Jack Dempsey v Bernard Hopkins

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Seamus, Jan 19, 2012.


  1. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,592
    46,221
    Feb 11, 2005
    For his greatest victories, Johnson was the same height, shorter in reach, and equal or less in weight than Dempsey. Peter Jackson was the same height and reach, with a good 10 pounds added. Not too much of difference here, which leads me to conclude that we agree that a middling old ass LHW from today would school theses "heavyweights" from yesteryear.
     
  2. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,401
    21,835
    Sep 15, 2009
    Between 05 and 11 is when I think johnson was at his best with his peak being against jeffries. I believed he was post 200 for james so I could have been wrong there.

    Jackson again was a solid 200 pound fighting machine and whilst you might not think the extra ten or so makes a difference, I believe it does when we add it to the five or so pounds advantage there already was.

    It's fair to say we now agree that a hw weighing 200 pounds would have to be seriously lacking in a skill comparison to lose to a man weighing 185 pounds.

    The smaller guys like I listed, fair game comparison there against modern lhw's.

    Whether they'd have been lhw's in the same day way in era is another question. Pascal and cloud could well have been hw's had they fought in 1920.
     
  3. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    269
    Jul 22, 2004
    I don't know if he does have a speed advantage, regardless he doesn't have a jab and Hopkins does and the jab will get there before any punch. Hopkins has the vastly superior defence and is a master counter puncher, those skills neutralise speed and is why Hopkins is rarely beat to the punch

    Dempsey can win if he can bully Hopkins to the ropes and set a frantic pace that Hopkins can't keep upto, or if he lands something big that takes him out. That's pretty much the Gibbons or Sharkey scenario in the secodn case, although Hopkins is likely much more skilled than Gibbons ever was. If Hopkins keeps it in the middle of the ring and circles Dempsey, countering him, it's his fight. That's what both what Tunney and Miske seemingly employed
     
  4. Nightcrawler

    Nightcrawler Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,432
    32
    Dec 18, 2011
    i agree with a lot of this...thanks to being sober :thumbsup though i still don't like dempsey on film, hopkins is absolutely great and i was ridiculously and unfairly harsh on him
     
  5. Nightcrawler

    Nightcrawler Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,432
    32
    Dec 18, 2011
    wow...i was pretty drunk. this isn't exactly my most eloquent (or accurate) post
     
  6. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,401
    21,835
    Sep 15, 2009
    The dempsey of say the fulton fight or firpo is faster than hopkins of tarver.

    Speed and aggression would be the key imo and the chance of him knocking hopkins out is small.
     
  7. Nightcrawler

    Nightcrawler Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,432
    32
    Dec 18, 2011
    do you think hopkins could spoil and tie dempsey up on the inside? i mean that's one of the few chances he'd have in my opinion. frustrate him, break down dempseys offense, and land just enough to sneak a decision
     
  8. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,401
    21,835
    Sep 15, 2009
    No I can't see it because jack would be too quick, strong and powerful.

    I think hopkins is the better fighter, I just can't see his style being effective against jack.

    If hopkins had the physical advantage i'd certainly favour him.

    I think hopkins was a better mw than jack was a hw. I just think the styles and sizes make jack the favourite.
     
  9. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,990
    48,068
    Mar 21, 2007
    Jack, or 99.9% of all fighters who have ever fought.
     
  10. BUDW

    BUDW Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,927
    824
    Nov 23, 2007
    Jack annihilates hopkins
     
  11. Nightcrawler

    Nightcrawler Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,432
    32
    Dec 18, 2011
    i completely agree. dempsey was strong, quick and his size difference (while not vast) would certainly be noticable against a nearly career long middleweight. i wish there was more footage (or I'd watch more footage) of dempsey because i simply don't see what others do. the willard fight, tunney fights and firpo fight don't paint the portrait for me that others see. it may be my bias and lack of extensive analysis of dempsey to be fair
     
  12. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,401
    21,835
    Sep 15, 2009
    I think considering his size he achieved a good deal. However i've seen enough to be convinced he could have achieved more.

    But I see no reason for him to rank above someone like lewis or frazier.

    Within a year i'm almost certain i'll be ranking him below wlad also.
     
  13. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    269
    Jul 22, 2004
    Why do people keep saying Dempsey was quick? He wasn't he doesn't have a jab and he isn't called Roy Jones or Floyd Mayweather. His feet were pretty quick, not his handspeed, although anyone looks quick next to Willard and Firpo I suppose. Here he is in his prime against someone who while only gatekeeper level wasn't a punchbag like the forementioned. Look how in his prime he finds it hard to get off his punches and look how many right hands he eats

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFxcNfXMA60[/ame]

    Dempsey is getting outboxed in the first 5 and would have to keep pressuring to come from behind to win
     
  14. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,592
    46,221
    Feb 11, 2005
    I think beating a worn-out, seriously inactive, weight-drained Jeffries proved nothing. His best pelts were Burns (192), Langford (185), McVea (190) and Jeanette (probably in the 185-190 range). He looked good in photo's at 208 but he didn't accomplish as much due to match-making.

    Regarding Jackson, he seemed much the dimensions of Dempsey, but I'll spot you the importance of the extra 5 to 10 pounds. That said, Dempsey seemed far more troubled by smaller fighters than the goliaths he faced.
     
  15. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,401
    21,835
    Sep 15, 2009
    Brennan was a top 5 hw according to research i've read about the hw division back then.

    His speed shouldn't be under any doubt. I mean he was no floyd patterson but he was faster than the likes of frazier, holmes etc.