dempsey vs shavers and ellis...

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by shommel, Jan 5, 2011.

  1. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    42,723
    Likes Received:
    279
    :lol::patsch
     
  2. obviously you did understand that you said a bunch of **** and you rectified. foreman and liston were more muscular, bigger,stronger and they had bigger structure than dempsey.
     
  3. lmao man
     
  4. Valane

    Valane Active Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,462
    Likes Received:
    3

    No, you quoted the wrong post of which i subsequently replied to for a start. Nothing to rectify, you are wrong as is the case 99% of the time.

    Both are naturally bigger i didn't dispute that, but Dempsey used to come in leaner than either which exaggerates it somewhat.

    Past 200lb and it is a case of diminishing returns. As previously stated, you have an obsession with size, Foreman and gross exaggeration.
     
  5. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    42,723
    Likes Received:
    279
    Dempsey may well beat both but I think both are bigger threats stylistically than anyone he actually beat. Shavers isn't just powerful, but he has speed and technique, he just didn't have the stamina or in fighting, yes Quarry ko'd him, but he improved from that.

    Ellis had a stick and move style that seriously may have troubled Dempsey much like Tunney's style troubled him.
     
  6. :tired