Boxing’s Brainiest Champ and His Upset of the Great Jack Dempsey

I'm not sure if the jab comes out quicker from low or not (it might, I dont know), but it comes from just outside the guys field of vision and it also gives him two planes of attack to worry about. It basically creates an angle in the same you might with your feet but in the vertical instead of the horizontal. It's the reason that swordsmen would hold one sword low pointing up and one high pointing down.....two plains of vision and two angles to defend.

If you're skilled enough to do it a low(ish) left is superior, IMO.

 

Yep, pretty much agreed. Of course a low left has slightly more distance to travel, but if its out of sight for half the distance, then you are in trouble. Apparently, D'Amato used to tell Tyson to watch his opponents chest muscles and not the hands. The chest will tighten a split second before the hand is moved...press the tips of your fingers into your hips or thighs and you can see the chest muscles raise up.

 

And to clarify, your explanation as to how Tunney escaped punishment is just that nobody could fight back then? Harry Greb and Jack Dempsey included?

Tunney was a chiefly lateral and reverse-gear boxer with terrific reflexes. He showed the versatility to deal with swarmers, sluggers, and defensive dancers. Who does that description remind you of?

 

I'm saying that contributed yeah. I gave some pretty specific reasons why I think that. The sport was on a steep technical learning curve which I think was a good 15-20 years from beginning to level off.

Which isnt to sayTunney wasn't also a supremely talented natural fighter with great reflex', timing, sense of range, angles etc. Of course he was, he was the absolute best of his time, but he was also fighting in 1926. Which isn't as good as 1950... just isn't.

 

So its excusable to carry a low left in 2011, but not in 1926?

You dont penalise an Ali, or a Mayweather if their left is low?

 

Low right. Low left is fine.

 

My mistake. And you havent seen a quality fighter carry a low right since, what, Joe Louis' day?

 

60s Ali. But then Ali did things with his feet & upper body movement that no one else could.

 

Tunney's hands were both low. His stance reminds me of those old time portraits of 18th century fighters on cyberboxingzone. Of fighters in the 175-200lb range, Roy Jones Jr, Michael Spinks, Evander Holyfield, Ezzard Charles, et al would've beaten Tunney hands down (pun intended).

 

(and was still susceptible to left hooks (a modern shot Dempsey was in the process of birthing in the 20s))

 

Wow. I remember you once saying Dempsey would beat LL. Figured you'd put Tunney over him too.

 

Because anyone who rates one guy from that era to beat a fighter must have an innate bias toward old-timers? Is that the subtext? There is a very distinct reason everyone on this board once presumed me to be in my 60's or 70's...that presumption was as good an example of bias as you'll ever see.

Dempsey and Tunney are two completely polar, stylistically and by attribute...or is one as hopeless and insipid as the next to you?

 

Frankly, yes.

 

Are you denying that you have an inherent bias towards old time fighters? I hope not because your posting history is fairly conclusive.

Not calling either hopeless or insipid, just an assumption on my part because of prior discussions we have had. Dempsey over LL sticks in the mind.

The age thing was a joke that dragged on too long. You were a new poster who wasn't fawning over glitzy, 'skills pay the bills' types of fighters which made you a rarity. Frankly, I'd say you got the best welcome of any new poster in recent memory. Quo Vadimus got run off this site in short order just to name one.

 

Why did that assumption stand, though? Youre telling me you made it on the back of me picking Dempsey, but what do they share in common other than an era? That is tantamount to me saying Id pick Ali to beat Tyson, and you then presuming Id pick Foreman too. Dempsey and Tunney are about as similar to one another as Ali and Foreman are, and the assumption on your part is just as baseless...wouldnt you agree, in hindsight?

I'll admit to believing (some) of the old-timers could compete with modern rivals --- It is really no more substantive to call me biased off that than it would be for me to call you biased toward modern boxers because you hold the opposing view --- these are arbitrary accusations. One is no better than the other.

I got a fine welcome and I never said otherwise.

 

What can I tell you? I strongly disagree.

 

Because it amused people to think so. At one point, people thought LOK was an old man. People speculate that Neil is a midget and thought TLC was 15. It is what it is.

 

Like Orwell says, until people can agree that 2+2 = 4, there's nothing worth saying. I strongly stand behind post 25 and could expand on it. It's all right there in grainy, jerky black and white:dunno:

 

I didnt clarify. To do so, I was talking about your presumption that me picking Dempsey meant Id also pick Tunney to beat Lewis.

Dempsey and Tunney are nothing alike, so where does that presumption spring from?

 

Which has been a point of discussion that has not been adequately expanded on. I can see no way that much of value can be gleaned from footage of that nature. You can see basic styles and I guess power but that's about it.

Not a knock on those guys, but it's the truth. You can't even get an accurate take on their speed.

 

Your bias towards old time fighters.

 

I think genius was being slightly facetious with that 'assumption'. But really it's like comparing an A-bomb to an H-bomb in the ridiculousness stakes.....who cares?

 

Its amazing that someone like Ray Arcel, amid many other respected, cross-era figures in the sport couldnt see what you can.

Arcel's decades in the game are easily swept aside with one swift allegation, of course --- bias (even if he trained and reared Leonard and Duran both).

 

Precisely the answer I was in search of. What can two people do but disagree, I suppose.

 

You can see their stance, punching technique, punch repertoir, balance, footwork.....in short, enough for an objective person.

 

It amuses me to be the one on trial for bias when Im not the one wiping out whole eras.

 

:Thumbs:

 

Modern boxers have comparative failings I could talk about all day, Hut.

 

Who's wiping out the whole era? I'm just amused by the idea that Dempsey beats LL.

That's not the topic though, so I'll go away now.

 

Hut is, to answer your question.