hungry homeless guys>>>>fat featherfisted pussies with no stamina This content is protected I'd give Wlad about a couple rounds before he gets downed and starts rolling around on the floor claiming to be drugged.
Jack Dempsey once ran 100 metres in 9.0 seconds. And he didn't even win the race. Benny Leonard and Harry Greb were clear ahead of him. It took place it Atlantic City, April, 1921. They all drank beer and ate raw eggs beforehand. Modern nutrition not.
Nutrition-wise it was horrible. It did make him lose weight but it consisted mostly of supplements, not a nutrient in sight. Diet means something different than "weight-loss" here.
Are you factoring in materials as well? Shoes improved, tracks got better, training methods changed, etc. Nutrition has actually been quite horrible for the past few decades, but slowly people are returning to the idea that whole natural foods are what man strives on.
Dempsey is not overrated, at least not here. The guy gets more criticism for not being able to get a fight made than probably any other fighter in history, loses more fantasy matchups then he wins, accusations of not having any skill... On the other hand you have trainers that saw and trained fighters from johnson through tyson calling him not just the greatest heavy ever, but the best pound for pound fighter of all time. His contemporaries and rivals saying similar things(Langford, Tunney, Greb)...So who is right? The 50/50 hindsight guys or the perceptions of the era? The truth is that Dempsey's quality as a fighter is probably some mix of the two. A devastating, quick fighter who could dismantle almost any fighter who came to him or exchanged with him and had good infighting skills. He was fast and strong, not only for the time but pound for pound. He could be outboxed, frustrated, and had a lackadaisical reign as a HW champion. But it seems to me that he was a pretty good fighter nonetheless.
Its not down to 'not fighting 1 fight', Dempsey didn't fight the best of his era aside from Wills, who has the better resume. There's also Greb and a past it Johnson would have trumped anyone he beat, and he always struggled with the better technical boxers like Miske (fight 1 where many thought he lost), Meehan, and obviously Tunney, aswell as being knocked out by a journeyman and knocked out the ring by the unskilled Firpo. Exciting yes, but I think the perceptions of the era were pretty much caught up in the drama of Dempsey's fights and smoke and mirrors of his reign
You should go to your local gym, find the heavyweights and tell them what you think of them. If it is so damned easy to be a championship fighter, we should all give it a try.
The track and field argument has been destroyed in detail on this site several times. Frankly people are getting bored of doing it every time some newbie looses his way looking for the general forum.
Johnson was NOT a viable opponent of the time, no way. He got his teeth punched out by Willard years ago. That's just silly. Greb was a viable opponent as well, but you have to realize it was Kearns who would never let that happen, same with Wills. That same Kearns helped Dempsey develop into a much better boxer in 1918 and 1919 when he peaked...Almost every great fighter loses early in their career. Jack is no exception.Plenty of other fighters have engaged in ducking of their own, Johnson of Langford, Robinson of the murderer's, the list is long but nobody gets more flack for it than Dempsey. Sadly he gets torn apart by the detractors so much that nobody really talks about how well he did fight and the skills he did have these days. And that's unfair. relax, just trying to get a rise out of 'im :hey