Jack johnson vs Jack dempsey

Tommy Burns was probably as good as Dempsey as an offensive fighter, if you are prepared to overlook the minor detail that he was a lot smaller.

 

Jeffries strikes me as being one of the more reliable champions in terms of giving honest opinions, but there is the history of course.

 

Like I lost because of drugged tea?lol

 

OK, it is hard to give him a pass for that one!

I still think that he generally gave an honest opinion of fighters that he didn’t like.

 

With the glaring exception of Johnson. Even Sharkey who disliked blacks, and admitted he detested Johnson said he was a defensive marvel.

 

Tommy does impress me in a way, he looked to have a good short right hand and moved pretty good, he seemed to have a good command of boxing for his time but against Jack who was a killer inside I doubt those right hands would have put him as Dempsey's equal offensively.

 

I dont c that at all.

 

Burns is definitely underrated. When you compare him to someone like Lennox Lewis or judge him on the Johnson fight, it's hard to give him props.
But when you take him for what he was, a filler champion of sorts, he was actually really good. Possessed a really good 1-2 combo, and had really good mobility.

 

Hey bud, I see what you're saying here, but just don't see it coming to fruition that way. Johnson was excellent at nullifying guys that pressed forward and pushed the action. That is Exactly what he liked. Dempsey isn't some fighter who is great and range and works behind the jab. He's the opposite, he needs to get in close and make it a scrap type of affair. I just don't see that working with Johnson. He's just too smart to lose that type of fight imo, especially one where the HW title is on the line. I see this as Johnson nullifying Dempsey on the inside, and punishing him throughout the fight for a stoppage win.

 

What is too much for Firpo or Flynn? How about Gibbons or Tunney? If Dempsey couldn't steamroll you, often times he was made to look ordinary. He's not steamrolling Johnson.

 

Dempsey showing against Gibbons leads you to believe he beats Johnson?

 

Gibbons, in terms of science and experience, was closer to Johnson than anyone Johnson fought was to Dempsey. Mike Gibbons remains the most underrated technician of the era, and he admitted his brother had finally passed him in ability. And as moved up, Gibbons added power to his arsenal. That is my contention.

 

To play con on both sides, both fighters had their share of average to poor performances, but it comes down to this:


Johnson was Ko'd by Choysnki, Ko'd by Klondike, lost a high stakes match in his prime to Hart, outboxed by O'Brien in his prime according to primary sources, floored by Ketchel, in trouble vs. Jim Battling Johnson, TKO'd in an exhibition match vs Smith.


Dempsey represents a different level of speed and power and his attacking style would pressure Johnson's defense, which was good vs. smaller or slower one punch at a time types in his day.


Sooner of later, Dempsey lands hard to the head or body, and the TKO or KO would likely happen. Johnson did not hit hard enough to hurt Dempsey early, for him he needs an attrition type of KO where Dempsey gets warn down.


I pick Dempsey via stoppage in rounds 7-10 in a 15 round scheduled match.

 

The underlined are flat out deliberate lies repeated ad nauseum on here by Klan Man.

 

The funny thing is you have no basis what so ever as I never said anything of the sort, and as I told you would not be accepted by that group.

You, however, have a very Malcolm X like attitude on such issues, and that makes me wonder.

Nothing I wrote in this thread is false Tony.