Jack Dempsey v Bernard Hopkins

No he didn't. Dempsey had slow hands and wide punches, I'm calling it, he wasn't hard to beat to the punch at all, the evidence is all there. Let's look who beat him to the punch consistantly:

Tunney
Sharkey
Brennan

and probably

Greb
Prime Miske
Meehan

 

I'm guessing probably the cartoon version of Dempsey

 

Dempsey would knock him unconscious in under 6 rounds for mine.
Hopkins has never faced anyone who hits as hard as Dempsey.

 

He was described as having the speed of a ww and his speed does show on film.

As I said, he's no floyd patterson but he's quick.

 

To be fair I would say he's as quick as Margarito, Dempsey was quickish for a HW, but allot of this talk is hype, we can see how quick he is on film, we don't need newspaper reports to tell us

 

his fights are on youtube. No need to debate it because we can see how quick he is.

 

:goodaccurate

 

Jack, would destroy Bernard, too everything for him, Bernard , possibly the worst champ of all time to watch, against a killer in the ring, Hopkin's negativity would mean nothing, Dempsey would have fought better in the mining camps, a sanctioned massacre!

 

He had long hair and a peg leg too.
another thing none of his hero-worshippers seem to acknowledge.

 

You might think that now but noone thought that then, conversely they actually though it would prove everything as did johnson himself which is why I believe he got himself into his best possible shape.

I agree, dempsey was at his best when he had the overwhelming speed advantage. Against those his own size he was still good but not as great.

Strange that someone can be so effective against bigger men whilst not being as effective against those his own size.

 

1 of the bigger men was 37 and didn't start boxing until 30, the other was a pro weight lifter turned boxer

 

Somebody did some analysis of fight films a few years back, trying to measure handspeed, and Dempsey came out of it prety well as I remember.