How did 190lb Jack Dempsey DESTROY super-heavyweight 240lb Jess Willard?

What are you talking about? Of course I think Dempsey was good enough and capable of inflicting that beating on Willard with old gloves. And even with new gloves he gives Willard a total beat down too. He makes a much faster and direct job with the old gloves though.

what do you think I am clearly wrong about then, are you now saying (like everyone else) that the old gloves do make a difference?
My viewpoint is that in general it takes longer to inflict the exact same damage with larger gloves.

 

Treat Williams stared as Jack Dempsey in a film about him. Watched it when I was a kid. Have not seen it for years.

 

Vicious that

 

Great small fighter beats a good big fighter. Willard was tough but he wasn't great.

 

That's one significant difference. The other significant differences are #1 the compulsory eight count, #2 the compulsory neutral corner rule AND #3, larger gloves that spread the impact of the same force of each blow.

perhaps, perhaps not. Significant things have changed since then that on the whole have prevented smaller guys making such an impression on giants.

yes I think Lennox and wladimir are a lot better than Willard and Carnera. I was unaware that I said they might be as good.

and are these modern fighters scoring the modern knockouts always smaller than the guy getting knocked out? Or are these knockouts scored within fights of men of similar size?

thanks for answering

 

We can argue about the role of the contemporary rules and gloves in the destruction of Willard, but the bottom line is that everybody else in the era fought under the same rules.

If it was an artefact of the contemporary rules, then why wasn’t it an era of knockout artists, and an era characterised by the rapid destruction of all kinds of fighters?

The reality is that the result looked as inexplicable and extraordinary then, as it would today.

 

no. I agree that Lewis and wlad are so much better than Carnera and Willard.

Well forever was back when they used to say the bigger they are the harder they fall. Big guys found it harder than they do now. Lewis was the first genuine 6'6" guy to dominate. Did the floodgates open at that point for the talented ATG giants (which funny enough coincided with the fashion of heavyweights getting a lot older and holding onto extra weight as a tactical scheme) or did the division just change an awful lot?

 

No I have a theory that talented big men were always there but adapting to fight smaller guys all the time prevented them from ever developing into their entire potential.

Along came a time where upon the rest of the division bulked up to match a dominant giant in pounds, much older guys were able to be present, the pace changed and suddenly giants were a lot more comfortable.



It's just an alternative theory of course, I am fully aware that most think the great guys just grew bigger. But couldn't that be too simplistic?

 

Lennox and Vitali are both hall of fame material. It's going to be as difficult to suggest a guy who never got to be Joe Louis. it's like picking any guy once fancied to be the next thing who never quite made it and looking stupid doing it.

I will say this much, if you took the Oafs from long ago into the gyms today they would develop better now than they ever would years ago where as by contrast many smaller guys would benefit from going back to the gyms of long ago.

Yesteryear giant won't be chasing speedy guys. The slower pace suits him. He will find more men who will stand in front if him and will want to rest as much as he does. He will have to rely less on brute strength because more guys will be just as strong. For that reason He won't want to get hit as much as before either making defence more vital. So he gets to utilise a full four dimensional repertoire as a boxer.