1919 Jack Dempsey vs 1983 Tim Witherspoon

[pundit]

I wonder why controversial bothers replying to this certified idiot.

[granberry]

They had the huge advantage of being able to stand over fallen oppenents in Dempseys era,

Show me the footage of any of these fights where Ali stood over his opponent and clubbed them when they tried to stand up.

I still fail to see what Ali has to do with this thread?

You fail to see a lot of things, controversial.

YOU brought up the fact that for part of Dempsey career a fighter scoring a knockdown did not have to go to the furthest neutral corner.

In his second fight with Tunney (in 1927) Dempsey knocked Tunney down and the refree refused to start his count until Dempsey went to the furthest neutral corner.

As a result Dempsey was not credited with a knockout even though Tunney was down 17 seconds by the timekeeper's watch.

The same rule was not imposed on Ali.

Ali stood right next to Archie Moore and right next to Bonavena.

In each case the stooge "referee" DID NOT make Ali go to a neutral corner.

In each case as soon as his opponent was up Ali threw punches at him,
with the full approval of the stooge "referee."

You yourself bring up the topic of a fighter scoring a knockdown going to a neutral corner

and then you whine when I point out that the rule was not applied more recently?

Anyone who does know this rule of boxing would wonder why this rule did not apply to Ali.

Did he fight with special privileges not accorded to others?

Apparently.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

who do you like?



6'3 215lb Tim Witherspoon vs 6'1 185lb Jack Dempsey

Btw, in the 1980s Dempsey wouldn't have come in at 185.

i know just like louis wouldnt have come in at 200lb and marciano wouldnt have come in at 185lb, they would be heavier

[Controversial]

They had the huge advantage of being able to stand over fallen oppenents in Dempseys era,

Show me the footage of any of these fights where Ali stood over his opponent and clubbed them when they tried to stand up.

I still fail to see what Ali has to do with this thread?

You fail to see a lot of things, controversial.

YOU brought up the fact that for part of Dempsey career a fighter scoring a knockdown did not have to go to the furthest neutral corner.

In his second fight with Tunney (in 1927) Dempsey knocked Tunney down and the refree refused to start his count until Dempsey went to the furthest neutral corner.

As a result Dempsey was not credited with a knockout even though Tunney was down 17 seconds by the timekeeper's watch.

The same rule was not imposed on Ali.

Ali stood right next to Archie Moore and right next to Bonavena.

In each case the stooge "referee" DID NOT make Ali go to a neutral corner.

In each case as soon as his opponent was up Ali threw punches at him,
with the full approval of the stooge "referee."

You yourself bring up the topic of a fighter scoring a knockdown going to a neutral corner

and then you whine when I point out that the rule was not applied more recently?

Anyone who does know this rule of boxing would wonder why this rule did not apply to Ali.

Did he fight with special privileges not accorded to others?

Apparently.

Show me footage where Ali stood next to ANY fallen opponent and continued to punch them why they tried to stand.

Good luck.

[Controversial]

Fred Fulton was 6' 5". Dempsey knocked Fulton out in 18 seconds of the first round including the ten count.

Granberry, I assume then as Witherspoon was stopped in one round and you think that makes him crap, the same can be said about Fulton.

Blimey knocked out in 8 seconds he must have been really really really crap. Looks like Dempsey fought some pretty weak opposition to me

Boxing "expert controversial displays some more of his "knowledge."

Fred Fulton stopped Sam Langford in 7 rounds in 1917.

That made him the number one contender for Jess Willard's title.

Poor controversial doesn't know who Sam Langford is.

And of course he has just demonstrated he doesn't know who Fred Fulton is.

Total ignorance qualifies boxing "expert" controversial to arrive at his deeply thought out "conclusions" .

Your the one criticizing Witherspoon for losing in one round. I can therefore criticize Fulton for being knocked out in 8 seconds. What does it matter who he beat or went on to beat, the fact is Fulton was knocked out in 8 seconds, get over it.

[evndrbsn]

Granberry, I assume then as Witherspoon was stopped in one round and you think that makes him crap, the same can be said about Fulton.

Blimey knocked out in 8 seconds he must have been really really really crap. Looks like Dempsey fought some pretty weak opposition to me

Boxing "expert controversial displays some more of his "knowledge."

Fred Fulton stopped Sam Langford in 7 rounds in 1917.

That made him the number one contender for Jess Willard's title.

Poor controversial doesn't know who Sam Langford is.

And of course he has just demonstrated he doesn't know who Fred Fulton is.

Total ignorance qualifies boxing "expert" controversial to arrive at his deeply thought out "conclusions" .

Your the one criticizing Witherspoon for losing in one round. I can therefore criticize Fulton for being knocked out in 8 seconds. What does it matter who he beat or went on to beat, the fact is Fulton was knocked out in 8 seconds, get over it.

Crankberry also failed to mention how Dempsey himself was KO'd in one round also by 37 year old Fireman Jim Flynn, who in two years was winless in six bouts, being KO'd twice. Circumstances or not, Dempsey was knocked out cold in seconds (whether it was a dive or legitimate) by a fighter who was four and a half years removed from his title challenge of Jack Johnson. Witherspoon lasted about 2 minutes longer than Dempsey in his one round defeat against a bigger fighter, 6'4" & 228.5 lb Bonecrusher Smith. Flynn was barely a shade over 5'9" and only had three documented weights of over 190 lb.

If you are going to criticize a fighter for a loss, might want to look both ways in the future.

[granberry]

i know just like louis wouldnt have come in at 200lb and marciano wouldnt have come in at 185lb, they would be heavier

How interesting. Jack Blackburn and Charley Goldman wouldn't have anything to say about that?

Whom do you envision training Louis and Marciano in your fairy tale world of the 80's ?

Bert Sugar ?

Or Larry Merchant?

[granberry]

Show me footage where Ali stood next to ANY fallen opponent and continued to punch them why they tried to stand.

Good luck.

Show me footage where the so-called "referee" enforced the basic rule of making Ali go to a neutral corner in his fights with Archie Moore, Bonavena, and Liston.

YOU CAN'T.

[evndrbsn]

YOU brought up the fact that for part of Dempsey career a fighter scoring a knockdown did not have to go to the furthest neutral corner.

In his second fight with Tunney (in 1927) Dempsey knocked Tunney down and the refree refused to start his count until Dempsey went to the furthest neutral corner.

As a result Dempsey was not credited with a knockout even though Tunney was down 17 seconds by the timekeeper's watch.

The same rule was not imposed on Ali.

Again, what is with your demented wish to warp history? Tunney was actually down for about 14 seconds, so your estimation of 17, while close, was wrong. Nice attempt, though. Really, pick up a book, watch some film. Pay attention to the experts on the forum, you might learn something. Somehow I doubt it, though.

Anyway, in the same fight you are talking about, Tunney did not have the "neutral corner" rule applied to him when he dropped Dempsey for a one count in the eighth round.

[granberry]

the fact is Fulton was knocked out in 8 seconds,

18 seconds Mr. boxing "expert."

When I spent close to an hour talking to Dempsey at his restaurant, it was obvious he considered the Fulton fight his most significant win.

[granberry]

YOU brought up the fact that for part of Dempsey career a fighter scoring a knockdown did not have to go to the furthest neutral corner.

In his second fight with Tunney (in 1927) Dempsey knocked Tunney down and the refree refused to start his count until Dempsey went to the furthest neutral corner.

As a result Dempsey was not credited with a knockout even though Tunney was down 17 seconds by the timekeeper's watch.

The same rule was not imposed on Ali.

Again, what is with your demented wish to warp history? Tunney was actually down for about 14 seconds, so your estimation of 17, while close, was wrong. Nice attempt, though. Really, pick up a book, watch some film. Pay attention to the experts on the forum, you might learn something. Somehow I doubt it, though.

Anyway, in the same fight you are talking about, Tunney did not have the "neutral corner" rule applied to him when he dropped Dempsey for a one count in the eighth round.

The official timekeeper said his watch read 17 seconds when Tunney got up.

[evndrbsn]

YOU brought up the fact that for part of Dempsey career a fighter scoring a knockdown did not have to go to the furthest neutral corner.

In his second fight with Tunney (in 1927) Dempsey knocked Tunney down and the refree refused to start his count until Dempsey went to the furthest neutral corner.

As a result Dempsey was not credited with a knockout even though Tunney was down 17 seconds by the timekeeper's watch.

The same rule was not imposed on Ali.

Again, what is with your demented wish to warp history? Tunney was actually down for about 14 seconds, so your estimation of 17, while close, was wrong. Nice attempt, though. Really, pick up a book, watch some film. Pay attention to the experts on the forum, you might learn something. Somehow I doubt it, though.

Anyway, in the same fight you are talking about, Tunney did not have the "neutral corner" rule applied to him when he dropped Dempsey for a one count in the eighth round.

The official timekeeper said his watch read 17 seconds when Tunney got up.

The timekeeper was about five seconds ahead of referee Dave Barry's count. Barry was at the count of nine when Dempsey arose, while the timekeeper was at 14.

Again, nice effort, but wrong.

[granberry]

Again, what is with your demented wish to warp history? Tunney was actually down for about 14 seconds, so your estimation of 17, while close, was wrong. Nice attempt, though. Really, pick up a book, watch some film. Pay attention to the experts on the forum, you might learn something. Somehow I doubt it, though.

Anyway, in the same fight you are talking about, Tunney did not have the "neutral corner" rule applied to him when he dropped Dempsey for a one count in the eighth round.

The official timekeeper said his watch read 17 seconds when Tunney got up.

The timekeeper was about five seconds ahead of referee Dave Barry's count. Barry was at the count of nine when Dempsey arose, while the timekeeper was at 14.

Again, nice effort, but wrong.

You live a fairy tale world, evndr.

The offical timekeeper said the referee counted "one" when the timekeeper's watch read six.

The timekeeper said the referee counted to "nine"

but that the referee ignored his (the timekeeper's) waving arm for the last three counts--7,8, and 9--

made each of those counts last two full seconds.

The 5 seconds the referee didn't count, the 9 he did count, plus the second he added to the last 3 counts--add up to 17 seconds, which is what the timekeepers watch read when he clicked it as Tunney got up.

[Tantum]

Crankberry also failed to mention how Dempsey himself was KO'd in one round also by 37 year old Fireman Jim Flynn, who in two years was winless in six bouts, being KO'd twice. Circumstances or not, Dempsey was knocked out cold in seconds (whether it was a dive or legitimate) by a fighter who was four and a half years removed from his title challenge of Jack Johnson. Witherspoon lasted about 2 minutes longer than Dempsey in his one round defeat against a bigger fighter, 6'4" & 228.5 lb Bonecrusher Smith. Flynn was barely a shade over 5'9" and only had three documented weights of over 190 lb.

If you are going to criticize a fighter for a loss, might want to look both ways in the future.

I love how this post was ignored.

[overhand_right]

Boxing "expert" granberry strangely/conviniently forgets/plain doesn't know that in June 1985 Tim Witherspoon outpointed Bonecrusher Smith easily over 12 rds.

Most people know the extenuating circumstances between his 1986 rematch with Bonecrusher.

With no ability to take part in adult dialogue, start throwing insults and laying on thick layers of sarcasm....

He also chose to ignore this one, after making such a big deal of Witherspoon going out in 1 to Mr Bonecrusher.

The guy is a elderly, frail, bitter old troll who seems very lonely.

[Mukel]

There is a gulf in difference between technique between modern and classic fighters, and training methods aswell make it hard to judge.

[Controversial]

They had the huge advantage of being able to stand over fallen oppenents in Dempseys era,

Show me the footage of any of these fights where Ali stood over his opponent and clubbed them when they tried to stand up.

I still fail to see what Ali has to do with this thread?

You fail to see a lot of things, controversial.

YOU brought up the fact that for part of Dempsey career a fighter scoring a knockdown did not have to go to the furthest neutral corner.

In his second fight with Tunney (in 1927) Dempsey knocked Tunney down and the refree refused to start his count until Dempsey went to the furthest neutral corner.

As a result Dempsey was not credited with a knockout even though Tunney was down 17 seconds by the timekeeper's watch.

The same rule was not imposed on Ali.

Ali stood right next to Archie Moore and right next to Bonavena.

In each case the stooge "referee" DID NOT make Ali go to a neutral corner.

In each case as soon as his opponent was up Ali threw punches at him,
with the full approval of the stooge "referee."

You yourself bring up the topic of a fighter scoring a knockdown going to a neutral corner

and then you whine when I point out that the rule was not applied more recently?

Anyone who does know this rule of boxing would wonder why this rule did not apply to Ali.

Did he fight with special privileges not accorded to others?

Apparently.

You deliberately missing my point. Fighters had a huge advantage for most of Dempseys era by being able to stand over fallen opponents and when they stand continue to punch. That rule was not around when Ali fought. Imagine how many results would have been different if todays fighters could hover over fighters and club then before they had a chance to defend thereselves properly.

Your issue about Ali is completely different and you know it.

[Controversial]

the fact is Fulton was knocked out in 8 seconds,

18 seconds Mr. boxing "expert."

When I spent close to an hour talking to Dempsey at his restaurant, it was obvious he considered the Fulton fight his most significant win.

18 seconds including the count. So the count started on 8 seconds. So your wrong again.

Anyhow Fulton was still ko'ed in 8 seconds (or 18 seconds including the count if that makes you happy). Witherspoon lost under the 3 knockdown rule, again something that wouldn't have happened in Dempseys era.

Fulton being ko'ed that quickly either means his chin was crap or he got caught with a big punch and was knocked out. What was it?

[UpWithEvil]

Crankberry also failed to mention how Dempsey himself was KO'd in one round also by 37 year old Fireman Jim Flynn, who in two years was winless in six bouts, being KO'd twice. Circumstances or not, Dempsey was knocked out cold in seconds (whether it was a dive or legitimate)

I think "whether it was a dive or legitimate" is a fairly significant consideration in this context, however. There can be no denying that the observers on-site felt it was fishy, which by itself is a red flag irrespective of the circumstantial evidence.

[evndrbsn]

Crankberry also failed to mention how Dempsey himself was KO'd in one round also by 37 year old Fireman Jim Flynn, who in two years was winless in six bouts, being KO'd twice. Circumstances or not, Dempsey was knocked out cold in seconds (whether it was a dive or legitimate)

I think "whether it was a dive or legitimate" is a fairly significant consideration in this context, however. There can be no denying that the observers on-site felt it was fishy, which by itself is a red flag irrespective of the circumstantial evidence.

There are some people that say Witherspoon threw the rematch with Smith to get rid of Don King, so whether or not Dempsey's loss was a dive or legitimate is as relevant as Witherspoon's.

[overhand_right]

Whats relevant that Best v Best Spoon had already beaten Bone 12 rd UD, June 1985.

[Ezzard]

Dempsey either jumps on Tim and stops him early or overwhelms him with a high punch rate and more agression to win on points.

I think the styles and psychology favour Dempsey.

[Robinson]

Legend and Nostalgia aside
I pick Witherspoon. He is just better rounded. His jab is better than any that Dempsey faced and his over hand right has a accuracy seldom encountered by Dempsey.

Having said that Jack's ferocity and tenacious aggression would put Witherspoon on the back foot early.

I find it interesting that people are comparing Willard to Witherspoon.

Jess Willard beat a in-active, past prime Jack Johnson in 26 rounds.
His other best win was over Frank Moran. Apart from that he was in-active for nearly 3 years before defending his title against Dempsey.

Dempsey was a great fighter, but contray to what people want to believe the sport has evolved and become refined. Sure some old time fighters could hang and give alot of modern guys a run for there money.

Kym

[Ezzard]

Legend and Nostalgia aside
I pick Witherspoon. He is just better rounded. His jab is better than any that Dempsey faced and his over hand right has a accuracy seldom encountered by Dempsey.

Having said that Jack's ferocity and tenacious aggression would put Witherspoon on the back foot early.

I find it interesting that people are comparing Willard to Witherspoon.

Jess Willard beat a in-active, past prime Jack Johnson in 26 rounds.
His other best win was over Frank Moran. Apart from that he was in-active for nearly 3 years before defending his title against Dempsey.

Dempsey was a great fighter, but contray to what people want to believe the sport has evolved and become refined. Sure some old time fighters could hang and give alot of modern guys a run for there money.

Kym

Robinson, I'm not going to get into that old debate as it's been done over and over but have you seen Spoon-Tubbs or Page-Tubbs from the 1980s?

[Ezzard]

Where would they park the Tardis for this fight? Or the Delorean for that matter?

With Doctor Who as the very capable ref I would take Dempsey's greater mental make-up to wear Tim down after Jack himself took some shots on the way in early-doors.

Tim was a sound technician but as mentioned he seemed to like his own pace and could be knocked out of it. You can clearly see, though, that his skills lasted well beyond his physical peak and he had some good defence and a solid, albeit at times clumsy, attack.

Tim would not be blow away early but he would be worn down, a lot of target area for Jack to catch and although it is possible Jack does not get him inside the distance he should do enough mid to late damage to win the fight.

Granmother, you say you met Jack in his resaurant, liar, it was a restaurant and I can imagine the conversation:

Granmother: "You want fries with that?"

Jack: "Yes."

Granmother: "This so-called fighter thinks he knows boxing, part of the Ali conspiracy." (...mutter...mutter...goes on for ever...no one cares... goes to bed alone)

Bit thrown there, Terence, by you changing your secret identity...

Tim seemed to have a great chin until he ran into Bonecrusher. Would have been interesting if the 3 KD rule had not been in effect and Tim had got through the round.

Could Dempsey pull off that kind of result?

At times Witherspoon's biggest problem was his lack of punch output.