Jack Dempsey v Muhammad Ali

interesting, can you elaborate :think

 

Meaning that had they been given the same referee as hart v johnson and fought the fight exactly the same way, people would be referring to it as a close fight where chavez was busier but pea boxed better.

In an era obsessed with aggression julio would have emerged victorious by doing exactly what he did that night.

 

Good, competitive fight. Dempsey was ahead of his time the way that he crouched, bobbed and weaved and also his ability to punch in combination. These factors including his speed and power would ensure that Ali would fight at the top of his game and take dempsey seriously at all times, much the same as he would have to do for tyson.

However, I feel that Ali with his Physical advantages, speed, ring generalship and judge of distance would net him a comfortable decision by either 9-6 or 10-5

 

I feel this is perceptive.
Dempsey had the agility, and movement to get to Ali, and possibly drop him. However, I doubt he would be able to consistantly land enough punches on Ali to reduce his foot- speed to such an extent that he would be able to hand him the kind of mugging he put on many of his foes.
Ali ,apart from being extraordinarily fast of both hand ,and foot was also very strong ,and compared to Dempsey big.
I think Ali would begin to tag Dempsey with his jab around the halfway mark,and then follow it up with the right cross, he would have to absorb some frightful body shots in the process , but he proved he was able to do that against Chuvalo, and Frazier.

The early Ali, who had no idea about what to do in close,[see the first Cooper fight,] may get tagged and taken out.
The older ,stronger , more complete Ali, would clinch when it was indicated, and lean down on Jack, nullifying his threat.

Ali takes a decision from Jack , but may hit the floor before the end.
A "curates egg "of a fight with some mauling and tugging from both, interspersed with some savage, riveting action from both men .

 

To me, your last sentence seems incompatible with those first three sentences. There's nothing wrong with owing up to changing history and discrediting or perhaps better put, re-crediting certain fighters over another. That's basically what you're doing. I mean, you just said Johnson's best win was a fight that wasn't a win. You clearly explained earlier in this thread that it's even difficult for you to completely rationalize. It's difficult to even create a system and follow it fully to begin with. That's bold, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss the reality that almost any system can be inaccurate and problematic at times. Probably a waste of a post because you're sticking through your system thick and thin and that's fine. Just don't act unaccountable toward its criticism.

 

The Mar 29, 1905 San Francisco Chronicle reported “Johnson shows himself strong on points.” The Chronicle also noted “There was a great deal of racial prejudice…Johnson’s clean hitting, his cleverness at blocking, and all his work was allowed to pass with scarcely a murmur, while every blow landed by the white man was cheered to an echo.” The paper also reported “Johnson did more actual fighting in this fight than in all of his other fights in San Francisco .





Johnson said in the post fight interview, “I was robbed. That’s all there is to it.” Johnson said he “dislocated” his thumb in an early round but still thought he “was the winner at every stage.” The National Police Gazette which was the Ring magazine of that day wrote, April 15 1905, “In the first ten rounds Johnson easily demonstrated his superiority. After that Hart made a better showing but he did not have the better of the going and a draw would have been a present to him.” Johnson deserved to win and would have easily won on points by any modern boxing observers estimation of the fight.


George Siler's opinion, below.

,"it was the opinion of all fair minded witnesses that Johnson beat Hart."
The L A Times headlined with " FIGHT DECISION A ***** ONE".

That's three that apparently thought it could be termed a robbery.

I don't think we are talking about a Leonard /Hagler fight here where who won depends on whose style you preferred.

 

Sorry, you've completely misunderstood me.

I'm not changing history because i'm not telling anyone they have to change their view on a fight. Boxing is subjective and this should be embraced imo. My views are personal to my interpretation whereby an official result is an interim result until i've further looked into it.

I'm not discrediting because hart still got the decision, still beat root and still got his payday. He won't give a **** what I think and I take nothing away from him. I just prefer johnson's work to hart's.

By standing the test of time I mean stylistically I could picture johnson succeeding in the modern era.

What I struggle to rationalise is the combination of the post 20's era with the pre 20's era.

I'm happy to be accountable for my own opinions. I just don't expect to convert anyone. People should be able to make their own mine up based on the data at hand.

 

Many of the same papers said Jeffries would walk through Johnson at Reno.

 

Ali beats him rather wide.

He had everything Tunney had to bring and more, honestly. Better chin, more power, faster, even better jab.

Dempsey was not peaked against Tunney, but Tunney is not Muhammad Ali.

A better Dempsey against a man better than Tunney in most measurable areas probably produces the same result, and I doubt Ali hits the canvas for a long count, either.

 

What happens if there's a Dempsey-friendly referee and Ali starts tugging on Jack's neck? If the referee puts the fault on low blows to Ali's tugging, Ali might find himself rather weak-legged in the second half of the fight. Something to ponder.

 

I think Ali would have outboxed Dempsey. Ali was too big, too fast, too mobile, too skilled, and too dexterous with punches to lose this one. Dempsey would be dangerous, though.

 

Then why don't you do the same when it comes to reviewing Marciano-LaStarza I? A modernized lens? That knockdown surely swings the fight Marciano's way in a modernized landscape, the way Johnson's work against Hart is more friendly under a modern lens.

 

Dempsey was skilled, mobile, dexterous too. Also hit harder, and took better punch.