Is there a case for Dempsey beating Usyk?

If you think that he is rudimentary you are very wide of the mark.

 

Whilst I like Frazier's chances against Usyk, a fighter with similar intensity, but for me, much more skill, I don't think Dempsey can beat Usyk. He is wild, ferocious, but if I could sum up Usyk in one word it would be calm. Dempsey's ferocity would overwhelm many fighters but not Usyk. He would have an uncomfortable couple of rounds, download the data then box Jack's ears off. Tunney was a masterful boxer with an underrated and somewhat forgotten element of spite about him. I think Usyk is this but more so. It's strange because if I had to compare Usyk to one boxer through history it would be Tunney...He has Jack's number.

 

Of course there is a case for Dempsey beating Usyk.

Let's start with teh question of who you might expect to beat him?

Somebody much bigger perhaps?

That has been tried too many times to count on it.

Somebody smaller who could get in his personal space and smother/overwhelm his craft?

Might just be worth a try.

 

I think the thing that frustrates me the most out of the daily "Old heavyweight vs New Heavyweight" threads is that there is no arguments. It's just "This old heavyweight isn't as skilled as modern heavyweights." With no reasoning followed by someone else saying"If you think this old heavyweight isn't as skilled as modern heavyweights you're stupid!" with as much reasoning as the first individual

I would be interested in hearing what Dempsey is lacking in terms of skills followed by concrete examples of this (We have footage of him, this shouldn't be hard) and then that gets followed up by a classicist making some sort of counter argument as to why they don't see those as good examples.

If neither side is willing to do this then why are any of you bothering with this? Is calling people stupid on the internet really that much of a drug?

 

I might be misunderstanding but you seem to be implying that the reason they lost is due to their size not because of styles or quality. If I'm looking at who I would expect to beat Usyk or at least have the best odds, why should I not start by looking at Lennox Lewis and the Klitschkos instead of going way further back in time and pick a guy who most likely wouldn't be fighting in the heavyweight division if he was around today?

I think the best pick to beating Usyk is someone who is an all time great who is of a similar size or bigger.

 

At cruiser weight I would pick Dempsey, at heavyweight I would have to favor Usyk.

 

Finally someone who understands the evolution of the sport! These guys like Jeffries Dempsey were really good for their day but they were pioneers. The science of the sport like any other science progressed it got better. Also you had a globalization of the sport that expanded the talent pool. When Dempsey toured Germany they were just starting to promote it there. While some groups have become too affluent to expose themselves to the dangers other groups now have the social justice that allows them to more fully participate. Also let’s look at the potential talent pool. In 1920 the population of the USA was about 100 million today it’s 340 million. The world was 1.8 billion today 8.1 billion. I know people want to look back and imagine their hero’s as all conquering but the facts don’t support it any way you look at it.
The thing is the film exists you can compare and the tale of the tape as well. Take a look at how much better the technique is ie how low their hands were that wouldn’t cut it today you d be eating jabs. It’s right in front of our noses but some fall prey to nostalgia.

 

Prime Dempsey has a chance here, Usyk would struggle with his speed.
It’s not like Usyk has beaten an Ali or Holmes either is it.

 

Yes
I would favor Dempsey

 

Is there a single fighter you wouldn't favor over Usyk? Geez man give him some respect at least feels like you come to any thread and just Usyk would lose to any middle of the road fighter in the past. Gets a bit hard to trust your judgement with these kinds of takes.

 

For me it's that Dempsey doesn't really have a jab or use it. I'm sure someone will point out he used a lead left occasionally and he did but it isn't what a modern jab is. And I say modern jab but Tunney's jab is good by modern standards and that gave Dempsey fits. I'm going to bet Greb probably had a good jab and supposedly Greb gave Dempsey problems in sparring too.

It's a problem against elite jabbers because the jab is the fastest and easiest punch to land. Then there is the fact Dempsey has a low guard, which makes the jab even easier to land. Then you're putting him in with Usyk who has one of the busiest jabs in history and then throws lots of straight punches down the pipe in combination. Dempsey's wide hooks aren't landing first or much at all when he's kept off balance. Usyk's stamina and durability are both tried and tested.

The other issue is that Dempsey wasn't that proven in his own era with various names he missed out on facing.

 

The feeling is mutual.

 

At least I give my reasoning

 

I dont need to give a reason. There's film of both. That's reason enough.