I agree with some of what you say... it's not like Dempsey fought really big men with top boxing skills, there simply wasn't anyone like that to fight. To say that Dempsey was weak is baseless though. Too many people made comments about his strength... I doubt he had world-class strength but I'm sure he was a powerful man. You can't go based on old photos and film. Physique has nothing to do with strength. Buddy McGirt was benching 300Lbs at 140Lbs... I remember in an interview with Chris Byrd, Byrd stated that he was happy to finally be benching 300Lbs. This was after Byrd had been a HW for several years. Strength has little to do with punching power anyway. Felix Trinidad looked very weak but had awesome punching power... Trinidad liked to run marathons more than weight lifting. Erik Morales had awesome punching power but didn't look like he belonged in the weight room. Barrera, Chavez, and plenty of others didn't look like powerhouses but had good punching power. McClellan and Breland were very thin. Very few decent boxers lift like bodybuilders or power lifters... why would they?
All your sports science theory sounds verry plausible on the face of it but it simply dosn't hold up in the real world. The simple fact that has been proven over many generations is that punching power is 95% about good genetics, and cannot be atributed to any type of build, body type or even muscle mass. My guess is that it is simply neuromuscular. Granted you can achieve improvments by various training methods including weights but what you end up with depends mainly on what you had in the first place. The two hardest hitting welterweights of all time might be Barbados Joe WAlcott and Tommy Hearns. One of them is 5' 1'' and the other is 6' 1'' but they both weigh around the same weight at some point. Now whioch of them has the more optimal build for generating power and how come the other wasn't a limited puncher? If Earnie Shavers was the hardest punching heavyweight of all time at 205 lbs, without the advantages of modern weight training (as most people here think), then why has modern sports science not produced a much heavier puncher? As for the idea that physical strength can be deduced from a persons dimensions and general physique that is even further from the truth. Try competitive powerlifting and the falacy of that notion will be ruthlesly exposed.
Dempsey's biceps were the same size as Liston's he was all top half ,Willard called him a midget, but I think he revised his opinion after the first three minutes.
I used to love lifting weights in my teens and 20's but I never had a thick body builder type frame. Eventually, I mainly focused on what was important to me... I sparred a lot and being able to handle myself in the ring was more important to me than looking like Lee Haney or Dorian Yates. I have no doubts that I would have boxed circles around either man lol. I could be totally wrong but that's how I felt about it back in the day! It worked for me. I was strong and I knew how to box. I hurt people when I punched them, that's all I really cared about. I didn't have huge arms but I had a big chest (44-46"), big shoulders, big upper back, decent triceps. I had average biceps and legs but it didn't seem to matter. 6'1", 160-165Lbs, very low bodyfat. That was in the 12th grade (1991-92). I went up to 185-190Lbs before I hurt my back and started getting out of shape. Anyway, I only lifted 3 days a week. I know it's not perfect, I skipped stuff that some will say is important but I had to get it done quick 'cause I had ***** to take care of. I also had to make time for my sparring, bag work, etc. Here's an example of what a week of lifting may have looked like- Day 1 (Chest, Shoulders, Triceps)- Flat Bench x5 sets (counting 1 warm-up set, last set to failure), Incline Bench x3, Decline Bench x3 Military Press x2, Upright Rows x2, Shrugs x2 (last set to failure) Tricep Pressdowns x4 (last set to failure) Day 2 (Biceps, Back, and Legs)- Barbell Curls x3 (last set to failure), Hammer Curls x1, Dumbbell Curls x3 (last set to failure) Lat Pulls (front x2 sets, back x2 sets), Seated Rows x3, Dead Lift x2 Squats x4, Calf Raises x3 One week the 3rd day would be chest, shoulders, and triceps... the next week the 3rd day would be biceps, back, and legs. Sure, I mixed things up sometimes with other things like front and side lateral raises, tricep kickbacks and extensions, french press, leg presses and curls, and a few other things. I played a lot of outdoor basketball, cycled, ****ed, etc.
At the end of the day you wrote of an exercise that is a fine one in even modern boxing and continue to understate the role of the tri's. Frederick C. Hatfield, who devised and oversaw Holyfields famous strength and boxing program says this He also stressed the importance of ballistic style training for boxing. Incidently, he had Holyfield doing DIPS. But what would he know? Lets call it ballistic, baby Imagine what you'd be in if you cycled the starting exaercise :yikes Strength training had nothing to do with Hearns sudden great gain in power sorry. There are numerous stories of people coming from no boxing background into the gym and having incredible natural power. Next he'll be strapped into a chair, arms tight to his side being fed from a regulated drip, jeez You're rather mean. There are so many variables in this one and neither you nor i can say other. Sometimes yes, sometimes no is the best way to put it depending on the individual case. So now not only does (weak) Dempsey get flogged by Holyfield but he can't even make him blink atsch I'll rest my case on that one (Not to mention Frank's excellent comments) so don't get too excited in reply. I'm no Dempsey fan and think he is overrated to the max, but i'd stop a bit before you i think.
Willard --------------6'6 1/2 245lbs Firpo ----------------6'3 216lbs Fulton -------------- 6'4 1/2 220lbs Carl Morris---------- 6'4 220lbs Andre Anderson---- 6'5 Bill Hartwell --------6'3 220lbs Ben Wrey (exhibition KO1 Broken Jaw) 7'2 250 lbs Bill Tate (sparring partner, held wins over Wills & Langford) 6'7 230 I'm sure they were all completely devoid of skill though, i mean just look at Tate, what a chump. Anything before 1950 is utter trash right? [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wxHY3p9DiQ[/ame] How do you draw this conclusion? Evander is 215 with steroids and hgh doing eveything he could to put on mass. You really think he's a "naturally" bigger man than Dempsey? I'v read through the thread and from what i gather you're one of those poeple who think that new = inherently superior to old and also seem to have an unhealthy obsession and faith in the virtue of lifting. I'v been lifting since i was 14, love it and eveything but you thinking that it's the only/best way to gain strength is dead wrong. I'd say more often than not that "real world" strength vs "gym strength" that real world strength is more valuable. The type of strength that wrestling, swimming, doing outdoors type stuff like the old timers or from labour (Dempsey's mining) is not useless. You take a pipefitter or a guy working in a nickel mine with a jackhammer all day and have them wrestle around with a gym rat to see who is stronger i'd lay money on the miner. My opinion.
Lots of interesting posts guys...sorry i been away for awhile..i was banned due to putting up a non boxing related post...anyhow....ill try to stay on my best behavior so i can stick around...
all his listed professional fights where at heavyweight..he may well have fought some fights at lower divison..and he actually fought in a sense "professional" when he was 16 and only weighted 120....those where fights he would go into bar rooms and fight miners and such..they used boxing gloves..but they often ended up being just straight up MMA type matches or even good old bar room brawls with throws and butts and eveyrthing other then maybe kicks...dempsey won almost all of those fights..lost a few to some big grown men, when mind you he was 16 years old and about 120....but i think most all of his offical pro fights where at heavyweight.
