Discussion in 'The Off-topic Lounge' started by Lord Vutulaki, Dec 22, 2015.
@£4 for a Reemjob
edit: works for me
@JohnyHendricksBeard: I'm just glad to have you here. You had me at "wading".
For sure, it's all speculation and just fun to talk about.
The great thing about boxing is it has such a long rich history that the potential dream match ups are almost endless.
Ali/Tyson, Ali/Jack Johnson, Ali/Louis, Ali/Lewis, Ali/Klitschko... they've all been discussed to death haha.
Personally... I wonder who would have won a prime Ali vs prime Holmes.
Mine is Jack Dempsey vs. every great heavy in history.
We'd have fun discussing that, I think Jack Dempsey would lose to all the HWs mentioned above HAHAHA.
I read a really good book on Jack Dempsey a few years back called "A Flame of Pure Fire: Jack Dempsey and the Roaring '20s".
Wow, he really did struggle back then. Did you know he would actually pimp his wife out to make ends meet? lol. Apparently he also worked for a whore house/madam in his early days, and his job was to find girls for the brothel and "break them in" as whores. He was into some real crazy shit.
The best Jack Dempsey story was the bad publicity photo he took. Apparently his reputation as a "slacker" (someone who dodged the first world war) was really holding back his popularity at the time, so to try and appeal him to the everyday working man, Dempsey's manager had him go down to a Philly shipyard to take publicity photos with the longshoremen as if he was doing a hard day's work with them. He put on the workers overalls and everything.... but it backfired because he forgot to take off his patent leather shoes, which cost about half a year's wage of the average longshoreman. Hahaha
In regards to Dempsey, check this out:
Jack Dempsey, The Manassa Mauler
I'm posting the first last few paragraphs. There are sources at the bottom of the article:
The sport of Boxing boasts a rich history of great fights and great fighters. Regrettably, that history appears to be lost on many – I would argue most -- of the people who cover the sport for the news media nowadays and, consequently, many of the great champions of the past are sadly under-appreciated. Alas, “out of sight” really does seem to mean “out of mind.” The most glaring example of this phenomenon is the erosion of respect that the legendary Manassa Mauler, former World Heavyweight Champion Jack Dempsey, has suffered over the course of the past two decades.
In 1950, the Associated Press conducted a poll of sportswriters to name the greatest fighter of all-time, pound-for-pound, and Dempsey was the runaway winner, collecting 251 votes. [Joe Louis finished a distant second with 109 votes; Henry Armstrong was third with 13.] Yet, today, many fans want to rewrite history, substituting their judgment for the judgment of eyewitnesses, by deriding Dempsey’s accomplishments and diminishing his place in the heavyweight pantheon. Why this should be true is not entirely clear. Probably, there are many reasons, including (a) general ignorance of Dempsey’s record and the era in which he fought, (b) general ignorance of the sport generally (most boxing beat writers also cover other sports that are more popular in this day and age), and (c) a natural bias in favor of contemporary athletes. Regardless of the reason, however, it is fundamentally unjust – not to mention flat wrong to underrate Jack Dempsey.
A young boxing fan wrote me that, “That the older crowd tends to rank Dempsey in the top 5. He doesn't make a lot of the younger crowds entire lists. It would seem to me that the discrepancy is most likely due to older fans, and fans that really knew the scene back in the day, getting kind of swept up in the Dempsey mystique. Younger people tend to look at his record and say, "I don't know I don't see it."
The irony inherent in the suggestion that an observer coming along 80 years after the fact could somehow arrive at a clearer understanding of Dempsey’s true abilities than those who actually saw him fight and train – and saw his opponents fight and train – and on a regular basis were able to do so, is, evidently, lost on this young “scholar.” But, youth is nothing if not arrogant.
Imagine a young fast, hard punching heavyweight coming up today with the following record; his amateur background would be over 100 fights (remember Dempsey has almost 100 unrecorded fights). The following lists of opponents must be imagined as if they were all active and fighting today in or close to their primes:
He would turn pro and rack up a string of knockouts with only one legitimate decision loss on his record before achieving a title shot, a decision loss against the spoiler Jimmy Young. Dempsey had Over 70 official pro fights when he met Willard. If he fought today we can imagine him a little more protected coming up but also very active. Dempsey's peak run was 32 straight wins with 28 knockouts, a knockout percentage of over 87%. With the way opponents are hand picked today we could guess he would be about 45-1 with 39 kayo’s when he challenged for the title, a knockout percentage of 84% (in a comparison George Foreman was 37-0, 34 kayo's (91%) when he challened Frazier, the highest in history, and Lennox Lewis going into the first Holyfield fight was 32-1, with 27 kayo's for a 84% knockout percentage).
Our modern Dempsey's career highlights would be as follows, kayo 3 Antonio Tarver , W10 Chris Byrd, kayo 1 Andrew Golata, kayo 1 Lou Saverese, kayo 2 Ron Lyle, and kayo 3 Jerry Quarry. He wins the Heavyweight Championship with a kayo 1 of Vitaly Klitschko scoring numerous knockdowns in the process. Since no modern referee would allow a fight to continue with the beating that Willard sustained it would end in the first round. Now a modern fan has a picture of what Dempsey accomplished and what he was really like that we can relate to.
We can conclude that his competition was not as good overall as Muhammad Ali's, but it was better than Rocky Marciano's since his top opposition was aging when the Rock met them. Dempsey's opposition was better the Joe Louis top opponents for the most part, and it was better than Mike Tyson's opposition (men comparable to Lyle, Quarry, V. Klitschko are better than anyone Tyson defeated in his career except an aged Larry Holmes), and his opposition is similar to if not better than what Lennox Lewis faced. If we throw out the Flynn farce we can honestly say that Dempsey, unlike Holyfield, Tyson, or Lewis was never knocked out in his career. Certainly durability is one of the best assets a fighter can have. Dempsey's ability to recover quickly and to fight effectively when seriously hurt sets him apart from most of today's top champions.
Jack Dempsey’s destruction of Jess Willard on July 4, 1919 remains one of the most violent outbursts of sheer aggression and power ever witnessed in a boxing ring. It ranks along with Joe Louis one-round annihilation of Max Schmeling and Mike Tyson’s 91-second demolition of Michael Spinks as the greatest massacre in the history of heavyweight boxing.
When one has knowledge of Dempsey’s true abilities, the quality of his opposition, and the era in which he fought, then one can better assess how good a fighter Jack Dempsey was and understand why he was so highly regarded in the Mid-Century poll.
In the final analysis, Jack Dempsey deserves to be rated among the all time greats in the heavyweight division. In comparison to other heavyweight champions of similar size, such as Marciano and Frazier, he was just as tough, showed more durability to fight when hurt, was a faster and more explosive puncher, had better overall boxing skills and had greater ring experience. Dempsey should be considered the number one or two heavyweight prior to Ali by established opinion. Fans today tend to not understand the times in which Jack Dempsey fought and therefore greatly under-estimate his abilities. As time goes by, the memory of the great fighters of the past fade into obscurity. But those who saw them know different.
Bert Sugar rates Jack Dempsey as the # 1 all time pound for pound heavyweight. Nat Fleischer rated him #4 on his all time heavyweight list. He also considered Dempsey the best infighter and best two handed hitter among all heavyweight champions. Charley Rose rated him # 3. Eric Jorgensen rates him #2. Cox's Corner rates him # 6.
Go to bed you fukn midget.
Shut up Woody, men wanting to talk boxing here (potentially, dependant on cliffs)
@karasu what do you think about Dempsey?
Jippo king whoop them both same night
Nah, he would get beaten down
He gets twatted
Early Ali used footwork/movement, timing and amazing hand speed. He wold keep you off balance with his movement then he would counter like a madman.
Commenting on fighting the Ali, George Chuvalo said: "He was just so damn fast. When he was young, he moved his legs and hands at the same time. He threw his punches when he was in motion. He'd be out of punching range, and as he moved into range he'd already begun to throw the punch. So if you waited until he got into range to punch back, he beat you every time."
After hislayoff he lost a lot of speed and needed to developed the rope a dope. Cover while on the ropes and invite his opponent to punch themselves out then fck'em up.
Ali was a very smart fighter.
Tyson, not so much.
In my mind a young Tyson was an animal, not much of a thinker just a brawler. He grew up with killer instinct then he learned to box.
I read somewhere Mike was asked how he learned his cunning ability in the ring, actually, watch @ the 3:30 - 4:30 mark of this video
Ali vs Iron MIke is a hard fight to call
If both are young in their careers I say Mike, if the fight was later in their careers I say Ali
No matter, It's a fight I wouldn't bet on
lol what a gif
Prime Larry Holmes defeats Ali and Tyson.
dat jab do.
I can't fucken wait to see furys next fight. I still don't know how he got up like the undertaker. He must be a Terminator.