Dempsey is one of the smaller heavyweights that I reckon would have a chance against the big guys due to his speed and explosiveness but Vitali is just a horrible matchup stylistically and physically. He has arguably the best chin in heavyweight history and is a giant awkward SOB to deal with. He's a very busy fighter with solid, accurate punches. Jack is up **** creek without a paddle in this one.
If Vitali came in complacent, physically soft & inactive for years like Willard, he could have a decent shot. He never would. And he is more skilled than Jess-easily. It would be optimistic to say Jack even has many good moments.
How is Willard more skilled than Vitali? Also, do you ever say that any modern greats are better than the older guys? WIllard in 1919 ha barely fought at all since 1915. He was visibly soft, having lost muscle & gained fat. Dempsey seemed exhausted when he was brought back to the ring so early in that fight... Dempsey at his peak weighed 187 lbs. He was the size of a modern LHW at best, even years ago a reporter interviewing Tyson about him said he looked like a MW. Tyson was all respect for Dempsey, but do you really think anyone with this little bulk is going to beat a great modern SHW? And a guy who relied on power, & standing over men & smashing them as they tried to rise? He would never have Vitali off his feet anyway. With a high workrate & chin never dented even from huge guys? Dempsey would not even be near the size for the bout to be sanctioned. He would have his hands full even beating men in the modern era who were his size! To expect him to beat a giant who only lost twice due to injuries would be a bridge waaaay too far man.
No , I do not have to favor a modern guy to balance **** out if I think an older school guy is more skilled I am gonna say so. You guys look at modern boxers dominance and think its the same skillset across all eras the guys these newer boxers dominate are awful. Also if you can not fight in the clinch thats the whole game right there , early era guys can spend the whole fight there and some can end you there!
Styles would probably come into play big time here, in spite of the size difference. Dempsey was an All-Time great, IMHO. I think most Boxing Experts agree with that. But, to pick a winner, here's the question: Was Prime Dempsey a Swarmer, or was he a Boxer/Swarmer. If the later, he wins this fight. If the former, he's definitely at a big disadvantage, with the styles and sizes, against an ALMOST All-Time Great. Personally, I think Dempsey was a Boxer/Swarmer. Don't be fooled by the Tunney fights. Jack aged quickly and was reduced to standing around looking for one punch by then. I believe Jack would start out boxing Vitali, but at closer range than most Boxer/Slugger types. I think we're looking at another weird stoppage here, with Jack winning, but possibly coming off the canvas to do it.
Please tell me then what Willard did better than Vitali. Their styles aren't even that unsimilar, but I can't think about anything Willard does better - maybe except throwing powerful uppercuts.
One guy is a specimen who had spent a lifetime competing in combat sports, who trained round the clock, had one of the finest senses of space and distance the ring ever saw and thusly rarely lost a round. The other guy was a rodeo rider who didn't like boxing, came to it very late in life, who was known to quit on the stool, known to bypass training, the version of whom Dempsey faced was old and basically retired, who would spar only with a couple friends and usually call it a day .... Even in his physical prime, he lost to the likes of Rodel and Gunboat Smith... The comparison is more than a stretch.
People are automatically assuming since Dempsey beat a slow dimwitted uncoordinated redneck like Jess Willard, that he can beat a big 21st century, athletic fighter like Vitali. This fight shouldn't even be allowed to happen.
