match my boxing knowledge, my experiences, and my integrity with you anytime, any place... My opinion is just as valid as yours, and my intellectual vigor might not be as lofty as yours, but
I try...atschatschatsch

 

I agree. Look at the three guys that exhibited the most skill against Dempsey: Brennan, Gibbons, and Tunney. Brennan showed a modest, robotic bit of boxing ability. jab and grab, one two, very predictable but he was very effective at breaking up Dempsey's rythm and busting him up on the way inside. Dempsey was in deep waters when he finally stopped Brennan late. Gibbons gave Dempsey's lots of problems through the first third of the fight and defensively was able to negate much of Dempsey's work. Unfortunately he was too passive offensively (in fairness this was due to Dempsey's firepower IMO) and fell far behind. Tunney, who in my opinion fights the most like Wlad of anyone Dempsey faced, absolutely dominated Dempsey (and Ive said more than once that Tunney even won most of the 7th round of their second fight including after the KD). You could even throw Sharkey in there. Look at all the problems these guys gave Dempsey. Now keep their speed and skill level the same and throw on between 40 and 60 pounds of muscle and add a lot more punching power. I think its a long night for Dempsey... or maybe a short one depending on how fast the canvas rises to meet his face.

 

It's the truth not a cliche

 

Langford fight is not quite representative of Fulton's outfighting ability. In his previous fight before Sam, with Carl Morris, Fulton was handled like a baby at infighting, and couldn't keep Morris away from him, and Morris was a slow plodder. In the rematch in Canton, it was the same, as the writer of local paper reported it, "Fulton really did not have a chance to show any speed, skill or foot work. Morris was continually on top of him, ramming his ivory dome into the Fulton chin." Miske had no problem getting past Fulton's left jab either.

 

Based upon the same newspaper sources you are reading AND MY OWN EYES HAVING SEEN THE MAN. I guess you want to believe first hand experience counts for nothing... :-(

Morris was a top heavy? Care to give glance at his record when he fought Dempsey and who exactly these top guys were that he beat? To be a top heavy? Willard was a top heavy? Today if a fighter goes a year without fighting hes dropped from the ratings. What do you suppose we would call a near 40 year old fighter gone to fat and inactive for 3 years who barely trains for his defense? Most would call him retired. Most would question whether he could fight at all anymore. Most would want to see him in action again after such a long layoff before deciding whether he was a top fighter. What did Willard show against Dempsey that tells you he was a top fighter in 1919. Walking in with his hands low and his chin up and not even trying to use a jab or his height while throwing uppercuts from the outside? Ive already said Fulton was a top fighter at the time but not a particularly great one. It was a weak era at this point. The number of contenders for Willards title was exclusive to Fulton until Dempsey came along. Thats about as weak as it gets. Firpo was a joke.

 

In addition to this, in one of his first fights in New York, and shame on me for forgetting which one (maybe Cowler) it was said that Fulton was aggressive but clumsy. Ive read a lot of reports on Fulton and he was often an aggressor behind his jab. Not a distance fighter like Wlad. It doesnt matter though, some have an opinion of him that wont change because he is what they want him to be and not what he actually was.