BoxRec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPiLGbDrGnw

Ali has a conversation with Cosell on Jack Dempsey, and Dempsey's
win over Jess Willard.


This clip was mentioned on a thread some where.

that's some funny stuff. "willard is a big ol tall freak, too big to move" LOL

I don't think Ali is a very good objective critic of other fighters.

He also claimed his first fight with Frazier would look like 'a professional toying with an amateur'

Some amateur.

dempseyfire wrote:I don't think Ali is a very good objective critic of other fighters.

He also claimed his first fight with Frazier would look like 'a professional toying with an amateur'

Some amateur.

He has a point about Willard though.

Even standing still, Jess looks completely uncoordinated.

But it is hard to get a sense of Dempsey's skill from that. Except for the actual delivery of some of the punches he looks very amateurish, at least in what you would look for in some sort of defensive protocol. But I suppose defense was so unneeded by Dempsey on this day that it makes it a little easier to explain why this looks the way it does.

I've seen better "form" in bar room brawls.

Or am I missing something here?

Feel free to correct and educate.....anyone.....even the humble, understated and somewhat shy Collins.

Ali is so frequently flip, I find it difficult to get a real feel for how capable he is at studying his peers.

Collins2000 wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:I don't think Ali is a very good objective critic of other fighters.

He also claimed his first fight with Frazier would look like 'a professional toying with an amateur'

Some amateur.

He has a point about Willard though.

Even standing still, Jess looks completely uncoordinated.

Yep he looks like the big goon that everyone knew was not likely to pose a threat but that folks gave a wide berth to in humor just because he was "the big guy".

BoxBuzz wrote:But it is hard to get a sense of Dempsey's skill from that. Except for the actual delivery of some of the punches he looks very amateurish, at least in what you would look for in some sort of defensive protocol. But I suppose defense was so unneeded by Dempsey on this day that it makes it a little easier to explain why this looks the way it does.

I've seen better "form" in bar room brawls.

Or am I missing something here?

Feel free to correct and educate.....anyone.....even the humble, understated and somewhat shy Collins.

? How is this? Dempsey stays light on his toes, moves in and out, parries Willard's jabs, and then comes in with bombs. Dempsey was also a master at slipping and bobbing and weaving. This clip doesn't show the minute and a half that preceded the KD. Of course after Jack has Willard down and badly hurt he throws wider punches, still with solid technique though . . .all fighters look a little wild going for the knockout, especially of such a bigger opponent.
Don't see how Dempsey shows such awful defense here considering he hardly got hit at all vs Willard.

dempseyfire wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:But it is hard to get a sense of Dempsey's skill from that. Except for the actual delivery of some of the punches he looks very amateurish, at least in what you would look for in some sort of defensive protocol. But I suppose defense was so unneeded by Dempsey on this day that it makes it a little easier to explain why this looks the way it does.

I've seen better "form" in bar room brawls.

Or am I missing something here?

Feel free to correct and educate.....anyone.....even the humble, understated and somewhat shy Collins.

? How is this? Dempsey stays light on his toes, moves in and out, parries Willard's jabs, and then comes in with bombs. Dempsey was also a master at slipping and bobbing and weaving. This clip doesn't show the minute and a half that preceded the KD. Of course after Jack has Willard down and badly hurt he throws wider punches, still with solid technique though . . .all fighters look a little wild going for the knockout, especially of such a bigger opponent.
Don't see how Dempsey shows such awful defense here considering he hardly got hit at all vs Willard.

Thanks...you open with "How is this" as if amazed that I could utter such nonsense (which you know I'm completely capable of)..And then proceed to define for me just what I needed to know.
Like I say, or at least I meant to convey...he looks great in the delivery...you can easily tell he knows how to throw. But your right in these seconds he's just not worrying about defense. Jess does look like a nobody in there ....and against Jack I guess there are precious few people who could be considered "somebody".

Never the less it has the look of that "bar room moment" I spoke of.

Also I had seen other work by him where he absolutely showed those skills....so I was just questioning and commenting on these exact frames. They didn't show Ali any of Jack's more finesse work on this occasion.

BoxBuzz wrote: I've seen better "form" in bar room brawls.

Or am I missing something here?.

- I've seen better fights in kindergarten than some of the stinkers Ali was in. Go review Young or Mathis bouts as case in point.

Anyone can be made to look awkward in the moment, but awkwardness has it's own asthetic attributes appreciated by students of the fistic arts. Willard was the real deal as this video clip shows of him utilizing a rocking version of the fabled falling step, a very real, and very difficult, very awkward technique to learn, to great effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhumAxChVa4

That is the monster that Jack The Giant Killer Dempsey brought down in the first round after JJ threw the sink and entire kitchen at him yet couldn't budge him over 26 rds.

Compare to the "anchor punch" Ali made up to explain his "phantom punch" in the biggest bunch of press hooey ever fed to mankind.

BRR....Willard does look competent in those frames.

Like you say anything can be done with a few frames that can tell all kinds of stories.

...so were Young and Mathis kindergarten style fighters? To here you tell it, that's all it would take to get to the end of a fight with them and still be standing.

Or were you trying to make a different point?

Ali not regarding Willard very highly does not seem surprising. People may be overrating Willard's career a bit. After beating Burns, Johnson stopped fighting the best contenders available and by the time Willard faced Johnson, it seems likely that Johnson was not the world's best heavyweight. Beating Johnson in 1915 may not be such a huge accomplishment.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Ali not regarding Willard very highly does not seem surprising. People may be overrating Willard's career a bit. After beating Burns, Johnson stopped fighting the best contenders available and by the time Willard faced Johnson, it seems likely that Johnson was not the world's best heavyweight. Beating Johnson in 1915 may not be such a huge accomplishment.

- Ratings are subjective consensus put into linear mathematic format.

Doubt a young Ali considered ratings mathematically, but more instinctually as in who he liked and didn't like.

Johnson beat 150 lb Langford, 15th Ibro ranking, and 6 yr retired Jeffries, 7th Ibro ranking, before he lost his title to an unranked heavy unmentioned by Ibro, Willard.

Willard beat the 3rd ranked Ibro heavy active in his day before losing to the 4th ranked Ibro heavy, yet is unranked by Ibro.

Somehow these numbers don't add up in my ledger, but perhaps they do in other ledgers.

Buz (“I don’t have a clue what boxing is and I am a ‘moderator’ on a ‘boxing’ website, Yuk, Yuk”)

now intones that Dempsey looks "amateurish."

granberry wrote:Buz (“I don’t have a clue what boxing is and I am a ‘moderator’ on a ‘boxing’ website, Yuk, Yuk”)

now intones that Dempsey looks "amateurish."

GranB ("I don't have a clue what I have just read here but I am still a "contributor" on a boxing website, hardy har har") shows once again that he does not know what others are talking about as he now is utterly unable to correctly feedback the meaning of what he just read.

Buz (“I don’t have a clue what boxing is and I am a ‘moderator’ on a ‘boxing’ website, Yuk, Yuk”)

could give Jack Dempsey lessons on how to fight.

So could any other member of the walking army of the "Religion of Ali."

If you want to see a thorough boxing lesson in the real world,

the reference would be what Jimmy Young did to poor Ali.

For fifteen rounds.

The members of the "Religion" will never forgive Young for that.

Young exposed Ali's inferiority for all to see.

For fifteen rounds.

As Angelo Dundee said of his fighter Ali in that fight,

"He never looked so bad."

Getting old happens to many boxers. I am not sure why. You would think that such an easy sport would be more forgiving. Same thing happened to Dempsey against Tunney. Dempsey also had a three year absence, and we all know that this does nothing to a boxer.
How was Young looking against Ocasio and Cooney, by the way? I heard he did great. Young sure showed greater longevity than Ali did. Young from '82 to '85, where he was around the same age that Ali was (34) when they fought in '76, had one of the best runs in boxing history. Young was so much better than Ali that, had the circumstances been reversed, a prime Ali would have been destroyed by a 34 year old Young fifteen pounds overweight coming off a Frazier trilogy.
I think it was quite disgraceful that Ali had the gall to critique other Heavyweight champions, by the way. We all know that none of them ever did that to him.

The difference between Ali and Dempsey was that Ali fought near EVERYONE
and this happened after his 3 year absence.

Dempsey took a break and sat on the title, came back and lost the title to
a light heavyweight. Ali lost to one of the best conditioned sluggers of the
sport and then went on to re win it twice....

So comparing Ali to Dempsey is not an easy thing, but here is the facts...
Dempsey drew a colour line..
Dempsey sat on the title for 3 years...
Dempsey never fought anyone near the level of competition that Ali did...

Sorry to disagree with you mr Gran.

Forgive me for being repetitive robinson, but "it was a different era." As I have said to you before, Dempsey's manager felt that he should spend more time fighting exhibitions, and Dempsey did. They took defenses when there was a large amount of money on the line and when they could get big, often record gates. The names he fought in title fights were big names for the era, and I don't think it is fair to single out Dempsey for what many Heavyweight champions of that pre-Louis era did, even if you don't intend to single him out. I am sure that Dempsey in a later era would have fought more real fights and more often. I agree that he shouldn't be compared to an Ali or a Louis, but Dempsey was indeed a great fighter.

For his time he was the best no doubt.

And yes, you will no doubt have to continue to be
repetitive so long as people wish to compare fighters.

Well it is fair enough that you call him the best of his time. I think we agree that there were many later champions who were better.

Indeed. He stands out because of his ferocity and uniqueness
compared to many of his peers.

An in shape fighter with a lot of heart, the character of Dempsey
and his raw power will give the top men in anyone's top five a
tough night. There is no debating that, but Dempsey in my opinion
would come of second best against some later men.

Robinson wrote:The difference between Ali and Dempsey was that Ali fought near EVERYONE
and this happened after his 3 year absence.

Dempsey took a break and sat on the title, came back and lost the title to
a light heavyweight. Ali lost to one of the best conditioned sluggers of the
sport and then went on to re win it twice....

So comparing Ali to Dempsey is not an easy thing, but here is the facts...
Dempsey drew a colour line..
Dempsey sat on the title for 3 years...
Dempsey never fought anyone near the level of competition that Ali did...

Sorry to disagree with you mr Gran.

Robinson does his mentor collins and the "Religion of Ali" proud.

Every "Religion of Ali" talking point about Dempsey all in one post.

I Feel Fine wrote:Forgive me for being repetitive robinson, but "it was a different era." As I have said to you before, Dempsey's manager felt that he should spend more time fighting exhibitions, and Dempsey did. They took defenses when there was a large amount of money on the line and when they could get big, often record gates. The names he fought in title fights were big names for the era, and I don't think it is fair to single out Dempsey for what many Heavyweight champions of that pre-Louis era did, even if you don't intend to single him out. I am sure that Dempsey in a later era would have fought more real fights and more often. I agree that he shouldn't be compared to an Ali or a Louis, but Dempsey was indeed a great fighter.

Rocket-science, context ain't.

Granberry,

Collins has many lessons to teach me yet. Though
I have missed out on his Ali sermons...

I am comparing Ali to Dempsey because that is the
theme and while what IFF has said re different era's
is apt and all that. Dempsey is heralded time and time
again by fans, experts etc alike and compared to men
who never drew the line, as such and who were
active, or relatively active.

Different era.....

indeed.