Liston gave up the worlds hwt championship, the greatest prize in all of sports, sitting on his stool as a quitter. A fighter who is that quick to quit is not beating Jack Dempsey.
On what basis? Liston was a great technical fighter. He had a sweet defense consisting of parrying, blocking and slipping, one of the best jabs of all time, he was GREAT at picking his shots, and was an excellent combination puncher.
7" reach advantage, 20lb weight advantage probably too much for Jack. I'd pick Liston by a stoppage but I do think Dempsey presents an interesting style for the Liston technique.
Weight differences never bothered Dempsey. Reach advantage is negated by Dempseys low crouch and bobbing and weaving style. Far more advanced than Frazier or Marciano in this regard. Very quick to close the distance and get in close. At close quarters Liston will be able to do nothing vs Dempsey except take short shots of KO level power.
Great technical fighter???? Louis was a great technical fighter. Tunney was a great technical fighter. Liston was no great technical fighter. One of the most predicable hwts ever to hold the hwt title. Once inside, and Dempsey would get there very quickly, Liston could do nothing but take punches Sharkey said....."I never thought any fighter could hit that hard". Punches Sharkey said were harder than those of Joe Louis. Now if you think a fighter who hit harder than Joe Louis could not KO Liston.....well... You just don't know the sport of boxing.
Given that the best fighter he met with a serious weight or reach difference is Fulton, this is true but hardly definitive. The reason Liston is winning the poll is a size and reach advantage. This is obviously one of your more drunken claims, and not to be taken seriously.
Liston would knock out Dempsey. That if Dempsey would get in the ring with him. He did have a aversion to fighting black fighters.
Liston by ko. He was too big for Jack and actually, imo, he was a better fighter than Jack. Dempsey has quicker hands and quicker feet but he wasn't as intelligent a boxer and didn't have as good fundamentals. Would Jack be able to slip under the jab? I don't know because Patterson was not able to slip under or even to back away and he was quicker than Dempsey.
You sound like a dolt when you start insinuating you are the only one who spent any time in and around the sport. I assume most of my fellow posters either competed as I did or have followed the sport, as I have, for decades. Come up with some real arguments, point out some specifics and stop speaking in broad generalities. Dempsey did some nice technical stuff and did some really poor technical stuff. And by the way, technique only gets you so far. If you can enforce your physical advantages on your opponent, you can make up for a lot of technical inadequacies.
This is a ridiculous statement. Dempsey was one of the best finishers of all time. Win lose or draw, he is going to bother you!
