Sonny Liston vs Jack Dempsey

That's it??? How about a guy who crippled an entire ****in' division before ever getting a title shot?

[/quote]

Floyd patterson was a weak Champion?????? WWWTTTFFFFFFF are you talking about?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Besides, did you see how Liston totally anialated him? As fo Liston losing the title right away, the belt was taken from him by a man who later become the concencus greatest fighter of all time.

 

No Heavyweight ever slipped a jab better than Dempsey did. Liston's radar would be made fuzzy with the speedy, hard-over bends of Dempsey.

If Liston truly does possess a greater strength than his smaller nemesis, as his stature hypnotically suggests, than that is niftily countered by Dempsey's big advantage in speed.

This is not a question about Liston being slow, he was not, Dempsey was just a blaze.

Liston was built to cope with adversity, but Dempsey does not just present an ultimately weaker foe to catch and then lite up. Dempsey would demand respect, not just from his power, but his punch. Let Ted Spoon explain:

Dempsey was a scientist at the punching game and consequently his delivery was tremendous.

For all of Cleveland Williams clubs of fury, they paled in comparison to Dempsey's alternating range of hooks and uppercuts, which dented and punctured your ring faculties. Quick, arched, completely turned over punches with sudden body projection - that was Dempsey, and only Dempsey. These were punches you did not shake off.

Speed of hands and feet are his, manoeuvrability is a key factor for getting off first, and underlining this is the degree to which Liston is vulnerable to the Mauler as he is to him; that being the same.

As is same with the speed, Liston was not a bully with no resolve, but Dempsey is another kettle of fish again, not simply in toughness, but his reaction to adversity. If Liston opens up well and takes the drivers seat he will have to face the other versions of Dempsey who can be ugly, dirty and plain viscous.

Knock Dempsey down, but then another fighter gets up.

What's wrong with this picture is fans fail to recognize Dempsey's tools as equal, and the nature of a fight that these styles would spawn the 'fighters fight', which is Dempsey's fight.

Bring Liston the monster, Dempsey will take him to a hell he's not accustomed to.

KO for the Mauler in the mid rounds after a rough ride.

 

very true. Patterson does not get enough credit for this, to consider Patterson you must consider both champ and post championship years. Nice to see you again Q.

Patterson was coddle managed and overprotected.

Why do people assume that the fighter studied is the fighter that makes all of the rules? As though the fighter managed himself. As though the fighter promoted himself. This is particuarily true of Dempsey as well.

 

Dempsey has five different names.

Fred Fulton
Billy Miske
Tommy Gibbons
Bill Brennan
Jack Sharkey

 

I think that Miske and Gibbons were on a par with Machen and better than LaStraza.

 

Pattersons resume improved dramatically after he lost the title ,he fought opponents of all shapes ,sizes ,and styles,Damato might have been over cautious with Floyd ,but Floyd himself took on some very good contenders,up to and including his mid 30s ,when he was obviously some what in decline,,a fine champion with a fine legacy ,imo,he didnt beat Liston or Ali,not many did!

 

I agree. And both of them never got tagged the way that Machen sometimes did.

 

Indeed, Fraziers dominance is much more impressive than Dempsey's. In fact, i don't think Dempsey was dominant at all. He refused to fight an aging Langford and an aging Jeanette. Frazier would've mopped the floor with them at that point, he fought Bonavena in his 12th pro fight. He fought and beat the best contenders around, rematched Bonavena to 'avenge' a close win and beat the consensus #1 or #2 of all time!
How does that compare to Dempsey beating the likes of Fulton but avoiding others?

Like the avatar, by the way. A fine piece.

There is plenty of substance. Not really many people are impressed here by the guys Dempsey beat. The best names on his resume are Sharkey and Tunney. One of them he beat controversially while down on the cards, the other give him a thorough boxing lesson, twice.

What is the evidence for this, though ? The boxers from the early 20's/late 1910's do not impress me at all in the jab departement. They were not all that developed in that area. Watch any of Johnsons opponents. Watch Willard. When faced with skilled boxers in Sharkey and Tunney, he was losing rounds like a gambling addict loses cash. Particularly Tunney (a lightheavyweight, let's not forget that) had no trouble at all nailing him with it. No to suprising either, with the way he protects his thighs with his gloves. Yes, he was past his best against them, but fact remains he never proved to be efficient against a good jabber.
Tyson, Marciano and Frazier ALL have shown on film to be very effective against good jabbers that were out of Dempsey's beaten opponents' league, Dempsey hasn't.

That was not my statement so i don't really know why that is your respone to the points i made.

 

I guess Alis luck finaly ran out when he steped up in competition against Leon Spinks.

Dempseys luck ran out when the quality of film was good enough to do justice to his opponents.