How did 190lb Jack Dempsey DESTROY super-heavyweight 240lb Jess Willard?

On the flipside, had Willard survived another few rounds Dempsey would have been in trouble. Dempsey shot his wad in the first and did enough damage to ultimately have the fight stopped. But Willard had a decent 2nd round and starting to measure Dempsey. But the die was already cast. If he doesn't inflict that degree of damage and still shoots his wad, Willard has a good chance over the duration.

And if my aunt had a set, she would be my uncle. Dempsey did what he had to, he did it in emphatic, captivating style. Kudos to him.

 

That is a fair enough theory. It's kind of why I have a theory that this could explain why good smaller guys used to do better against big giants. The smaller guys used to have more chance of inflicting enough early damage with those old gloves to get a foothold in a fight where they are so physically disadvantaged. I think it could be a factor?

Absolutely agree with this. A sign of a great fighter at his best is doing what ever it takes to win regardless of the situation. Dempsey was outstanding. No question.

 

This is what made Dempsey, the greatest ring attraction of all time. His go for broke, take no prisoner's, slash and burn style of fighting.No rope-a-dope
for Jack. No excuses after a fight, no complaining during a fight...In short a product of the West of old...I have said this before. The fighter that came closest to the Dempsey fury inside the ring was the smaller and later Roberto Duran. Kindred souls in the ring...
P.S. It must be mentioned that Dempsey learned about his gambling manager betting a large sum of money on Dempsey koing Willard in the first round. Thus he put all his energy on knocking out the giant Willard in the very first round. Were it not for the referee Ollie Pecord, who allowed Willard to be floored 7 times without stopping the fight Jack Kearns would have won the bet...

 

Absolutely, Jack was indeed a great fighter. What ever it took he could do it when it counted. That's greatness right there. Against the odds he still had what it took and in emphatic style. Put it on the line and won.

Perhaps the equipment and rules of his less watered down times also allowed him to be as fully great as he could be? The best man won in those days. I miss that. Now it's olny the biggest man or the guy with the biggest advantage. It was a harder time but on the whole better back then.:good

 

you are correct. They absolutely do because their own punches would be even more lethal too. I agree. Big man lands first, cleanly against a guy who stands still it's over. Was as true then as now. It is true giants need less punches to make an impression as well.

Perhaps then the number of punches landed by both fighters, and who actually lands more cleanly first - becomes a very much more important issue.

And also to the guy who lands first.

It's terrific for the bigger man if he lands first. I agree. But why would he land first or always land so clean? He's trying to time a little speedy Dempsey clone. What if there was ever a time where little guys land more often, more cleanly with a smaller glove than the big guy? For all a big guy will hit harder he needs to hit clean. It stands to reason a big man does better when he hits clean more often. Maybe that time is when more big guys fight each other rather than chasing little guys who land more often and offer less target? Maybe when big guys fight only bigger guys they land more cleanly and develop a better skill set too?

It might be significant (within this theory) that a little guy can land more often but make less impression because it's harder to land so clean with a less effective glove against a bigger man than it used to be. I don't know, perhaps it used to be more of a question of who landed most clean blows before it came down to size taking over?

 

Willard only defended the belt once in his 4 years as champion,Willard was an old 38,Dempsey a young 24...Willard was out of shape and hadn't fought in 3 years,what is there to figure out how it was so lopsided?:shock:

 

The little matter of the 50lb weight differential?

When are we next going to see a guy that size, destroy somebody the size of Vitally Klitschko at world level?

 

I don't know for sure but I would like to see smaller gloves introduced. Perhaps if that happens eventually we could see that happen. Until the gloves are more lethal perhaps we might never see that again. Perhaps A 50lb lighter guy can land more often and just tire himself out the safer and less lethal the gloves get. The bigger man will always hit hard enough.

 

Equating Jess with Vitaly is fairly ludicrous.

It's like equating a weekend soap box racer with Senna.

 

Only if you invent a time machine and get 80's Tyson though he was 215/220 not 185/190 he was under 6'0 tall.And even then its a 50/50 fight with either,though I believe Vitalis chin and awkwardness makes him the 2 to 1 favorite over Tyson...Dempsey is no Tyson and no way any shape or form is Willard remotely a klitchko.TBH I would take many guys today under 200 to pound Willard out.

 

Wrong again numb nuts .Willard was 37 ..Dempsey 23. at least you are consistant.





As in always wrong!:-(

 

Oh look its Mcliar with the irrelevant points,what else is new?


Oh and he was 38 and Demspey 24 check their birth dates...see that's what happens when you look up wikia and I get my source from actual biographies...MCLIAR!

 

Name them. There is a reason guys don't want to give away that much weight today. It is harder to do now. What fighter of 200 has experience of giving away 20lb these days?

 

I don't have all day I would be here forever...howver I would pick guys like Quawi/holyfield Roy jones,Tarver,Adamek,Toney...etc....the list would keep going..the hands down style is long gone boxing has evolved greatly. Obviously modern Hw's would be another story.They fight good fighters not average ones.Willard wouldn't even be ranked today.