The Thing people dont get about Willard vs Dempsey

21, and he wasn't a slow starter either.

 

:huh

 

whose to say the 3 KD rule would even be in place? You know not every fight has that rule right?

 

I agree, the point is, its just as credible as Swag's claim that Frazier was a slow starter and would have beat Foreman if he'd warmed up.

 

Also, Williard was ancient for the era, around 38. There's as much claim that he could have beat Dempsey if he was prime as Frazier Foreman

 

I'm just addressing the idea that Willard was a slow starter .Against Johnson in temperatures that Willard described as ,"hotter than hell,"over a 45rds distance ,employing war of attrition tactics against the older less conditioned man was the sensible option.

 

exactly. and also take into account Willard starting at 27.

 

Who is to say that it would not be in place? You know some fights have it right?

 

Lol he got his ass beat bro

 

AND his three years of inactivity.

 

not all of them do. You made it seem like all of them have it

 

Another FACT I forgot. Thanks

 

No it's not because I'm taking a different version of Frazier and pitting him against the same Foreman. You're literally taking the same exact versions of the fighters, and having the exact same fight, just in a different time period.

You know the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. :yep:deal

 

Maybe you could make a case if it wasn't a total beat down. But it was. :think

 

The rule changes between dempsey v willard and the modern era has the ability to change a fight a lot more than "Frazier changing his gameplan".

You are a fool, get out and go back to your dumb thread.