jack demspey vs george foreman

Not really sure what this response means but yeah I was simply putting the lie to what McGrain has been harping on about - ie how Dempsey doesn't have the upper body size of a 210pounder - not arguing that that alone means anything just proving that what McGrain has been saying is bull What a silly boy he is

Now back to you - what was your response implying??:huh

 

The black guys wins, definitely. He has more black.

 

Rocky, I'm afraid we are waging a losing battle trying to defend the legacy of Jack Dempsey. Whatever opinions, facts,testaments of his contemporaries who saw him fight, goes out the window by egoists today ,
who in their "righteousness ",disregard the views of multitudes of boxing writers who saw the prime Jack Dempsey,and held him in such high regard.
After all, THEY 85 years later know more than people who saw him. And interestingly,these same" gurus" of boxing , do not demean the legacy of a Sam Langford, who stated that "Jack Dempsey is the greatest heavyweight I have ever seen ". As other boxing experts of the time concurred.
These naysayers might as well denounce history as well, for THEY know better. Cheers Rocky.
P.S. Rocky,if Jack kearns wanted to add weight of 210 pounds to Jack Dempsey's torso,he could have done it easily,given time. Dempsey's large frame could have supported the weight. Would Dempsey have been as effective ? Hell no. Jack Kearns and Teddy Hayes knew tons more about boxing than today's detractors of the Manassa Mauler...:good:good:good

 

Tale Of The Tape Jack Dempsey Joe Louis
Height
Weight
Reach
Chest/Norm.
Chest/Exp.
Waist
Biceps
Neck
Wrist
Calf
Ankle
Thigh
Fist
Forearm

6-1
192
77
42
46
33
16¼
16½
9
15
9
23
11¼
14½

vs

evander holyfield: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/boxing/1999/lewis_holyfield/taleofthetape/

pretty similar, at least.

 

Nothing, just found those stats really surprising. The post looked condescending but it wasn't!!

 

The size of Jack Dempsey was recorded, so it shouldn't be a point of much disagreement .....

He was about 185 - 195 pounds at his best (he weighed even less in his earliest fights, I guess, and I think he scaled 200 for some fights too). Let's say 190 pounds with zero excess weight.

He was reported to somehwhere between almost 6'1, and almost 6'2.

His wingspan was somewhere around 77 inches.

His chest was about 45 or 46 inches expanded.
His upper arm was about 16 inches.
His neck was about 17 inches.

Many people noted that he had big hands, or thick knuckles even for a fighter.

This content is protected

He wasn't big for a heavyweight, but he was a pretty big guy.

 

Dempsey would get hurt badly.

 

I saw Dempsey's height recorded 6'0.5" and 1 time 6" .
but even if he was somehow inflated 2 a 6'2" Foreman would have still knockked his azz outt .

 

No, (impressive biceps flex but ...) he's just flexing/bending his arm in that picture, probably for the photogenic effect.

If his arms look larger than Dempsey's it would probably be because they are a little shorter than Dempsey's.

Machen wasn't particularly large or freakishly developed for a 195 pound heavyweight either.
He's certainly not in a category of "massiveness" higher than Dempsey's.

Dunno, maybe you like his body better more than you like Dempsey's, but Machen was no hulking tank at 195 pounds.

 

I guess it's all a matter of perception.

Objectively, Ali, Holyfield and Haye are more massive. They weigh more.
Ali and Holyfield weighed 205 or 206 in those pictures. Haye, I don't know. Dempsey I believe weighed 187.

Ali, Holyfield and Haye were probably an inch (maybe 2 inches) taller than Dempsey too.

Ali, Holyfield and Dempsey, in those pictures, are of similar overall proportions, except for Holyfield's exceptionally large neck (almost 20 inches ?). Their physique type overall are very similar.

Haye, it's hard to tell from that picture. He often looks a bit bloated, dont know if it's water or fat or steroids. Anyway, he can't fight if his life depended on it, so it's fitting that he's the odd one out in that picture. :good

You're right to say Dempsey doesn't have Ali's or Holyfield's size torso on top of skinny legs, and the fact that they look very similarly built while weighing almost 15 - 20 pounds more probably proves it.
Being 1 - 2 inches taller accounts for the extra weight. Even if we allow for Ali having more weight concentrated in his lower body, his arms would be too long on Dempsey's body, if no more muscularly massive.

 

Obviously Dempsey didn't have the upper body of a 210 pound fighter when he was fighting at less than 200 pounds.
He did have quite slim legs though, and if they were just a bit thicker he'd weigh 210 !

So, burt's not wrong, nor is he right. It's almost a ridiculous assertion to say "he had the upper body of a 210 pounder" when he was 190, but at the same time it's 100% logical that if his legs were not as slim he'd weigh 210 pounds with the same upper body.

 

George would kick the **** out of Jess Willard too! Jack might do better than many suspect having only been KO'd once in his career. He would maybe assault George a few times early on and George would just get angry. Jack was a swarmer of sorts though and we all remember what Cus D'amato said about them against Foreman.
George Foreman KO4 Jack Dempsey

 

U,I did not start this silly cat fight. I am not a body building expert,and don't worship extra weight on a heavyweight. I know all to well that Dempsey at 190-5 lbs.,most obviously did not fight at 210. Weatherbeaten though I may be, i deduce that fact. I was responding to a poster who claims that Jack Dempsey at 190,was too small to hurt and beat George Foreman,as big George couldn't and WOULDN'T be hurt by the Dempsey that FEASTED on BIG men,as his record indicates. He flattened several men as big as George Foreman, and tough guys also, albeit not as good as Foreman. So U, I responded to this allegation by citing that Dempsey from the waist up had the wide frame of a 210 pound fighter. Statistics don't lie
and if Jack Kearns and Teddy Hayes,his great trainer thought it necessary to wean Dempsey up to 210 pounds over a period of time Jack Dempsey's
upper body torso,would have easily accomodated his wide and lean frame.
Easily. Would Dempsey maintained his greatest asset, his cat-like
movements, said to be welterweight like ? No it wouldn't,or Kearns would have did that to improve Dempsey. Wouldn't you think so. Were they less knowledgable than today's posters ? I think not.
So,why am I wrong to say Dempsey had the frame from the waist up to
hold 210 pounds, and still have an imposing physique ? He was wider than Joe Louis in measurements comparing them in a 1940s Ring Mag. Louis at that time was about 205 pounds. So why am I wrong ?
P.S. in the early 1940s, I passed Jack Dempsey's restaurant on Bw'y and saw a crowd peaking in the large window. I walked over,looked in an there was the Old Manassa Mauler, on the other side of the window standing about 2 or 3 feet away waving at us. The man was huge,and no stomache to speak of, waving his BIG right hand at us. He was about 50 years old then, and must have weighed 230 pounds,carrying it greatly, cause Dempsey was always big boned and HEAVY-handed as his ring opponents
soon learned. I was so thrilled, couldn't wait to go home and tell my dad,
whose idols were Harry Greb [saw him demolish Tunney in 1922],and the
Toy Bulldog, pugnacious Mickey Walker. So YES Dempsey HAD THE FRAME, to fight at 210,if his braintrust thought it advisable. They didn't. Cheers...

 

Dempsey would be a LH if he was fighting in the mid 90's.