Jack Dempsey v Bernard Hopkins

The light-heavyweight version of Hopkins is not a particularly good light-heavyweight. He's a decrepit old man. I don't care if he's 185 or 195. He's a slow-footed, shuffling, grabbing old man, with some very nice little tricks up his sleeve.

And, no, he wouldn't hold an advantage over Dempsey with his butting and dirty tricks.
In reality Dempsey is more likely to rabbit punch the poor old guy into a coma.

 

Except he is a very good LHW, outside of Dawson he's really beaten everyone and Calzaghe/Tarver are very good LHWs themselves

Neither is Dempsey half as smart at fouling as Hopkins.

Put it this way Hopkins is a class above Gibbons and Brennan and they gave Dempsey all he could handle, Brennan especially. If Brennan's counter right is tattoo'ing Dempsey you better bet Hopkins would

 

No way does Dempsey have near the hand speed of Holmes and probably not Frazier, Frazier's hook was pretty quick

As for Brennan look at his record from 1917-1919, he gets completely schooled by Greb, loses a decision to Miske, then he goes on a run of nobodies with his best win over Meehan

I certainly don't see how he can be in a top 5, with fighters like Wills, Greb, Gibbons, Tate and Norfolk in the division. Old Langford was probably in better form

 

Calzaghe, Tarver and Hopkins would rank near the bottom of any list of the 175lb champions.
Pascal, well he was beaten by Froch.

Of course Dempsey was smart at fouling.

Brennan was a big strong young guy.

Dempsey would MAUL Hopkins savagely. The styles don't favour Hopkins at all. He grabs and fouls and tries to survive, in spite of all his skill at it Dempsey would give him a painful beating.

Hopkins has old man legs and fights like an old man. He struggles with the likes of Pascal and Calzaghe.
The speed, power and size of a 24 year-old Dempsey would be a cruel thing to inflict on ol' Popkins.

 

Struggled with Pascal? Did you watch those fights, 2 flash kds aside a complete domination. Calazghe fight he outpointed Joe but didn't deserve to win. Joe is much quicker than Dempsey and much more pressure.

I think Dempsey can win, but the first 5 rounds he'd get schooled and he'd have to pressure constantly to grind out a win. All Dempsey's fights against pure boxers are testimony to that

Calzaghe didn't land anything though, so he only won if you count missed punches

 

Why would he get schooled in the first five rounds?

Tommy Gibbons was a superior boxer, and by the way, he was a dynamite puncher to boot.

He lasted the distance, but he had to fight to survive, and was completely neutralized on the cards.

Hopkins is a fine boxer, but he is not elusive, and dosn't have the power to trouble Dempsey.

If you wan't a technician to beat Dempsey, then start by looking for a mover.

 

Because Dempsey was getting tattooed by the inferior Brennan early going and stood on his head by Tunney. He was also outboxed by Miske too in their first fight

Dempsey was a brawler who had fits with pure boxers, he had no jab and an open defence. Which is probably why he ducked Greb.

Hopkins isn't elusive now He's a tad bit more ellusive than Brennan who was outboxing Dempsey and yes he has a better defence and technical footwork than Tunney. Tunney just used more movement

BTW Gibbons was what 175lbs against Dempsey, if you're using a LHW Hopkins he is 10lbs heavier and leaner, so stronger at the weight. And did you just try to claim Gibbons was a superior boxer to BHOPs??

 

Jack was quicker than both.

I'm not saying how I ranked him, i'm saying contemporary research points to him being considered top 5 at time of the fight.

 

No he wasn't Dempsey didn't have quick hands and was slower against Brennan and Tunney, plus he avoided all the quick fighters for the main part. Dempsey simply didn't have quick hands, Holmes did. When does Dempsey actually show quick hands, its a myth based on fighting punchbags like Willard and Firpo

 

Some film analysis suggests that he had faster hands than Louis!