Jack Dempsey in the Klitschko era

Sam Peter is an example of a low talent fighter that impresses the today's inexperienced boxing fans who do not know what great boxing looks like.

 

And what the f*ck does that make Luis Firpo?

Firpo makes Peter look like Ezzard Charles.

 

It's not about being "impressed" by Sam Peter, it's about understanding boxing well enough to recognize the situations in which lesser fighters can beat greater one (hint: it helps when the lesser fighter has great power, good handspeed, and a 60-lb size advantage).

But this is pointless-- what Sam Peter fights have you even seen? You probably live in the same fantasy world as Reznick, where size and styles don't matter.

 

Useless, huh? Yeah, ok. He's useless until he punches you (especially if you're a cruiserweight). What makes you think that his chin is so shaky? Who are the smallest men to drop Peter? (and before you tell me, I already know that Dempsey has superhuman power that transcends size and weight...)

 

I've seen all his televised fights. He impresses you, he did not impress me. You are easily impressed however.

 

Sure you have. I know--people like you are only impressed by the boxers who are universally recognized as ATGs. That's a good starting point for becoming a serious boxing fan, but if you really want to understand the sport, you need to look beyond that.

 

You are impressed by Sam Peter. He is a low skilled boxer. Very unimpressive if you know the sport well that is.

 

And what of Firpo? And what of Gibbons and Carpentier? Do they impress you as heavyweights?

 

Willie Meehan was a 4 round fighter who mastered 4 rounders and nothing else. He was a runner who Jack would have stopped had the fights gone past 4 rounds. The real record should be 2-2-1 as Jack was robbed in 1 of his fights with Meehan.

Plenty of the world champions and atg's today wouldn't be anything if we judged them solely on the first 4 rounds of their fights.

 

I think it's fair to say a lot of the top heavyweigts seem to be more defensively focus, most of the time. Not to say that they are any better defensively than other eras and not to say they aren't, but most seem more than willing to keep the fight at range at a relativley slow tempo. These same heavyweights seem to have particularly careful matchmakers

 

As a 210 pound fighter would he really do any worse than Haye?

His style isn't replicated by anyone at present. Which HW fighters stalk behind quick feet and quicker head.

I mean, let's have it right if he goes all guns blazing like he did against Firpo, he won't go very far. If he's as slow on his feet as he was against Tunney, he won't go very far.

But the man who dismantled Willard leaves you with 2 options

1) Dempsey really was that good.
2) Willard really was that bad.

Given that Dempsey also destroyed Fulton I tend to think dismissing the champion and the number 1 contender as that bad is a bit naive. But that's just my hunch.

But the cautious Dempsey who is at range, quick with his jab, quick ambush attacks, perpetual movement to keep himself away from danger, seizing the opportunity when a solid shot gets through, that Dempsey can beat anyone.

The biggest problem for Dempsey is that the first part of the Klitscko era wasn't the Klitschko era at all. It was Lewis's era and Dempsey isn't gonna be the one to dethrone Lewis permanently.

If Dempsey is the outstanding contender when Lewis retires (this is certainly feasible in my mind) he then has to face Vitali for the vacant belt. This probably marks the start of his prime. That fight is 50/50 but given the big edge in speed that Dempsey has, and the cautious approach I've witnessed with my own eyes, I give him an edge.

After that who is there to trouble him? Williams, Rahman, Peter, Byrd, Brewster, Wlad and Ruiz.

His longevity probably stops him reaching the next era of contenders so let's stick with those. Rahman and Ruiz are past it by this point so Dempsey should be fine.

Byrd is on the decline but has the attributes to trouble anyone. Very tough fight.

Brewster and Williams are a joke at this point.

Maybe the final two fights of his career would be against Peter and then the resurgent Wlad. However the resurgent Wlad was dropped thrice by Peter, would Dempsey let him off the hook? I'm not so sure.

With the right timing he could be a huge success. Say he turns pro in 97, retires in 2007. Yeah I can see him pulling it off. It takes a lot of assumption, and the kind of consistency Dempsey did not show in his actual career. But it also puts Demspey in a modern environment were he won't go homeless, won't go hungry and won't have to travel for days at a time on the train line.

The long and short of it is this, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Let's say round about 99-2002 he beats the likes of Grant, Kirk Johnson, Maskaev and maybe a shot Mercer in devastating fashion. No real reason to assume he can't do that. Beating Vitali in 2003-2004 is a huge ask.

Defending/unifying against Williams, Ruiz, Brewster and Rahman from 2004-2006 is very reasonable.

Catching a declining Byrd at the tail end of 2006 should see success.

The 2007 swansong against Peter and Wlad is gonna be tough but both have vulnerabilities he can exploit. Peter got schooled by Toney, Wlad squeezed by Williamson and Peter.

The more I think it through, the more I'm convinced Dempsey can be a success in the decade from 97-07. History tells me at some point he slips up but match by match, I think he can do it.

 

Dempsey wasn't 210 though. Is that how these imaginary matchup work? We also create imaginary fighters?

 

We are talking Dempsey and Peter. You are not impressed with a real champion who has been considered the greatest ever for decades. A true ATG. You are impressed with a contender who is already forgotten in time. A nobody and a nothing.

Guess who wins again?

 

I'm impressed by all these men. By the way, what's with you calling all these big modern championship-level heavyweights "nothings" all time? I couldn't care less about how people rank Dempsey's "greatness" or whether historians talk about guys like Peter--he's facing a tall order against a huge, fast-handed, power-punching Peter.

Do you have any idea what Peter would do to the men Dempsey fought?

 

If bulking a fighter up is imaginary then yes, that's what I do.

The same reason Spinks, Holy, Haye, Moorer, Jones, Byrd, Adamek and everyone else in the modern era felt they had to bulk up to compete, I believe Dempsey makes the same decision.

I'm sure I've debated this aspect of you before, I'm sure you're as bored of it as I am so long story short:

Yes, if I'm to imagine Dempsey in the modern era I imagine a 210 pound man.