Log in or Sign up

Dempsey vs James Toney

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by lufcrazy, Oct 4, 2014.

Page 5 of 6

janitor VIP Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 2006

Messages:

71,997

Likes Received:

28,008

Seamus said: ↑

janitor said: ↑

If you think the nascent eras of the sport and the division are equal to later eras. I don't suscribe to this idea of eqequivalency. ... nor do many others I suspect. And we are talking head to head here, not legacy.
Click to expand...

How would you go about testing the respective merits of two separate eras?

The more assumptions you build into your model, the more there is to go wrong with it.
Click to expand...

janitor, Oct 6, 2014

#61

Foxy 01 Boxing Junkie banned

Joined:

Apr 23, 2012

Messages:

12,328

Likes Received:

136

Anyone who seriously thinks Jess Willard is worthy of exhaltation is a sandwich short of a picnic.

Foxy 01, Oct 6, 2014

#62

Ted Spoon Boxing Addict Full Member

Joined:

Sep 10, 2005

Messages:

3,402

Likes Received:

1,281

Toney's lateral movement and sneaky counters would trouble Dempsey.

They wouldn't be the foil of him.

Dempsey showed against Gibbons, who also happens to be the best comparison for this fantasy match, that he can be patient and shorten his leather.

For every pop Tony landed he would be forced into an unproductive shell. And every time he felt the urge to follow up his high boxing IQ would be all too aware of the risk.

Toney may have even given a prime Holyfield more trouble than Dempsey - Jack routinely sparred with middleweights and was better equipped to 'pin them down' than most heavyweight greats.

Ted Spoon, Oct 6, 2014

#63
janitor VIP Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 2006

Messages:

71,997

Likes Received:

28,008

Foxy 01 said: ↑

Anyone who seriously thinks Jess Willard is worthy of exhaltation is a sandwich short of a picnic.
Click to expand...

I happen to think that being the undisputed heavyweight champion is quite a significant accomplishment.

This content is protected

I am sorry if you dont see it this way.

janitor, Oct 6, 2014

#64

closedguard Active Member Full Member

Joined:

May 17, 2014

Messages:

744

Likes Received:

2

Ted Spoon said: ↑

Toney's lateral movement and sneaky counters would trouble Dempsey.

They wouldn't be the foil of him.

Dempsey showed against Gibbons, who also happens to be the best comparison for this fantasy match, that he can be patient and shorten his leather.

For every pop Tony landed he would be forced into an unproductive shell. And every time he felt the urge to follow up his high boxing IQ would be all too aware of the risk.

Toney may have even given a prime Holyfield more trouble than Dempsey - Jack routinely sparred with middleweights and was better equkipped to 'pin them down' than most heavyweight greats.
Click to expand...

Again toneys weakness was poor defence below the head.

closedguard, Oct 6, 2014

#65
Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Joined:

Feb 11, 2005

Messages:

66,199

Likes Received:

53,648

janitor said: ↑

Seamus said: ↑

How would you go about testing the respective merits of two separate eras?

The more assumptions you build into your model, the more there is to go wrong with it.
Click to expand...

I am relying on my judgement from watching the sport for 30 years. I see a vast difference in the depth and quality of athletes participating in the heavyweight division from the early part of the 20th century to the latter. If you do not see this, either in whole or in part, I respect your observation but do not agree with it. It would run contrary to every other sporting activity on earth, but so be it.
Click to expand...

Seamus, Oct 6, 2014

#66
janitor VIP Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 2006

Messages:

71,997

Likes Received:

28,008

Seamus said: ↑

janitor said: ↑

I am relying on my judgement from watching the sport for 30 years. I see a vast difference in the depth and quality of athletes participating in the heavyweight division from the early part of the 20th century to the latter. If you do not see this, either in whole or in part, I respect your observation but do not agree with it. It would run contrary to every other sporting activity on earth, but so be it.
Click to expand...

OK here is my problem.

Establishing the superiority of one era over another is fraught with problems and assumptions. For example most people would agree that the top heavyweights of the early 70s were better than the best heavyweights of the mid 30s, but if you actually matched them it would only take one upset and your entire hypothesis would be on trial for its life.

If you cannot establish that the elite fighters of era A, would beat the elite fighters of era B, then saying that the second tier fighters of era A would beat the elite fighters of era B would be an extraordinary claim, that would require extraordinary evidence to back it up. In practice it would depend upon a number of assumptions, and if one of them collapsed, it would bring the entire house down with it.

By comparing fighters based on their accomplishments relative to their era, I am working with the only tangible piece of data that I have. Beyond that there is only a limited amount that I can do to constrain which group of fighters was better or worse.
Click to expand...

janitor, Oct 7, 2014

#67

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Joined:

Feb 11, 2005

Messages:

66,199

Likes Received:

53,648

janitor said: ↑

Seamus said: ↑

OK here is my problem.

Establishing the superiority of one era over another is fraught with problems and assumptions. For example most people would agree that the top heavyweights of the early 70s were better than the best heavyweights of the mid 30s, but if you actually matched them it would only take one upset and your entire hypothesis would be on trial for its life.

If you cannot establish that the elite fighters of era A, would beat the elite fighters of era B, then saying that the second tier fighters of era A would beat the elite fighters of era B would be an extraordinary claim, that would require extraordinary evidence to back it up. In practice it would depend upon a number of assumptions, and if one of them collapsed, it would bring the entire house down with it.

By comparing fighters based on their accomplishments relative to their era, I am working with the only tangible piece of data that I have. Beyond that there is only a limited amount that I can do to constrain which group of fighters was better or worse.
Click to expand...

I respond that establishing equivalency is much more fraught with problems and is logically far-fetched... especially in a sporting world where quantifiable endeavors have so drastically improved.

Also, a single win by a 1930's heavy versus a 1970's heavy doesn't topple anything. It in an aberration to a general trend.
Click to expand...

Seamus, Oct 7, 2014

#68
janitor VIP Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 2006

Messages:

71,997

Likes Received:

28,008

Seamus said: ↑

janitor said: ↑

I respond that establishing equivalency is much more fraught with problems and is logically far-fetched... especially in a sporting world where quantifiable endeavors have so drastically improved.

Also, a single win by a 1930's heavy versus a 1970's heavy doesn't topple anything. It in an aberration to a general trend.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that there is equivalence between eras, I am sure there is not. What I am saying is that we dont know the direction of the differential, how great it is, or even what factors it principally turns on.

I consider comparisons based on career accomplishments to carry far more weight than head to head comparisons, because they are based on known data. You can make a case for Jimmy Braddock beating Muhammad Ali head to head, but if you try to argue that he has a better resume, you will simply not be able to justify it on the available data.

Now where era equivalence does come into play, is in that there is always a big gulf between the best fighters in the era, and people ranked outside the top ten, or very low in it. In every era this differential is for much the same reasons. You would need a very strong argument in my opinion, to argue for somebody outside the top ten in a strong era, beating the champion of a weak era.
Click to expand...

janitor, Oct 8, 2014

#69
Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Joined:

Feb 11, 2005

Messages:

66,199

Likes Received:

53,648

janitor said: ↑

Seamus said: ↑

I am not saying that there is equivalence between eras, I am sure there is not. What I am saying is that we dont know the direction of the differential, how great it is, or even what factors it principally turns on.

I consider comparisons based on career accomplishments to carry far more weight than head to head comparisons, because they are based on known data. You can make a case for Jimmy Braddock beating Muhammad Ali head to head, but if you try to argue that he has a better resume, you will simply not be able to justify it on the available data.

Now where era equivalence does come into play, is in that there is always a big gulf between the best fighters in the era, and people ranked outside the top ten, or very low in it. In every era this differential is for much the same reasons. You would need a very strong argument in my opinion, to argue for somebody outside the top ten in a strong era, beating the champion of a weak era.
Click to expand...

Well put. I actually agree with most of what you say, also.

I will respond more when I have something better than this shitty cell to type on but thanks for being able to converse in an intelligent, thoughtful manner. Seems to be missing in these parts.
Click to expand...

Seamus, Oct 8, 2014

#70
mcvey VIP Member

Joined:

Jun 2, 2006

Messages:

98,716

Likes Received:

30,651

Seamus said: ↑

janitor said: ↑

Well put. I actually agree with most of what you say, also.

I will respond more when I have something better than this shitty cell to type on but thanks for being able to converse in an intelligent, thoughtful manner. Seems to be missing in these parts.
Click to expand...

Well you would agree with it, you typed it!
Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

mcvey, Oct 9, 2014

#71

lufcrazy requiescat in pace

Joined:

Sep 15, 2009

Messages:

82,092

Likes Received:

22,238

I do think Jack wins but only on points.

lufcrazy, Oct 9, 2014

#72
closedguard Active Member Full Member

Joined:

May 17, 2014

Messages:

744

Likes Received:

2

If you guys can find something new that didn't exist 20 yrs ago let us all know!

closedguard, Oct 9, 2014

#73
mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

Joined:

Jan 3, 2007

Messages:

52,216

Likes Received:

27,717

I'd go with Dempsey, though James in his prime might be a tricky opponent.

mr. magoo, Oct 9, 2014

#74
lufcrazy requiescat in pace

Joined:

Sep 15, 2009

Messages:

82,092

Likes Received:

22,238

James in his prime was incredible. But very inconsistent.

How many performances did we really see him at his best? I mean his absolute best?

If Nunn, Johnson and Body Snatcher were his best performances then that says more about them than him. That leaves what, Barkley, Jirov , Ruiz and Holyfield?

That's my biggest issue with him his peak performances were that rare it makes them anomalous in his career.

lufcrazy, Oct 9, 2014

#75

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 5 of 6