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

Good post.

Lots of great points made.

I don't see the correlation between Dempsey and Wilder's technique though.

 

Jack was in a weak era of HW's.

Canelo is in a much stronger overall era.


However, the fight would still have been determined by how they'd have both matched up on the night stylistically.


Yes, we can say that today's era is stronger.

Yes, we can say that Canelo has better wins and a better overall resume.

Yes, we can say that he's achieved more.


However, we cannot be sure that he'd have beaten Dempsey in an actual H2H fight.


Simply because:


1. He's only fought above SMW just twice.

2. He has never never fought at CW.

3. He has never fought ANY fighter who possessed Dempsey's size, style and attributes.

 

But you don't think that boxing (or even sports in general) taken as an overall "system" from a bird's eye view is basically a simulation of natural selection taking place where every iteration or generation eliminates or introduces certain traits?

That's how I see it. I think there's an element of circularity to it where, say something becomes out of fashion, then boxers try to "one up" the current thing but in turn allow things from the past to return albeit adapted to the more modern context.

I see Jack Dempsey's style as basically a precursor to guys like Patterson, Frazier, Tyson. The first "blueprint" for a smaller fighter so his legacy lives on in fighters who improved on the ideas he brought to the table.

But I do still think there's a trend towards overall refinement or improvement and where history buffs go wrong is that they love to focus solely on good techniques or ideas that have become timeless but ignore stuff that we know would probably no longer work, either because the competition got better or because boxing itself evolved.

And in the fighters above, you can see that evolution taking place, each one looking like a more polished version. Less wasted movements, better defense, more purposeful footwork etc.

 

Oh I really hate to do this to you bud, but yes and no, still.


Dempsey is the precursor to Tyson, Patty, and Smokey, for sure, and 100%. Patterson is the Mike Tyson prototype for sure and 100%. But what you're leaving out is the rule changes. The differences between Mike Tyson and Floyd Patterson have as much to do with the sport itself being changed by the bodies as it does the genetics of both men. Floyd Patterson is a 15 round fighter. Mike Tyson is not. Floyd's body is more suited for 15 rounds. Floyd's pace is more suited for 15 rounds. Jack Dempsey doesn't understand neutral corners and so lacks that ring generalship while Mike Tyson has never hovered and doesn't box like a man who needs to hit you while you're getting up.

Likewise the balancing act of the more open division is totally lost. For the longest time it was the 190s to 220s who kept the 220+s for being successful while 220+ vs a 160-80 would be hard to pull for the small man the 220+ can lose to a 200 who loses to a 175. Raising the minimum from 175 to 190 then 200 and now 220 so that you can be a HW without exemptions drastically changed the styles these men faced in their divisions.

I know people like to assume big = deadly. No, look into it. Boxing deaths have always and currently do favor lighter weights. Little men kill people. Big men don't. Dunno why really but I do know it isn't size disparity. That's why there's a division a weight on the low end.

So really the fact that a guy like Fury doesn't have to worry about Beterbiev sized men also means he can adjust his style to be more suited for explicitly larger men. If he has holes a small man would exploit we'd never know. If Usyk could have weighed 200 or 190 would he have whooped Fury's ass even more? We don't know but what we do know is Fury never needed to prepare for the workrate of a 175 pounder.

 

It's a boring answer but I default to which era we're pretending in. If modern boxing, modern boxer, if history I lean the history figure.


Jack did struggle with the rule changes that happened during his career

Canelo's never fought beyond 12/ 36 mins with 1 min rests every 3 mins.


... Canelo by DQ in 2025, Jack by KO in 1925

 

Poor gas tank because he explodes with every move.

 

Jack Dempsey is overrated. He avoided black fighters for a reason, he knew he wouldn't beat them. Because if his ducking, he wasn't a true heavyweight champ.

Joe Louis, Gene Tunney, Max Baer, Harry Greb, Sam Langford and Jack Johnson would defeat Canelo.

 

Why can't even a faded Kovalev be better than Dempsey? The notion that it's not an impressive win against a guy with some of Dempseys best attributes simply because he was past his best doesn't make a lot of sense

 

Kovalev didn`t throw hard punches at Canelo, just jabs, Demsey would be throwing bombs without the same level of fear of Canelo`s counter right hand, Canelo does not hit harder than Firpo.

 

First of all, it's not about who's better.

Even if we looked at a prime Kovalev, it's about who's style and attributes would have been harder for Canelo to have dealt with.

We're looking from the perspective of Canelo.

That would be prime for prime.


Again, we know that Canelo CHOSE to specifically fight a SHOT version of Kovalev. A guy who was just a shell of his former self. A version who'd been knocked out numerous times, who was very vulnerable.

Kovalev had just fought Yarde, where he'd had a scare. Canelo then gave him a very short turn around with the fight date, with a possible rehydration clause.


Now if you're knowledgeable of Canelo's career, then you would KNOW for sure, that he would NEVER have fought a prime Sergey Kovalev.


No, due to the circumstances, it was not an impressive win.


Dempsey and Kovalev are nothing alike.

Kovalev had great power, but he also boxed behind a jab.

Whereas Dempsey would have just relentlessly attacked Canelo, with huge power shots.


Stylistically, Dempsey would have been much harder to have dealt with.

 

He might be overrated. But it would still have been a very tough stylistic match up for Canelo.

Also, you need to apply context to the colour line.

The world wasn't in a great place back then, with racism etc.

All black vs white fighters were controversial back then, and open to huge issues outside of the event.

Many promoters didn't want those types of fights.

We're talking about a horrible time in history, where people of colour couldn't travel on public transport and be served in coffee shops etc.

Some states were worse than others.

The point is, it's unfair to say that Jack personally specifically avoided black fighters, because he was racist or he feared losing to them etc.

 

Fair enough but how is Tunney not in the same boat as Jack?

 

"I think boxing is here to stay. It’s got to get better, or worse. Let’s hope better. I’d like to see more scientific fighting, more finesse, less crude strength. I don’t think the blacks have much chance in the heavier weights. I think they get too excited, lose their heads. They’re not as good as whites in that way." - Gene Tunney?

 

Canelo is a bum who got toyed with by Bivol & a 40 year old flyweight.

 

Kovalev looks plenty aggressive and has lots of early knockout wins some over durable opponents. He wasn't a safety first boxer and would take guys out early if he could.

These arguments your making about the win not being good because Kovalev was faded don't add up

Dempsey lost in his prime to Willie Meehan was dropped by the crude hype job Firpo and had close fights with Billy Miske. I could easily see even a faded Kovalev doing better against Dempsey against all those guys which raises the possibility he was still better than Dempsey.

You really think even the 2019 Kovalev would lose to Meehan or get dropped multiple times by Firpo? I don't