jack dempsey vs ken norton...

Was Dempsey a straight puncher? I thought he was more of a hooker. His lefhook being his bread and butter and his inside fighting.

 

I agree with Dave,,Dempseys opponents werent **** compared to this pool of fighters...And Id bet my life this DaveK know more than youll ever know in your life son..respect yourself!

 

@ETM ..he was an inside fighter when he needed to be.

 

No stick to what you first said..Norton possibly gettin bombed out..
:secret

 

No.

Foreman is far bigger, far stronger, more intimidating and hits alot harder than Dempsey also possibly more aggressive, Norton isn't going to be pushed around by a 180 pounder and his punches will land with more authority than when he hit Foreman which just made him madder. If Dempsey just tries to get him out of there as quickly as possible like against Firpo he might just find himself on his ass, Norton was a good counterpuncher and had good defense. Either man can win depending on how they handle the fight but I think Dempsey gets him in the end. KO 5. Norton wins one of a series tho.

 

It is amusing to see the Dempsey critics desperately trying to rationalise some way of Norton winning!

 

Yea sure a 185lb relatively weak blown up light heavyweight is 'in the realm of hardest hitters who ever lived.' He couldn't put away a LHW Gibbons or a Prime Miske.

Please enlighten us where he showed to be the one of the hardest hitter ever? Against a unskilled weight lifter in Firpo or against a 37yo inactive Willard? Both took about 1000 punches to stop, they weren't 1 punch KO's. Dempsey has a few 1 punch KOs but not many

 

No matter how much bigger an stronger and awkwardly clever Norton was..and no matter how many physical sadvantages he had, I see a single left hook doing him in...Dempsey would have been too explosive...to unpredictable for him. Dempsey ko 3 or 4. Norton may have arisen from a nockdown, but he would have been too shaken...he would have been finished.

 

To believe that you have to believe that Foreman, Shavers, Louis, Tyson etc didn't hit as hard as Langford. He'll I'm pretty sure fireman Jim Flynn claimed Langford hit much harder than Dempsey and that was when Sam was either very green or well past it. Dempsey on the other hand fought him at the peak of his powers, therefore furthering the argument that there where boxers that hit far harder than Dempsey.

 

Really?

 

Langford probably was in the same ball park as somebody like Louis in terms of power.

 

I saw a tv interview once with Archie Moore. He was very clear in emphasizing that modern fans had no idea how physically strong Dempsey was. And that strength with the previously mentioned one punch power and explosiveness, and a guy like Norton, who was infamous for not being able to deal with a guy who could hurt him, would have been stopped IMO.

 

I read that Flynn claimed Langford hit him the hardest, I never read that he said Langford hit much harder.:think

I don't think there is a man born who hit "much harder " than Dempsey.

Langford first met Flynn in 1908, he was 26, and had 38 fights under his belt.

Flynn was 2 years older than Langford so if Sam was well past it in their last fights ,what does that make Flynn?

 

Catch Dempsey picking a senseless Firpo up like he is a welterweight .

 

You've never boxed though, otherwise it'd be pretty obvious to you that the light heavyweight Dempsey was not near the hardest ever hitters