jack dempsey vs ken norton...

You've just demonstrated that you don't even know what technical boxing skill is. You're claiming Dempsey had good technical fundamentals. He blatantly didn't, his lack of boxing fundamentals was 1 of his weaknesses. No jab and lunging in with low hands are just 2 of his errors. You can argue he had a high level of ability despite his lack of technical fundamentals but claiming he had better fundamentals than Norton is laughable

Mike Gibbons was considered highly skilled in his time but he may or may not have had a high level of skill. Little film exists of Mike Gibbons. Gans was considered technically the best of his era but boxing as a sport clearly progressed as many have been more skilled since Gans

 

Dempsey was nowhere near prime in the second Tunney fight,and Tunney was in no danger of stopping him. I am aware Miske , Gibbons and Tunney went the distance with Dempsey.None of them were in danger of stopping him were they?

If you got a prime Dempsey in trouble,[ or had the potential to do so ,ie Fulton, Willard,]he came back to stop you.


If you got Norton in trouble he went out.

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

 

PP, you are too smart to not mention that this 32 year old Dempsey did NOT have a bout, or not a tuneup fight in THREE freakin years, before he fought a razor sharp Tunney...Why do you omit this pertinent fact other than to butress your weak case against Dempsey's place in HEAVYWEIGHT history...What say you about Ray Robinson who in 1955 had his ass kicked
by a journeyman Ralph Tiger Jones, after at least having ONE warm-up
fight ,after a THREE year layoff ??? Do you lower your estimate of the best fighter I saw ringside Ray Robinson, cause he was battered by Tiger Jones
after the 3 year layoff...?? HELL NO. Cause contrary to what you deny
Dempsey has a target on his back by haters as you and others who get their rocks off hating a Dempsey who cannot defend himself...Well I know the facts, and I will defend him as long as my health holds up... Cheers.

 

Burt I acknowledge Dempsey was past his best but point to the fact Norton is judged too harshly on his losses at the ages of 35 and 37 to Shavers and Cooney. Dempsey did get his best win in my view against Sharkey between the Tunney bouts

Those men may have beat Norton anyway. I do think Tunney's jab, movement and counter punching always beat Dempsey.

 

By 'don't know how to make it clearer' you meant over simplify?

Tunney caught Dempsey time and again and knocked him down in the rematch. After the knock down in the final 2 rounds Tunney opened up more, sat down on Dempsey and Dempsey looked hurt.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on Dempsey's ability to finish upper echelon fighters and whether Tunney may have stopped him in a longer fight

 

So why would you OMIT that fact that Dempsey did not FIGHT for 3 years before Dempsey foolishly fought Tunney, without, one tune-up bout, WITHOUT his mentor Jack Kearns as they seperated and were involved in a law suit against each other, and his beloved brother Bernie,had just committed suicide and prior , killed his wife...Could you expect Dempsey to be Dempsey for the Tunney fight ? Hell No, as i couldn't expect Robinson to be Robby after his 3 year layoff, nor Ali to be the FOTC Ali I saw in 1971, when he was fighting a Leon Spinks, Larry Holmes or a Trevor Berbick...Why shouldn't Dempsey a decent man after not fighting for 3 years not get the same understanding PP ? WHY ???
Because there are posters who love to give him the shaft...that is apparent.. SeeYa...
P.S. And this B.S. that Dempsey , without a proper mgr ,hungry,was "kod"
by a veteran Jim Flynn in 1917,in a bout his wife at a trial testified was a DIVE should have ANY bearing on Dempsey who ONE year flattened Flynn in less than one round...Many great fighters suffered Legitimate Kos in their career..I cite Joey Giardello who I saw ringside get flattened with one left hook by a neighbor of mine Harold Green in 1950 ,but no one brings this up when they evaluate Joey as a top Middleweight...As it should be, except if your name is Jack Dempsey...See my point...?

 

Pp, I didn't mean norton has no chance of knocking Jack out... That would be naive in any case, let alone a case whereby he'd been flattened in one by flynn.

I'm saying was I to bet, i'd be mainly betting on a jack stoppage but the norton decision wouldn't overly surprise me whereas a norton stoppage would.

 

Mc, we have to remember the compounded interest accumulated on the
hundreds, at an average 4%, comes to thousands, from 1927 to 2012...atschatsch

 

Dempsey and Marciano hit tribal notes like almost no other fighters ...

 

Uh, Burt...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/opinion/30iht-eddas30.html

 

Seamus, after reading your article avidly, I say everything is relative...
My relative's are doing fine, how are your's ?atsch

 

He's smarter than you. Marciano's opponents on film look far more skilled than Dempsey's opponnents. Unless you like the 1920s style of hands low, zero head movement, no combination punching, pitiful jabbing, poor footwork.

 

I have to hand it to you, this is a good response Burt, maybe I'm wrong and Dempsey wasn't near his best in the years he lost, or maybe those men just had the style to beat him, that's boxing isn't it?

Anyway I meant to read Dempsey's book and never got round to it. I didn't know about his brother's suicide or his brother killing his wife. What's the story behind that? Genuinely interested, sad story that it sounds

 

A few of those crude 1920's fighters.
Tunney
Delaney
Stribling
Greb
Flowers
Slattery
Shade
Leonard
Tendler
Norfolk
Weinert
Gibbons
Genaro
LaBarba
Petrolle
Canzoneri
Rosenbloom
Levinsky
Lynch
Wills
Mandell
Graham
Taylor
Dundee
Goodrich
Latzo
Smith
McLarnin
Thats just a sample from 1924 -1928.