Jack Dempsey in the Klitschko era

now you've shifted goalposts from claiming I said it, to claiming I implied it. why u shifting?

yeh and I still didn't make an implication. BUT YOU DID.
.

 

hey - on reflection, BCS chap - your error is so bad you interpreted my post as THE OPPOSITE of what I really did say - I am showing you wlads poor H2h ability, not longevity. I've always asserted his longevity is good.

You need to work on what you think correct English is. You could not be more oppositely wrong in what you just said.

 

Just recently people laughed off a Duran-Robinson thread on the basis that Robinson was the bigger man. The difference in their best weight was 12 pounds, 135 vs 147.

People think that Hagler wouldn't have stood a chance against the best light-heavyweight contenders and champions around had he moved up, even though he is greater than most, if not all of them. The difference in weight? 160 vs 175.

But suddenly when you get into the mythical realm of the heavyweights, 50 pound advantages become irrelevant and all that matters is "knowing how to fight", allegedly. The harsh truth is, a guy like Sam Peter, who doesn't come close to Dempsey in all-time rankings would have a very real chance of poleaxing him into next week. And so would guys like Brewster, Sanders etc.

A 190 lb pressure fighter with a limited skillset just isn't going to have a lot of success running into punchers that outweigh him by a ton. Reality.

 

the reailty being they don't outweight them by a ton.

and ratios. Hagler would have no problem going up 20lbs to LHW. 30-40lbs isn't a significant difference in HW more than significant differences in actual boxing ability.

Thirdly, but easily the most important - diminishing returns in cardio events with increase in size, due to ratios of heart to body size.

 

Sam Peter couldn't poleaxe 154 pounder Gilbert Martinez into next week despite laying the kitchen sink into him.

Brewster and Sanders have a realistic chance. But Peter was a truly terrible boxer with no skills whatsoever. Dempsey would smash that barrel into smithereens.

 

Except we're not talking about anyone moving up or down in weight. I'm not interested in creating a mythical version of Dempsey. You take the man as he was during his time, and put him up against the opposition that he faces.

Dempsey - 187 lb (Willard fight)
Peter - 241 (Klitschko I)

That's a 54 pound weight disparity. Peter is 23% bigger than Dempsey. It's true that weight is more important in lower weight classes than at heavyweight, but not by much.

Haye at 190 lb would be 23% bigger than a 147 Robinson. 43 pound weight disparity. Who do you go with?

 

Haye beat Valeuv with a 100 pound weight disparity

 

Corbett?? Please tell me you're not serious!

 

It's interesting you mention Haye, when he went to HW he also bulked up to compete in the heavier division. As did Huck, Adamek, Holyfield, Spinks, Jones, Byrd, Tarver and countless others.

Put it this way, there's talk of Ward taking on a small sized HW one day. Do you think he'll enter the ring at 175 pounds or do you think he'll add some bulk on first?

 

It's questionable whether that much weight is beneficial to a boxer in the first place, and Haye was completely different from Dempsey. There's plenty of outliers like Walker or Langford historically, but as a rule, weight is going to matter.

I do think that a weight advantage that big can be overcome, if the disparity in class is great. But I don't revere Dempsey as much as others around here do, and I don't like his style of bull-rushing opponents against a big puncher with a good chin.

 

But we're not bulking Dempsey up. We're taking the 185-190 pound Dempsey, and putting him up against super-heavies. Nobody here is talking about some bulked up Dempsey.

 

And how exactly was weighting 250 pound beneficial to 6 foot Sam Peter?

 

Peter has a good chin? :rofl

His chin was pure glass.

 

Peter had a big frame. He was in reasonably good shape at that weight.

 

He moved and punched like he was underwater :roll: