Burt, still does not answer where on film does Dempsey show the defense and diversity of a Duran or a Paq .. ? eight fight to choose from .. where ?
The Klitschko loss came when Mercer was 41. The Lewis and Holyfield fights were both extremely close. AS far as Holmes, no one is saying Mercer could not be outboxed, however I sincerely doubt Dempsey could do it as he never did it to anyone. Dempsey slugged. Against a much stronger guy with a far better chin and equal power I don't see it lasting. In addition, when Dempsey got hit he only slugged more , not a good strategy ..
HE - Dempsey may have been 160 when he turned pro but was likely semi-starved and under-nourished. He was also a lot younger & therefore less physically developed & mature than the 200lb 27 year-old Mercer who won the Olympics.
I was answering Seamus post about Mercer's being 215-225 "in shape", natural. I don't know how much Dempsey weighed turning pro, but I do know that Mercer was 200 pounds at 27 years old. So I suppose it's reasonable for someone to question whether he was 220 in shape and/or natural steroid-free.
this, mercer is being overrated too much. i had a guy argue with me that you could take Tyson out and replace him with Ray Mercer and Mercer would do just as well.
Dempsey shows traces of a smaller later Duran in his viciousness, his take no prisoners approach, his snarl. You cannot expect a heavyweight to do the things a lightweight does. Weight and gravity does NOT ALLOW THIS. Do you think that if Roberto Duran gained 50 pounds he would be as fast, as agile, or half the fighter he was as a lightweight ? Hell know. If Jack Dempsey was as BAD as you paint him, than my dad and thousands of boxing people of his times were either less competent in evaluating talent than doubters as you are. For a heavyweight sleek and strong as Dempsey was with all his "so called faults", he was a ***** to be in a ring with at his prime. I will say this one more time. A Sam Langford, Mickey Walker, Jack Sharkey, Max Schmeling, Nat Fleischer, Ray Arcel, and dozens of others with great boxing experience, called Dempsey the greatest offensive heavyweight they had seen, who am I to argue with them...
The steroid question is open for debate with every fighter past a specific period in time .. that wing said, Mercer and Dempsey may have been the same height and had the same reach but Mercer was a much thicker man thru the torso and legs naturally .. he also fought bigger punchers and showed the far better chin ..
Burt .. the same can be said for Jimmy Braddock .. skill to avoid getting his head knocked off is what I'm referring to .. as far as who said what, his former trainer said they never put him in with boxers because he had no idea how to cut off a ring and that Louis would have KO'ed him in four rounds so everyone has an opinion ..
I always compared the 2 before Tyson...Dempsey was a big Duran maybe not as fluid but hands of stone and as mean as they come. A lot of guys don't appreciate the era or can even imagine how much better Dempsey was than his predecessors but you have a few of them on here that are clueless and biased towards him. Dempsey had a lot of strengths but we hear a lot about his weaknesses and you can do that with any fighter. No worries Burt it is the state of the young world today.
This would be one hellacious fight...either man could win. Mercer had tremendous chin and heart, I don't see Dempsey stopping him. Dempsey isn't given credit for alot of things he does. True he would sometimes lose his head in a fight, going for the kill...but he really was a ring scientist in using his body weight in his punches. The films of a young Dempsey show that he had very good footwork in closing distance on angles. The film of the Firpo fight shows some very high impact weight shifting "dropping energy" into his punches by dipping his legs when he punches. Mercer appears to me the tougher, stronger fighter...Dempsey more explosive...Overall Dempsey does not get the credit..IMO. Fighters like Dempsey, Fitz and Jack Johnson might have looked different than their counterparts in the modern game...but who's to say some of their tactics wouldn't work? The object is to still knock the **** out of someone...and weight shifting does that in spades.
Peak vs peak I'd go with Mercer. Average form vs average form I'd take Dempsey. I'm not big on Dempsey, I'll admit. He caught the imagination of the public like none other, but with hindsight I don't think he's a top twenty H2H heavyweight. All credit to Tunney, but a legendary seek-end-destroy heavyweight champ should not lose to a former middleweight with negligeable power at heavyweight, inactivity be damned.
Was that the best version of Mercer? Or was the 225 version who beat Morrison and went toe to toe with Holyfield the best? Or was the 238 version who severely tested Lewis and beat Witherspoon the best? Based on performances against elite talent, please tell me how the guy who beat Baik Hyun-man was better battle tested than the above versions of Mercer. I am waiting for this edification.
