BoxRec

man wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

man wrote:i don't think dempsey's defense can handle holmes'
jab and technical superiority for a whole fight.

It is not as hard for me to imagine Dempsey beating Holmes by decision as it is for most (especially if he managed a very plausible knockdown or two along the way).

i might represent a tiny minority or am completely
on my own in this, but i do think that dempsey fought
in the era that was technically very different, especially
on foot work and defense.

i actually think he against any decent boxer with
modern technique would be embarrassingly one sided,
and not in his favor. but i do understand that on this
board there are tons of people with way more knowledge
than myself and a very different opinion.

I dont think footwork and movement would be that much of an issue. People always remember the Tunney fights when Jack was old and had lost his legs. The prime Dempsey, was a guy Tyson copied, in terms of circa 86-89 Tyson just used to walk down movers.....and Dempsey in his prime was one of the best at that plus with that crouch that made him look like half hunchback of notre dame and half one of those men who chisels boards of wood with a saw.

mugabi wrote:I dont think footwork and movement would be that much of an issue. People always remember the Tunney fights when Jack was old and had lost his legs. The prime Dempsey, was a guy Tyson copied, in terms of circa 86-89 Tyson just used to walk down movers.....and Dempsey in his prime was one of the best at that plus with that crouch that made him look like half hunchback of notre dame and half one of those men who chisels boards of wood with a saw.

early tyson IMO had enormous defense. he was
really hard to hit, doing lots of lateral movement.
to me dempsey's style seems more comparable to
later tyson, who came straight forward with bullying
being a great factor for success.

i think dempsey would be easy to read for a prime
larry holmes.

man wrote:

mugabi wrote:I dont think footwork and movement would be that much of an issue. People always remember the Tunney fights when Jack was old and had lost his legs. The prime Dempsey, was a guy Tyson copied, in terms of circa 86-89 Tyson just used to walk down movers.....and Dempsey in his prime was one of the best at that plus with that crouch that made him look like half hunchback of notre dame and half one of those men who chisels boards of wood with a saw.

early tyson IMO had enormous defense. he was
really hard to hit, doing lots of lateral movement.
to me dempsey's style seems more comparable to
later tyson, who came straight forward with bullying
being a great factor for success.

i think dempsey would be easy to read for a prime
larry holmes.

Dempsey had better defense and (vastly) superior footowork to Tyson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wxHY3p9DiQ

The D'Amato style is probably the most over-rated in all of boxing. It negates the ability to roll and counter, and leaves the fighter too often searching for that perfect middle range.

And you'll probably say "well, Dempsey has his hands so low." Well A) in 6 ounce horse leather gloves holding them up to your face is not going to provide you with the protection modern 10 ounce gloves will and B) If you develop the ability to roll, slip, and counter like the old timers did, having your hands lower will not only preserve energy (less lactic acid buildup than when you constantly have them up to your face) but enables you to punch from more angles.

Beginners should always "keep their hands up" . . with years of experience fighters fighters can (and usually do) fight a more relaxed style with lower hands. Look at Floyd Mayweather, acknowledged as the best boxer in the game today . . often has his hands low, with his left often very low. Sergio Martinez. . hands down. Vitali Klitschko . . hands down.

Im with you and all Demps, but lets go easy on that last name.

dempseyfire wrote:And you'll probably say "well, Dempsey has his hands so low." Well A) in 6 ounce horse leather gloves holding them up to your face is not going to provide you with the protection modern 10 ounce gloves will ...

really? isn't it the pure fact you're protecting your most
vulnerable parts from direct impact that counts? i mean
even bearknucklers hold hands high, which would not
make any sense by your logic.

man wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:And you'll probably say "well, Dempsey has his hands so low." Well A) in 6 ounce horse leather gloves holding them up to your face is not going to provide you with the protection modern 10 ounce gloves will ...

really? isn't it the pure fact you're protecting your most
vulnerable parts from direct impact that counts? i mean
even bearknucklers hold hands high, which would not
make any sense by your logic.

?? Bareknucklers held their hands low . . especially made sense for bareknucklers as guys would risk breaking their hands throwing home-run shots to an opponents head. With no or small gloves, not only is the surface area much smaller than modern gloves, but you are severely restricting your countering ability by placing your hands up and turned, so that you are basically resigning yourself to getting hit with some punches, whereas a Mayweather, Charles Burley, Tony Canzoneri . .they could go many rounds without taking ANY solid blows whatsoever.

Why simply provide protection from "direct" impact (holding your hands up peek-a-boo style) to a certain portion of your head/face . .when you can protect from "any" impact via slipping, rolling, and countering? The latter is harder to do and takes intensive experience to perfect, which is why in an era of fighters fighting 2-3 times a year hardly no-one shows those skills anymore.

dempseyfire wrote:

man wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:And you'll probably say "well, Dempsey has his hands so low." Well A) in 6 ounce horse leather gloves holding them up to your face is not going to provide you with the protection modern 10 ounce gloves will ...

really? isn't it the pure fact you're protecting your most
vulnerable parts from direct impact that counts? i mean
even bearknucklers hold hands high, which would not
make any sense by your logic.

?? Bareknucklers held their hands low . . especially made sense for bareknucklers as guys would risk breaking their hands throwing home-run shots to an opponents head. With no or small gloves, not only is the surface area much smaller than modern gloves, but you are severely restricting your countering ability by placing your hands up and turned, so that you are basically resigning yourself to getting hit with some punches, whereas a Mayweather, Charles Burley, Tony Canzoneri . .they could go many rounds without taking ANY solid blows whatsoever.

Why simply provide protection from "direct" impact (holding your hands up peek-a-boo style) to a certain portion of your head/face . .when you can protect from "any" impact via slipping, rolling, and countering? The latter is harder to do and takes intensive experience to perfect, which is why in an era of fighters fighting 2-3 times a year hardly no-one shows those skills anymore.

yes.

dempseyfire wrote:

man wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:And you'll probably say "well, Dempsey has his hands so low." Well A) in 6 ounce horse leather gloves holding them up to your face is not going to provide you with the protection modern 10 ounce gloves will ...

really? isn't it the pure fact you're protecting your most
vulnerable parts from direct impact that counts? i mean
even bearknucklers hold hands high, which would not
make any sense by your logic.

?? Bareknucklers held their hands low . . especially made sense for bareknucklers as guys would risk breaking their hands throwing home-run shots to an opponents head. With no or small gloves, not only is the surface area much smaller than modern gloves, but you are severely restricting your countering ability by placing your hands up and turned, so that you are basically resigning yourself to getting hit with some punches, whereas a Mayweather, Charles Burley, Tony Canzoneri . .they could go many rounds without taking ANY solid blows whatsoever.

Why simply provide protection from "direct" impact (holding your hands up peek-a-boo style) to a certain portion of your head/face . .when you can protect from "any" impact via slipping, rolling, and countering? The latter is harder to do and takes intensive experience to perfect, which is why in an era of fighters fighting 2-3 times a year hardly no-one shows those skills anymore.

thnx for the lecture. always eager to learn.
(no irony)

man wrote:

man wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:And you'll probably say "well, Dempsey has his hands so low." Well A) in 6 ounce horse leather gloves holding them up to your face is not going to provide you with the protection modern 10 ounce gloves will ...

really? isn't it the pure fact you're protecting your most
vulnerable parts from direct impact that counts? i mean
even bearknucklers hold hands high, which would not
make any sense by your logic.

?? Bareknucklers held their hands low . . especially made sense for bareknucklers as guys would risk breaking their hands throwing home-run shots to an opponents head. With no or small gloves, not only is the surface area much smaller than modern gloves, but you are severely restricting your countering ability by placing your hands up and turned, so that you are basically resigning yourself to getting hit with some punches, whereas a Mayweather, Charles Burley, Tony Canzoneri . .they could go many rounds without taking ANY solid blows whatsoever.

Why simply provide protection from "direct" impact (holding your hands up peek-a-boo style) to a certain portion of your head/face . .when you can protect from "any" impact via slipping, rolling, and countering? The latter is harder to do and takes intensive experience to perfect, which is why in an era of fighters fighting 2-3 times a year hardly no-one shows those skills anymore.

thnx for the lecture. always eager to learn.
(no irony)[/quote]

No problem. Should add that different styles work for different fighters. Even in the early gloved era one can see fighters with their hands up fighting in more of the 'modern' style, although this was usually done (ironically) by fighters like Gunner Moir and Jim Flynn who were not considered top drawer in the skills department.

mugabi wrote:Wat would happen in Dempsey V Holmes....

Here is my take:

Larry uses his height and jab to maintain a distance between himself and Jack. The jab is effective throughout the fight and Larry uses it as his primary weapon to great effect.

Jack Dempsey's swarming style snuffs out the space for Holmes and Jack lands quite a few hurtful shots that leaves Larry reeling against the ropes.

After a bloody battle, and with Dempsey sustaining a busted-up face... Dempsey land a destructive left hook and KOs Larry Holmes in the later rounds...

Styles make fights, and this would be a good'un.