Heavyweight Tournament with a Twist First Round: (Jack Dempsey/James Douglas)

No but if we replace Willard with Wills..

 

Then why did Wills loose and draw against Dempseys sparring partner?

 

Also wills was beat by sharkey

 

Also wills was beat by sharkey

 

Why does that mean anything?? Boxing math. Why was Dempsey outpointed twice and taken to a draw once by Fat Willie Meehan? And why was he sparked clean out by a career fireman that had a losing record?

And why wouldnt he fight black people? And/or his number 1 contender for a decade?

 

james buster douglas is a lie, plain and simple. he was always the same bum, the same average fighter. simply mike tyson was in very bad shape at this time, then douglas did look better than he was really . holyfield exposed the bum that was james buster douglas.
jack dempsey would destroy tokyo douglas, new york douglas, sidney douglas and madrid douglas.

 

The buster douglas who fought tyson would pose some major match-up problems for jack dempsey. This is not a gimmie fight.

 

under london prize ring rules..

it could be tunney or sharkey era dempsey and he would completely butt**** tyson douglas.

 

deal

 

:rofl:rofl:deal

Dempsey was overated.

 

THE EXPERT insists that if Douglas comes into the fight with the same frame of mind as he did against Tyson, on Dempsey's best day Douglas would make him look foolish. You can not take a primitive style smaller fighter and have him compete with a bigger, stronger, faster and better/more advanced skills figher and expect anythiing but a blowout. Dempsey may not even get a punch in.

 

THE EXPERT seems not to extend his expertease to fights under London Prize Ring Rules.

If Dempsey has a primitive skillset, then lets face it, the fight is taking place under a verry primitive ruleset.

I suggest that you learn the rules of a London Prize Ring fight before you register any further votes in this series of threads:

A round ends only when a knockdown is scored.

The fallen fighter has 30-38 seconds to get to his feet depending on the durastiction.

There is n o scoring of points.

The fight ends when one or both fighters are unable to continue.

There are verry few recorded cases of quick knockouts, in the 200 year history of bareknuckle boxing.

 

The Janitor seems to want to "mop the floor" with the expert...but I must admit he is correct. I must have dove into the question without realizing the London rules are applicable here. However, fighters then did not have the technical skill set meaning they do not punch as hard, (arm punching and no weight transfer) as they did in 1991. The rules applied would not matter. If there were few recorded cases of quick knockouts it is partly because of the lack of skill, difference in conditioning...etc. Maybe "The Janitor" should quit his day job.