Michael Spinks vs Jack Dempsey

He was a bit past his prime but Tunney was comfortably the best he ever fought...and the margin of victory was huge. The first fight was a fairly ignominious way for a heavyweight champ to bow out- being totally outclassed by a skilled boxer.

 

Debatable.

 

Well it got him further than Durans defence got him once his reflexees were gone.

 

Are any of these 'better than Duran' examples on film mate or did they all occur between 1917 & 1919? :hey

 

nobodys easily fooled. We just all happen to have different opinions. You may not think highly of Dempsey but some others will

Regardless just because a couple of posters claimed that his defense was better then Durans doesnt mean that it was bad, or that he wasnt good at it. He was very very good at slipping punches

 

I knew you were joking mate and predicting as to what a certain other poster was going to say.


Ps: Are you for watching any of the US Masters golf action today? I put a nice wee 33/1 bet pre-tourno on Justin Rose to win it (as mentioned on another thread). He's made a good start for sure, hopefully it'll be sustained. Who do you reckon will be in contention over the next few days?

 

They are on film alright.

 

The only person who's seen them was the 121 year old Indian in the film Little Big Man. It's on Page 477 of his memoirs. The read-by-only-one-person Utah Hobo Diaries:


"You shoulda seen Jack's KO of Chief Gordon in 1915, dat head movement made Duran look like Vito Antuofermo".

 

The point is that that type of fighter depends on reflexes and other physical variables and once they start to go it all unravels.

When Dempsey fought Tunney his foorwork was gone and he couldnt exploit openings that he previously would have. It also just so happened that he was fighting the one guy against who he needed these the most.