Is Dempsey/Willard the Most Overrated Victory Ever?

Exactly people just don't understand the point as to why the destruction of Willard was so scintillating - Willard was just not a fighter who was ever really even hurt - it was why he was brought in strategically to beat Johnson - because as long as Johnson couldn't stop him (which he was never ever going to do) then as long as they scheduled it for 45 rounds or something stupid then there was no way Johnson was ever going to beat Willard - no one could ever really hurt Willard - then along comes Dempsey who not only hurt Willard but absolutely brutalised him and in reality had that fight taken place inthis day and age the fight would've been over after the very first knockdown after a minute or whatever - Willard was completely gone after that first knockdown in modem terms - and the lesser chinned modem giants such as Lennox Lewis etc would also have been gone (and probably to a worse extent) as soon as they got nailed with a combination like that - it would be all over from that moment

 

It ain't the most overrated, but it is overrated.... First off, Willard was around age 37, inactive and a soft 245 pounds in 1919.... Dempsey was age 24 and peaking..... By 1919 in Ohio, Willard was a rodeo whipped rider looking for a big check.... It really is no shock at all he was massacred by a young tiger full of **** and vinegar....
-(

MR.BILL:hat

 

The victory is over rated because Willard was older and in-active, but Dempsey's performance was not. Dempsey movement skills and power were outstanding in this fight. Willard if nothing else was durable. The amount of damage he suffered in a short amount of time stands out. In a modern setting this one would have been over in round one or two.

 

I think Tyson vs Berbick is a fair comparison. I also think Seamus makes some good points here. As a pure boxing performance, the difficulty of what Dempsey accomplished is often overstated.

 

Pacquiao Hatton?

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl OMFG!

Sorry Jan, but i loved the way you put this! Genuinely laughing out loud.

 

Under these rules the likes of a great like Holmes would have almost certainly been defeated by Shavers and Snipes once down. Imagine how differently many modern fights would have played out, and how many incredible comebacks would simply not have been possible.

This deserves a thread of it's own.

 

Of course it is over rated.

Willard was 37.
WIllard was highly inactive.

No getting around this . However, he was in terrific shape for the fight, at least as good as he could be ... all you need to do is look at him ...

Bottom line. A prime, fierce Dempsey destroyed him. The rub is that far too many use this fight as an example of how Dempsey would have done against the much larger heavyweights to come and it is a flawed gage ... you cannot compare a 37 year old inactive Willard with a prime Foreman, a Liston, a Bowe or a Lewis .. it's romanticized thinking ...

 

All i know is that first left hook that put Williard down would have pole axed any heavyweight

 

Sure but:

A. Pacquio is probably the greatest fighter of this generation.

B. Althought Pacquio was stepping up, there was not a huge weight disparity.

Remember, we are talking about whether this is over rated as a win, and if you have to resort to names like Louis, Foreman, Pacquio etc to find a paralel, then the answer is that it probably isn't.

 

It isn't, because Berbick was never anything more than apaper champion.

If there had been multiple title belts back in Dempseys day, then Brennan could have had one, and Fulton could have had one, and people would be talking about Dempseys wins over these champions.

If you are not the lineal champion, then you are not the lineal champion, period.