BoxRec

Ray Arcel said on the 1983 VHS release of "Jack Dempsey" , remarks along the lines of...."Gee you wanna know what Jack would have done to these guys fighting today...he would beat all of them with one hand".....type remarks.

Wat would happen in Dempsey V Holmes....

Obviously since i have expressed the view Jack beats Ali, I also think Jack beats Holmes.

HARD fight for Holmes. But a fight he can win with his jab and 1-2 combos.

Holmes jab and right hand was better then Ali's and his chin was good enough to stand up with Dempsey for 15.

Holmes wins SD

Holmes really didn’t like right hands. Dempsey had a good right but a great left hook.

Dempsey will do better than Cooney. But I think he needs a stoppage to win. I go with Larry on a very tight decision in which both men come out with their stock raised.

Alan Partridge wrote:HARD fight for Holmes. But a fight he can win with his jab and 1-2 combos.

Holmes jab and right hand was better then Ali's and his chin was good enough to stand up with Dempsey for 15.

Holmes wins SD

Do you really think Larrys jab was better than Alis in the 60s and 70s?....your statement is one of those things that made me think "really?" but the more I think of it the more obvious it seems to me that perhaps Larrys jab was better than even 60s Ali.Perhaps.
Against the 70's Ali's jab,the trouble i have in my mind is that than I think of what Ali did to Foreman and Frazier the third time, and all those challengers after the thrilla in manilla with the jab.
Holmes jab v 70s ali, the holmes jab was more prounounced and snappy more eye catching for sure, wheras Alis was more a flurrying jab.

I also think the success of 60s Ali’s jab was down to (1) it was brilliant but also (2) his footwork was so good… Feet and left hand/arm moving as one. Often starting the punch too far away to land but moving in with it…making it right. Holmes did some of that too.

Nice to complete a whole, detailed post only to see it wiped

At the end I called the odds near-even. Do not discount Dempsey on points or Holmes by stoppage entirely here.

Dempsey wins by knockout. I really believe that... As would've Marciano, Tyson and Frazier

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Nice to complete a whole, detailed post only to see it wiped

At the end I called the odds near-even. Do not discount Dempsey on points or Holmes by stoppage entirely here.

Thats a shame, your opinions on Holmes are always interesting.

Crease, what is it you see in Larry that makes him so vulnerable. I also have this feeling a Marciano or Frazier and Dempsey would be too much for him......

One reason I favored Ali vs Dempsey is people forget how hard it was to nail Ali in his 65-67 peak, and the few times he did get tagged he had the iron chin that he'd become more famous for in the 70s when he got hit more. Ali also had an incredible workrate to go along with his incredible athleticism.

Holmes was also quick and fast but not as consistent as Ali, and definitely more open defensively. While his big heart and solid chin saw him overcome scary moments vs the likes of Shavers, Weaver and Snipes, I don't think that will be enough vs a peak Dempsey, who would not let Holmes off the hook once he hurts him. Jack would be outboxed in spots but Holmes will suffer one of his defensive lapses and then BOOM . . it's Dempsey-Tunney II time but with no long count to save Larry.

Holmes gets off the deck at some point to win a decision.

dempseyfire wrote:One reason I favored Ali vs Dempsey is people forget how hard it was to nail Ali in his 65-67 peak, and the few times he did get tagged he had the iron chin that he'd become more famous for in the 70s when he got hit more. Ali also had an incredible workrate to go along with his incredible athleticism.

Holmes was also quick and fast but not as consistent as Ali, and definitely more open defensively. While his big heart and solid chin saw him overcome scary moments vs the likes of Shavers, Weaver and Snipes, I don't think that will be enough vs a peak Dempsey, who would not let Holmes off the hook once he hurts him. Jack would be outboxed in spots but Holmes will suffer one of his defensive lapses and then BOOM . . it's Dempsey-Tunney II time but with no long count to save Larry.

Did Teddy Hayes work with any other name fighters?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:One reason I favored Ali vs Dempsey is people forget how hard it was to nail Ali in his 65-67 peak, and the few times he did get tagged he had the iron chin that he'd become more famous for in the 70s when he got hit more. Ali also had an incredible workrate to go along with his incredible athleticism.

Holmes was also quick and fast but not as consistent as Ali, and definitely more open defensively. While his big heart and solid chin saw him overcome scary moments vs the likes of Shavers, Weaver and Snipes, I don't think that will be enough vs a peak Dempsey, who would not let Holmes off the hook once he hurts him. Jack would be outboxed in spots but Holmes will suffer one of his defensive lapses and then BOOM . . it's Dempsey-Tunney II time but with no long count to save Larry.

Did Teddy Hayes work with any other name fighters?

Hayes trained the likes of Mickey Walker, Battling Nelson, Joe Gans, Ad Wolfgast, Tiger Flowers, Lou Broulliard . . .I'm not sure if or how his exact capacity differed with each one

Wow, my knowledge of trainers in minuscule. That's quite the roster, thanks.

Holmes outboxes Dempsey over 15 rounds, maybe close, maybe wide. I'm not sure, but I'm sure Holmes wins it.

Crease wrote:Dempsey wins by knockout. I really believe that... As would've Marciano, Tyson and Frazier

I cant see Marciano getting it done. Just too slow.

The others would all be in it up to their necks against Holmes though. The best bet is Frazier, IMO. He has the best motor down the stretch, and if Holmes is wily enough to escape the early going, Frazier is in the best position to run him down. Dempsey and Tyson would be slim underdogs at worst. They werent as inexorable as Frazier over the long haul (especially Tyson, as Dempsey's endurance is frequently undersold), but on the other hand, they're more capable of a quick, explosive finish than Frazier.

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

id think larry with a jab and he had a hard head

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).

The Cooney bout (which featured the last of a prime Holmes and as motivated as ever he was) is part of that. Deductions aside, that fight was far closer than most recall. Yet Cooney offered nothing Dempsey could not, sans his great height.

Another is the Witherspoon (or was it Weaver?) battle, and Holmes' dislike of close-quarter pressure and bent toward standing his ground when injured (he would be far better-served running from Dempsey if finding himself wounded) are enough to convince me Dempsey could win a decision if he failed to knock Holmes out.

Jack Dempsey wins by SD

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

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

The Cooney bout (which featured the last of a prime Holmes and as motivated as ever he was) is part of that. Deductions aside, that fight was far closer than most recall.

That fight wasn't nearly as close as people make it out to be. Gerry was competitive, but he only won 2 or 3 rounds as far as I recall.

I had the fight close but felt Holmes was never in trouble. One of those close but clear things

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.

Thats more true of Johnson's era than Dempsey's (not to say it doesnt have some validity).

Dempsey would be the most dangerous man in Holmes' title reign by absolute miles, and were Holmes to succeed, it would be his career-best win by equally-wide measure.

And if someone could have just managed to sneak Dempsey into the ring before Spinks got to him......I guess Marciano would have company and would be forever carryin' Ol Larry's athletic supporter on into Bolivian.

I love fantasy match ups. Debate 'em all day and night...

But this is when I get a little queasy... when people start discussing technical merits of eras.

Valid or not...the argument is like trying to say we're all more intelligent than Einstein because he couldn't work a cell/mobile phone. Or at least there's no film of him doing so...