jack demspey vs george foreman

Burt stop linking Jack Dempsey with Joe Louis. Joe Louis was on a level higher than Dempsey, especially when you take into account his vastly superior resume.

 

Dempsey Ko's Louis

 

Something I would like to add about "modern" and "old school". Many people say old school guys are sloppy. Well let me just say this, if George Foreman had been a young man in 1920, and we had footage of his fights with his wild swings and clubbing style, then he would be exhibit A of how old school fighter sucked. Guys like manbear here would go on about how primitive he, and hence his era is.


Just some food for thought.

 

Good point Handsome Man. Better film technology can make a fighter seem better than his predecessors who didn't have the benefit of superior video technology. Imagine watching Langford, Jeffries et al with todays video technology. It would be eye opening to say the least.

 

Also Dempsey still suffers from people focusing on some aspects of the last 1:30 of round one with willard. Sure he looks sloppy, but he has his man almost out and is going for the kill. Foreman looks sloppy all the time however.

That's not to say I think Foreman was in any way a **** fighter, he is close to a ATG if not one. And I don't know who would win between dempsey and foreman. But to count aganist dempsey is also foolish.

 

Actually the old-time fighters tended to dehydrate as much - or more even - than the later fighters. They were almost superstitious about drying out - even HWs did so. And I'm not sure it was a good thing to do.
Obviously, with 36 hours before fight weigh ins, some fighters can really manipulate their weight BUT you mention Archie Moore and James Toney, who weren't big as Dempsey.
Moore had plenty of visible body fat at 190 pounds, he was hog fat at 196. Dempsey was clearly in leaner shape at same weighrt.
Toney had less definition at 175 than most natural LHWs, BUT that might have been before he ate a barn full of steroids - he's an unusual case.

Dempsey was a cruiserweight by 1990s standards, not a light-heavy. The scales don't lie.

 

Yeah, that's true. That's the gross double standards I've come to expect on this forum.
It's like the "big super-heavyweights of the past had no co-ordination and were clumsy oafs" argument ....... but almost every month on TV somewhere for the last 25+ years (since I started seriously watching boxing) it's been possible to view modern heavyweight "contenders" exhibiting limited "skills" and slugging and hugging with zero finesse, unsatisfactory fitness and looking like they are stuck in slow-motion.
It's rare to see skillful, technical, fast, fit heavyweights .... it always has been quite rare, and it's certainly not gotten any better.

 

Why should he stop linking or comparing the two ?

They were ALWAYS compared, the Louis era/generation followed the Dempsey one. Both were devastating and dominant KO artists of their times. They were both explosive, fast, precise destroyers.

Joe Louis clearly considered it an honour to be compared to Jack Dempsey. And likewise, Dempsey came to view Louis as his most outstanding successor.

 

D old timers' dehydration was not close 2 2day's .
A guy weighing 185 lbs can easily make 175 lbs with dehydration alone . And if u take his fatter versions of 190 lbs and above then a slight diet & dehydration will put him comfortably below 175 lbs .
Including a catchweight fight with Bernard Hopkins @ 170 lbs !

 

I'm talking about a hypothetical 210 pound fighter, with Dempsey's upper body. Yes, his legs would only have to be a bit thicker to hold an extra 20 -25 pounds.

If you think that's ridiculous you simply don't understand basic anatomy. Adding even an inch girth on both thighs on a tall man would result in significant weight gain. Seeing as Dempsey's thighs were measured at a mere 23 inches, an extra two - three inches would be reasonable for a man of his height. Plus an inch on both calves, this would equate to at least 15 - 20 pounds of extra body mass.
And he's still look "normal" - and that tends to strengthen the gist of burt's point. Dempsey was a legit 190 pound fighter, and he was of a more top-heavy type (as are many fighters).

If you doubt what I'm saying, imagine a 210 pound Holyfield was given rugby players legs. He'd probably weigh 250+ solid pounds, not uncommon for a rugby player of his height. And he'd surely need not be bigger in the torso. A lot of body mass is reliant on size of the legs, and even a seemingly small increase in leg girth equates to significant weight increase.

The whole discussion is kind of silly, but still interesting.
Dempsey wasn't bigger than a 190-ish pounder, and Dempsey wasn't smaller than a 190-ish pounder. He was about 190 pounds. NEVER in his prime was he below 180, and NEVER was he above 201. But he covered that range, and was fit and lean through that range.

Efforts to make him "as big as" a 210-pounder, or "as small as " a light-heavy are silly.

He was what he was. His neck, arms, chest WERE as big as many HWs who scaled 210. He DID stand 6'1 and he DID have a 77 inch wingspan. And he weighed around 190 pounds.

And, no, I don't think Eddie Machen's jacket would be too big for him.

 

By the same standard, Muhammad Ali would have been a 199 pound cruiserweight his whole career.
Liston too.

All this talk of "modern weight making" is overblown. MANY fighters do NOT use/abuse the 36-hour weigh-in to such an extent.
Also, it ignores the counterpoint that old-timer HWs used to dry out excessively, whereas modern HWs don't. That's progress too !

The claim that "Dempsey would have fought at 175....." (Lefthook's original statement) because he "could have" is surely as bad, or worse, than saying he would have been 215 pounds of solid muscle.
Both scenarios are probably more possible now than they were then, but it's irrelevant. He was 180 - 200 pounds, and fit and lean, and effective. In modern terms he WAS blatantly a CRUSERWEIGHT.