Why was Dempsey so vulnerable to being hit with a right hand?

It's a huge technical flaw of his..It's a big reason why I hesitate to pick him over certain heavyweight greats. He would have a lot of issues with right handed sharpshooters as well. He carried that low left constantly, and never seemed to be able to get out of the way of right hands.

 

I'll tell you why S. Because to demean his ability you suggest Dempsey
was more "vulnerable" to a right hand than any other heavyweight...Gene Tunney who I seem to feel knows more about Dempsey than you or I said
Dempsey was almost" impossible to hit clean on the jaw" because Dempsey had his shoulders high protecting his chin..The shot that Tunney landed on Dempsey ,flooring Jack ,who immediately arose was on
Dempseys cheek bone...I could if I was trying to belittle any boxer I disliked, could ask the same question about every boxer,who was hit by a right hand to the whiskers...Dempsey it may ache you to learn had the reputation of having a great chin who if hurt, could recuperate faster than most anyone...Nat Fleischer tells a story of he and some writers travelingb to Buffalo to see young Dempsey fight a great right hand puncher Gunboat Smith..They wondered how dempsey would withstand being hit by
Smith's right hand that knocked Jack johnson clear out of the ring whilke training...In the first round Smith hit Dempsey flush on the jaw, and
NOTHING happened...Dempsey shook it off and in the 2nd round flattened Gunboat Smith...Dempsey was as tough and rugged as any fighter ever.

 

do you also have a tough time ranking joe louis highly in h2h matchups because he was vulnerable to the left hook?

 

Larry Holmes did pretty well considering he could be tagged by the right.

 

Good point - and Jack Dempsey didn't do too bad either and Muhammad Ali didn't pretty well when he was a sucker for a left hook and Joe Louis didn't pretty well as he was a sucker for a counter right hand and Tyson did alright for someone who could be nailed by uppercuts

 

Larry Holmes fought an entirely different style, stand-up and behind the jab. Dempsey came forward in a pretty shoddy bob and weave and that low left was a glaring hole that even hack fighters were able to exploit. But a good set of whiskers comes in handy, as Dempsey showed.

 

ANNNDD. one of the 4 fastest Heavyweight Champions ever. I have countless interviews in books and mags and from tv where people say he was the fastest heavy they had seen up to Ali. Dempsey was picked by sportswriters who had seen them all, as the greatest fighter of the first half of the 20th century back in 1950. These people are young and have an ax to grind. One thread said that Hayes was faster than Dempsey, hit harder, so ....assinine. time to let the Dempsey haters alone and just chalk it up to ignorance. As I said, they love weightlifter bodybeautiful fighters, even though throughout history it has been shown that big muscles do NOT equal power or ability to take a punch. quite the oppisite in fact. ALL the old time trainors told you that. Burt, can you imagine a feral Dempsey weaving under Klits (either) jab, and coming up for a demo job? Boy, I can. But apparently, the paperboy who started fighting last week would kick his ass. All the stuff written about Dempsey for 100 YEARS is a myth by people who knew nothing of boxing. people like Arcel, Runyon, Brimstein, Pian, Smith, Cannon, Langford, Greb, Walker, etc. Naive suckers all for a conspiracy to fool the public into think this bum could fight.

 

what a load of old shite.

so if you pick Wlad (who outweighs Dempsey by what, 60 pounds?) to beat Jack you must have an axe to grind?

If you think film shows Haye as a quicker puncher you must be a Dempsey hater?

What a load of emotional shite you're spouting there.

 

Luf, is it possible that Stone and I might, yes MIGHT be right ? I for examle believe that a Dempsey, a Louis, a Tyson, a Frazier would get under Klitchko's robotic style and rip K apart...After all I've seen luf, I and multitudes of sportswriters, trainers and oldtime boxers have just as much knowledge as you and others on ESB who think that weight means great...
Wrong, wrong, wrong...Ali, as much as I disliked his antics, was not robotic
and devoid of weight lifting muscles ,and would have outsped and outmanouvered the K brothers...And to add fuel to the fire i believe a Buddy Baer would have sailed into K and outfought him...And look what my man little ole Joe Louis did to big Buddy...
P.S. one more thing luf, I DON'T HAVE an AXE to grind. I use a saw !

 

Buddy Baer wouldn't qualify as a sparring partner for Tye Fields.

 

Burt and Sone know boxing. Those that think Dempsey was anything less than an all time great are trying to rewrite history. Arcel saw them all and he rated Dempsey right there with Ali and Louis. The K brothers can't fight a lick...slow and robotic as they come.

 

Sir, what do you know of buddy Baer except he was kod by a prime Louis after knocking Louis through the ropes ? Tell me without platitudes and
preordained bias.?
Buddy Baer at 6ft7" won 51 bouts koing 47 opponents as Tony Galento, Natie Mann, Abe Simon, beat a prime Lee Savold, Baer was a good fighter with terrific power much like a Gerry Cooney and was beating guys better than Klitschko's opponents...Buddy Baer was a dangerous opponent much like a later Jerry Cooney, overshadowed by his famous brother Maxie, and the immortal Joe Louis...Buddy did not box as well as K of course, but
didn't fear sailing into an opponent, and he did score 47 kos in 51 wins...
so to call Buddy Baer like a Ty Field shows me that you don't know Buddy Baer as well as the men who fought him...

 

" OH YE of little FAITH " !atsch

 

I don't remember Holmes ever getting hit with like 5 telegraphed right hands in a row the way Dempsey was against Firpo.

 

How about the 40 he avoided? Watch that fight closely.....Dempsey shows skills you won't ever see from any living hwt.