Jack Dempsey vs. Jess Willard

But....but...Willard was a fat, washed up rodeo cowboy. And Dempsey ducked Wills.

 

I'm being sarcastic but tomorrow someone will come in here an reiterate what I posted.

 

He was not a washed up rodeo cowboy. He was a very successful rodeo cowboy.

He was a many times retired boxer who was old and undertrained. He ll, I train harder than Willard did.

 

Dempsey was an entertaining fighter in and out the ring. One of my all time favorite fighters.

 

Since you asked, I thought your analysis of the action was fine.

It's a wildly entertaining match, but it takes two to make a great fight unless you enjoy the sport only for the pure gore of it all. Willard was not much competition. Even more than his physical condition, I don't think he had his head in the match. He was lazy and disinterested in boxing to begin with, and I think three full years of idleness caused him to forgot that mental preparation is as important as physical. He thought being champion and being a physically big man would be enough to defeat Dempsey. Neither he nor anyone else had ever faced anyone with the ferocity of Dempsey. To me, the fight is important more as the introduction to the world of a new style of aggressiveness than as a great fight per se. I think it advanced the sport not only by encouraging aggressiveness, but also by forcing "boxers" (as opposed to "fighters") to become more resourceful in order to counter the aggressiveness of a Dempsey-type fighter. If there hadn't been an aggressive fighter like Dempsey, then there would never had been a need for a boxer as clever as Gene Tunney, who combined the counterpunching St. Paul style of Mike Gibbons with a mobile brand of footwork. So together the chemistry of Dempsey and Tunney advanced the sport in two different ways and made it more exciting and interesting to watch.

William, I should say I find your choice of topics interesting. I make it a policy to limit my contribution to threads about topics which interest me and about which I think I know something. You are trying to learn an awful lot of things in a very short time. I'm impressed with your energy and enthusiasm and your insights. However, since your topics often go to the core of why I am interested in the sport, I am especially vigilant in making suggestions when I think you might be going in the wrong direction. Please don't take my comments in the wrong way.

 

Didn't take you long to jump in here...your Dempsey phone app alerted you!

 

No, it was my BS detector.

 

The most vicious performance ever seen in a boxing ring.

 

It's an impressive film.
All our lives are richer for its existence.

 

Tbh mate I think your approach is natural considering your age.

You're young aren't you, so you're literally discovering new things in boxing all the time.

After a while you'll probably settle on your favourite topics to discuss, but enjoy your enthusiasm whilst it's there, because believe me, at times following boxing can be quite a chore.