What if Vitali's comeback opponent had been Jack Dempsey?

[JAB5239]

I'm getting the impression that you enjoy being hostile to those who disagree with you.

I don't go for smug and self righteous. See you around I guess.

I simply have no patience for views that are out of line with those of boxing historians unless those views are backed up in spades by hard evidence. I really could care less what someone BELIEVES: I'm interested in what they KNOW and if someone is going to challenge the conventional wisdom then the burden of proof is on them.

Poet

Lets keep this boxing related gentlemen. You're both two of the more knowledgeable posters here who Have my respect. If you can't find common ground at least keep it civil.....please.

[Scott9945]

Lets keep this boxing related gentlemen. You're both two of the more knowledgeable posters here who Have my respect. If you can't find common ground at least keep it civil.....please.

I'll try my best to take the high road Jab. But you surely know by now that I'm not rolling over for anyone.

[Boogie Nights]

I just have to brign up the fact that Purritty was not even semi-close to being a top fighter, and Schmeling was very accomplished already and considered one of the best Europeans of all time.
and the Louis changed a LOT after the first Schmeling fight, as shown in the rematch.

I never said Purrity was a top fighter, i was simply comparing Wlad's loss to him vs the fashion in which Dempsey was once knocked out and a loss which no one wants to remember. I was pointing out the double standard that People have when they say 'oh, well wladimir lost to that guy....' but 'Dempsey (or w.e name you want to insert) is great because he's great'

The schmeling-louis was an example that GreatA raised when he said people still criticise Louis for losing 'to that guy.' I for one never held that loss against Louis, and i actually think highly of Max, so in my view it wasnt a bad loss.

[Boogie Nights]

I don't think much of Dempsey's win over Carpentier. The win over Tommy Gibbons was legit, despite Gibbons being the smaller man. Harry Wills actually refused to face Tommy. Still, it wasn't an impressive performance. Dempsey was at his best against men who were bigger than him.



I'd argue that the 11 others that beat Walcott previous to him fighting Louis wouldn't have uncovered the mystery to beat Walcott that night either. He was basically fighting for food in the 1930's, and the only losses that he had since his comeback were thought to have been robberies which Walcott had avenged. He did a very good job of cleaning out the heavyweight rankings in the mid 1940's.



Today's practise is to be undefeated in 15-20 fights, without having faced any top contender and get outclassed by the Klitschko brothers for million dollar paydays. "Back in the day" the fighters did fight more times and usually against top contenders which explains the losses. I don't put as much stock into what the record coming into the fight looks like as I do on the substance behind that record. Losing 10 times is fine with me when it's against fighters greater than you or at a similar level. Glen Johnson is certainly no joke despite his amount of losses. He was better with the 10+ losses than he was while 32-0 (a record built up facing nobodies) against a far more experienced opponent in Bernard Hopkins, who outclassed him in every category.



I'd say that knocking down Tunney for more than 10 seconds counts as atleast slight success, not that I consider it a legitimate knockout as Tunney could have gotten up at any point after 5-6 seconds. I can imagine a young, determined Dempsey catching Tunney the same way and finishing him off. I can imagine Tunney outboxing a young Dempsey as well, but Tunney was great.

Byrd was also blown away by Ike Ibeabuchi in 5 rounds. He has some quality wins, although the quality of those wins will drop off when you see how he achieved many of them (the fights against McCline, Williamson and Oquendo were dreadful). Still, the best win for Wladimir Klitschko but I don't think Byrd rates among the greatest heavyweight champions. The Ruiz-Byrd era rates as one of the worst in heavyweight history, certainly for excitement. You don't have to take it from me, take it from Emmanuel Steward, Wladimir's trainer, who feels that today's era is worse than the 80's and 30's, mainly because the talent isn't being developed and fights aren't getting made.

Agreed on the wins vs loses arguement. I never put that much stock into fighter being undefeated either, for me it's the story behind the fights not numbers. It's something that current fighters can learn from the old days. In today's era everyone waits to face the best guy for a superfight on PPV, back in them days it was just another 15 round contest.

and as for Byrd there, i was not trying to hype Wlad's win over him. I was simply pointing out that Byrd was comfortable with the size difference, now did he lose meaningfull big fights because of his size, sure, was he a bad fighter for it, no. He's certainly a class above the likes of Peter, Arreola guys who are bigger than him and received a lot more attention and hype of being something special in the division.

and a little on Dempsey. I think at times his ring accomplishments, as well as his historical rankings get vastly overated (mostly by know it all historians), he as a fighter was not overated. There's something special about guys like Dempsey and Walcott who fought for food stamps literally, and brought the raw emotion into each fight. They knew the consequences of their loses, and put everything on the line. These kind of men should be respected.