This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
I believe having 15 solid rounds of achievement is crucial to Dempsey's legacy. Without Gibbons, people would forever be asking questions about his endurance. Gibbons is important insofar as he was able to last the distance. This allowed Dempsey to demonstrate that he could perform at a fast pace for an extended period. (At that particular time in boxing, few could or would have taken Dempsey to the end of 15 rounds.) Marciano's finish at the conclusion of the first Charles match is critical for the same reason. !5 rounds is what separates the men from the boys.
I agree. Although this performence is often criticised it is crucial to Dempsey's legacy because- A. It proved that he could go a hard fifteen rounds. B. It proved that he could outbox and not just outpunch a master boxer.
Let's not forget that Gibbons himself was an outstanding fighter, never KO'd until the very last fight of a career spanning over 100 bouts and the proud owner of victories over such excellent fighters as Harry Greb, Kid Norfolk, Billy Miske, and Battling Levinsky. Had Dempsey *not* fought Gibbons, I have little doubt the contemporary revisionists would accuse Jack of having ducked him.
What was bad with the fight: 1) It killed Shelby, Montana as both a future fighting venue and a town. 2) Gibbons did not get paid 3) Because Gibbons was unranked and facing the 'destructive champion' it looked bad when he went the distance. In retrospect, as UpWithEvil pointed out, had Dempsey not fought Gibbons, he would have remained one of the genuinely good fighters that he never faced along with Wills and Greb. It's an ugly fight that was filmed from too far away, but Dempsey used his strength and inside fighting ability to bully the game and very talented Gibbons out of the fight. All things considered it was a good performance, just not typical electrifying Mauler stuff. Watching Dempsey fight was a big n' rare event. It's easy to understand the criticism that followed this one despite the fact it's probably his finest championship win.
The naysayers might argue that Greb also won 12 of 15 rounds in Tommy's last decison loss before Dempsey. But that was merely another payday for Gibbons. This title fight was for the whole shebang, and the late peaking 83-3-2 Gibbons was prepared for the performance of his career. Tommy would go on to get the best of Carpentier, and kayo the younger Kid Norfolk in six. Dempsey may have been the only man then in boxing who could get the better of Gibbons that day in Shelby. While Jack gets criticized for who he didn't face, he deserves tons of credit for putting the title up against a challenger his handlers wanted no part of. (Jack was also the only man to defeat Billy Miske by stoppage, and the only man to officially defeat Miske in his final 53 fights, 23 of which came after Billy's title shot.) In 1923, Dempsey outboxed Gibbons, then outslugged Firpo. Not a bad year at all.
If you were more accurate with your squirting flower you'd have graduated Magna Cum Clowny at Ringling Brothers. This content is protected "No! Wait! Give me another chance! I can do this!"
Being called "wrong" by you is like Dubya Bush calling someone dimwitted. The irony of your complete lack of self-comprehension make such claims laughable, and not in a "laughing with you" sort of way. Oh, Narcissus! See, that's what I'm talking about Clownshoes. You don't know me, you've never met me, but you're perfectly happy to claim I'm ugly. It's just like your ill-conceived boxing confabulations - no proof, just your own ignorant assertions wrapped in baloney and foisted off as some sort of informed opinion, rather than the delusional rantings they are. That's why you'll always be Perfesser Clownshoes. You're here to entertain with your clownish antics; serious debate obviously isn't in your repetoire, but you'll throw the heck out of a pie. This content is protected "Yoohoo! It's me! Revolver! But don't tell anybody!"
Dempsey Gibbons was a pretty good fight. Sure it did not have the action of the Firpo fight or the Carp fight. or even the Willard fight. but for 15 rounds, Gibbions would hold and try to tie up Dempsey's arms, and Dempsey would score with boby punchings and rabbit punchings. As Jimmy said, it was a bad fight, and it was film far away. Did they ever heard of close ups in that era lol.
you are not feeling well today, r u? Gibbons would box circles around Hagler and win an easy decision. If Hagler could not ko an overweight Duran, then he could never ko the speedy Gibbons. No way :good
So what dose the fact that Larry Holmes, not only got taken the distence by a light heavyweight but lost his title to him reveal? That Holmes was beyond overrated or that you aply double standards?