Again, baseless assumptions. Louis beat some phenomenal boxers like Walcott, Conn, Sharkey and Schmeling. He beat tons of huge punchers. He beat many swarmers. I don't see any reason to doubt his ability to beat modern fighters.
There's nothing fabulous about those fighters, they wouldn't even be contenders from the 70's onwards. Someone like Tyson would KO all 4 on the same night, in less than 1 round each.
No, I really believe that. I might sound like the biggest troll ever, but I'd even fancy myself to beat up guys like Conn and Sharkey.
I just see those guys as being too flat footed, clumsy and not skilled enough compared to modern boxers.
Yeah, tell me how Sharkey was flat footed, clumsy and not skilled This content is protected I'm afraid that you can't get over B&W footage. Sharkey is more skilled than most HWs from 2020, if not all.
Dempsey would have done better against Tucker than Tyson did. Not because he was a better fighter, but because he was a better infighter! Tucker would have had more problems trying to tie him up!
Tucker was an underachiever to me. Just my opinion. I really like Dempsey.I have just about every book about him. I personally think he gets Tony outta there. Always a step ahead IMO.
Imagine having this much of an inflated opinion about yourself. I'd bet everything I owned that even a golden gloves champion would piece you up.
Only in your stupid troll mind! Walcott would outbox Tyson worse than Tillis did and maybe even wore him down later! Dempsey is more skilled than Tyson and would beat Tucker late because unlike Tyson he could bang for 15 rounds without stopping and would beat Tucker worse than Williard!
You're the stupid troll, not me. Good joke. Tyson KO's Walcott in 1 round. Dempsey ain't more skilled than Tyson. And he gets beat cause Tucker is a superior version of Tunney.
When did Dempsey prove he could "bang for 15 rounds without stopping" against a big heavyweight like Tucker?