Historical ignorance??? You're crazier than a shlt house rat if you think that about me dude! All you do is write that... this guy felt this way and this other guy felt that way. Who gives a ****! How do you feel man? Do you have your own opinion about anything? So, if a guy is unknown or not praised by a bunch of well known "boxing people"... it's obvious he can't fight, right? You just take the favorite fighter or the popular fighter as a rule huh? Don't try that when picking race horses... the horse that is supposed to win, never wins.
Willie Meehan, Jim Flynn, Fred Fulton, Carl Morris, Billy Miske, and company. Im not saying they were ****... but they weren't better than W. Klitschko, Rahman, or V. Klitschko.
[Houdini] " Would Wlad or Sanders even think of fighting with that level of injury?" Can't speak for Wlad, but: "Sanders had a knee injury which prevented him from doing any roadwork prior to his exciting clash with Hasim Rahman." http://www.thesweetscience.com/columnists/joe-rein/2832-klitschko-injuries-hurt-legacy "Sanders was reportedly suffering from a bad back which had limited his training, and he didn’t look quite like the man who’d beaten Wlad a year earlier." http://www.boxinginsider.com/column...man-who-changed-the-klitschkos-lives-forever/ Two of his fights against his most formidable opponents were injury-plagued. [seamus] "[Dempsey] had a tendency to get sloppy and off track at those times, leaving huge openings and just plain tiring. If Jack fights a more controlled, disciplined fight, he should do much better and take this." Now here's a post that I can agree with. If he fights smart, and respects Sander's power, bobs and weaves his way to the inside and makes it a war there, I think he'll probably take it too. But if he thinks he can swing away at Sanders like he did against Willard, I would put money on him catching a left straight and visiting the canvas for a nap. [hookie] " I can go on but no fighter [Dempsey] gets this level of praise from experts without being a very great fighter." I don't think that anybody really disputes that Dempsey was indeed a great fighter. However, let's be fair for a second, here. Dempsey has a losing record against Willie "fat boy" Meehan, got knocked out against Flynn and lost to Jack Downey (who had a 40-18 record) etc. To simply write off a big, fast, hard-punching heavyweight like Sanders is a little far out. Frankly, if I wanted to be catty I could make the argument, based on Dempsey's sad record against Meehan, that the next thread should be "Dempsey vs Butterbean", what say?
Sorry, this was by Houdini "I can go on but no fighter [Dempsey] gets this level of praise from experts without being a very great fighter" and not by Hookie. My bad.
Dempsey was great. I never said he wasnt. Sanders? Not so much. Anyway, I was just pointing out that Dempsey was much smaller, could be very wild and even a bit sloppy, sometimes his stamina was an issue... and he was beatable, just like any other fighter. Dempsey vs. Sanders? Dempsey 2 of 3... but they all end in KO. Sanders at his best was far from a bum and would give Dempsey plenty of problems.
Actually, Houdini... they did say the same about Baer for a short period of time. Even Ring magazine compared Baer to Dempsey... even Dempsey compared Baer to Dempsey. Baer proved to be not as good though.
I watched some of the Hasim Rahman fight, less of the Klitschko than you think, and very little of the Purity fight. I will give you that he circled around better in the Purity fight. But he was still fat, he looked like a cylinder..where as Dempsey looked like a inverted triangle. Sanders did not move enough. Defense sucked, jab pawing and way down at his side. How much do I need to see to know that this is not the man to beat Dempsey? Do I really need to see 30 rounds of him doing the same thing over and over. He was a good pro, but we are getting way carried away saying he competes with Demps. Purity looked like a standard dolt, coming forward, walking into punches, waiting for the perfect punch and getting beat to the punch. Jack ain't any of the bums that Sanders fought. Those guys were plodders, slow, no confidence, standard overweight boxers. Dempsey would come at Corrie like a bolt of lightning. Both Klitschko's look like Williard to me. Williard would be just as "great" as them if he fought in this era. If a 37 year old Sanders wacks out Wlad I don't see why Williard who was stronger and tougher than Sanders couldn't. Now to Dempsey-Firpo. Dempsey was mashing this man and stepping over his body. Firpo got up and caught Dempsey with a hard shot while Dempsey was in kill mode. It happens. The "punch" that put him out of the ring was a stiff arm push/punch. Dempsey gets back in the ring and finished kicking the crap out of Firpo. I can't imagine the damage that Dempsey from the Firpo fight would do to Sanders who reminds me of Firpo a little. Anyway, I made my point, gave my reasons, and gave a breakdown of both men and how I see it working out. I am content with it.
Pretty good post. Rational and honest ... none of this is who was a better fighter .. the question is how does Dempsey , with his fast starting, stalking style fare against a much bigger man who is also a fast starter wih serious speed and power, reach and strength, a solid chin, a lefty and a straight puncher, unlike a clubbing , wild Firpo .. it can go anyway at the very least ...
This thread is like talking to a room full of kids in kindergarten. Sanders gets ko'd just like when he fought the all time great (wait for it) Nate Tubbs. Pretty much a one punch ko from Tubbs who is known for being Tony Tubbs brother and knocking out Corrie Sanders, in that order. Dempsey by total annihilation. If I went to church, I would pray for the simpletons on here....