Ike Ibeabuchi vs Jack Dempsey

There is no such thing as a rock solid jaw, against a finisher like Dempsey.

Willard's chin was supposed to be unbreakable, before he met Dempsey.

You can't just depend upon being able to absorb the onslaught of a fighter like that.

 

Are you playing dumb again on me??? Are you a troll??? Choklab THERE IS NO RATIO!!!! HOW OFTEN SHALL I REAPEAT THIS???

The probability to find teriffic boxers with power and skill over 6'4" and not thin as a Wilder leg is VERY VERY LOW! How many SHWs of this sort have we seen? Exactly, VERY VERY FEW!
Do you want to know why there haven´t been any in Lous, Dempseys and Rocky era? YES, because the PROBABILITY TO FIND THEM IS VERY VERY LOW. SURPRISE! SURPRISE!
IN FACT, YOU BARELY FIND TEN!
IN FACT, THE AMOUNT OF ANY CAPABLE BIG MAN FOR HEAVYWEIGHT DEVISIONS DEPENDS ON HOW MANY BIG MEN EXIST!

I even calculated for you, why you didn´t find any with that low probability!!

AND ONCE AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN; THERE IS NO RATIO!!! NORMAL DISTRIBUTION!! NORMAL DISTRIBUTION!! NORMAL DISTRIBUTION!! NORMAL DISTRIBUTION!!

WITH DIFFERENT MEANS!

 

Ibeabuchi what an overrated guy. Dempsey would not be an static target he would move himself inside and outside in circle ,he would be patient and ike would be gassed faster than dempsey for sure, he was 235 and no way he had the stamina of jack who was 190. Ibeabuchi was not proved against anybody. You can argue that tua did beat him

 

Sorry, but what did you write that countered anything I stated about louis54's post?

He claimed Ike would get KOed by Dempsey in one or two rounds tops. He went toe to toe with Tua over twelve rounds.

He claimed Ike was musclebound (presumably a criticism of his stamina) and that he wasn't that physically or mentally impressive. Again I refer you to the above.

Look, this really isn't complicated to break down. I'm not claiming Ike beats Dempsey because he was an ATG in the making. I'm claiming he beats Dempsey because he was bigger, stronger, and tougher than him, and wouldn't back down.

 

He proved himself against Tua. He clearly did not have a gas problem.

 

No one's asking him to be.

Why can't discussions like these ever just focus on the fight itself?

 

It's not when he wouldn't be able to hurt him in the first place.

 

I hate how discussions like these always descend into the muddy territory of "greatness" in order to prop up the older, more respected fighter in the face of clearly untenable odds. It's such a lazy, confounding tactic that never furthers the argument in any positive way. I sometimes wonder if it's deliberately brought in to do so.

 

For the standards on his time, sure. But he was clearly rocked by smallish men and dropped by the crude and terribly slow Luis Firpo. He never fought an opponent like Tua or Ike and never showed the insane level of punch resistance that either man did. It's a very big leap of faith to assume he does so.

I don't see if that would have told us anything more definite regarding Dempsey's chances, frankly. But yes, it would have been nice to have a few less question marks surrounding Ike's abilities.

He obviously didn't hit remotely as hard as Tua. Shavers didn't hit as hard as Tua. His finishing skills might have been superior -- Tua's finishing ability was actually top notch; very few fighters ever survived a knockdown against him -- but again that's not going to be a factor if he can't hurt his opponent in the first place.

 

well you kind of are claiming Ike beats Dempsey because he was an ATG in the making. If you are claiming he’s bigger stronger and tougher than a great fighter -and will beat a great fighter, you are claiming Ike is a great fighter...without having proven to be a great fighter.

Primo Carnera was literally bigger, stronger and tougher than most ATG fighters. But it’s just not reason enough to beat Jack Dempsey. Do you see what I mean?

I know you can make a great argument that Ike does things so better than Carnera but does that change that the toughness, bigger and stronger stakes being on Primos side of the argument?

 

Discussions like this decend into the muddy territory of greatness because one fighter is absent of any greatness at all and his chances based mostly on “big muscles, iron jaws, thick necks and massive power”.

Ike was good. He looked promising. Then his career ended because he was mentally ill. He did not get to be great. He got to be mentally ill.

 

You don’t need to hit as hard as Tua to be discounted as a puncher in these kind of debates. All a puncher has to be able to do is to hit hard enough to knock any fighter spark out for at least ten seconds when he lands right. Any harder is of no use whatsoever. Being able to score the Ten second countout is all that is required.

Jack Dempsey hit hard enough to knock any man spark out when he landed right. And that’s hard enough. More than adequate. Being able to do it against any level of fighter makes him as greatness a puncher as anyone needs to be.

The greater fighters can land their best punches more often than good fighters can land their best punch.

 

I already mentioned above that I don't like throwing woolly terms like great around when discussing H2H matches.

Ike wins because Dempsey is going to try to come to him and trade punches, or else he'll try to hang back and outbox him. There are already two perfect examples of why neither scenario would end well for him. There don't need to be any more.

Saying someone is bigger, stronger and tougher than someone else isn't claiming they're necessarily better than them, either in a H2H sense or an absolute sense. But it's very pertinent in this particular discussion due to the way we know both fighters are going to approach the fight.

When was Primo ever praised for his punch resistance? That was frequently cited as one of his failings, as I understand it. That's not even taking into account his general oafishness and timidity in the face of offensive onslaughts.

Ike's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

 

But why bring greatness into the discussion at all? What does it mean in concrete terms? We already know that Dempsey's going to come into this fight bobbing and weaving and looking to unleash combinations on Ike's grill in order to knock him out. It wasn't like he varied things up much. The pertinent facts to consider therefore become:

- how does Ike respond to Dempsey's power?
- how does Dempsey respond to Ike's power?
- how does Dempsey's head movement stymie Ike's ability to land shots?
- how does Ike's combination of aggression, strength and size influence Dempsey's gameplan and overall mentality?
- how does the addition of different gloves affect either man's power?

There's no need to talk about greatness in any of the above unless it reveals some intangible factor that might have a positive impact on the fighter in question's chances. If so, what?

 

And how exactly is Dempsey supposed to do that when Tua failed to do so over twelve rounds on virtually non-stop punching?

Are you saying Dempsey hit harder than Tua?

That's a statement that can theoretically hold true for anyone, with varying degrees of probability, or it can hold true for no one. Nothing on film shows Dempsey having any unique abilities in this regard.