Jack Dempsey vs. Wladimir Klitschko

Seamus,

what's the deal with these blown up cruiserweights making all this noise in the heavyweight division? Don't you think guys like patterson, schmeling, walcott, charles, tunney, sharkey could have bulked up a little and done the same?

 

Good Point.

Perhaps Foreman-Frazier? Liston-Patterson? Maybe in recent times, Bowe-Holyfield?

 

If you think Dempsey fought the best of his era you know nothing of his era or incredibly biased, the out standing contender/champion was Harry Wills, who has a case for being a greater HW than Dempsey. Then theres Langford, Jack Johnson, Harry Greb. All better than the men Dempsey was facing with the exception of Tunney who kicked his ass twice.

As for Dempsey being iron chinned, why was he sparked cold in a round by a journeyman :tong Dempsey hasnt fought anyone who hits half as hard as Wladdy

 

1. Wlad has massive range advantage with his jab and its fast, yes Tunney is a tad faster, but Wlads is harder to get past and way heavier

2. He won the rematch against Brewster and Sanders wouldnt rematch him. Firpo wasnt even a proper boxer he was a weight lifter, Peter is better than Firpo and Wlad came back from being KD'ed to beat him. See the difference

Did I mention Dempsey was sparked in a round by a journeyman? :yep

 

I don't think it's that simple. Bigger fighters should not fight with the same skills as a smaller opponent. Again, this really only happens in the heavyweight division. A much bigger, stronger, much longer and taller opponents needs to dictate pace and distance in a way that fetters and frustrates the smaller opponent. There is no sense in a giant like Lewis trying to fight with the style of a Chris Byrd. Lewis will never be a small, elusive target. But he can be a target that is out of distance and smothers his opponent's attack when he does come into distance.

So, if the bigger fighter were theoretically reduced to the equal of his smaller opponent, he would have to drastically change his style.

 

I agree with you Mccgrain. I don't even think Carnera-Loughran is a good example. Tommy was past his prime at that point, and carnera stepped on his toe illegally breaking it, and slowing loughan down. So even though Carnera litereally did use his weight to beat Tommy, it was not in a practical way.

 

Sam Langford was ancient when Dempsey was champ and Johnson even older. Nobody would have thought of them as credible challengers. And Greb? Well, Dempsey fought Tunney who beat Greb. You are right on Wills. But outside of him, and Greb - who admitted himself Dempsey would have beaten him - he fought all the best.

He sure isn´t iron chinned. But his chin is better than Wlad´s.

1. Oh, so nice to see you on retreat ... you still need to go farther to be right though.

2. The rematch win against Brewster was nice but in all fairness, Brewster was not the same fighter he was in the first fight. He was past it and had a bad eye injury. At the same time Wlad improved his game. This fight doesn´t mean much. And Sanders? WTF? Sanders was retired for years when people started about Wlad rematching him. I wonder how the people would have cried about him fighting a golfer instead of boxers.
And I don´t know about Peter beeing better than Firpo. Peter lost his biggest fights. Even lost to a blown up mw. Firpo was certainly better than that.

Can you read?

 

Haha yeah the Wills who got took 12 rounds by Firpo who Dempsey splattered all over the ring for 2 rounds???? How do you work that one out?? The Wills who in his prime was twice sparked by one shot by a blind Sam Langford - the same Langford who was splattered by Fred Fulton - who Dempsey sparked in under 20 seconds???? Jack Johnson wasn't even Dempsey's era so you need to get your facts straight buddy and don'y say he was still fighting - thats like saying Ali was still fighting in Larry Holmes era!!! As far as Harry Greb is concerned True great fighter but he sparred regular with Dempsey - gave him some great scraps but was never going to beat the 1919 Jack Dempsey - sparked in a round by a journeyman Jim Flynn - oh yeah and then Dempsey's wife testified under oath that Dempsey threw the fight - and then shock horror Dempsey went back in with him and sparked him inside a round - the same Flynn who had gone all those competitive rounds with your beloved Langford and Johnson???

PS - where do you have Sanders in your all time rankings??? you must have him down as damn near the greatest having blasted your Klit to smithereens??

 

Replay of willard vs Dempsey. perhaps even shorter then that because of the modern rules.
okay, maybe wlad does a little better then willard, but Willard has a much better chin and grit then wlad.
Dempsey I just too powerful and fast for wlad IMO.

 

So Ali would never have won the world title undefeated, in todays environment?

Your second point is correct, but there is only two and possibly 4 of them ever (unless you rate Willard and carnera) and the identical thing can be said of the very good smaller guys as well.

 

Pitiful and unskilled is harsh, is not fair in an overall sense (he is after all a world champion, and a very, very good fighter). I was talking on an overall ATG sense. ie for those who are saying the big guys Dempsey and other ATGs fought and beat were unskilled, the same goes for Vitali.

By the way, that first round was really bad. Other fights i have seen Vitali in, his arm punching and low guard stand out, but i have never seen him look as poorly as he did in that first round. Is the orthodox southpaw jab a common Vitali tactic (i have never really noticed it before). If Vitali boxed that first round against Dempsey or even Bob Fitzsimmons it would be all over after that first round. Of course, it may have just been a bad round, struggling with a southpaw or whatever. From memory, Vitali was a hell of a lot better against Lewis. I am not sure why.