With all due respect Seamus this is utter bilge - the reason you will always think Tyson is the best ever is because you're completely brainless and can't see beyond the end of your nose - Tyson was from my heyday too and i certainly don't consider him the best ever - and none of my own peers of the same age group do either - do you think the people who came up with Patterson and Johansson consider them the best ever just because they were at peak during their youth?? Do you not think those who witnessed Dempsey in his (and their own) prime and who maybe lived to see, say, Ali and or Tyson didn't also see the Dempsey fights on tape over and over down the years so were able to regularly refresh their assesments against whover came along again and again - you know my Grandad for instance he didn't just see Dempsey fight back in 1919 and then never watch the films of his fights ever again???? Thats a ridiculous assumption - my grandad was constantly watching the fights of Dempsey Louis and everyone else - just like probably all those other people of his generation that lived as long as he did?? You really suppassed yourself with that one Seamus my old pal
Not wanting to create too much controversy, but tapes were not really common place among most people until the 80s, were they? And even then it is impossible to refresh your mind on prime dempsey other than Willard, because he was never filmed. Even in the 80s and the 90s and even early 2000s, there was nowhere near as much access to footage as there is now. You tube has really spoiled most modern fans.
My Dad watched old boxing films until he died. I still have his collection, his projector (which still works) and have even purchased more to add to the collection.
Come on Burt. Dempsey did not wear Sharkey down. Sharkey won 5 out of the first 6 rounds. He was on his way to a clear wide decision. Dempsey illegally hit Sharkey in the balls.. Sharkey was in agonizing pain. Listen, I think VERY highly of the 1927 Jack Sharkey and would love to give Jack Dempsey full credit for the victory, but I just cannot. Dempsey should have been DQed. Sharkey was in excruciating pain from the very cheap ball shot dempsey nailed him with. The Ref should have broken them up before the left hook even landed. Dempsey did show his toughness in the Sharkey fight, he took some serious shots, sharkey looked great that night. He was chizzled, clearly in the best shape of his career.
Says the guy who considers Wlad's jab just a "range finder" and that his strength doesn't matter "because he's big". Really, read your post again. Try it, if you can make your way through that paragraph-less mess. And see if you can work your way through claims like Wlad is as lumbering and slow as Willard, Simon, B.Baer, etc.
Should he have been disqualified? Maybe so. Surely, those type of tactics have no place in the modern arena. It should be said, though, Sharkey was very foolish in trying to instigate roughhousing with Jack. It was a case of the latter not being able to stomach his medicine.
Dempsey don't stand a chance, he's too small. People in this forum are underestimating today's boxers and overestimating oldtimers. Wlad by KO.
Everyone I know (who isn't hanging from Klits nuts) to-a-man universally describe Klits jab as pawing and just a range finder - remember everyone in the room grumbling about that very thing when we all watched his last fight - everyone was wanting to turn over or put dvds of people like Tyson and Dempsey on instead - can't remember how many times my mates were going "his jab is c**p", "this guy is so boring" "he's so slow" - he only really gets by because he is so big (and not surprisingly so strong) and that most of his opponents have been a joke - you're clearly blinded by your klit love
most of the video tapes i have date back to the late 70's?? But even so doesn't it count if you only watched the films again from the 70's to the 90's???? you are completely crazy - are you so bothered that people might know a bit more than you that make stupid wingey statements like that - jeez you really have a bee in your bonnet about any fighter pre-1990 being better than anyone else clearly - get back to the general board mate - or comeback when you''ve filled in that chip on your shoulder
Maybe your mates don't know what a jab is, either that or they mixing up the 2 brothers. Wlad's jab is fast, sharp, heavy, accurate and powerful, 1 of the best HWs jabs I've seen. Dempsey doesn't even have a jab Neither is Wlad slow, he's faster than Rocky for 1 thing, Vitali is slow, Wlad is not. Dempsey is not fast himself and he punches very wide I don't like Wlad, never have been a fan, but he gets well underrated on here, he'd dominate Dempsey easily
Once again, I don't think that some people realize that there is a difference between a big guy who posseses a more all around package of tools, as opposed to a guy who's just big.. Claiming that Dempsey would beat a modern big man soley on the basis of what he did to Willard, does not even begin to tell the whole story.
\\ Dempsey fights on tape are fairly shitty. You have the Willard fiasco and then little else that is fully impressive. The Firpo tape is exceptionally offensive. Sorry you do not share my eloquent and well-stated opinion. It is an observation I am hardly the first to make, either in general or on this board. And I have hardly begun to surpass myself. You just hold tight.
