Would Canelo Alverez dominate a prime Jack Dempsey from round 1 (Boxing Evolution Theory)

Not Dempsey though. Dempsey's skill were lacking, severely.

 

They weren’t.

He was just a pressure fighter.


That would be like saying that Joe Frazier lacked ability, 50 years later.


Also, it goes without saying, that styles make fights.


Frazier was Ali’s kryptonite.

Dempsey would probably have been a CW today. He weighed in as high as 194 pounds.


Could Canelo easily beat a fast, pressure fighting CW with great power and a ferocious style?

He’s literally never fought one before.

 

No... 50 years ago boxing was pretty much like it is today.

But 100 years - huge difference!

 

I’m just trying to gauge his outlook.

To see if he has a cut off point.


The main differences were the gloves and the rules.

But they were still the same styles present.


Boxers.

Pressure fighters.

Guys who were slick.


Benny Leonard and Gene Tunney were very good technical boxers.

Dempsey was a pressure fighter.

Greb was a pressure fighter who threw huge volume.


Fifty years later, we had Joe Frazier who shared similarities to Jack.


We’ve always had these types of guys around.


Jack Dempsey would have been a CW today.

So he’d absolutely have been a nightmare match up for Canelo.


Yet we have guys here, just completely dismissing the match up, solely on the dates that Jack fought.

Which is why I’ve asked him to tell me if he has a cut off.

I find people’s opinions on this fascinating.


What about just 20 years later, Canelo vs Joe Louis?

What about Canelo vs Rocky Marciano?


Are we going to get guys who think that Canelo would have beaten them with ease, just solely on the grounds that they fought 70-80 years ago??

 

Yeah, I'd say after Dempsey's era is when you see boxing evolve significantly and by around the 70s or definitely the 80s it was largely "figured out". Some dudes added to it... Loma, Floyd etc. Some guys were ahead of their time back in the day like Pep, Louis etc and they would typically come out on top in their unskilled eras. But that's when everyone adopted a minimum "optimum" level and bad habits etc were discarded.

It's funny to me when people try to paint Gene Tunney as this great technician, like yeah, in his era he was. Today? He fights in a very basic amateur style. His great technique is everybody's basic technique now.

 

You’re a very ignorant guy.

You haven’t got the capacity to realise that they HAD to fight different due to their gloves, both offensively and defensively, and due to the referees rules etc.

Balance, technique, timing and leverage, are the same in EVERY era.

Apart from the different gloves, a left hook is a left hook.


Nobody knowledgeable says things such as:

“The left hooks were thrown much better in ……”


Tell us again how Canelo would have knocked out a CW in just 3 rounds?

 

Incorrect, there's multiple ways to throw a punch. The physics might be the same, but the technique/mechanics differ unless you think someone like Foreman is throwing the same style punch as Mayweather.

You can prioritize power, speed, balance. How much you are telegraphing etc. There's a lot of art to punching and the best are able to refine all these factors such that they never leave themselves in a vulnerable position for more than a moment. Keep in mind that opponent's you are fighting today will be doing the same. You can even read about this stuff in Dempsey's book, he had some weird ass gravity technique.

And this is the aspect in which Dempsey lacked, he threw for maximum power at all times, leaving himself off balance etc. His footwork was a complete mess, he needs to load up and be stationary for his punches, he can't punch "on the move" like Gene Tunney can which is why he got beat thoroughly.

Finally, Jack Dempsey is in no way a legit CW, CW limit is 200 lbs, you know what that means? Fighters are CUTTING to make 200 lbs. 190 lbs is SMW-LHW range. Canelo stopped Kovalev, a technically superior fighter (and by the way, Yarde would have beaten ****ing breaks off Dempsey, completely annihilated him). And had a close fight with a better boxer than Tunney, who beat Jack.

 

Cafe,

Nobody has said any different, genius.

A left hook from a FW is different from a left hook from a SHW.

But the BASICS still have to be the same.

Again, the technique and the timing.

Foot placement.

The right balance.

The torque.

The leverage.

You’re just arguing for the sake of it.

More nonsense.

A fighter fights in a style that is best suited to his exact attributes.

There’s no single, correct style to employ, simply because there’s too many different fighters out there, in any era, who have/had completely different styles.

Even a great technical fighter can leave himself vulnerable for a second. Every one.

If not, then all of the great technicians would all have retired undefeated.

BS!

JP has already exposed you on the above.

You’re trying to paint a picture, where he had zero technique, where he was just throwing wild shots with no care.

Absolute nonsense. He was far more refined than what you’ve said. He had great hooks. Great knockouts. He wasn’t just some wild gun slinger who fell over off balance when he missed. The nuances were there. Slipping inside, manoeuvring people into certain positions.

Give the guy some credit.

Wow.

You really are on a roll.

The comments just get sillier.


Jack couldn’t have been a legit CW?

Really??


I’ve seen photos of Jack where he was absolutely ripped, weighing 190 plus pounds.

Just because 200 pounds is the limit, that doesn’t mean that he’d DEFINITELY have been a LHW today.


Roy Jones went to HW in the 190’s.

Other CW’s have weighed way under 200 pounds, in various eras.


Canelo stopped Kovalev?

Ha!

A SHOT Kovalev, who was RUSHED into the fight.

A Kovalev who was nowhere near the fighter he’d been, who’d suffered multiple knockouts.

Amazing.


Now if you possessed any KNOWLEDGE of Canelo’s career, then you’d KNOW that he would NEVER have gone near a prime Kovalev, had he have been around that weight class at the time.

Canelo is a MASTER at choosing the fights at the right time.

Him and Oscar literally aged GGG by 18 months.


If you want to use the Kovalev fights as some sort of evidence, of where he could have beaten Dempsey, then that just speaks volumes.


Not once have you offered a logical breakdown.

Canelo is a small, defensive counterpuncher, with slow feet and stamina issues. He doesn’t throw fast combinations. He’s also very conservative with his output.

Whereas Jack was a ferocious pressure fighter who’d have swarmed all over him.


You can say that he was basic and unrefined. They said the same about Frazier. He was one dimensional, just powering forward trying to land his patterned hook.


It doesn’t matter.

1. Jack was more skilled than what you have given him credit for.

2. Even if it was basic, you still needed the right attributes in order to have dealt with it.


Floyd nearly came a cropper against the crude Maidana.

The great Thomas Hearns was beaten twice by Iran Barkley.


So even if I agreed that Jack was some basic caveman, Canelo would still have had huge issues with him.


Now you’ve said that Canelo would have taken him out in 3 rounds.

You have referenced the Floyd-Gatti fight.


All nonsense, with no relevance to a Canelo-Dempsey fight, due to numerous reasons.


The icing on the cake?

That Yarde would also have annihilated Dempsey with ease.

Ha!


What next?

Canelo would have beaten Frazier and Louis within 3 rounds??


You’re talking about a guy here, who literally won’t fight David Benavidez, and who’s been ducking him for an age.

Hilarious.

 

@Jpreisser

I’d love to read some more of your thoughts on this topic.

Especially in response to Cafe’s recent posts.

 

Essentially there's few mechanics that go into punching and you covered them. Dempsey was able to tap into those mechanics at various levels, but he was not yet able to unify or refine them for maximum efficiency in a consistent way. His punches either relied on heavy mass transfers or brute strength.

The way boxers punch today is that they do more efficient weight transfers but also utilize the entire kinetic chain (legs, core, shoulders) in very short bursts, this is further helped by adopting more centered/lower center of gravity stances that allows you to retain balance at all times. You have eyes, you can see that something about Dempsey's style looks "off" when looking through our modern lenses. There's a lack of smoothness, rigidness and same goes for his opponents - a missing link in other words.

Someone like Canelo or any elite modern fighters like Bivol etc are able to let off a punch at a second's notice, a "snap" as it's called and deliver maybe not maximum power but close to that... because it's very fast - you are always on balance AND in a position to throw another punch or defend/move out of the way, in other words you are free to transition from attack to defense fluidly.

Do you see Jack Dempsey throw clean 5-6 punch combinations (not wild swinging)? Not really right. Well, here's the reason, it's because it's just awkward for him to do so, his technique is simply too slow (and to be clear that's not in the velocity of the punch but the overall setup)... Instead, what he would do is throw 5 single punches in succession.

Another problem is Dempsey's jab, he didn't really have a good jab. The jab has developed massively since his time and there's just countless ways it became the most important punch in boxing, stopping the opponent, controlling/measuring the range, used for feints/set ups etc. The value has been realized and as a result modern fighters almost always have VERY educated jabs that'd make it difficult for Dempsey to succeed in his brawler distance/closing style.

 

Cafe,

Of course he refined them for maximum efficiency.

No, they did not. What about his short punches, on the inside?

The ignorance and disrespect that you are showing here is staggering.


You have tried to paint a picture of where he was a caveman, who just threw his arms around, completely uncoordinated etc.

But that wasn’t the case.


He had technique.

He had very good footwork.


He could shift, he could roll.

He could land great hooks, with great leverage and timing.

Yes, I have eyes.

And also an understanding of the sport’s history and of his era.

With also an understanding of the many different styles that people employed in every era and every weight class.


You’re trying to compare Dempsey’s style, with the styles of other guys, both from different eras and different weight classes.

They’re just completely irrelevant points, with zero context applied.


Dempsey fought the way he did, because he was a pressure fighter.

He also fought wearing much smaller gloves, which affected how fighters fought back then, both offensively and defensively.

He also fought under different rules, in fights with different rounds.


So, yes, of course there’s a noticeable difference in how he looked on camera, compared to how other stylistic fighters of other eras, who fought under completely different circumstances looked.

So Dempsey couldn’t do that?

Where do you keep getting this WILD SWINGING from?

His technique was too slow, so he had to throw 5 single shots, instead of fluid combinations??

What on earth are you talking about??

EVERY fighter finds the best style that suits their attributes.


His style wasn’t built around a jab.

He was a pressure fighter, who liked to explode and throw power punches.


Joe Frazier was also a small, power punching HW who didn’t have a great jab.

Because he had a small reach and was a swarmer.


Mike Tyson studied Dempsey’s techniques for hours.

Mike didn’t have a great jab himself, as he too had a small reach and was a pressure fighter.


Rocky Marciano didn’t have a jab.


Harry Greb didn’t have a jab.


Joe Calzaghe didn’t have much of a jab.


Ricky Hatton didn’t have a jab.


Roy Jones didn’t have a jab.


None of your posts contain any relevant context whatsoever.


You jump from era to era, from weight class to weight class, where you’re looking at fighters with completely different styles and attributes.


Yes, the jab has ALWAYS been important. And, yes, more so since the huge change in gloves, rounds and the rules etc.

Yes, an educated jab can be hugely important. That goes without saying doesn’t it.

However, even brawlers/pressure fighters can find success against guys with fantastic jabs.


Ali had a great jab when he utilised it properly.

Yet Frazier took it away.


Larry Holmes had one of the greatest HW jabs of all time.

Yet Mike slipped it, and destroyed him easily in 3-4 rounds.


Thomas Hearns had an amazing jab.

Yet a far less technical powerhouse in Iran Barkley, took it away from him and beat him twice.


Floyd had a great jab.

Yet a crude Marcos Maidana gave him the toughest fight of his career.


How many more examples do you want?


Canelo has a nice jab.

But it wouldn’t have kept Dempsey at bay.


Dempsey was a great fighter. And he would simply have had mixed results in any era, simply depending on who he’d have fought, and how they’d have matched up on the night stylistically.

Styles make fights.

That’s the beauty of the sport.

 

No, Dempsey's technical holes go beyond just a style, it's legitimately bad technique and Maidana's technique is nowhere near as bad. Better comparisons would be IDK Wilder or Foreman, there's obviously a method to the madness in the way all these guys operate and there are reasons why they were successful like physical attributes etc, but I'd argue it's in spite of the holes in their game than because of it. However, I do agree that Maidana can sometimes be rough in a similar though not as dramatic way, so why was he able to get away with it:

1) Firstly, he wasn't able to get away with it, he lost twice to a near retirement Floyd and got outboxed by Khan, Alexander.
2) It's unusual for someone with this style to make it to the top these days so he was able to throw Floyd off his game

But unless there's some good reason to think otherwise, I typically assume that a technically better boxer is going to win more often than not as this is typically how it goes.


As far as the jab thing:

100% agree that there are fighters who are typically shorter who can get away with not having one as it would be of more limited use anyway.

And to be fair to Dempsey, that's his physique. The reason why I mentioned it is because he'd essentially be giving up his biggest advantage against a smaller fighter, so he'll have to get past Canelo's jab. I also do not think Dempsey is nearly as smooth in his head movement or footwork as Frazier or Tyson to get past that issue.

 

IMO there's a bit of truth to both sides of this.

Boxing does evolve to fit the atmosphere of its time and you really don't need to look any farther for that evolution to be apparent then the first defensive english champion in Mendoza abouts the 1780s. You can trace who added what and when, things like Marciano's crouch coming from Tommy Ryan or when did dieting get taken seriously.

Where one makes a mistake is in thinking this evolution is leading to anything more than ticket sales.

There is no point in history when these hit and don't be hit back fighters just absolutely wash out the old school and old way of fighting. Because they can't. In terms of wins vs losses you will never see the hit and don't be hit back takeover. Look at the money. Fighters who avoided hit me I hit back harder boxing in favor of hit and don't be hit boxing made more money.

The money men, financiers and such, took notice and pushed for rule changes that made boxing easier to sell to the masses and it worked.

These days kids are taught what works just fine is wrong. Dempsey's jolt is wrong and no one ever leads with a jolt. Jabs are right and everyone's lead should be a jab. To the point where commentators will call a perfectly performed jolt a mistake. This was done through marketing not success.

Which is why fighters today still using sword and shield, or, hit me I hit back harder, techniques. They still work.

You are right to related Dempsey to Foreman and Wilder. That's a similarity I hardly see recognized and I tip my hat to you sir. Where you are wrong is in deciding these older techniques no longer work. They're here making champions still because they do work.



Evolution has no sometimes. We're all sapiens and never do we pop out an erectus, if we did, then we wouldn't be evolved from erectus. The fact that Wilder happened is all you need to know, to know, changes take place but no evolution can because what works, works, and has been known since 686BC.



Melankomas was the Mendoza of the ancient world. Melankomas's form of boxing died and Glaukos, offensive, boxing took over, except, not really, there were these pockets of defense boxers because it's on an evolution it's just adapting to the times. Until defense took over and then there are these pockets of good offensive fighters.



That said, Dempsey makes very few mistakes actually. He's super skilled. You need to judge him based on what he's trying to do not some idealized version of boxing that never actually took over the sport.

 

Damn I forgot. I keep bottling it in the end


I think there's much more to be said in globalization than evolution.


If we are honest about him Jack Dempsey is the HW champion of an era that allows a lower bottom end, does not allow black people, and has only stretched its regions to Europe and former colonies except the commie ones.

Canelo is a multi weight champion in an era of strict weight divisions, inclusive participation, that covers the entire planet including cultures that used to be anti-boxing.


It's a lot easier to look unstoppable in a smaller pool of talent.

 

Cafe,

It wasn't bad technique.

He scored great knockouts and threw great punches.


Yes, he didn't jab. Yes, many times he'd just look for aggressive power shots.

But it was still good technique which worked for him.


You said that he had really bad footwork. But he didn't.

I don't know if you've only seen brief clips or something.

But he often showed excellent footwork.

He shifted. He rolled. He did that to get inside to throw his devastating hooks etc.


A young Mike Tyson used to study his techniques.


Deontay Wilder had very poor technique, especially when he was younger, where he would miss wildly, and then fall to one side, completely off balance.


Maidana could be very crude and very rough, where he hit guys with his forearms etc.

Again, those stylistic match ups have always thrown out mixed results, all throughout the sport's history.

As you've just said, his style was never built around a jab. So he wouldn't have been giving up his biggest advantage against Canelo.


Now Canelo has a nice jab.

However, it's not a GREAT jab, and he's only 5'8, with a small reach of 70"

Also, he's only fought just twice at LHW, and never beyond that.


Jack was a 6'1 pressure fighter, who weighed 190 plus pounds with a bigger reach.


So the match up would have been:


A small defensive counterpuncher

vs

A big, powerful, pressure fighter


I don't think that he'd have had any issue getting past Canelo's jab at all.

I don't think that Canelo had neither the jab or the power to have kept Dempsey off of him.