Jack Dempsey vs Buster Douglas

We don't have any film of him, but contemporary observers raved about Fred Fulton's boxing skill.

Obviously he couldn't take a punch like Willard.

Now Bill Tate looks pretty good on film.

Of course Dempsey never fought him, but he sparred with him, and would have been familiar with his style.

 

LOL. We do have footage of Fulton and he had a very archaic style. Not at all dissimilar to Gunboat Smith or Willard. Two lanky guys who were all elbows and knees with very little coordination. He fought standing straight up with his hands down and while he did jab it was nothing like a modern job. Again, more similar to Willards pawing, tapping range finder. Old timers may have raved about Fulton but there has been a clear jump in ability during the 80 years from Fultons prime to Douglas' and the world hadnt seen a big heavyweight anywhere near as fluid as Douglas was on the night he beat Tyson. Dempsey sure as hell didnt.

As for Tate looking good I would refer you to his one sided ass kicking at the hands of 5'9" 175 pound Kid Norfolk. Tate was about as useless as a fighter could get and despite his great height and reach advantages he exhibited zero jab (or anything else) to be able to keep Norfolk off of him.

 

I will take Dempsey in a tough matchup. Jack was explosive and hit as hard as Tyson, but his approach was a little different as he was a slasher and not a slugger. He was In and out with speed, then hold or retreat until he could get in close again. ON the inside he would unleash a 3-4 punch combo, smothering Busters Punches and then holding on the inside (the old time fighters had excellent wrestling skills) I just think this disrupts Busters Rhythm enough to carry the fight . It is close, but I would put 60/40 odds on Dempsey to KO Buster.

 

I have to question that assessment.

What footage can you have seen of Fulton, and how conclusive is it?

A lot of the people who praised Fulton's technique, would have seen fighters like Benny Leonard.

Then I guess that Harry Wills beat him pretty easily!

 

Two key points in Dempsey's favour is he's rangier than Mike and harder to discourage.

Douglas may do well but he's not going to escape the leaping hook. Plus there will be no refuge up close. There wasn't for Willard whose 6'6" frame fell into Jack.

Dempsey, be it pretty or ugly, will end this.

 

You can question all you want. It doesnt change the fact that I have footage of Fulton and he was nothing special. Who were these contemporary experts who raved about Fulton and compared him to Benny Leonard. I want specifics.

Yeah, he knocked out Norfolk in two one sided rounds. He fought Tate six times stopping him twice, decisioning him twice, getting controversially DQd once, and drawing once, and he also knocked out Fulton, caving in his ribs in the process and also turned the trick in sparring as well. But Dempsey never fought Wills did he? Nope. So do you still want to argue that Fulton and Tate were comparable to modern heavyweights and a great example of how well Dempsey would have done against a modern big man? Considering of the the names mentioned above he fought arguably the least durable of the bunch? The closest Fulton got to Tate was Texas Tate who he split two fights with. Yeah, I'll put my money on Tokyo Douglas being bigger and better than anyone Dempsey ever fought.

 

Its easier to not get discouraged by fighting out of shape old men, light heavyweights, and white hope oafs. My guess is Dempsey would have gotten pretty discouraged against guys like Tucker, Bruno, Ruddock, Holyfield, Lewis, Douglas, etc. But then again he would have never fought them because he was so discouraged by Wills that he wouldnt even get anywhere near a ring with him...

 

OK, so what is the footage, and how conclusive is it?

Would the equivalent footage of a contemporary fighter, tell you everything about them?

 

There is also the possibility he beats said names easier Mike, plus fares better against Holyfield and Lewis.

 

Say what ?

Tucker pretty much got whitewashed, Bruno and Ruddock were absolutely brutalized...........he had SEVEN rounds in FIVE years under his belt against Holyfield and was almost two decades into his career against Lewis....

Dempsey has Willard and some other oafs, most of them skinny and definitely not black.....

None of the mentioned fighters were fat, over the hill or unskilled.........Dempsey has never ever faced a bunch like that.....full time price fighters not Rodeo clowns.

Straight out of a time machine Dempsey is a decisive under dog against all of them, his best match up is Holyfield, that is a 50/50

As for Douglas, he is light years ahead on in Tokyo form, which only happened once , ahead of Tunney who a slightly older Dempsey could not defuse..............that what happens when you sit on your belt and refuse to fight anybody who could trouble you.

Dempsey had never ever seen or faced a big man like Douglas with skills, he aint winning that fight in Tokyo.

BTW, ANY Douglas in fighting shape would put a absolute pasting on Willard.

 

Dont worry about it. You already know everything there is to know about Fulton.

It would tell me theyve forgotten more about boxing than Fred Fulton ever knew.

Great, then show me some quotes from guys who were familiar with a prime Benny Leonard praising Fulton's prowess. And then tell me how that and a handful of quarters gets you on the bus in 1990.

Really? He derailed Wills' title ambitions? LOL. When was that? Because their last fight, which was a draw, after Wills loafed it after getting a controversial DQ loss and an unpaid do-over, took place two months before Wills decimated Kid Norfolk in one of Tex Rickards elimination bouts (which of course were all designed to eliminate Wills). For those in the cheap seats that was 1922. More than four years later Wills was still universally acknowledged as Dempsey's top challenger. He was banned from defending against anyone but Wills in New York which forced him to defend against Tunney in Philadelphia. Prior to that Dempsey had gone into hiding for three years rather than face Wills. Care to explain to us how Wills' title hopes were derailed and if Tate was so great, and such a threat, as you seem to suggest (managing just a controversial DQ win once out of six fights) why he himself never got anywhere near a title and why he finished his career with 30 losses against 34 wins. Douglas gets **** all over constantly but next to Tates record Douglas looks like a first round HOF induction. GTFO here with that bull****.

Hence bigger AND better. I'll spell it out for you though: Douglas was a combination of size and skill that Dempsey had never come close to facing, indeed he avoided it. Period. Even on Douglas' worst day. Do we really want to compare a near 40 year old, three year inactive (and talk about a one hit wonder) Jess Willard to Douglas? LOL. Ok, Ill take that argument. Willard outweighed Douglas by 14 soft pudgy ill trained pounds and those 14 pounds accounted for nothing more than if you strapped 14 pounds of hotdogs to a heavy bag. So Douglas is a one hit wonder by putting on one of the most complete performances of any heavyweight in destroying one of the most feared heavyweights in history after a relatively humdrum career. What does that say about Willard who fought an old, inactive, out of shape Johnson and took 27 rounds in which he was well behind to win... I'll take Douglas "one hit" over Willards. Thanks for playing.

 

Wait, what Fulton footage do you have?

 

Douglas wasn't a one hit wonder. Outside of his fight with Tyson, he still has a better heavyweight résumé than half of Dempsey's title challengers.

 

The problem is very much the opposite.

It is what we don't know about Fulton.

You are asking me to dismiss him based upon an unspecified length of footage, of an unspecified event, in an unspecified context, which I have not seen myself.

I am going to guess that Kearns had seen his share of fighters.

"He hits as cleanly and sharply as Harry Wills did, bit with much more force."

"There isn't a man in the world that Fulton can't whip."

Kearns

"Fulton hits harder than Dempsey. He has a more powerful right, and his left is far more educated than Dempsey's. While Dempsey normally beats his man down with a steady attack, which doesn't necessarily last that long, Fulton can stop then with a single blow."

"Fulton is without peer as a boxer. He can out jab anyone. He has beaten a higher caliber of boxer than Dempsey, stopping Langford and Moran, two of the worlds strongest and most rugged heavyweights."

Newark Evening News.

"Fulton is the favorite, owing to his experience, height, reach, skill, and heavy hitting. He has Corbett's jab, and Fitz's uppercut."

I could go on, but I am sure you have seen accolades like this before.

Interestingly, Fulton seems to have been a switch hitter!