That's ONE bookmaker fool. The official betting odds for this fight were 9-5, 8-5 for FOREMAN so you are lying. Nobody picked Frazier to win.
LOL. and in your very small mind that's enough to state Frazier was the favorite? You are a liar by stating the betting odds for this fight favored Frazier.
My point is that many of the rule changes since then would actually favour Dempsey. A number of things that happened in that first round, would have seen the fight stopped today.
That is definitely debatable. People are quick to forget that he was seen as almost unbeatable at one point.
I never said that in this thread. You said NOBODY favored Frazier. I bought up, not only a person, but a bookmaker. :think
mass media maybe but the boxing scribes, in general, didn't rate him very highly at the time. And with good cause. His best wins, old Johnson in an ideal conditions match for him, Frank Moran who wasn't any good himself and who?
It depends on what specifically you are talking about. Willard was considered the best of all the white fighters of Johnsons time once McCarty tragically died. As per Fleischer Willard was the first white hope of that time "that was trained to fight over twenty rounds". His conditioning prior to fighting Dempsey was superb. He did not train hard for the Dempsey fight again as per Fleischer he was in bed past noon time on many days in camp. Fleischer....."Willard had only a rudimentary knowledge of the finer points of the game but his conditioning made him a match for any man alive".
nobody else could even touch johnson like that before or since. Its a case of willard being at his peak and losing that peak quick. I dont know how any modern rules favor dempsey. almost all of them favor Willard
Basically because he was tall. Nothing has changed. Many people see Tyson fury as a future atg because he's 6'7 with a decent jab and functional footwork