Jack Dempsey vs Buster Douglas

My phone auto corrects it. Dunno why given that both are words, and resume is used much more than résumé. I think the real ultra hipster is when my last phone had a language teacher which literally did nothing but put the accents on Spanish, French, German, etc; words.

Vicente Saldívar, or Wilfred Benítez.

It's a wonderful piece of kit, I suggest you get your hands on one.

 

Interesting. Do you happen to have the source information for these quotes?

EDIT:
Ok, I found the newspaper quote. For what it's worth, the version of the quote I found is: "Fulton, owing to his great height, reach and remarkable skill as a boxer in addition to heavy hitting, is quite generally regarded as a probable winner, yet Dempsey is by no means without his supporters."

 

Fulton was the 7/5 favorite, but as you say, Dempsey was seen as a very live underdog.

From time to time you get a heavyweight, who many people think is the second coming, until somebody hits them on the chin.

Fulton seems to be such a case.

 

Dempsey would be a live underdog against a lion

 

Then I rest my case. Corbett and Fitzsimmons look like **** on film, very archaic which is exactly how I described Fulton. Ballyhoo for a fight is just that, whether it comes from Kearns or the Newark Evening News. To that point the two biggest wins on Fulton's record were to a past his prime 34 year old Sam Langford who was giving up nearly a foot in both height and reach and was coming off a loss and Charlie Weinert who was coming off a loss, barely above the LHW limit and had lost to every decent fighter he had faced including being stopped by Jack Dillon who could still make the middleweight limit when he turned the trick. But just to be clear: Do you want to continue arguing that a guy your own sources compares to these two:

This content is protected

was even a pimple on the ass of this guy:

This content is protected

Just because Dempsey was able to beat overfed farmboys in the 1910s doesnt mean hes going to beat real fighters that he couldnt pick and choose. Again, Dempsey avoided the closest fighter you could compare to Douglas for the entirety of his title reign. The same guy who broke Fulton's ribs and owned him sparring. So somehow pretending that because Dempsey could beat big heavy bags like Willard and Firpo and Fulton, none of whom had anything resembling the skills of a modern fighter is a far cry from saying he would beat even a mediocre modern heavyweight. He was just over six feet tall, 187 pounds in his prime, and spoon fed his competition. Of that spoon fed competition he was being outpointed by Bill Brennan, who was ordinary, got rocked by a light heavyweight in Carpentier who had lost to the only world class competition he had faced barring the fix against Levinsky, was bounced off the canvas and out of the ring three times by Firpo and essentially lost every round against Tunney barring about 25 seconds when he dropped Tunney and Tunney recovered. But hey, he looked invincible fighting a dying Miske and an old, inactive, undertrained, disinterested and always limited Willard...

 

Your first observation, makes me question the validity of your second.

If we have come to very different conclusions about how good Corbett and Fitzsimmons look on film, then you will understand why I would need to see the Fulton footage for myself, before endorsing your conclusions.

You do not need to explain Fulton's record to me, I have access to Boxrec.

 

If you think so, then I'd like to see Fulton footage with my own eyes. Not everyone comes with the same conclusion as you.

 

Pyscho poster