Is Dempsey/Willard the Most Overrated Victory Ever?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Seamus, Dec 21, 2011.


Page 3 of 14
  1. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,236
    Feb 15, 2006
    Lets take the question that I askes Seamus.

    If a cruiserweight weighing under 190lbs had destroyed the Vitally Klitschko of the Sam Peter fight, would you consider that to be a noteworthy win?

    The problem here is that the people criticising the win, can produce few examples of similar destructions of a lineal champion, where they can they are far between and the man who lost was usualy the smaller fighter.

    If it isnt remarkable, then who else did something like it?
     
    janitor, Dec 22, 2011
    janitor, Dec 22, 2011
    #31
  2. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,067
    Mar 21, 2007
    I don't think it would have been more or less impressive than an ex-fly taking out the champ at 140.

    So yes, very, but considerably compromised after four years out. It's four years out Janitor. Four years.

    Although they can produce more examples than you can examples of fighters coming back after four years and looking anything like their best?
     
    McGrain, Dec 22, 2011
    McGrain, Dec 22, 2011
    #32
  3. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,582
    46,200
    Feb 11, 2005
    Lineal champion is a horrible, anachronistic construction that means nothing to me. Do you really believe Jess Willard was the best Heavyweight in the world in 1918? Harry Wills was KO'ing McVea and Langford while Willard was sitting on his fat, white ass, getting up just long enough to waltz 6 rounds with Sailor Burke... and I am supposed to think some mythological, fantasy title makes him the better heavyweight? No thank you.

    And head to head Berbick destroys Willard. Tyson's performance is more impressive.
     
    Seamus, Dec 22, 2011
    Seamus, Dec 22, 2011
    #33
  4. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,236
    Feb 15, 2006
     
    janitor, Dec 22, 2011
    janitor, Dec 22, 2011
    #34
  5. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,236
    Feb 15, 2006
    There have been many times when the lineal champion was not literaly the best fiughter in the world.

    Berbick falls down on both counts however.

    He was not the lineal champion or the best in the world.

    He was simply a paper champion.
     
    janitor, Dec 22, 2011
    janitor, Dec 22, 2011
    #35
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,067
    Mar 21, 2007
    The names of the fighters in comparable fights are impressive does not have to change the light we see this fight in. In fact, it shouldn't. At a fundamental level it is flawed. You are asking for examples of undisputed champions - by definition, they will tend to be very good fighters - being knocked out. That calls for a poor champion (or a very inactive one) meeting a prime puncher...it won't happen very often in history.




    Possibly he did, but it's impossible to tell because he does absolutely nothing in the fight. There is zero evidence for his being in any kind of form. Therefore, look to the reality on the ground at the time - a huge, cumbersome fighter who hadn't boxed in four years.

    Even Ali went back a good bit whilst boxing exhibitions and training, and he was out of the ring for considerably less.

    The performance is sensational, and the win is over the HW champion of the world, and as I said earlier in the thread, Willard's continuing standing as a contender cannot be seen as insignificant, but inflating it because people are talking to you about Pacquiao and Tyson seems odd?
     
    McGrain, Dec 22, 2011
    McGrain, Dec 22, 2011
    #36
  7. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,582
    46,200
    Feb 11, 2005
    He had a better resume than Willard and was better head-to-head... in my opinion.
     
    Seamus, Dec 22, 2011
    Seamus, Dec 22, 2011
    #37
  8. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,236
    Feb 15, 2006
    I think we have to credit Willard with the better resume, because he did at least get to the lineal title, and did it by beating an all time great.

    Who would have won head to head, can only be speculation.
     
    janitor, Dec 22, 2011
    janitor, Dec 22, 2011
    #38
  9. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    18,216
    14,032
    Jun 30, 2005
    Re the "standing over your opponent" bit:

    Good point, but I think you can take it too far.

    Dempsey certainly benefited from this. On the other hand, fights in this period didn't all end the moment a fighter got KD'd and hurt. It gave punchers a greater advantage, but it didn't tilt the scales as far as some have suggested. If you watch the old fight films, they're pretty good at exploiting the glove-on-the-mat KD rule and scrambling up. (Although it depends on how hurt they are, obviously).

    More importantly, those were the rules of the time. Why should we judge a fighter's effectiveness under 21st century rules when those aren't the rules they fought under? Our rules are different for cultural reasons; I don't think they're "better" in any objective sense. This isn't even like old-timey style arguments, where you can at least make a case that modern boxing is objectively better. If Dempsey fought a "modern" fighter under his own rules, his ability to jump on a fallen opponent would be just as useful as it was against Willard.
     
    cross_trainer, Dec 22, 2011
    cross_trainer, Dec 22, 2011
    #39
  10. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,236
    Feb 15, 2006
     
    janitor, Dec 22, 2011
    janitor, Dec 22, 2011
    #40
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,067
    Mar 21, 2007
    And to me, that is the extent of the win. A good, solid win over a durable, larger fighter...


    But this is the nature of the win. These two things are often confused, and the win becomes "worth more" resume-wise than is actually the case. I think that is what Seamus is getting at, and I agree with him - actually I think it's the definitive example.
     
    McGrain, Dec 22, 2011
    McGrain, Dec 22, 2011
    #41
  12. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,582
    46,200
    Feb 11, 2005
    Again, the lineal title means nothing to me when the holder has been avoiding his best challengers, as Johnson was. We might as well give Berbick the same credit for beating Ali as we do Willard for disposing of Johnson. But when you add Berbick's victories over Tate, Pagea and Thomas, he certainly has a deeper resume, and one of more imposing heavies.
     
    Seamus, Dec 22, 2011
    Seamus, Dec 22, 2011
    #42
  13. RockysSplitNose

    RockysSplitNose Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,271
    62
    Jul 15, 2007
    But the nature of the win matters most? I don't get this now - people on this board just twist and change everything round again and again to arrive at whatever agenda they've misguidedly started out with - look you bunch of bleeping bleepers fact is it was a total massacre a brutal pulverisation by a 180 pound man over a 250 pound man which is astounding in any terms that's end all of this - the fact that certain people are questioning this most brutal win of all time is just farcical - basically if that fight had happened in this day and age it wouldn't have gone beyond the first knockdown - the rest of the barbarism just displayed just how brutal and vicious Dempsey could really be in pursuit of the finish and just how ferocious and damaging he could be
     
    RockysSplitNose, Dec 22, 2011
    RockysSplitNose, Dec 22, 2011
    #43
  14. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,067
    Mar 21, 2007
    The manner of the execution helps to define the fighter's quality.

    The value of the scalp is what is considered regarding the fighter's greatness in resume.

    There's nothing twisted about it.
     
    McGrain, Dec 22, 2011
    McGrain, Dec 22, 2011
    #44
  15. Vic-JofreBRASIL

    Vic-JofreBRASIL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,926
    5,275
    Aug 19, 2010
    I agree !

    Johnson was a shot ATG, and especially with all the advantages Willard had (better shape and great stamina, the long duration of the fight was especially to favor him), it isn´t a significant victory in my opinion....Johnson would have won a 15 or 20 round fight I guess.....

    Berbick had wins against Thomas, Greg PAge, Mitch Green.....very good wins.....
     
    Vic-JofreBRASIL, Dec 22, 2011
    Vic-JofreBRASIL, Dec 22, 2011
    #45
Page 3 of 14