The Manassa Mauler-Jack Dempsey (July 4,1919) vs Sonny Liston (March 21,1959)who wins

Patterson actually made Liston miss a little before being caught. On the notion that Cus trained both Patterson and Tyson to somewhat resemble Dempsey stylistically, is it absurd to suggest that when making Liston miss, Dempsey would additionally be "making him miss and making him pay" with counter punches?

I do think, however, that Dempsey could be vulnerable to the short hook, which Liston threw excellently, when seeking to weave under and explode upwards with his own excellent left.

This is one of the reasons that I disagree the emphatic opinion that Dempsey "DESTROYS" Foreman ... Foreman for all of his criticism was very accurate with the uppercuts and very adept at bulling his man to set the punches up.

I mentioned the uppercut and short left hook for a specific reason ... you've explicitly and implicitly addressed this. The straight right was mentioned because if memory serves me correctly, it's a punch that Tunney caught Dempsey with on a number of occassions and a punch that Dempsey was open to in general. I wonder how much a fighter like Liston's ability to land the punch would be a factor in such a fight.

 

A few members need to calm down their extremist views as it skewers the debate from being objective.

Liston was a big boy, but Dempsey never bit off more than he could chew.

The idea that the larger object in Liston will prove a barricade that needs to be tactically approached is not so. Dempsey had the kind of dynamic attack that could blast anyone who was standing in front of him.

It would be a fire blitz in there.

 

I'll tell you this: Dempsey would connect on Liston's skull and Liston would be surprised by the force of it. Dempsey's relative smallness would make any modern HW think that he wasn't going to do much damage. I think that Dempsey's punching were the "shock and awe" type and the best of anyone under 200 pounds -ever. And that includes Roy Jones and Marciano. He punched on slings and pivots -he literally slinged (slung?) himself into those hooks and like old-school fighters would turn the fist around so that you got the back of the knuckles where there is less padding on the glove. Robinson did this with his right hooks to the body.

Potentially, yes, but prime Dempsey's head was like a bobble on a rubber band. Hard to hit and simultaneously rolling with the shot while gaining leverage to land his own.

I think that Foreman would beat Dempsey easier than Liston would. It would be a clash yes... but if an enraged grizzly clashes with an enraged wolverine, its a foregone conclusion.

The right and the short hooks would work for Liston, but Liston would be well-advised to launch these while rushing Dempsey and forcing him backwards. Liston will get nailed if he is launching anything from a stationary position.

 

Firpo killing bulls is likely written off as the era's journalistic hyperbole. His shots were hard, yes, but wild and thrown from out of position.
Ring has him at 79 and Cleveland at 49 for what that's worth. I'd be inclined to agree obviously.

---yet he was kind and thoughtful by nature! He later stated that he wasn't trying to be menacing so much as he only "knew how to fight one way." AHEM.

Okay. I'd say that Dempsey's style was highly developed for what it was. But his array of skills were not what Liston's was.

Offensively, he was. Thus you have correctly covered one aspect of Duran's repertoire... his offense. Duran is among the greatest counter punchers ever, Dempsey is not. Duran is among the great defensive technicians, ever, Dempsey was not. You are also forgetting the wide gap in competition, adaptability in the ring and in terms of style, and longevity.

 

Which begs the question: Dempsey avoided Lanford. Would he avoid Liston?

Dempsey was Dempsey. I don't think it would be wise to have him box Liston or change anything. It would indeed be intense in there, but it is quite unlikely that Liston would get blown out, or would be unable to move Dempsey backward. It would also be unlikely that Liston would not eat vicious hooks and overhands, or would tame Dempsey with that telephone pole jab. Dempsey's style was designed to get under and around the jab and zero in on the holes that appear by the extended left.

 

How about... telegraphed....

You would dispute that Dempsey, p4p all-time, was close to Duran in terms of countering and defense?

Heavyweights as a group don't rank high in terms of defense or offense... so to dispute Duran's superior defense over Dempsey by asserting that Dempsey was the "best offensive HW in terms of defense" isn't saying much.

These categories were meant for the comparison between Dempsey and Duran...

 

Stonehands, as much as i disagree on your views on Carnera, i can only agree with what you say here.

 

Pontius, you aren't easy to debate, so appreciate the support -and the respite!

 

Ray Arcel once said of Duran, "he's like a lightweight Dempsey !"

Of Dempsey, he said "the one who had the most of everything".

Dempsey had it all, and was an amazing instinctual fighter, natural ability, sheer talent, skill and know-how, like Duran.

Watching a clear film of Dempsey-Gibbons, I cant see how anyone would doubt his counter-punching, his defense, his intelligence and slickness in the ring - and many observers thought that was a sub-par (straight off a 2 year layoff!) Jack Dempsey !
Dempsey was a tremendous all-rounder, only his sheer aggression and power obscures that.

 

While Dempsey held Langford in the highest respect, and vice versa, their proposed match-up in 1916 would of done Dempsey no good. His circumstances at that time were V. poor. Certainly not good enough to legitimately sanction a fight against that calibre of opponent.

Now that's a fairer outlook on the fight.