BoxRec

best defense?

In any weight class.

For the heavies, I'm guessing peak Tyson would have been considered to have been pretty good defensively.

I love that peek-a-boo style.

Quite easily, Duran.

Chavez in his prime had impressive defensive skills.

Not like Duran.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Not like Duran.

Agree; but worth noting.

yancey wrote:best defense?

In any weight class.

For the heavies, I'm guessing peak Tyson would have been considered to have been pretty good defensively.

I love that peek-a-boo style.

From just reading about him, Harry Greb seemed to have a good defence, while throwing lots of punches.

Based on what I have read, Harry Greb was very quick, which made him very hard to hit.
Believe or not, Greb also had very effective footwork. All of this is despite the fact that Greb may have had the most unorthodox fighting style in boxing history.

- Chuck Johnston

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Quite easily, Duran.

Duran rolled with punches better than perhaps anyone in the modern age. Although it's not defense, Duran was a master at using the feint. It seems that both these skills are lost on today's generation of boxers.

yancey wrote:best defense?

In any weight class.

For the heavies, I'm guessing peak Tyson would have been considered to have been pretty good defensively.

I love that peek-a-boo style.

Dempsey was considered a good defensive fighter. Tunney even commented that Dempsey was hard to hit solidly.

Tyson has to be the most overrated defensive fighter in the history of earth.

raylawpc wrote:

yancey wrote:best defense?

In any weight class.

For the heavies, I'm guessing peak Tyson would have been considered to have been pretty good defensively.

I love that peek-a-boo style.

Dempsey was considered a good defensive fighter. Tunney even commented that Dempsey was hard to hit solidly.

Tunney was just paying homage. He didnt struggle to land.

Doesnt preclude Dempsey from having good defense, mind. That wasnt the real Dempsey.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Tyson has to be the most overrated defensive fighter in the history of earth.

May be true, but I still love the peek-a-boo.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

yancey wrote:best defense?

In any weight class.

For the heavies, I'm guessing peak Tyson would have been considered to have been pretty good defensively.

I love that peek-a-boo style.

Dempsey was considered a good defensive fighter. Tunney even commented that Dempsey was hard to hit solidly.

Tunney was just paying homage. He didnt struggle to land.

Doesnt preclude Dempsey from having good defense, mind. That wasnt the real Dempsey.

When did he tell you that he was "just paying homage?" I didn't know that you knew Gene Tunney! What he said in published comments I've read was that Dempsey was hard to hit solidly. He said that Dempsey defended his jaw extremely well (tucked his chin behind his left shoulder, and used his right hand effectively to block lefts. But since you talked to him and know he was "just paying homage . . ." However, I recall Carpentier said something similar. Was Carpentier talking about the real Dempsey . . . or maybe he was just paying homage too?

Well I'm sure we've all had our "brush with greatness". I remember quite distinctly, (in fact I could never forget) the words of wisdom ol' John L shared with me on his way into the ring to face Jake.

He looked at me with full intent and focus, right in the eye as it were......and with a clear and intimidating tone declared directly and succintly "Son........ get the hell out of my way".

I can tell you I was highly motivated to comply. The man was an inspiration.

Wow, did someone get up on the wrong side of the bed or what?

Tunney has plenty of motive to lie, you must concede that. Arent you a lawyer? Id think you to be a bit shrewder, given the evidence...and again, I havent said Dempsey WASNT good defensively.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Wow, did someone get up on the wrong side of the bed or what?

Tunney has plenty of motive to lie, you must concede that. Arent you a lawyer? Id think you to be a bit shrewder, given the evidence...and again, I havent said Dempsey WASNT good defensively.

Got up on the same side of the bed that I always do. Did you even read what I wrote? He said Dempsey was hard to hit solidly, and defended his chin very well. He said that thought he would have stopped Dempsey in the first fight but for Dempsey's ability to protect his chin.

What difference does it make what I do for a living? What do you do for a living, Irene?

I read it just fine. I just didnt see it happen in the ring --- like 20 million other things 20 million other boxers through history say happened and didnt

Tunney hit him all day, solid, glancing, and everything in between. Dempsey couldnt even see properly at the end of the first bout. If Tunney truly believed he was going to stop Dempsey, he has grossly over-estimated his own punch, or under-estimated Dempsey's heart and chin, because that was never going to happen (over ten rounds, at the least).

Again, Tunney has every reason to lie, but more importantly, the film betrays his words, as does the state of Dempsey's face. I only made mention of your job (if you are a lawyer, Im not 100% on this off-hand) because it ties in here with things like motives, evidence, testimony...lines of inquiry one may link with your work. It was a light-hearted dig and not more than that.

Dempsey was a pretty damn decent fighter defensively, but Tunney was never in there with the best of him. What he WAS in there with, he did not struggle to land against...solidly included.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I read it just fine. I just didnt see it happen in the ring --- like 20 million other things 20 million other boxers through history say happened and didnt

Tunney hit him all day, solid, glancing, and everything in between. Dempsey couldnt even see properly at the end of the first bout. If Tunney truly believed he was going to stop Dempsey, he has grossly over-estimated his own punch, or under-estimated Dempsey's heart and chin, because that was never going to happen (over ten rounds, at the least).

Again, Tunney has every reason to lie, but more importantly, the film betrays his words, as does the state of Dempsey's face. I only made mention of your job (if you are a lawyer, Im not 100% on this off-hand) because it ties in here with things like motives, evidence, testimony...lines of inquiry one may link with your work. It was a light-hearted dig and not more than that.

Dempsey was a pretty damn decent fighter defensively, but Tunney was never in there with the best of him. What he WAS in there with, he did not struggle to land against...solidly included.

My judgment on Dempsey's defense was not based solely on Tunney's comments. Tunney said that Dempsey was a good defensive fighter, and that Dempsey defended his chin well. I think that reinforces my opinion. I didn't base my opinion solely on Tunney's judgment.

I'll ask you again: What do you do for a living, Irene? Maybe we can make you the recipient of a light-hearted dig at your profession, since you think it so entertaining.

BoxBuzz wrote:Well I'm sure we've all had our "brush with greatness". I remember quite distinctly, (in fact I could never forget) the words of wisdom ol' John L shared with me on his way into the ring to face Jake.

He looked at me with full intent and focus, right in the eye as it were......and with a clear and intimidating tone declared directly and succintly "Son........ get the hell out of my way".

I can tell you I was highly motivated to comply. The man was an inspiration.

Sam Langford is worth a mention.

raylawpc wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I read it just fine. I just didnt see it happen in the ring --- like 20 million other things 20 million other boxers through history say happened and didnt

Tunney hit him all day, solid, glancing, and everything in between. Dempsey couldnt even see properly at the end of the first bout. If Tunney truly believed he was going to stop Dempsey, he has grossly over-estimated his own punch, or under-estimated Dempsey's heart and chin, because that was never going to happen (over ten rounds, at the least).

Again, Tunney has every reason to lie, but more importantly, the film betrays his words, as does the state of Dempsey's face. I only made mention of your job (if you are a lawyer, Im not 100% on this off-hand) because it ties in here with things like motives, evidence, testimony...lines of inquiry one may link with your work. It was a light-hearted dig and not more than that.

Dempsey was a pretty damn decent fighter defensively, but Tunney was never in there with the best of him. What he WAS in there with, he did not struggle to land against...solidly included.

My judgment on Dempsey's defense was not based solely on Tunney's comments. Tunney said that Dempsey was a good defensive fighter, and that Dempsey defended his chin well. I think that reinforces my opinion. I didn't base my opinion solely on Tunney's judgment.

I'll ask you again: What do you do for a living, Irene? Maybe we can make you the recipient of a light-hearted dig at your profession, since you think it so entertaining.

Well, what do you want me to do with that first paragraph? You didnt mention that, I can only react to what you're putting on the page.

To clarify then, you're watching their bouts and concluding Tunney WASNT landing solidly, or wasnt regularly?

Go for your life. Im an operations manager for a Security firm. One of us has to be able to take a joke

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Sam Langford is worth a mention.

Don't think I'd call him a swarmer, personally.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I read it just fine. I just didnt see it happen in the ring --- like 20 million other things 20 million other boxers through history say happened and didnt

Tunney hit him all day, solid, glancing, and everything in between. Dempsey couldnt even see properly at the end of the first bout. If Tunney truly believed he was going to stop Dempsey, he has grossly over-estimated his own punch, or under-estimated Dempsey's heart and chin, because that was never going to happen (over ten rounds, at the least).

Again, Tunney has every reason to lie, but more importantly, the film betrays his words, as does the state of Dempsey's face. I only made mention of your job (if you are a lawyer, Im not 100% on this off-hand) because it ties in here with things like motives, evidence, testimony...lines of inquiry one may link with your work. It was a light-hearted dig and not more than that.

Dempsey was a pretty damn decent fighter defensively, but Tunney was never in there with the best of him. What he WAS in there with, he did not struggle to land against...solidly included.

My judgment on Dempsey's defense was not based solely on Tunney's comments. Tunney said that Dempsey was a good defensive fighter, and that Dempsey defended his chin well. I think that reinforces my opinion. I didn't base my opinion solely on Tunney's judgment.

I'll ask you again: What do you do for a living, Irene? Maybe we can make you the recipient of a light-hearted dig at your profession, since you think it so entertaining.

Well, what do you want me to do with that first paragraph? You didnt mention that, I can only react to what you're putting on the page.

To clarify then, you're watching their bouts and concluding Tunney WASNT landing solidly, or wasnt regularly?

Go for your life. Im an operations manager for a Security firm. One of us has to be able to take a joke

I am saying that Tunney said that Dempsey was hard to hit solidly (not that he wasn't able to hit Dempsey solidly), and that Dempsey defended his chin very well. I said that IMO I consider Dempsey a good defensive fighter. I base that on what I've seen and read about him. I threw in Tunney's comment (and later Carpentier's) as support because I specifically remembered those. Does that clear it up for you?

Ray, without disagreeing with you, I would also say that Jack fundamentally agreed with "Mel" the cook on Alice, who once said. "The best defense is a good offense". lol.

One of his greatest defensive moves....hitting a man while he's down. ....By the way for those of you who aren't aware, that was not particularly against the rules back when Jack jumped Jess.

raylawpc wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote: My judgment on Dempsey's defense was not based solely on Tunney's comments. Tunney said that Dempsey was a good defensive fighter, and that Dempsey defended his chin well. I think that reinforces my opinion. I didn't base my opinion solely on Tunney's judgment.

I'll ask you again: What do you do for a living, Irene? Maybe we can make you the recipient of a light-hearted dig at your profession, since you think it so entertaining.

Well, what do you want me to do with that first paragraph? You didnt mention that, I can only react to what you're putting on the page.

To clarify then, you're watching their bouts and concluding Tunney WASNT landing solidly, or wasnt regularly?

Go for your life. Im an operations manager for a Security firm. One of us has to be able to take a joke

I am saying that Tunney said that Dempsey was hard to hit solidly (not that he wasn't able to hit Dempsey solidly), and that Dempsey defended his chin very well. I said that IMO I consider Dempsey a good defensive fighter. I base that on what I've seen and read about him. I threw in Tunney's comment (and later Carpentier's) as support because I specifically remembered those. Does that clear it up for you?

Thats fine. You havent forgotten Ive been agreeing with you about Dempseys D, have you?