Was Jack Dempsey a harder puncher than Evander Holyfield

Because a doughy semi-retired, part-time boxer/full-time hayseed hasn't captured the title again allowing for someone to attempt it.

 

Because Jess Willard is what surfaced for world level back then. The last time a genuine lineal HW champion was that poor was well... I don't even know. If Spinks beat him I wouldn't bat an eyelid. I'd wager Braddock and Briggs beat him. Hart is probably the only one worse.

And Joe Louis shredded Buddy Baer in 1. So it has happened since. Likewise Wilder iced Breazeale in 1. So it's happened twice. And that was in a 3 second thought process.

 

You are basing a lot on what you think might happen, as opposed to what actually did.

Whether you like to admit it or not, Willard's size, power, durability, and endurance, would have made him a difficult man to beat in any era.

OK, but let's assume that he really was as bad as you say.

There have been plenty of other weak champions through history, and plenty of weak eras.

If an accomplishment is easy to replicate, then it gets replicated.

Joe Louis was significantly bigger than Jack Dempsey, and Buddy Baer never stood as high in the division as Willard did.

As for Breazle, he wasn't even ranked in the top ten when Wilder beat him.

 

This post doesn't contain a single coherent argument.

 

Well let's have a look what did happen, and try and figure out why Willard was so good.

He loses to Rodon, Smith and McMahon, despite outweighing them by almost or more than 50lbs.

Hiss two, other, best wins are NWS over Moran and Morris who are two incredibly inconsistent fighters. Prime Willard wasn't some 250lbs hulk, he was a 235 guy who was a tub of fat for Dempsey. And this is a guy who's KO percentage is overblown due to Boxrec not counting NWS and who's best KO win is a 37 year old Johnson who was schooling him.

He also quit. Twice.

He wasn't even a difficult man to beat in his own era.

If a circumstance never comes around for said accomplishment to be replicated, it will be. Although I doubt it will, since that will involve someone like Willard becoming HW champ again.

 

These were early in his career, and you might want to look at what happened in those fights.

Do you think that any other fighter could have beaten that version of Johnson.

I think that most people would have disagreed with you when he held the title.

He would have been favorite over any potential challenger.

It won't be replicated because they would not allow Dempsey to fight Willard today, and that would be for Dempsey's sake not Willard's.

The fact remains however that in 100 years of gloved boxing, no fighter has overcome such a size disparity, in such a dominant manner at world level.

It is no use trying to pretend that Willard was some sort of uniquely bad champion, because it simply isn't true.

He was one of the weaker lineal champions, with obvious strengths and weaknesses, and that is the worst that can be said about him.

The fact is that it is not easy to destroy a world class fighter the size of Willard.

Even Mike Tyson couldn't do it.

The remarkable thing is not so much that Dempsey stopped men like Willard and Fulton, but they were seemingly unable to manage any sort of effective resistance!

 

It really doesn't matter what anyone tells you. We're more likely to crack an egg by staring at it than you ever changing your opinions.

 

Then let me spell it out for you....

Perhaps no one has achieved Dempsey's emphatic and size disparate title claimance because not since 1919 has there been such a woeful, ill-practiced and disinterested champion to be emphatically unloaded of his title..

Is that better?

 

"gone very quickly" isn't 2 rounds after dropping your opponent 6 times. "gone very quickly" is finishing someone SOON (as in the same round) after you have your man hurt. It DAMN SURE is not only letting your opponent survive but the round but also allowing your opponent to get back in the fight, in your own admission.

 

You are more than splitting hairs to criticism Dempsey, for failing to put Willard away in the first round.

Look at some of the sustained shellackings people took from Holyfield over the course of a fight, and were still there at the end of it.

Now to give some perspective, how many times has a ranked heavyweight been stopped inside three rounds in the last decade?

How many times did Holyfield do this in this entire career?

 

Not really.

All that you seem to do is throw insults at Willard, that are not constrained by any data from the real world, and hope that it will lead people to conclude that he was no good.

You must forgive me if I am not very impressed by this as a line of argument!

 

I'm not criticizing Dempsey at all. I agree with your other points on this thread which are true. I'd even agree Dempsey hits harder than Holyfield (tbh I don't even see a debate). But I simply disagree with your statement that Dempsey finished a man soon after he hurt them. Film simply doesn't support. I will agree though that it's nitpicking and not of to much significance, and am willing to drop it.

 

I'm not sure, it's hard to compare eras more than 80 years apart. What I do know is that if a guy isn't an early round knockout artist in his own era despite having access to the best trainers, resources, and supplements while working his ass off and landing a barrage of punches, he wouldn't suddenly become a vicious knockout artist in another era (even if that era was supposedly inferior).

For instance, a guy like Pernell Whitaker would not suddenly look like Mike Tyson if he fought in a weak era. He KO% might go up a bit, but assuming he has the same parents and fighting style he isn't going to suddenly become a devastating hitter with highlight reel KO's.

Holyfield could be very aggressive and throw 4, 5, 6+ punch combinations and yet some opponents would be drunk, staggering and still on their feet yet not so much as taking knee let alone being knocked out. His power is underrated and people like to point out him dropping Mercer, Bowe, Tyson, etc (which is a hell of a feat mind you) but all 3 of those guys got back to their feet. Aside from an unmotivated obese Buster Douglas and Michael Moore, what world class heavyweights did Holyfield actually KO? Plenty of guys went the distance with him. I'd rate his raw power as 7/10 at best. Technique, stamina, work rate, and chin were his best attributes.

Having said that, I wouldn't rate Dempsey too much higher. Maybe an 8/10. The difference was Holyfield was a boxer first and a slugger second whereas Dempsey was trying to tear your head off from the opening bell. Dempsey has faster hands, better head movement, and was a better finisher than Holyfield. Styles has a lot to do with it.

I could see Holyfield stopping Willard but it might take longer even without a neutral corner rule. Not necessarily because Dempsey hits so much harder, but because Holyfield doesn't fight at such a vicious break neck pace from round 1.

 

I guess Buster Douglas, who was so disinterested in the title that he ate $100 worth of room service in one sitting prior to fighting Holyfield, doesn't count for you. Furthermore he cared so little about his career that he went on to balloon up to 400 lbs and was in a diabetic coma for a period of time. This is literally exactly what you are claiming never happened again yet Holyfield wasn't able to devastatingly defeat him in a Dempsey-like fashion.

 

I'm throwing insults.... or am I repeating the contemporary assessments of Jess who was universally known by his own family and the press as "Lazy Big Jess", a guy who is on record as preferring the rodeo to the training for boxing, who is on record as retiring multiple times before Toledo.... whose training for Moran was described as "listless", who no less than Tex Rickard considered retired after the Moran fight because he perceived that Willard had no interest in the fight game now that his pockets were filled with $40K.