Would Canelo Alverez dominate a prime Jack Dempsey from round 1 (Boxing Evolution Theory)

I will say this; I was a pretty huge Dempsey detractor in the past because all I saw were the Willard and Firpo performances. I thought he was just archaic compared to those who came even immediately after.

I don’t think it’s a fair comparison to Hagler-Hearns because Firpo is certainly no Hearns to Dempsey’s Hagler. He isn't even a Limon to Jack's Chacon. He doesn’t give Jack much of a reason to do anything but try and maul him, unlike Hagler with Hearns who forces him to fight a more skilled fight than Dempsey here. Look at other Firpo performances and you’ll find the same; he was a manufactured hype job that was shipped from Argentina by Dempsey’s manager to fight some washed up big names in the States for one reason; he was big and strong. That is all, hell Firpo is probably one of the most infamous examples of a manufactured hype job outside of, well, half of Dempsey's other title opponents. Dempsey had little reason to do anything but maul Firpo, who was a novice comparatively speaking.

I'm sorry I just can't agree with you about Dempsey being comparable to Abbott (idk Lev or jack **** bout football lol), I see your point in comparing the two due to sport evolution but MMA had only existed for less than a decade by the time Abbott fought whereas there were at least two centuries of boxing evolution before Dempsey came around. You can find fighters that predate Dempsey that are more skilled than him by a good margin, not to discredit the man. Jack was a solid technician IMO but what made him stand out as elite was his combo of frightening power and speed, not to mention he was different-level explosive. His biggest problem was that it didn't take much to motivate him to just slug it out and throw respect for his opponent out the window.

 

Those are good points as to prove Canelo poses some problems, but not enough for me to actually favour him. Aside from the questionable Flynn result, Jack recovered both times and against punchers who were bigger and more powerful than Canelo. When he actually respects his opponent Jack can be quite slippery and throws short crisp punches, and and won't be easy to time with Canelo's uppercut. Big Bill Tate was throwing some well timed uppers in their spar and couldn't hit home on any of them.

 

I hope that you’re not spamming the page.

Ha!


Great post.

When has Canelo faced such an opponent??

 

You are picking the worst outings for Dempsey and why Canelo would win. Dempsey still won those fights and came back to knock out his opponent. Although I don't know if he fought Flynn again or not.

I won't even pick fights Canelo lost in (or should have lost in), what about his fight with Cotto that was closer than the official cards? Does that mean Canelo loses to Dempsey because he struggled with an undersized Cotto? Or maybe Cotto had a style that made Canelo look bad (but not enough to win) while Dempsey has a style that can flatline him.

Dempsey hurt and stopped plenty of guys bigger than Canelo, even by modern standards. Punching someone in the head is still something a person from the 1920s is capable of doing.

 

Great post.

There’s some staggering ignorance in this thread.


Most people here aren’t actually debating the hypothetical fight.

They’re simply just focusing upon the times of the eras, before making an automatic assumption on the newer one.

 

The man is literally running from David.

Has been for two years.

Yet we’re supposed to believe that he’d have fought and beaten Jack with absolute ease.

Ridiculous.

 

If Jack Dempsey eats Mexican Beef I think he outworks and knocks Canelo out latter half of the fight. By latter half of a fight we talking about round 30ish.

 

I of course agree wholeheartedly with your take on this!

It's all about weighing up each boxer's assets and shortcomings - irrespective on what eras they come from.

To claim that Dempsey would be an easy job for Canelo, simply based on the fact that Jack fought 100 years ago... is of course ridiculous!

But doesn't this era-bias work both ways? How many "experts" have we seen here, who think very little of modern boxers because... well, simply because they are modern? And therefore (they believe) lack the heart, toughness, conditioning and willpower of oldtimers, who came up during harder times. That's just as wrong (IMO) as believing, that today's boxers are automatically superior, because they fight in a more "evolved" era.

For the record, I would pick Dempsey in this matchup - probably on points!

 

Well how a style matchup goes is very subjective on both ends. I was asking why boxing fans tend to rank older boxers ahead most the time not just talking about individual matchups were I agree with some your analogies. But your case you are not necessarily in that camp since you did say Dempsey isn't necessarily better and he would take losses in certain matchups in the other post.

 

I lo e this thread; I keep coming here for laughs.

Next up: why Inoue would destroy Sugar Ray Robinson.

 

Well you would probably say SRR destroys Inoue so......

 

Depends on the catchweight. Can the Sugar man make 128?

 

They’re not experts.

They’re just ignorant people who need calling out.

 

This is a good post.

Your opening post reads as though fans are nostalgic/ridiculous for believing that a fighter of 100 years ago could beat a modern fighter.

They’re not.

Because there’s no continual evolution.

And even if there was, every fighter who’s ever existed has had issues with certain styles.

Even Floyd Mayweather had issues with certain styles.

No fighter is unbeatable.

 

I think Dempsey`s height a 2.5 inch reach advantage would betoo much for Canelo, I know Canelo has beat guys that size before but they weren`t powerful or as aggressive as Dempsey.