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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.