Jack Dempsey vs Tyson Fury

And a guy who drew the color line and sat on his @ss for years (outside of banging starlets (all hail!)) is some sort of paradigm of fistic excellence?

Again, your enormous delusion vastly overshadows your miniscule intellect.

 

Hey. Lying again? That’s all you do in every single post.

Like those before him Dempsey took his title on the road. Prior to the 20’s this meant exhibitions and vaudeville/theatre. During the 20’s silient movies... Hollywood was Dempsey’s venue as vaudeville died.

Dempsey drew the color line like all American hwt champions before him. This was due to Rickard. He also rescinded that color line and that was Dempsey talking.

Would be great if you stopped being the Portuguese liar!

Oh yes if you want to compare lifestyles I’m ready but be forewarned that there is no chance you will be competitive. One reason is you live in a third rate country. Second reason is you are obviously uneducated.

 

So, I am lying because I said that Dempsey froze the title for 3 years? Did he or did he not defend for 3 years? Who is the liar here?

I am a liar because I state that Dempsey drew the color line after beating Willard and never faced a black fighter, including the obvious #1 contender? Again, am I liar here?

Can you answer these questions or merely evade with your moronic, unschooled responses?

 

You are a liar and you think instigation provides you a degree of intellect. In fact you are a third rate person from a third rate country. Get your act together.

 

Nice rebuttal to the facts. Each time you respond without answering the questions at hand you only emblazon yourself again with the Scarlet M of the typical guileless Moron.

Because I am a good Christian, I will give you another chance. Please show me where I have lied, since you have called me a bearer of false witness. A) Did or did not Jack Dempsey draw the color line? Did or did not Jack Dempsey take 3 years off from defending his crown?

Now, either you can rebut those statements or, sorry to say, YOU are liar. Which is it?

 

Like the typical lost soul that you are you purposefully instigate. You get a kick, a feeling of superiority, by suggesting a point that you know does not reflect the historic truth. All of the points you stated purposefully eliminate the historic background which makes your statements a purposeful distortion of reality. Thus as a purposefully distortion of reality they are in fact lies.

Seamus the liar.

 

As you can not disprove my two posited arguments, yet you continue to contend that I am falsifying them with out any proof to that aim, you have proven yourself not only to be the liar here but a first rate coward as well.

Time for me to go to work.

Good day, sir.

I said, Good day.

 

The only liar is you by purposefully making statements that do not reflect the historical background. The truth lies within the history. By purposefully ignoring this history you are in fact lying. Have a nice day at the dock.

 

Not saying that it's a sure thing, but Dempsey had much higher workrate, he was also much quicker than both and attacked differently than methodical Wlad and Wilder who only tries to find you with overhand right over and over again. Dempsey was very agressive puncher and that may be the key factor. Frazier wasn't half of the puncher Foreman and Liston were and yet he's the one who hurt Ali, not them.

 

Dempsey ,,,,Mauls him , 3 or 4 knockdowns and the ref saves the Fury clown

 

Punching upwards isn't particularly efficacious either.
Dempsey would have to concentrate on the body.I'm not a fan of Fury's ,either as a man or a boxer,but to deny he is a stylistic nightmare for just about anyone is silly .Dempsey would be conceding 8 inches in height and around 70lbs in weight,and this is no 37years old fat inactive and overconfident champ ,this man can move and has fast hands for a guy his size.Dempsey would be in a real fight here!

 

No! He said Dempsey did not defend his title , 1. For 3 years 2. Against a black man.
I'll add another. 3. Did not fight his long term number1 contender.
All of those statements are irrefutably,unarguably, and undeniably true .
Historical background not withstanding. THOSE ARE THE FACTS
No amount of nonsensical waffle will change them! And before you again accuse me of being a Dempsey hater, I love the guy!
ps For what its worth, I think Dempsey would have creamed Wills!

 

This post is ridiculous Seamus made two statements which every boxing fan worth his salt knows to be true.
1.Dempsey sat on his title for 3 years, whether he was making a fortune appearing in 2 reelers as Dare Devil Jack ,having his nose remodelled , OR mounting every piece of ass he could sniff up is irrelevant, he did not defend his crown for that period of time .
What champions did before him ,or indeed after him, does not alter what HE DID!
Immediately he became champion he announced he was drawing the color line ."I shall pay no attention to black challengers", and he fought a total of NONE, whether he was influenced by Rickard in this is beside the point.
The fact is he did not defend against his long term leading challenger, who was Wills, and who happened to be black!
In saying this Seamus is being absolutely truthful and correct!
No absurd revisionism from you is going to change the basic facts.
So do yourself a favour and stop this ridiculous denial of what is absolutely common knowledge among boxing fans world wide!

 

This is really offensive, you have issues Fella!

 

A great or good version of Fury should be enough to spoil and move is way to victory. As said before, too much man, too much movement. This isn't Willard in here, this is Fury, who brings a different bag of tricks to the table.