How does Dempsey do vs heavyweights post 1970-present

Its not just that nobody replicated what Dempsey did against Willard and Fulton, nobody has replicated it in the last 100 years full stop!

Whenever you have had that sort of size disparity, or anything approaching that sort of size disparity, at that level of the game, it has counted for something.

They should have been able to put up some sort of effective resistance, by using their height and reach as they did in other fights, or just by hanging on to Dempsey like a frightened child onto its mother!

Dempsey just nullified everything they could do to defend themselves!

You ought to know that Willard was not in his prime when he fought Smith and McMahon.

Carnera improved considerably after the Gains fight, and changed his style fundamentally.

His run of form at world level started after this fight.

Yes he went back considerably between the Louis fight and the Haynes fight, he should never have been in the ring when he fought Haynes.

I am surprised that this is even being debated.

Firstly Baer and Simon never reached the the same sort of level as Willard and Carnera.

They were not champions, just men who were ranked for a narrow window, and have to be compared to the same from other eras.

Baer obviously improved after the Barlund fight, though you could argue Simon being prime when Franklin beat him.

Fulton Mike II was basically a shot Fulton fighting a shot Miske.

Two past prime name fighters going at it.

 

If Dempsey had beaten Wills, I think that the bigger is better crowd would just argue that Wills wasn't very big.

At least with Willard they have to try to argue that he was not a real boxer, because there is noting to fault in terms of his size!

 

Surely his Miske win is better, considering he beat Fulton so easilly as you brought up, and Dempsey beat him before his health declined so much.

I already made the point that that decision was disputed, which you never addressed, and you're totally ignoring what a one sided beating it was. There's a difference between taking a critical look into someone, and just blathering on to make them look as bad as possible. At a certain point you've shifted to the latter, it barely even comes across like you're responding to the posts half the time, just repeating the anti-Dempsey talking points.

 

Lets go with the obvious measure of their standing in the division.

When were these men legitimately one of the most highly rated fighters in the world?

Where was that time frame, and who beat them in it?

 

I never did, because I don't like pretending to know things I don't know.

Considering the same people can fight 3 times with different outcomes for all sorts of reasons, I think a bit of humility is needed in making predictions. As I've said before I think these people so sure of their fantasy match ups, should keep a log of themselves predicting real competitive match ups, see how often they are right.

 

If you want to discuss Dempsey, actually engage with the points people are making.

There's a difference between taking a critical look into someone, and just blathering on to make them look as bad as possible.

 

Exactly

 

Q in all seriousness the Dempsey hatred/obsession is really overplayed at this point.

 

Seeing that Fred Fulton was KO'd about 40 times I don't think laying him out is too spectacular. He was the David Price of his era.

Carl Morris was an unreliable drunk who no one took seriously. I have seen newspapers state that the best wagering was on whether he would show up for the fight or not.

Willard... well, a retired boxer/full-time rodeo star is really something, I guess.

Anyways, back to your stories.

 

And in reference to the first list, I would favor his opponent each time, BUT he would pip one or two- any one or two- because he was Dempsey. He was fast, aggressive, threw great punches and hit very hard. That counts for something, especially in heavyweight.

He would be right at home in the second list, beating as many as who beat him.