Is There A Lightheavy That Could Beat Jack Dempsey??

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Fergy, Jul 17, 2022.


  1. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,658
    9,750
    Jul 15, 2008
    and ?
    I don't think so .. Sam was 74" and Dempsey was 77"
     
  2. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,408
    48,822
    Mar 21, 2007
    Maybe. People who fought both though are clear that Langford was the harder puncher and they generally seemed to consider him a better fighter.

    “I fought most of the heavyweights including Dempsey and Johnson, but Sam could stretch a guy colder than any of them. When Langford hit me it felt like someone slugged me with a baseball bat. It was like taking ether. You just went to sleep…”—“Fireman” Jim Flynn
     
    Pugguy likes this.
  3. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,408
    48,822
    Mar 21, 2007
    Sam is listed by Boxrec as 74" - but Dempsey is listed as 73". I've seen a range of reaches for both.

    I think Sam's reach was longer, but I'm not going to get into a dispute about why your sources are better than the others that are available.
     
    70sFan865 likes this.
  4. 70sFan865

    70sFan865 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,547
    9,582
    May 30, 2019
    I'm sure I could get better with that, I am far from expert. Educate me, break down Langford vs Jeannette and show me why Langford is so much worse than Dempsey. You can also convince me that Langford fought with bareknuckle stance and that he had short reach. Just try it, I want to learn.
    So you ignore facts?
    Langford isn't smaller, he weighed 186 lbs in Jeannette fight, which is his best performance on the film (vs Dempsey's 187 lbs against Willard). Again, you are going against facts here.

    Why doesn't it seem good enough? Can you elaborate?
     
  5. Liston73

    Liston73 Active Member banned Full Member

    866
    675
    Jun 8, 2022
    Brennan had 126 fights 63 kos and 3 technical stoppages.Check your source!
     
  6. klompton2

    klompton2 Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    10,974
    5,443
    Feb 10, 2013
    I did. What source are you looking at? The Ring Record book? Which is notoriously inaccurate for this era?? LOL. Nice try.
     
  7. Furey

    Furey EST & REG 2009 Full Member

    16,605
    6,650
    Oct 18, 2009
  8. Liston73

    Liston73 Active Member banned Full Member

    866
    675
    Jun 8, 2022
    CBZ Yes nice try indeed!
     
  9. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,747
    Sep 14, 2005
    Come on, I thought it was funny. Not directed at you.
     
    cross_trainer likes this.
  10. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,658
    9,750
    Jul 15, 2008
    Dempsey was not 73" .. pretty much every measurement I have seen is 77 and like Langford, his arms look it .. very long ..
     
    White Bomber likes this.
  11. Liston73

    Liston73 Active Member banned Full Member

    866
    675
    Jun 8, 2022
    You thought wrong.One ***** here is enough, don't go into competition with him!
     
  12. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,747
    Sep 14, 2005
    I've been here for almost 17 years
     
  13. Liston73

    Liston73 Active Member banned Full Member

    866
    675
    Jun 8, 2022
    I know.
     
  14. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,747
    Sep 14, 2005
    No. His shoulders were not broad, his arms looked kinda long, but nowhere near 77". 73" sounds about right. I posted 3 tale of the tapes which confirm 73." Even Boxrec now lists him at 77". Sorry, I know you're a huge fan of him