Sonny Liston vs Jack Dempsey

Of course it was. Anytime we engage in a debate comparing the old school to the new, some old school buff always claims that these legends fought every good fighter of his era. Upon doing a bit of research however, we soon discover that it isn't necessarily true.

 

I dont know who has made that claim.

There were certainly a lot of barriers political and otherwise to fights being made back then as now though fights between the top fighters tended to be more frequent.

You got the odd guy like Sam Langford or Harry Greb who didnt know hoe to do anything but fight and built up a ridiculous resume.

 

Wow, what a terrible post.

 

Fulton was knocked down and out by a single punch from 8-6 Al Palzer in 1914, got knocked out by 0-1-0 Jack London in 1917, knocked out in 1918 by Dempsey, knocked out in 1920 by Wills, knocked out in 1 round in 1922 by Miske, knocked out by Renault in 1923 and well, after that he was done. This is six knockout losses in 8 years time. If you can find me a heavyweight contender with more knockout losses in his prime then i'd be suprised. The fact that none of those losses are graphically on film clearly benefits Fulton. If they were, he'd widely be known as a glass jawed fighter.

Also notice that nearly all of his wins come against complete nobodies or green fighters.

Hell, can you name me any heavyweight top contender in history that went out in a mere 23 seconds? The only one i can think off is Ruiz (vs Tua), and he went on to never be knocked out in a 10-year stretch.



Gibbons had beaten Greb twice, and that's it? He beat a middleweight twice so he's a deserving HEAVYWEIGHT challenger? I wonder what heavyweight today would be ranked in the top10 and be seen as deserving challengers after beating Kelly Pavlik or even Bernard Hopkins?

Miske went on to beat Carpentier and Norfolk? Dempsey had already beaten him and gave him a titleshot because the poor man was sick. Carp en Norfolk were both lightheavies. Miske lost to a middleweight several times. How is that worthy of a title shot?


Sharkey was complaining to the ref and went down from a short left hook that followed up and hoped to get a DQ win by not getting up. Bad luck for him but not exactly a convincing win by Dempsey.

Brennan was a good win and Levinsky was also a lightheavyweight.

Well i'm sure if Quarry was fighting lightheavyweights that he'd beat some names there, Foster for instance.

Someone who is out of Quarry's league doesn't lose to the likes of Bud Gorman, Johnny Risko, doesn't DRAW with a middleweight, get knocked out by a single punch from a lesser superheavy (the guys Quarry feasted on) or lose to a lightheavy in Loughran.

You can now talk all about inconsistent performer what you will, but whether this is a convenient excuse or not, it counts against him and Quarry does not have this. To be honest i have never been very impressed by Sharkey and i don't think the former mentioned losses were due to inconsistency, but rather due to being the lesser man.

I asked you a very simple question: who did Gibbons beat to get his shot. And you avoid it. Do you think he got his shot because he only lost to hall of famers? Or because he beat a bunch of nobodies? Or because he lost every time he stepped up and was a lightheavy which Dempsey often feasted on? And he went the distance!

No. I didn't expect to ever say this, but Bonavena is a lot better technically than Firpo, who doesn't have a single ****ing clue what 'boxing' means. All he can do is throw wild swings.

He used it a lot more. Johnson had no idea what a jab was. He counter punched, clinched and mauled.

As i've explained before, i don't really mind the fact itself that Dempsey avoided Jeanette, but what i do mind is that he avoided nearly anything close to a danger which included Jeanette.

Also note that you conveniently left out that Carpentier's LOSS to Jeanette was seven years earlier. And if a black guy gets the verdict over a white guy back then, you can be pretty sure that he deserved to get it. By the way, why did that magical color line disappear when Carpentier fought, but suddenly reappeared when Dempsey was confronted by Wills as the #1 challenger for 6 years?

Tieing your opponent up is an essential part of fighting a puncher. Every boxer should have this skill. In the 40's-50's, it seemed to be used a bit less than in the 60's-today.

The difference is that back then it was often both men leaping into a clinch and trying to do work there. Watch Wills vs Uczudun. On the contrary, today it's more a way of defense when up close against a smaller guy while doing work from the outside, something they (except Tunney) had no clue about.

That would be fair if Martin was the best fighter on Liston's resume and if Dempsey was 37 when he fought Sharkey.

However, neither of those are true. Dempsey was barely 30! And Sharkey was his best opponent thusfar.

Just about everyone rates Patterson higher than Sharkey. Make a poll if you will.

What, you mean 80? That's how many Boxrec lists. You can make up fights all you want, but they don't count or they would've been added to Boxrec.
We're not including amature fights of Liston either.

On top of that, about 20 of those 80 fights were 1st round knockouts against absolute bums who had never fought a fight before or after in their entire lifes. Half a minute of driving your right to someone's jaw who has no clue about boxing does not cause ring wear.

Hold on a second, this is a low blow. Frazier fought ALI as a champion. He fought Quarry, Bonavena and Ellis, all the best challengers. Dempsey fought garbage.

It was only after the Ali fight, a fight that was nothing like Dempsey's easy fights, that Frazier became less active. Even at that, he was much more active than Dempsey. Stander's record going into his titleshot wasn't spectacular, but it was comparable to Gibbons, and at least he was a heavyweight.

Yes, Tunney gave Carpentier a beating which was clear despite the sloppy film. How often do i need to repeat that Dempsey looked fine on the same film that Willard looked horrible on? Yes, the film is bad, but you can still make a lot out of it, namely that Dempsey was fast, and that Willard was horrible. As was Carpentier.

Klitschko took on both Lennox Lewis and Chris Byrd on a week's notice. Byrd replaced Ruddock, it would be hard to find a bigger stylistic difference.

And now Dempsey is crying because a washed up black man wants one more shot at the big time? He was no threat at all, as the article said "boxing got a black eye this night". I wouldn't call Dempsey a coward, but he certainly wasn't that fearless fighting machine that some people are making him out to be.

Well, unless your name is Carpentier i guess. No one had trouble with him fighting Jeanette, the black man even got the verdict! Dempsey was booed for not fighting a black opponent. How is that for a color line?

 

Levinsky was a prominent win of course, but he was considered washed-up by then. He'd been completely embarrassed by Clay Turner in the fight before Dempsey according to some reports (although Boxrec doesn't mention this). I've read before it was even a Turner victory. :huh



Brennan? It was strange that he managed to secure a title shot after a string of KO's against fighters barely known outside their local pub, except Meehan (who'd lost about 6 of his last 10) and Roper, who outpointed him. He'd fought a few big names the previous years but virtually all had beaten him. He was regarded as a KO puncher only when pitted against no-marks and the only fighter that was anywhere near rated that he starched was Joe Cox, who had a losing record anyway and seemed to take up make a full-time job of being iced around that time and, maybe, Joe Bonds, who also had the name of his sponsors on the soles of his boot. Dempsey had already hammered Bill too, of course.


Unbelievably, a third fight was mooted at the height of Dempsey's 1922 strategy, codename: Operation Gullible American Public. The New York Commission said they would not go through with it as Brennan was considered so average that they called the fight the "cheekiest proposition in boxing history".

 

With all due respect, I find it difficult to apply any research tools when engaging in debate with you.

When someone disects a fighter's record, you claim that its not valid. When one makes references to footage, you say that its unreliable. When someone posts an article of an expert's testimony, it never seems to fit the bill.

What criteria do you actually use to critique and compare fighters if all the above material is invalid in your opinion?

 

Wasn't Levinsky like 27 years old when he met Dempsey and now he was washed up? And Dempsey wasn't washed up at 31 vs Tunney despite a three year layoff? :huh yeah right

 

That's how much everybody laughs at your football knowledge in the lounge :good . Levinsky had just been embarrassed in his fight with Clay Turner, according to the New York Times, as I mentioned. Dempsey was 31 and hadn't had a hard fight in years of course, I used Levinsky as being over the hill, purely because knicker-wetters like yourself do the same for Patterson, er, I mean, Dempsey. Levinksy barely beat a decent heavyweight after 1918 and became a stepping stone for fighters on the way up. He'd had about 200 fights by the time he fought Dempsey and was 'on the slide' according to reports of the day.

 

A three year lay-off? You mean a championship reign spent ducking fighters. These are two separate entities.

 

Well, lies are usually his favourite source.



ps. Charlie Chaplin is acting his funny walk, he fails to mention that. You can find footage of him walking, and running, quite normally when he was off set.

 

You use all of the above and take each one with caution. It is all you can do.

The only way you ever really get close to the truth is by comprehensivley looking at every contemporary source and even when you have done that something can come along that will turn your world on its head.

1935 onwards just watch the film.

 

Later in life perhaps.

Were Buster Keaton and Sam Langfords cornermen also acting when they did this funny walk?

 

Well writen reply, Langford.

I never discredited Dempsey for beating Fulton easily. I'm just saying that Fulton was a rather weak contender who got KO'd left and right. Wills needed 3 rounds, big deal.

I would've wanted Dempsey to also beat Langford and Jeanette. Either of them. They were old, you could see it as a passing of the torch. I wouldn't have him walk out of the ring while being booed when Jeanette appeared. I would have him rematch Firpo to show his superiority instead of one controversial win over a fighter who doesn't know how to box. I would have make him fight Renault, Norfolk, perhaps Greb. And of course Wills. Wills beat Firpo without getting knocked out of the ring or down twice. Nothing wrong with going to a safe decision although history has shown that even if you nearly get knocked out, a slugfest launches your popularity into lunar orbits. I would have Dempsey be more active; fighting 6 times in 7 years is a joke. So is sitting on the title for 3 years. To be honest i think the period Dempsey fought in was a very weak one for heavyweights. Lightheavyweights were all over heavyweights. That should tell you enough about the lack of talent in the bigger boys division.

 

Weak contender?

He was seen as the contender by many. Perhaps including Wills.

No heavyweight from any period has disposed of a top contender so quickly or easily. Not Louis, not Liston, not Tyson.

But big deal right?