Yes and Usyk looks much better then someone who struggled with every good boxer he fought. What's your point?
Just gave you my point. Watch the films. I dont need to explain everything to you as your mind is already made up well in advance
I can say the same for you tbh. How does beating up stationary bums and struggling with skilled boxers mean he would beat Usyk someone who is bigger and much more skilled then Dempsey? What should I be looking for? Like come on man I'm throwing you a bone here to try and understand where you're coming from and you're just coming off as a condescending elitist.
Add a modern 10-20 lbs. on Dempsey and he likely gets rid of the guys Usyk beat at cruiser. A whole different level of dynamisn which still comes through on the archaic footage. Breidis, while solid, is either ko'd or brutalised. Gassiev is absolutely rudimentary compared to Jack. No chance. Usyk to beat Dempsey? Sure, he's got a great chance. He's also never seen anything like him. If we're talking the Dempsey from 1918-21 before that first bout of inactivity, to quote Roy Jones, 'That was a bad dude.' He gives every single cruiser/hw something to think about and ices the vast majority.
Ray Arcel fawned over Dempsey for a good, good reason, and anybody bringing Tunney up ought to remember he was much smaller of a target, against arguably sliding Jack (the search for aggression, dominating timing, and seek-and-destroy attitude is spectacular, but does not age well.) That being said, Usyk is beautiful. Freddie Roach said if you are in better position 90% of the time, you will yield superior results 90% of the time. Usyk looks for, recognizes, and exploits superior positions with much more foresight, insight, and frequency than his opposition and he is accurate, hard-hitting, with great whiskers, extreme stamina, and superb ring IQ (composed, focused, adaptive, present-minded.) Dempsey on the other hand has that breathtaking, distilled kind of timing that may seem like a lucky shot or inept opposition, but is anything but. He is a killer-puncher that given modern nutrition wonders would benefit from added pounds without any significant drawback, and he is a consummate body puncher hailing from an era when ribs, solar plexus, and liver, were one of the prized targets to end the bout. Great bout. Would maybe favor Usyk based on overall pedigree and style, but Jack at his best would pose very unique, very dangerous questions.
Disagree. Back in the day everybody boxed, boxing was bigger then, the best athletes usually boxed, men boxed because they had to, to put bread on the table. Boxers fought once a week in a lot of cases. Skills were developed out of necessity and fighting so often against all kinds of styles. Nowadays the best athletes go in to basketball, football, American football, or whatever. Why risk their health when they can get paid 100 million or whatever in the nfl or nba. I look at boxers from the 70s and see a lot more skill than I see in most boxers today, barring one or two like Crawford or Usyk. (Old men who reached the top post 35yo by dint of their skills being so much better than everyone else)
Briedis has never been close to being knocked out but now Dempsey is knocking him out easily? Nothing has changed on this forum in the time I’ve been away, clearly. Utterly embarrassing stuff. Adios.
Yes, being the devil[s advocate here.. Usyk won me after the last figths.. but, let´s say with the gloves guys used in Dempsey´s days Usyk´s style of pinpointing boxing could be less eficient and less punches but more raw power would be the way to go and Dempsey had that... The difference in hand speed seems a bit too much for Dempsey. I love Dempsey, love his demeanor and etc and I did say in the past that Usyk was overrated.. but Usyk deserves the pick here with ease.