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

I think it was Wills-Firpo.

 

Question - who had the best jab Dempsey ever faced (aside from Tunney, obviously)?

I just thought about this, alot of people are taking it into consideration that Liston's jab is a nonfactor, but is there any real empirical evidence to make us think this way?

 

Liston has all the advantages minus speed and stamina BUT Liston had very underated speed and more compact punches than Dempsey. Listons speed and compact accurate punches was a reason he could KO his man so fast.

Listons reach will be a massive factor in this match up. As will his compact punches and with his massive reach finds it very easy to land jabs and right hands. When he lands Dempsey backs up and Liston moves in with combinations to the body and head

If Dempsey looks to rush Liston as he often tried to rush he would get chopped down by massive counter shots because Dempsey was far too open in many of his attacks and that was why a club fighter like Firpo could knock him down. Liston would finnish him off under similar circumstances

Dempsey would look to move in and slip and counter, which would make it an interesting contest but Liston would be much harder to counter and would counter himself when Dempsey throws.

People read far too much about Dempsey from his KO wins over strongmen with NO DEFENSE. Dempsey simply could not fight that way against fighters with boxing skill. As shown against the better light heavyweights of his time

Liston by KO 5 with far too much of an arsenal, reach, jab for Dempsey to cope with. Although I would not be suprised if Liston took him out much earlier because of the styles.

 

If Liston QUIT while sitting down against the light hitting Ali in 1964.....take Dempsey in this one!!!

 

Has your neighbour forgiven you for the time you bet his house on Mike Tyson beating James Douglas?

 

Based on that logic Liston would also quit against: Patterson, Williams, Folley, Valdez

 

Guess what -I kept an open mind with that one because Douglas was inspired as hell and Tyson was not and Douglas had the tools that were demonstrably more problematic for Mike -size, long jab, skill.

After round 1 ended, I kicked myself and then made calls to place bets on Douglas -and had no takers.

If you are good and get to heaven when you die and God forgive my legions of sins when I throw a 7, we'll make bets with each other. To begin with, no WW from before 1920 will beat Robinson, Leonard, Gavilan, or Hearns over 15. Holyfield will defeat Fitzsimmons with relative ease over 15. Anything else?

 

I might pick David Haye of a year ago to beat Greb, but only because I think today's Haye is too weight-drained to get under 200lbs. Which Greb are we talking about?

Heavyweight near-prime Evander Holyfield manhandles, roughhouses, and stops his younger self. I'd need time to fully consider it, but I think that heavyweight Holyfield could beat Jeffries, even under his rules.

I'd pick Riddick Bowe, George Foreman, and Lennox Lewis to beat Jeffries, too. Those are the only three that stand out in particular to me.

 

I'm with you! Floyd is one modern fighter who I do not believe would do well against the rough and devil-may-care bruisers of the distant past over 12 or 15. Guys today are passive compared to those starving tazmanians like Nelson.

Possibly.

Over 15? I would disagree, unless you had a referee as blind as he was. I'm not sure if he would have even beaten Tunney that one time if the ref was doing his job.

Nah --not the one in the Dokes fight.