Wlad v Dempsey

A 6'0 200lb fighter with brittle hands and below average power? I can't see it. How exactly is he going to beat Wlad? By outboxing him? I don't think Sharkey would even win a round against Wladimir, nor do I see him lasting long with Wladimir's punching power.

 

McGrain,

Calling Fulton, 1919 version of Willard, Firpo "World Class" is a bit extreme. These guys had little to no boxing skills/defense compared to the modern big heavyweight(let alone W Klitschko). These guys had little to no coordination/athleticism compared to the modern big heavyweight(let alone W Klitschko). These guys had little to no punching technique compared to the modern big heavyweight(let alone W Klitschko).

Even smaller heavyweights of later eras like Machen, A Moore, Charles, H Johnson would win shutout unanimous decisions over these men without having a glove laid on them.

Fred Fulton was a 6'4 bandylegged beanpole. Wladimir Klitschko had about a 45lb weight advantage on Fulton, and a huge strength advantage.

 

So clearly their ABILITY WHEN THEY FOUGHT DEMPSEY has absolutely no bearing on the discussion for you, whatever... That says all I need to know about why these wins are so great to you and why they are such a measuring stick for a mythical Dempsey-Wlad fight.

 

Anyone wanting to claim the Morris fight as a great victory for Dempsey and indicative of his chances against Wlad might want to steer clear of the ringside accounts lest their bubble get burst. It was claimed Morris, who was between a 4-1 and 6-1 underdog to bgein with, took a dive. He squirmed on the canvas in what ringsiders considered a horrible acting job. A light left hook to the solar plexus and Morris dropped. The referee was so disgusted he shouted for Morris to get up and then counted him out extremely slowly using 3 second for every count. Once the count was over Morris arose and according to the Times-Picayune didnt look bothered in the least by the loss or the cries of "fake! police! Jail the big tramp!" y the audience. Morris was called a big cheese by the Picayune and it was noted that Morris demanded to be paid before he even entered the ring prompting the promoter to say "You seem to be in a mighty big hurry" giving the impression that Morris wanted to be paid before he took his dive so they couldnt hold his purse and then get out of town quickly.

So not only was Morris not a top fighter when Dempsey fought him but he may have taken a dive as well.

 

YOU said I suggested that Fulton had two styles. I said Fulton fought in the style he did against Langford because he was fighting with an injured hand and as such couldnt throw it (his favored hand) with the same authority or aggressiveness prompting him to fight a rangey defensive style. When Danny Williams dislocated his shoulder and fought one handed to stop Potter it doesnt mean he had two different fighting styles, a one handed style and a two handed style, it meant he adapted due to the injury. I also said that while Fulton was world class that class was about as shallow as a puddle on your bathroom floor. That "class" began and ended with Fulton until Dempsey came along and Fulton is hardly the greatest heavyweight to never win a title. Hence my argument that if Fulton is the best big man Dempsey beat then thats not really that impressive to me. Putting words in my mouth wont change my belief on the subject.

 

Sure. The Boston Gob, at one point in his career, was a dangerous foe who blasted Tommy Loughran and bullied Primo Carnera. Dempsey did well to absorb that initial bombardment and Schmeling looked en route to a pasting before Sharkey went low.

That attacking Jack Sharkey who fought well on the inside n’ out would have a good chance against Wladimir.

I’m probably a little harsh on the big man, and there’s no doubt he’s an excellent heavyweight, but to continually reference Wladimir’s bulk and skill-set like some impenetrable shield is folly.

The men we’re matching him with here are better than anyone he's defeated.

 

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/images/FredFulton2.JPG

http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01739/wlad_1739271a.jpg


Notice the difference?

 

Tommy Loughran was nearly 75 pounds lighter than Klitchko in his prime and had a famously weak punch.

Carnera was fighting one of his very first non fixed fights against a contender. He came back and knocked Sharkey out.

Dempsey looked like **** in losing nearly every round to Sharkey before switching from boxing to playing billiards with Sharkey's testicles.

Sharkey should have lost both fights to Schmeling.

I think Wlad would beat Sharkey easily.

 

You are wrong as I stated clearly. You are mischaracterizing what I have said. No I did not say Fulton had two styles. I did not ignore it, I said that for every article you can dig up which characterizes Fulton using his height in a manner that to you SOUNDS LIKE WLADS STYLE you can find two which have a totally different take. Meaning you are misconstruing what you are reading, just like you are doing with my own words.


Whats obvious is that you will disregard anything that doesnt conform to your notion. You want to quote a surmise of how Dempsey WOULD fight Fulton. Why dont you look at the actual Dempsey-Fulton fight report to see how Fulton poked out weak ineffective "jabs" (just as I characterized) and allowed Dempsey inside where he was pushing and hauling against him. Does that sound like a rangy fighter content to hide behind a ramrod jab?

Wlad is WAY better than Fulton, the best big man Dempsey faced, weve established that. Whether you believe it or not Wlad fights nothing like Fulton. You can believe what you want on that. Hence, given that Wlad is better, and fights nothing like Fulton, I return to my original point: Dempsey's success against Fulton is absolutely no measuring stick for what he could or would do against Wlad.

 

Just curious... do you guys have jobs? I can't even keep up with this stuff... the wheels of capitalism need the grease of my labor...