Who has the better resume?

I'm taking a nice soak in the bath now but it interests me what you think about these three Dempsey myths:



1. The gloves were more loaded in the Willard fight than Stan Laurel's were in Any Old Port?


2. Jack took a dive vs 'The Towering Inferno' Jim Flynn?



3. Jack was involved in a sordid gay love triangle with Rudolph Valentino and Fatty Arbuckle?


:huh :good






Ok, one of 'em is made up.

 

Am I to presume these 2 unconnected fighters have been lumped together on the basis of their percieved poor opposition?

 

I dunno dude, I wasn't there. I do think that you should be more worried about the potential health risks of sticking your ass in a bucket of water and then washing your face in it

 

##]

Isn't he undisputed super Middleweight champion?

What's a 'proper weight division'.

I'm sorry your mother dumped you at the orphanage but they should offer a better education than what they've given you.

 

lol Nothing wrong with my education. Thanks for caring though

 

Why'd you have to make up some story about loaded gloves? :yep

Seeing you username, i can understand that you admire him and keep bringing up that he knocked out someone twice his size.


Knocking out someone who outweighs you by 50lbs is a nice little fact, but there are other facts about that fight that you won't hear about. For instance, that Willard was 37 years old in a time when nearly no boxer even past 32 was any good. Willard was 15 lbs overweight. Willard had barely fought in a full three years time (something Dempsey would later do as well, what a horrible time for boxing that was). Willard was not a natural fighter, but was part of all big white lummoxes, unnatural fighters who were picked in a desperate attempt to take Jack Johnson's title away. He started boxing in his 30's and it showed: you'd be hard pressed to find a linear champ who is less skilled than him.

This is a GREAT point and i'm glad you understand! If there was tv, Internet, Boxrec, ESB and his fights were widely available, then people could make their own judgements, see how horrible Willard was, how overmatched some of his title opposition was, how horrible Firpo was despite nearly winning and not receiving a title fight, etc etc.

Yet in reality, people had to rely on stories, and we all know how mouth-to-mouth spreading stories go in general. The first person claims to have been attacked by a Teckel-sized dog and fend it off, five persons later he was attacked by a ruthless, full of bloodlust Rottweiler but managed to decapitate it with his key chain. 99% of the people you speak of, that thought Dempsey was great, had never even seen him nor his opponents fight!


Dempsey's manager was smart. He knew he could make a shitload of money while taking on easy fights with very slow regularity, once a year at max and no rematches. It's great that Carpentier was the first million gate, but that's a compliment to management and promotion, not to a great fight. The fight was a mismatch and Carpentier was a lightheavy who managed to shake up Dempsey in the 3rd if i'm not mistaken.

Dempsey's title reign layed the blueprint for a Foreman-like managed career. Although Foreman, during his first career, defended his title against the top heads out there (Norton, Ali) where Dempsey ducked the best challenger for years and got dominated when facing a good opponent. In that sense, Dempsey' reign is more comparable to Foreman's second reign.

 

Dempsey did not duck Wills and he was bested by tunney when past his best

 

the gloves were not loaded. I cannot say with 100 percent sureness on the second one but then anyone no one can

 

Willard was one of the worst champs and yes people know that. No one, not even old timers hailed Willard as an all time great. Willard was not the best in the world when Dempsey beat him. Willard had been balantly ducking Fred Fulton for some time who was better. So were Miske and Brennan. So what if Dempsey fought Willard? Did other all time greats not fight worse fighters then Willard or what? What about Ali fighting Wepner or Louis fighting Roper (and yes i know Ali and Louis were better champions then Dempsey but that is not the point, the point is that other all time greats fought worse fighters then Willard in title fights and took longer to dispose of them.) Therefore Dempsey stopping Willard in three rounds is not as embarassing as the Wepner or Roper defenses.

 

appearently to some people Dempsey is the only one who fought a weak fighter in a title defense, not others.