David Tua vs Jack Dempsey

I wonder why that was.

 

Perhaps Gibbons was busier than Ali, perhaps Ali was harder to slip than Gibbons, or perhaps Dempsey had better defense than Frazier.

Whichever explanation you prefer, Gibbons was clearly no bum, and you would have to conclude from those numbers that Dempsey had very effective head movement.

 

I love how people try here to sell the idea that Tua is some kind of giant next to Dempsey. Tua is shape has about 30 lbs on him and huge reach/height disadvantage. I love when people use Tua's biggest weight to make him look bigger than he actually was, despite the fact that he wasn't effective at that weight.

Dempsey would probably outbox Tua as long as he wouldn't be stupid enough to go for a mindless brawl like he did against Firpo.

 

Tua at his best was 224/226 lbs.so more like 34/36 lbs.

 

The size argument is one of the least honestly applied on this forum.

The old timer himself down until he looks like a Greek God, and then we put them in a fantasy fight with a modern guy, who has fat hanging over the top of their trunks.

The apologist for the modern fighters then looks for the lowest weight of the old timer, and the most ridiculous weight for the modern fighter.

They then cite that as evidence for their superiority.

Let me tell you a simple truth.

The only way for a fighter who is 5' 10'' to weigh 240 lbs, is in they are fat.

That is not a number that should be associated with any fighter under 6' 4''!

 

Both Gibbons were superb boxers.

I think what needs the most attention are the gloves, Jack Dempsey's style was heavily reliant on them.

If Tua was in Jack's era with none of the training for the wrestling he'd be hopelessly outmatched by near about anyone in the top 10 who knew how to work on the inside IMO. But if you take Jack to the modern era he loses a lot of what made him so effective the grey area here is too much for me.

 

This content is protected

That simply isn't true. 239lbs here 5ft10*

 

Is this a model to copy?

 

As it should be!

 

Pardon?

I was showing you he isn't fat he might not be in top condition but to say they can ONLY be fat is nonsense.

 

Bruno was 247lbs for Lewis. Bruno is 6' 3"
Rahman was 238lbs for Lewis 1 he is 6' 2.5"
Ibeabuchi was 235 for Tua and 245 for Byrd,he is 6' 2"
Any of them look fat to you?

 

In other words, you have to be 6' 3'' to carry 240lbs effectively, at world level.

Personally, I wouldn't advise any man under 6' 6'', to come in over the 240 mark.

A man of 5' 10'', who is coming in at that sort of weight, is overweight pure and simple!

 

You said anyone under six feet four weighing 240 lbs is fat.I gave you three examples of men at or near that weight and they range from six feet two to six feet three.I asked you if they were fat? Would you now like to answer the question?

Here is your post

"That is not a number that should be associated with any fighter under 6' 4''!

 

OK so lets say that a few men carried it well at 6' 3''.

That still doesn't translate into it being a good weight for a man like Tua.

 

I agree 224/226 was about his best weight.My issue was with the rest of your remarks which you have now qualified,[without actually admitting there are exceptions,] lets say a few men carried it well at 6'2".