Jack Dempsey v. Ike Ibeabuchi

They were not real champions though. Mere contenders in the scheme of things. And Not one of them were regarded the worlds best at any time before during or after losing to Tua.

People need to get it into their heads a belt holder is only a champion if he is universally regarded as the worlds best or/and he convincingly beat the linear champ.

 

Great post. Spot on.

 

The Linear mysticism does not persuade me in the slightest.

How relevant is "Linear" when you have The f*cking Color Line? So, Linear is full of portent and meaning but barring black fighters is not relevant?

 

So the top 4 from every period are champions?

Asterisks exist, but it shouldn't mean we abandon the idea of a true champion.

 

Not when they didn't have a chance at beating Jack ****ing Dempsey lmao.

 

The problem is MOST fighters were flat footed then....see what im doing here?And no Dempsey was not good at ring cutting IF he was light on his feet he would not have that problem the FEW fighters who actually moved( i will say he looked decent the first few rnds but then would lose some steps releativley fast...its one thing to CHASE someone down thats going back...its another thing to catch a strategic mover that moves in all directions,Demsey was not good at moving and punching,he excelled while his opponents stood still..

 

LUNGING and actual quick feet or explosive movements are two different things...one thing about Dempsey he was a BIG telegrapher when throwing power punches and he would leap...this is WHY movers were able to cause him problems...just watch the Tunney fights,also his rear foot drags to a slow crawl most of the time.

 

That's factually incorrect.

 

That's factually incorrect.

 

So are you saying if you watched any of his fights particulary with movers you cant see this???of course you dont...lol

 

Most fighters in his era were not flat footed. Don't do that strawman ****.

 

Yes they were as a matter of fact they also werent very good at defense either and didnt utilize the jab as effectively either....

'While Gibbons was on the move, often during the fight Dempsey was forced to reach and lunge. Because of his inability to cut off the ring and take away Gibbon's space and force him to have to fight and trade, Dempsey would move back and attempt to get Gibbons to go to him, hoping to land his counter attack." F. Lotierzo

"Some boxing historians seem to view Dempsey as throwing shorter punches and better combinations than Joe Louis, and hitting harder than George Foreman. If that comparison were true then Dempsey may be the greatest fighter of all time after Ray Robinson.

The problem is this simply is not true." F.Lotiezo

Who is a boxing author and says the same thing i just posted about Demspey Not that i need anyone telling me about boxing but a simple google search i just did brought me to him just now bc i knmow you are a nostalgic nut so is he........Everything i stated is true as ALWAYS.

 

F. Lotierzo is incorrect. We have footage of the fight and he wasn't even there so he has no "insider information" so to speak. F. Lotierzo doesn't post that good of information from the few articles I have read.

Dempsey, generally, didn't throw shorter combinations (wasn't much of a combination puncher) than Joe Louis and didn't hit harder than Foreman. However Dempsey did throw short punches and could hit on the same level of all the big punchers at heavyweight. The only punches that may have been shorter than Louis' were his punches on the inside. Maybe. I haven't read anything mentioning that Dempsey punches shorter than Louis or harder than Foreman other than from Lotierzo.

Like I said Lotierzo's information isn't that great from the few articles I have read. He just recycles old **** and makes up strawman arguments.

You didn't make any statements, all you did was post sub par boxing opinions from another boxing site. Not everything you say is true, you told athletes in the training section to only hit legs once per week. That is idiotic for anyone trying to get stronger, increase power, and even bigger.

 

What he wasnt where??lmao....im not even going to respond and keep on this convo that really doesnt interest me i said the facts and everyone can see them in my posts not that it matters in this section where everyone sees what only they want most of the time....IF i see anything that i think i should comment on i'll respond bc this topic actually sucks bc i can do a whole break down myself of what Dempsey can or cant do or did or didnt do,i said what i had tyo on the actual match up which is again not even a fair fight......lol

P.s Mr. 135 pounder you ONLY hit big muscles such as legs once a week bc they take the longest to recuperate thats IF you train hard which you dont have that concept .unless you are on good peds you can train more days....anything else is overtraining and you break down muscle more than build it ...you dont know anything about lifting..i DO.

 

Are you trying to argue with me that Frank Loteirzo wasn't at the Gibbons-Dempsey fight in 1923?

You didn't say any facts whatsoever. You only posted a quote from another author who is obviously wrong according to the film.