dempsey vs shavers and ellis...

Jerry Quarry showed what a naturally bigger heavyweight than himself like Dempsey would have done to Shavers. (And yes, Jack was naturally bigger than Jerry by a pretty fair degree. Jerry had a 73 inch reach, Jack, 77 inches.) Ellis did have Earnie going prior to the referee's break.

Jimmy would get broken down by Dempsey as he was by Frazier. Body shots would quickly take a dreadful toll and wear him down in short order. This is an instance where Jack is the bigger man against an opponent of questionable durability. (When Dempsey commenced training for Tommy Gibbons, he weighed 236, giving some indication of how much bigger he was than his minimal competitive weights suggest. Former middleweight Ellis was 189 at age 32 for Ollie Wilson, and 193 at age 34 for Lyle.)

 

REALLY I THINK THAT YOU WAS JOKING....THIS POST CAN´T BE SERIOUS...


THEN ACCORDING TO YOU, DEMPSEY WAS BIGGER THAN QUARRY BECAUSE HE HAD LONGER REACH? SO MICHAEL NUNN OR THOMAS HEARNS WERE BIGGER THAN QUARRY TOO?OR DEMPSEY WAS BIGGER THAN TYSON OR FRAZIER RIGHT? SON,TALLER IS NOT BIGGER. DEMPSEY WAS A NATURAL 190 POUNDER, END OF THE HISTORY, QUARRY WAS A NATURAL 200 POUNDER, DEMPSEY WAS MORE ATHLETIC BUT HE WAS NOT BIGGER THAN QUARRY. JOE LOUIS WAS CLEARLY BIGGER THAN DEMPSEY, HE HAD CLEARLY A BIGGER STRUCTURE OF BONES AND THE BEST LOUIS WEIGHED 198 POUNDS, HE WAS 6´2. DEMPSEY WEIGHED 188-190 POUNDS OF NATURAL WAY. NO MORE.HE WAS SMALL EVEN TO BE A CRUISER TODAY, THE CRUISERS ARE WEITHING 200 POUNDS TODAY SO STOP TO SAY NONSENSES BASING ON YOUR IMAGINATION.

 

Dempsey would knock out Ellis and Shavers. And Quarry too.

 

i disagree

 

In Dempsey's 1976 autobiography, there's a photograph of him standing beside Frazier during Jack's 75th birthday celebration, with Tunney standing on the other side. (All of them in street clothes, suits and ties. Both Tunney and Dempsey are obviously larger and taller than Frazier (who liked to wear boots with a bit of a higher heel) by a substantial margin, even though they were both in their mid 70s and had some age related shrinkage by then. Yes, Louis was a little bigger, but I've never known anybody who met Dempsey describe him as "small." (Interestingly, Louis topped out at 236 while serving in the US Army during WW II, the same weight Dempsey was when taking up training for Gibbons.)

What Dempsey ate was watched carefully when he was training, and he would fast one day a week to give his digestive system a rest. Common wisdom then was to get under 200 pounds if at all possible. If Lennox Lewis and the Klitschkos were competing then, they would have weighed around 220. Over 15 or 20 rounds, large muscles become a liability, consuming too much oxygen.

 

You're wrong here.
Dempsey was naturally around 220-225.
He trained himself down to the optimal 190-195lbs for his fights.
He was in some bouts at over 200lbs in weight, before he became champion.
And from what i remember a Car Morris fight was one of them


And Louis was smaller then him except height and waist(gut)
Dempsey was more muscular, bigger bones, longer reach, bigger fists, forearms etc.

 

i saw jack dempsey in a photo with rocky marciano and dempsey did not have bigger structure than marciano, he was just taller, taller is not bigger, joe frazier was absolutely bigger than dempsey, bigger head, bigger legs ,bigger thorax, and frazier was heavier of natural way,i saw marciano in a photo and he was like floyd patterson, around of the same size, i saw frazier with patterson and joe was much bigger, the thorax much bigger, quarry was bigger than patterson too. frazier was heavier by genetics but he was faster and he had better stamina around,210 pounds(and he was 5´11, dempsey 6´1, frazier wa smuch more compact and bigger). dempsey was taller, but not bigger. ali was taller than tyson but tyson was bigger. .jake lamotta said that tyson was bigger and stronger than marciano, and tyson did not have bigger structure than frazier... plain and simple. the musculature and the structure of bones are 2 different things, you can check it, in the Ankles and knees, tyson was very muscular, but he did not have heavy bones, it is because he was fast. frazier never trained weights and he weighed 205-217 in 1970-72. tyson had modern advantages in training,supplements and nutrition and he weighed 212-220 in his prime. frazier would have been heavier than tyson in the late 80s and 90s, simple. david tua weighed 200 pounds in his early career, but later he was a ****ing pig. holyfield weighed 220 against lewis and liston weighed 212 in his prime,or foreman weighed 217 against frazier 1, and you can see clearly who was the bigger and the stronger man by his structure. lennox lewis weighed 220-230 in his 20s prime, but he did adapt his weight in his 30s to face bigger men, but his natural weight was not 245 pounds, no ****ing way. so is not matter if dempsey weighed 236, it was not his natural weight for his size. he was an athletic 190-200 pounder.

 

you are very wrong, louis had clearly bigger head, bigger legs.. louis was bigger than dempsey, louis would have been a 220 pounder in the 90s. joe frazier was naturally heavier than he used to be too. just look at his legs...

dempsey a natural 225 pounder? hahahahahahahaa lmao george foreman weighed 226-230 pounds in hi samateur career. foreman was bigger and stronger than dempsey by a mile. sonny liston weighed 212 pounds in his prime, do you think that dempsey was even nearly big like liston? i hope you are conscious of that you said.... ali was much bigger than dempsey, and he was a natural 220 pounder man, but at fighter he was a natural 214 pounder. even the fat old marciano 40 years old(220 pounds) who did the computer fight with ali, was much smaller than ali. dempsey was not bigger than marciano, he was just taller.
tyson was a natural 217 pounder and he was clearly much bigger than dempsey.

 

A prime Dempsey with ease.......

 

:-((
I won't bother to answer all that stuff you posted there, because most of it is plain wrong , and it had nothing to do with the original post

The comparison was btw. Dempsey and Louis, so please keep the other away.

"natural" is the weight that everybody walks with everyday.
Dempsey was certainly walking around heavier then 200lbs.
He was 190ish ripped and trained down.
Before he began his training for his 1st. fight with Tunney he weighted 219.
He was 211 when he fought Cowboy Luttrel, in his 40's

Both Marciano and Dempsey trained themselves down as much as they could, and both were well over 200lbs "natural".


louis had clearly a bigger head?..whatever you say man....

 

no no, you are trying to change the topic..haha. you said that dempsey was a natural 225 pounder, so you are saying that he was as big as foreman or liston :rofl:rofl. and the natural weight is not the weight that everybody walks with everyday. i can to eat fat everyday and i will be 40 pounds heavier ... the natural weight is the correct weight according to your height and structure of bones.
.. in few words...i disagree 100%

 

All of which weight train...Demspey could easily fill out his frame more with resistance training and a solid diet. Not that he needs to, his advantages are in speed, explosiveness, movement, angles.

 

Neither Foreman or Liston looked ripped at their fighting weight. A part of their weight was fat.

 

liston and young foreman 69-77 foreman never trained weights .:rofl:rofl:roflatsch:admin please... go to the general forum....

 

Neither Liston or Foreman were ripped. Both naturally big boned, decent muscle, bit of fat. I was referring to modern fighters in regards to weight training.

Dempsey used to come in leaner than both. He was naturally smaller than the two granted, whats your point? You have an obsession with weight and size, not to mention using capslock.