Ike Ibeabuchi vs Jack Dempsey

Yes, you could argue that neither man had quite hit their prime yet in terms of breaking onto the world scene, but both men were more or less the finished article in terms of those elements that would later get them success. Byrd had already developed his ultra tricksy defensive style, and Tua was already a world class puncher.

I'm not rating Ike's career here. I'm saying that his wins against those two opponents, and the manner in which he got them, is enough to favour him heavily over the 185lbs Dempsey, who was neither as fast and elusive as Byrd, nor as hard hitting or resilient as Tua. That gives Jack very little realistic means to win the fight.

Maybe I missed it, but can you name me a single fight in which Tua marked up badly? He got hit plenty often by some huge punchers, so there should be ample opportunity to find one.

Regarding Ike's own testimony, I'll take him at his word, but that doesn't take away from the hugeness of the punches he did throw, nor does it shed light on whether or not Tua was doing the same.

 

Wouldn't that reduce Dempsey's chances even further?

 

People bringing up Marion Wilson as some sort of barometer... How long does Tommy Gibbons last against Ike? Brennan? Does Carpentier even live thru the first round?

 

The President would be re-elected.

 

Just another overhyped musclebound fighter gets flattened early mainly cause he's not that talented physically or mentally....Dempsey inn one of two tops

 

I don't understand the Wilson angle at all. Because Ike couldn't stop him (along with everyone else who fought him) he wouldn't be able to beat the small and hurtable Dempsey? Someone guide me through that logic as I'm lost.

 

Ridiculous old school nonsense with no basis in fact or logic.

 

If we profiled posters like the above named, i honestly believe a pattern would emerge regarding both age range & ethnicity.

 

You want logic? I gave you the logic. Your sold on the Tua fight but I told you, gave you the proof of Ikes own words.

As enjoyable as Tua v Ibeabuchi was it did not represent an elite fight. Simply a good fight between evenly matched Prospects. It was good to watch with some really great exchanges but if you know what you are looking at, for as exciting as it was, to deliver that many blows together, they really were not sitting down on their blows. Which is exactly what Ike confirmed.

If either fighter wound up being great after that the best you could say was it was a match between great fighters before they were great. Trouble is of course neither fighter wound up being great because their potential was not realised again. Tua got fat and Ike went mad. Those are the facts.

But go ahead, convince yourself on the slimmest of reasons that Ike really already did enough, or that he was destined to maintain what he showed two times either side of a underwhelming match with Everton Davis who old man Tim Witherspoon beat easier years earlier.

 

Look, Ike's resume is very good as far as it was allowed to progress, but does he perhaps get a bit over rated based on the allure of what might have been?

Yes he beat David Tua, but Tua is basically a guy who always fell short when he stepped up.

Impressive as the Byrd win is, I think that Byrd was still a year removed from his prime.

The next few fights would have been very telling.

Personally I see Ike as a very good candidate to have imploded.

He is not the Rocky Marciano of his era, he is more the Luther McCarthy or Henry Flakes of his era!

 

Are you blind, dumb or both?

This content is protected

Both of these guys punch harder and got better chin than Dempsey. What is Ike telling? He wanted to throw less punches and bang even harder at Tua? I guess thats wonderful news for Dempsey!

Tell me, how on earth is Dempsey winning this? It has to be a decision, because he is not gonna hurt short giant necked Ibeabuchi! Dempsey goes backfoot to the Ali mode, dancing and sticking?

 

The absolute Truth of the matter.

 

Which is all fine and dandy if you consider the level of heavyweights, and heavyweight athletes, to be analogous to those from the 1910's, 1920's or 1950's. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the 90's and beyond provided a different level of athleticism to the game. And the coaches and scouts from every other sport seem to agree with this observation.

 

You see, I am happy to debate facts at a rational level, and even make allowances for folks who are new to the game...but this is really exposes your knowledge right there. Sorry kid, but you don’t get to bypass levels of greatness based on the measurement of somebody’s neck and Charles Atlas physique.

 

Seamus, combat isn’t a sport you measure on a stopwatch. Come on, you understand boxing. We disagree on stuff which is fine, but you have knowledge don’t you? Hand to hand combat between spartan Warriors of ancient times would not be improved with athleticism. The levels you talk of exist within the combat itself. Levels of greatness, fortitude at higher levels of competition and ability. It is the Athleticism that is “all fine and dandy” but it’s just one facet. Temperament and the where with all to summon undisputed domination on a whole era cannot be measured with a tape measure.