Where do you rate Jack Dempsey and why?

Fighters are viewed as hype jobs for far lesser reasons in this internet age. I think you're misunderstanding my point.

And Vitali is living off "what if" hype. Similar to Dempsey actually.

 

ok

 

PP uses one fighter,willard,to illustrate that nowadays there are guys this size but with skills. While ignoring his own ranting and rating about wills who was also this size but allegedly with skills.
Make up your mind punchy.

 

Your point is of an arrogant ***** who is just trying to appease his Classic Forum chums/fans and hang on to 'credibilty by defending a point you've misunderstood just because the fighter fought in black and white.

A champion who would win a title from a similar standard of champion to Willard, then avoid the most dangerous challenger until being shown up by the first world class opponent they face would be labelled a 'hype job' in today's world, rightly or wrongly. Look at the treatment of a fighter like Jermaine Taylor for **** sake. He's a hype job to many.

 

Good post. I assume Wlad is Fulton, but who's Peter?

 

So now you are comparing Jack Dempsey to Jermain Taylor?

When you say "first world class oponent the face" you seem to mean "first oponent that I have heard of".

 

SMH, your point has no context whatsoever. Dempsey blasted his way though the HW division into title contention in a single year with a string of 1RKO's and early knockouts. He knocked out the LHW champ in 3 rounds, a guy who had never lost by KO in 287 pro fights. He then went on to destroy a champion in willard the way he did. The guy was faded and inactive but the point was made.

Tunney was NOT the first world class opponent he faced, that is simply wrong and anyone who knows the era will correct you on that point. Losing the title to one of the greatest fighters of all time in Gene Tunney in your 30's(considered old back then for an active boxer) does not make you a hype job. There is no comparison between Jack Dempsey and Jermain Taylor. If you want to criticise Dempsey, do it based on his skillset available for viewing in footage or for his color line drawing with Wills (whom he would have met if it wasn't for Kearns). You're just spitting nonsense.

 

Dempsey wasnt fighting men the level of those fighters, at best he was fighting a midget version of Valuev and a white version of Ronnie Coleman :hey While ducking the Klitschko brothers because they are dirty eastern europeans who an American shouldnt reduce his dignity by fighting and Haye because hes a bit too quick and fighting Haye left overs like Mormeck and ancient Ruiz makes far more sense

 

Peter is Morris.

Perhaps a bit unfair, but he has nobody to blame but himself.

 

Answer the full post or hop off the plate bud

Enquirer wants to ignore Wills because there is no film, but quote him as part of a 'golden era', make your mind up inquisitive one. To me Wills is a mystery, I really don't know how great or average he was

 

You're either ignoring or just not understanding my point. If a fighter had a record of relative standard to Jack's today, he'd be judged as a hype job. "Exposed" when he "stepped up", "protected". Those kind of things said. Look at the already Bradley is said to have been "exposed". There's an example of the judgemental critics birthed by the internet. Every fighter is one fight away from being a 'hype job'.

 

That would be wrong, Taylor at least beat an ATG fighter :hey

 

It seems a bit shifty, what's the story behind it?

Isn't Brennan a better win?