Vitali vs Dempsey

Given that Jack was allowed to stand over Willard and swat him down each time he tried to rise on those 37 year old rodeo rider legs, I would pick the majority of them to replicate that feat.

 

I thought you would've said Vitali KO1

 

Ah ah i better get running now !

 

But to actually knock him down ,in that manner ,that quickly is ,in my opinion something that would take a bit of doing .I don't see Louis doing it ,though I see Joe stopping him .Liston as well ,as bad and scary as he was ,I don't visualise him coming out and dropping Willard so fast .Just me opinion Seamus .

 

Willard was so dismissive of Jack's chances and paid for it, giving away openings like that. He was out of his league as far as athleticism. Jack made him pay for that with a beautifully timed shot. The rest was history.

Vitali fought with more focus and certainly better use of range and space. Jack would not repeat that result against him.

 

As always ,i respect the other guys view s ..each to there own as me mother used to say ..

 

As above Seamus .

 

While Vitali under-performed in resume, I like him as the easy favorite here. A highly conditioned, skilled big man. I think he proves too much for Dempsey.

I see Willard as pushing 38, overweight, out of shape, poorly trained, rusty from a long layoff, and never very skilled. Dempsey also had the advantage of being able to attack him before he was steady and set on his feet, and also from behind. Vitali will be a whole different kettle of fish. I think Dempsey eats jabs and finds Vitali moving out of range when he rushes. Willard didn't move like that.

As for a couple of other issues raised. I don't know if either Louis or Liston has Willard down as quickly, but my guess is Willard does not last three rounds with either, especially Liston.

Also there is a strange argument I see with Willard and other big guys. The argument goes that if Dempsey beat Willard he can beat other big or even bigger men. This assumes all 245 lb guys are the same. No one would claim this with a 200 lb man. If a fighter was able to beat Lou Nova or Gus Ruhlin, he will also beat Joe Louis? It obviously doesn't follow.

 

Vitali had a vicious mean streak himself and was absolutely fearless unlike his brother. He threw way too many arm punches for my liking and didnt like getting crowded.
Dempsey takes this. Decision or stoppage I'm not decided apon but he definitely takes it. Jack doesn't let Vitali set up and mount a sustained offense and theres just too many arm punches mixed in Vitalis offense to keep Jack at bay.

 

so u think vitali wins because of a rule change.

 

the actual assumption made is by people who think vitali wins purely by being bigger.

noone ever says dempsey wins JUST because he beat one tall undisputed world champ. something vitali never could do.

 

That's how I see it. How many times did Dempsey hit the old and rusty Willard who had zero defense flush? Does anyone know for sure? I don't think that version of Willard would last long vs. most heavyweight puncher's either, and Dempsey had the benefit in that fight of the no neutral corner rule, jumping on Willard the moment he rose.

Saying so and so beat a rusty big guy, old as you said and using that as an example he would also beat bigger men with better skills in their prime is a shaky foundation for debate.

 

Vitali is my pick as I think he is both bigger and better.

Same as I think a current NFL team would easily handle a 1920's NFL team. This or that NFL team of the 1920's having an out-sized guy who would not be that small in the modern NFL isn't going to make them competitive.

We should just agree to disagree as I think we look at things so very differently. This is not to knock old fighters who proved themselves the best of their era. That is all anyone can do.

As for being undisputed, Willard and Dempsey and Tunney were definitely that in their eras, but should they have been when the first thing all three did after winning the title was announce they were drawing the color line. For me, stating there were men you would not defend against regardless of their credentials makes being supposedly undisputed a rather hollow claim.

 

No, I think he wins because he is so much bigger and also better. I can't even imagine Brennan or Carpentier or even Tunney doing much of anything with Vitali. Possibly Dempsey has a punchers chance, but he wouldn't be my pick.

Not that Vitali in the context off the 21st century is all that wonderful. His resume leaves a lot to be desired.