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

[thanks JT!]

---now we meet in agreement.

Which wasn't the point of my assertion. Dempsey was beautifully evasive in his aggression. In terms of systematic, technical know-how, Liston was better-schooled. I see Dempsey as relying more on speed/reflexes and flexibility.

In 1919, I'd say it was better. I am very impressed by his unique style in the sparring matches with Tate.

Dempsey really squandered his greatness in my opinion. The infrequency of his title defenses, his nouveu-rich lifestyle --you can see him losing a step between Willard and Gibbons and really deteriorating by the time Tunney got him.

...By the way, Janitor, Jack Burke put him down twice in sparring before the Gibbons fight.... a left hook and a right cross. Would you like to change your mind about the chin question between he and Liston?

 

In defence of Firpo, Ted Spoon does not believe anyone is in the position to criticize this and that about his career.

Luis rubbed shoulders with a lot of classy operators in his career and was taken under the wing by one of the best old-school trainers in Jimmy DeForest for his fight with the Mauler who, ironically, whipped Dempsey into impeccable knick during his rise.

Jimmy did not train guys who were not worth his time.

Janitor is not far off when describing Luis as 'cute', he was not slick but did have a handful of shoulder jigs and possum tactics that were taught in South American boxing.

It probably dawned on Firpo that his only way to defeat Dempsey was in a good ol' slugfest, but in the small snippets we have of him chipping away at Willard we see a bit more of conventional boxing that many like to believe Firpo did not possess one ounce of.

 

This whole site is built around our perceived right to criticize this & that and everything else about this or that guy's career! I shall indulge and invite you to as well. Criticism doesn't mean disrespect. I respect any man with stugatz enough to get in the ring.

That being said, I don't see much in most heavyweights of the 20s (Dempsey is a notable exception. I love his style in the early films). I accept arguments that defend them for what they were in their time, but I don't think it is fair (to them) to compare them to later heavyweights with more evolved styles. Firpo is simply not impressive to me.

[yt]-8AoGlaoheU[/yt]

"Cute" would be the last word I'd use to describe Firpo. Firpo was clearly more comfortable clinching and throwing wide looping shots and uppercuts with a raised chin and a telegraph. He also was, as this film demonstrates, a lover of rabbit punches.

 

... Good to see you back, Spoon.

 

Perhaps cute is not the best word.

He was sneaky. He set little traps which is not a characteristic you would expect from a fighter with his style.

 

Firpo was a rough fighter to watch, but he could and does in that very film execute some quite observant moves.

Now the efficiency of them is another question and they are not slick, but Luis did apply some sneaky little punches like uppercuts just before falling into the clinch and liked to experiment in the ring.

Ted Spoon concedes that 'cute' would not be the best word to some up Firpo, but he was a 'sly slugger', if you will.

 

Fair enough, detective!

 

Okay.

 

I will.

I do like the way that he throws punches as if his life depended on it. It was really "do or die" for him and Dempsey which explains the everlasting popularity of their bout.

This picture is located in maybe a quarter of bars and pubs across the American northeast:

This content is protected

 

Indeed, Dempsey's style is one of great use of leverage, momentum and body weight and at the same time being defensive on the offensive. One could very well liken him to Duran in this regards, although I'd venture to say that Duran was more refined, more sophisticated in his use of defensive techniques whilst on the attack. That said, Dempsey literally slingshotting his whole being into each destructive blow is one reason why I'd hesitate to use the Liston v Williams bouts to prove the might of Sonny's chin. With the old school turning of the fist and the momentum used to strike, Dempsey's power doesn't penetrate flesh and bone like the blows of a slower, less pinpoint attacking Williams. Consider Mike Tyson and George Foreman for power and quality of their punches ... would it be fair to say that Dempsey's hooks could have an entirely different impact on Liston that the punches offered by Williams?

And that, my friend, is why Dempsey must be rated at the pinnacle of HWs for headmovement ... certainly higher than Frazier and Marciano. However, coming forward against a brute like Foreman or even a Lennox, both of whom possessed vicious uppercuts ... regardless of the excellent headmovement, I can only see one outcome ... caught flush by a right uppercut, followed by a clean left hook.

I agree on the assessment. Staring across the ring, Foreman may have appeared more daunting a task and the power and strength, as well as the pushing back of the shoulders and huge uppercut would all add up to dangerous obstacles for Dempsey. Foreman was also better at cutting off the ring than Liston so if Dempsey decided to box up on his toes and circle, which he was capable of, Foreman is more likely to impose himself than follow like a Liston could be prone to doing.

Enraged grizzly clashing with an enraged wolverine ... a most fitting image - kudos!

I think that once Liston has forced him backwards, he simply has to overwhelm him. I don't see Dempsey taking a 10 count without grave damage being handed out, nor do I see the ref intervening to stop the bout whilst Dempsey still had the energy to scowl. I actually think that Liston could be at his most vulnerable when he has Dempsey hurt ... a wounded animal lashes out at speed and ferociously and a hurt Dempsey that is allowed an opportunity is a very dangerous Dempsey ...

Money on the table, who're you betting the house on, Stonehands?

 

While that's certainly not a BAD prediction, I think Snorlax has it correct with Liston KTFO Dempsey in 30 seconds.

Let's give him an award for best prediction of the year.

 

Meta,

I'm taking Liston.

I believe that Liston would trust his chin and his brute strength and fight aggressively against the much lighter Dempsey like he did Floyd. He'd come in behind the jab, get close and hook to the bent body, or seeing that low left, he'd club him with that chopping right. Although Dempsey was far faster, I think that Liston could get explosive when he saw an opportunity and his shots were straighter and shorter; that would compensate a bit for the speed differential.

The Liston jab would be a distraction, but it wouldn't land much.

In a test of strength, it's no contest, and so I see Dempsey being forced backward. Therein lies the key to his defeat, as we agree.

But the Manassa Mauler would be slashing away like mad the whole time and he was probably more dangerous when hurt (see Firpo) or when he felt a sense of desperation. To wit., before fighting Willard, Dempsey couldn't help but be haunted by the thought of Willard going all those grueling rounds with Johnson in the hot Havana sun to outlast and dethrone the great champion. He decided that he is not even going to try to outlast him, he's gonna blitz him. And the damage he did to Willard's face is infamous. Lon Chaney couldn't have done it justice in one of his silent horror movies.

Liston would cover up and block most of these, but he's gonna get caught and I wouldn't be surprised if he's a bloody mess. But I'll say that 1959 Liston stops that "do or die" 1919 Dempsey.

I'd bet my [neighbor's] house on that, my friend.

 

Some solid arguments presented on both sides although I would favour Liston due to his style both sides make good points.