jack dempsey vs ken norton...

Well Jack had no issue facing men coming off defeats to this mw.

 

No sir it is you who is the dumbass. I am by nature a counterpuncher and I see right through your veiled attacks! Give me the lithe, wiry killer who was as fast as any welterweight who came before him, the Jack of 1919-23. Atleast be fair with these matchups and make them prime for prime. I rest my case D!

 

Dempsey didnt fight Wills, and he didnt fight Godfrey either , he did however , when past his best , fight the man that beat them, Jack Sharkey.

 

Norton has zero chance of KO despite Dempsey being ko'd in 1 round by a journeyman and nearly being ko'd by Firpo and Tunney? In terms of power, speed and accuracy I'd say Norton would be the best puncher Dempsey would have ever faced, despite being an attrition type fighter he could still bang especially against smaller men

Norton against Unbeaten prospect Bobick who beat Holmes in the amateurs

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXFBWPDNXJk[/ame]

 

The **** are you talking about sir?

 

I dont think Dempsey was in danger of being ko'd by Tunney.

Dempsey had 77 fights, only Flynn stopped him and that is a very debatable fight.

Dempsey's then wife said he took a dive because," there was more money in losing than winning."


If you hurt Dempsey, he usually got you out of there.

If you hurt Norton ,you usually got him out of there.

 

The Dempsey throwing the Flynn fight is largely debunked. I think in a logner fight Tunney pushes for the stoppage, maybe he was overly cautious respecting Dempsey's power. Tunney hurt Dempsey and no Dempsey didn't get him out of there, did he? He didn't get Meehan, Gibbons or Prime Miske out of there either.

Dempsey never faced any top level opponents of the level of Norton. He may knock Norton out, but it's a big step up in class for him

The most important thing in punching is actually landing your punches with skill and speed. Firpo and 37yo Willard were leagues slower than Norton and hence did not land many punches or have the ability to counter punch. Neither Willard or Firpo are particularly proven punchers either, they certainly fought far weaker opposition than Norton. They are also far easier to hit than Norton

Norton may have been technically better than Gibbons, we don't know. He was 40-50lbs heavier with the weight behind the punches and strength that brings

 

Reading comprehension lesson 1

'In terms of power, speed and accuracy I'd say Norton would be the best puncher Dempsey would have ever faced' - a combination of power, speed and accuracy Norton would be the best - by far

NO BACKTRACKING :deal

 

I said "usually," and I was referring to a prime Dempsey.
The Meehan fights were 4 rounders, and the feather fisted Meehan was in no danger of hurting Jack.

The ko by Flynn is still controversial to this day, and has never been resolved.
Gibbons and Miske were likewise in no danger of koing Dempsey.
Those that had him in any trouble,or had the potential to put him in trouble, USUALLy were kod. Those that had Norton in trouble finished the job.
My point stands.

 

Not really as Tunney did have him in trouble and wasn't ko'd. The other fighters who hurt him but he came back to KO were of a much lower level, Firpo was strong but little skill and proved little. Brennan hurt him and was eventually stopped but Brennan lost every round to Greb,

If anything being hurt by a lower level opponent while coming back to KO them doesn't bode well for him when facing better opposition. The most skilled opponents Dempsey fought were Tunney, Prime Miske, Gibbons. He didn't stop any of them until Miske was suffering from Bright's disease

As for Dempsey 'not being prime', he was 32 and while past his best scored his career best win over Sharkey at the time. Norton was 35 against Shavers and 37 against Cooney, not only older but having been screwed over by Ali and not getting a rematch with Holmes likely didn't have much fight left in him

 

1. You're reading comprehension is pitiful.
2. Quote where I said Norton is better technically than Gibbons. My initial post stated that Norton was technically better than Dempsey and a better HW than anyone Dempsey faced. I then said in terms of speed, power and accuracy Norton would be the best puncher.
3. Now I know you have a very low IQ but which of those points do you actually disagree with?
4. I would go as far as saying Norton looks better on film than any Dempsey opponent I've seen. Few would argue with this
5. Norton might well be technically superior to Gibbons, we have little footage of Gibbons and he hardly looks special in what we have. I didn't compare Norton as a technician to , but given you don't know how to read you wouldn't know that

 

GI, well said...But you are baying at the wind...Some posters who have a clinical hatred of Jack Dempsey cannot be swayed over by facts...These
people DEFY history, think that the thousands of boxing fighters, writers, trainers who saw the pre 1923 Dempsey absolutely dominate his era ,
kmow LESS than these esteemed egotists...Akin like me saying"Einstein
was not that smart, cause I know more ? They are sick puppies...CheersGI.

 

I'm going to start inserting Jack Dempsey into all my thread titles. The key to a big thread.