Controversial wrote:Why do people think Dempsey's boxing hiatus was any different to say Ali, Leonard or Tyson?
When Dempsey came off his hiatus he was pretty old by the standards of his day (and let's not forget his early life was pretty tough), and he was under a lot of mental pressure - a high maintenance wife who was not happy that he was fighting again and an ex-manager - the wily Doc Kearns - who was driving him nuts with law suits, negative publicity, et al.
The Side Acting Carear as well. Tends to make boxers soft and civilized.
Controversial wrote:Why do people think Dempsey's boxing hiatus was any different to say Ali, Leonard or Tyson?
When Dempsey came off his hiatus he was pretty old by the standards of his day (and let's not forget his early life was pretty tough), and he was under a lot of mental pressure - a high maintenance wife who was not happy that he was fighting again and an ex-manager - the wily Doc Kearns - who was driving him nuts with law suits, negative publicity, et al.
That and Ali had two comeback fights before facing his arch nemesis. Dempsey had none.
That is true for the first Dempsey-Tunney fight. However, going into rematch with Tunney, Dempsey had two fights since his layoff; same as Ali for the first Frazier fight. Yet it is pretty much seen as a given that Dempsey was still too rusty and way past his best; and he was.
Yet there are people who say that somehow Ali was actually better for the Frazier fight than before his long layoff.
Ambling Alp II wrote:
Yet there are people who say that somehow Ali was actually better for the Frazier fight than before his long layoff.
I've never agreed with that claim and seems to be made primarily by Joe Frazier fans. Ali's last fight against Bonavena, prior to meeting frazier was a less than stellar performance. He looked flat footed. I think his timing was off and he certainly did not look as fast as he did against Folley Terrell, Chuvalo, Patterson, etc..
Controversial wrote:Not Tunney's fault, you follow the refs count and that's what he did.
And he appearered to be ready to get up pretty quickly and was clear headed enough to stay down and and follow the referee. To me it's pretty amazing how clear headed he appeared considering how many shots he got caught with.
Ambling Alp II wrote:
Yet there are people who say that somehow Ali was actually better for the Frazier fight than before his long layoff.
I've never agreed with that claim and seems to be made primarily by Joe Frazier fans. Ali's last fight against Bonavena, prior to meeting frazier was a less than stellar performance. He looked flat footed. I think his timing was off and he certainly did not look as fast as he did against Folley Terrell, Chuvalo, Patterson, etc..
Maybe he didn't look as good because Bonavena was a tougher opponent than Folley, Terrell, Chuvalo, Patterson, etc. . .
Ambling Alp II wrote:
Yet there are people who say that somehow Ali was actually better for the Frazier fight than before his long layoff.
I've never agreed with that claim and seems to be made primarily by Joe Frazier fans. Ali's last fight against Bonavena, prior to meeting frazier was a less than stellar performance. He looked flat footed. I think his timing was off and he certainly did not look as fast as he did against Folley Terrell, Chuvalo, Patterson, etc..
Maybe he didn't look as good because Bonavena was a tougher opponent than Folley, Terrell, Chuvalo, Patterson, etc. . .
Ambling Alp II wrote:
Yet there are people who say that somehow Ali was actually better for the Frazier fight than before his long layoff.
I've never agreed with that claim and seems to be made primarily by Joe Frazier fans. Ali's last fight against Bonavena, prior to meeting frazier was a less than stellar performance. He looked flat footed. I think his timing was off and he certainly did not look as fast as he did against Folley Terrell, Chuvalo, Patterson, etc..
Maybe he didn't look as good because Bonavena was a tougher opponent than Folley, Terrell, Chuvalo, Patterson, etc. . .
Controversial wrote:I assume you mean the long count, how was it not fair?
Yes. And it's not fair because he was on the ground for longer than 10 seconds, I can't put it any more plainly than that.
The rule was that the count would start immediately but the fighter scoring the knockdown had to go to the furthest neutral corner. If the fighter scoring the knockdown did not retreat to the furthest neutral corner, the count would be paused until the fighter complied. Dempsey didn't go to the neutral corner, and Barry properly delayed the count. Dempsey broke the neutral corner rule; I can't put it any more plainly than that. He had nobody to blame but himself.
Ironically, it was the Dempsey camp that wanted this new rule.
Controversial wrote:I assume you mean the long count, how was it not fair?
Yes. And it's not fair because he was on the ground for longer than 10 seconds, I can't put it any more plainly than that.
The rule was that the count would start immediately but the fighter scoring the knockdown had to go to the furthest neutral corner. If the fighter scoring the knockdown did not retreat to the furthest neutral corner, the count would be paused until the fighter complied. Dempsey didn't go to the neutral corner, and Barry properly delayed the count. Dempsey broke the neutral corner rule; I can't put it any more plainly than that. He had nobody to blame but himself.
Ironically, it was the Dempsey camp that wanted this new rule.
Tunney was ready to rise prior to a 10 count no matter how you counted it. He was clear headed enough to follow the refs instructions and the fact that he got a few additional seconds most likely had no affect on the outcome.
And as noted, there was no violation of nay rules.
Controversial wrote:I assume you mean the long count, how was it not fair?
Yes. And it's not fair because he was on the ground for longer than 10 seconds, I can't put it any more plainly than that.
The rule was that the count would start immediately but the fighter scoring the knockdown had to go to the furthest neutral corner. If the fighter scoring the knockdown did not retreat to the furthest neutral corner, the count would be paused until the fighter complied. Dempsey didn't go to the neutral corner, and Barry properly delayed the count. Dempsey broke the neutral corner rule; I can't put it any more plainly than that. He had nobody to blame but himself.
Ironically, it was the Dempsey camp that wanted this new rule.
ray, your critical eye for the facts is killing the romance.
raylawpc wrote:The rule was that the count would start immediately but the fighter scoring the knockdown had to go to the furthest neutral corner. If the fighter scoring the knockdown did not retreat to the furthest neutral corner, the count would be paused until the fighter complied. Dempsey didn't go to the neutral corner, and Barry properly delayed the count. Dempsey broke the neutral corner rule; I can't put it any more plainly than that. He had nobody to blame but himself.
Ironically, it was the Dempsey camp that wanted this new rule.
Tunney was ready to rise prior to a 10 count no matter how you counted it. He was clear headed enough to follow the refs instructions and the fact that he got a few additional seconds most likely had no affect on the outcome.
And as noted, there was no violation of nay rules.
there are two big heavy weight myths.
1. foreman had ali in trouble.
2. the long count was an unfair means to
prevent dempsey from re-gaining the title.
Crease wrote:
Yes. And it's not fair because he was on the ground for longer than 10 seconds, I can't put it any more plainly than that.
The rule was that the count would start immediately but the fighter scoring the knockdown had to go to the furthest neutral corner. If the fighter scoring the knockdown did not retreat to the furthest neutral corner, the count would be paused until the fighter complied. Dempsey didn't go to the neutral corner, and Barry properly delayed the count. Dempsey broke the neutral corner rule; I can't put it any more plainly than that. He had nobody to blame but himself.
Ironically, it was the Dempsey camp that wanted this new rule.
ray, your critical eye for the facts is killing the romance.
1. foreman had ali in trouble.
2. the long count was an unfair means to
prevent dempsey from re-gaining the title.
I remember the first time I saw the long count. My father had told me about it several times and I was expecting to see a terribly hurt Tunney being saved by being saved by the ref. Instead I saw the ref take time to get Dempsey under control while Tunney quickly regained his composure and then waited patiently while he followed the refs count. And when Tunney rose he really didn't seem to be hurt, but clearly back peddled out of the way of the on-rushing Dempsey.
Tunney wasn't even close to being stopped, even if he had only been given an 8 count rather than the 14 or so seconds that it actually took.
Ambling Alp II wrote:
Yet there are people who say that somehow Ali was actually better for the Frazier fight than before his long layoff.
I've never agreed with that claim and seems to be made primarily by Joe Frazier fans. Ali's last fight against Bonavena, prior to meeting frazier was a less than stellar performance. He looked flat footed. I think his timing was off and he certainly did not look as fast as he did against Folley Terrell, Chuvalo, Patterson, etc..
Maybe he didn't look as good because Bonavena was a tougher opponent than Folley, Terrell, Chuvalo, Patterson, etc. . .
I was thinking that it had more to do with the fact that he had only seen 3 rounds of boxing action within a near four year period. And not so much a case of Oscar being better than Patterson or Folley who incidentally both beat him.
Dempsey was past his best but still a great fighter. I actually think Dempsey looks really good in the film of the first Tunney fight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rkwNb4IQXY
Look at the handspeed and head movement. Despite the layoff most would've succumbed that night. Tunney was a boxer par excellent and one of the best conditioned fighters of all time.
dempseyfire wrote:Dempsey was past his best but still a great fighter. I actually think Dempsey looks really good in the film of the first Tunney fight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rkwNb4IQXY
Look at the handspeed and head movement. Despite the layoff most would've succumbed that night. Tunney was a boxer par excellent and one of the best conditioned fighters of all time.
I'm sure that Tunney's conditioning helped him when he was knocedk down in the second fight. He really got tagged by a handful of shots and yet recovered very quickly. While small, Tunney would have been more than handful for any HW in history.
raylawpc wrote:Maybe he didn't look as good because Bonavena was a tougher opponent than Folley, Terrell, Chuvalo, Patterson, etc. . .
I was thinking that it had more to do with the fact that he had only seen 3 rounds of boxing action within a near four year period. And not so much a case of Oscar being better than Patterson or Folley who incidentally both beat him.
Never said Oscar was better than Patterson or Folley. Only that Ali may have found him a tougher opponent. I don't recall anybody who fought Oscar saying, "Gee, that was an easy fight."
Chuvalo was as "tough" a fighter as Bonavena. In fact, in many ways they were similar fighters. The difference was that Ali was a much better fighter at the time he fought Chuvalo than he when fought Bonavena. As the video clearly shows, Ali had much more speed, and far better reflexes,timing, and stamina against Chuvalo.
This is a perfect example. When Dempsey has a long layoff, everyone understands that he wasn't nearly the same fighter when he came back. When Ali has a long layoff, somehow he magically came back better than ever. That way some people can pretend that Frazier beat the best version of Ali. He didn't.
Frazier fought a great fight, (like he usually did) and was probably one of only a handful of fighters who would have won.
However, like Tunney didn't beat the best version of Dempsey in their rematch, Frazier didn't beat the best version of Ali.
