Jack Dempsey v Bernard Hopkins

Hopkins too evolved for Dempsey, Hopkins outpints him just like Tunney did.

edit - i mean outpoints, i wasnt referring to a drinking contest, sorry.

 

If Hopkins survives the first 4 or 5 rounds, I'd take him to spring the upset. Taking the Hopkins of the Tarver fight, for instance, and there really isn't that much of a size difference here.

 

Hopkins doesn't drink though

 

lool my edit was way too late thanks.

yeah Hopkins gets smashed in a drinking contest.

 

Dempsey gets so underrated on here. Really though? Bernard made a good career fighting blown up welters an junior middleweights. Dempsey knocks him out very early

 

Depends on whether you think the boxing demographics during Dempsey's prime -- lots of boxing gyms, lots of poor young men, fitter people, less competition from other entertainment -- suggest a larger talent pool than Bernard faced.

 

a little unfairly but its not without good reason -

1. He defended only 3 or 4 times thats pathetic when you think about him being compared to ATGs.
2. His strongest challenge was from a LH Carpientier who actually beat him anyway, so he was really only champ for a couple of years if that.
3.Not one of his defences was an outstanding fighter and he indirectly refused to fight a substantial proportion of the population (blacks, who were massively successful statistically in the sport and probably would have dethroned him had he tried). I would say that had he fought blacks, he would be just another interim champion, not even a good champ.
4. Jack was beaten soundly twice by the first outstanding fighter he fought.
5.He mindbogglingly was allowed to keep his title for nearly 3 years without making an effort to defend it. A sign of the times perhaps but its still a LONG time of NIL acheivement even by those standards.


Demps was good but no way near great in his acheivements, which are partially what we have to measure him by.

 

harsh but you raise some valid points. in the end, hopkins has as good a chin and likely better defense than anyone dempsey fought. the size difference is neglible and besides, his most dynamic and famous wins were against clumsy giants. he was less impresive against smaller, more skilled opponents. not saying hopkins wins, not saying he automatically loses and it's well worth a careful analysis

 

Technical, physical, and mental characteristics are hard to judge when your only measuring stick is other fighters. Journeymen sometimes look like ATGs and vice-versa depending on their level of competition, and that depends a lot on the talent pool. This is especially true if the sets of fighters you're using lived decades apart.

Plus, a sizable contingent on here believes that Dempsey's era consisted of a few dozen alcoholic midget cavemen and Harry Wills. Only if these people concede some sort of parity with Dempsey's era does this thread make any sense.

 

Dempsey was fast, and asB-Hop is unlikely to stop him I feel he can apply his speed sufficiently to get Hopkins in cagey spoiler mode, not doing enough to win the decision and knowing more than enough tricks not to get badly hurt.

Good fight. I'm sure none of us would object to Charles, Marciano or Patterson Vs Dempsey. With same day weigh-in's B-Hop would be on the small HW (or Modern day 'cruiser') side and is in the same vein as other old timers who tab from middle to heavy.

Whilst Jacks gloves aren't 'tampered' with -() he can wear his old school gloves and B-Hop can wear his...what is he nowadays, Grant?

Dempsey UD15 Hopkins