# Jack Dempsey vs Tyson Fury....who you got



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

None of that "if dempsey lived today" bullshit straight up time machine match....the dempsey that fought willard vs ...say the fury that fought Cunningham.


----------



## Bukkake (Jul 19, 2013)

Why not the Fury that fought Wlad?


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

Let's see....Dempsey was considered the greatest hwt ever to live for 50 years. Fury is a comical stooge was has few skills in the ring. Dempsey by ko within 5 rounds.


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

Perry said:


> Let's see....Dempsey was considered the greatest hwt ever to live for 50 years. Fury is a comical stooge was has few skills in the ring. Dempsey by ko within 5 rounds.


Let's see....I can only say that about Dempsey, who I've seen lots of action footage of, while I have no idea what Tyson Fury looks like. Therefore, I have to disagree with my friend Perry on this one and pick Dempsey by KO within five seconds. This one has Dempsey-Fulton written all over it.

Perry, I must strenuously object to you calling Tyson Fury a comical stooge though, on the basis of the fact that I've seen fight footage of both Moe and Curly Howard. Those stooge brothers had some serious fighting skills later incorporated into instructional manuals for boxers by Champ Thomas. Children on playgrounds all over the United States constantly practiced the training and fighting methods of The Three Stooges whose memory you just insulted so egregiously. Children of The Greatest Generation brought those hand to hand fighting skills developed on those playgrounds into WW II, proving the superiority of Three Stooges fighting methods against all Japanese techniques in direct combat.

Before you can take a punch, you have to be conditioned to take a slap like Larry Fine. This develops an iron jaw like Tex Cobb's. Slap fights on the playground like those of the Three Stooges build up hand speed, improve reflexes, rapid arm extension, and the defensive ability to slip slaps.

There would have been no Bruce Lee or Muhammad Ali without The Three Stooges providing numerous films for them to study.


----------



## TysonFurious (Dec 13, 2015)

Fury hands down


----------



## SJS20 (Jun 8, 2012)

TysonFurious said:


> Fury hands down


That'd leave him open to the hook.


----------



## TysonFurious (Dec 13, 2015)

SJS20 said:


> That'd leave him open to the hook.


The slick Gypsy King would never be caught with such a punch :deal


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

I've only seen Fury fight once, against Klitschko and that was enough for me. The guy is a bore fest at best.

When Dempsey fought Willard, he was 187 lbs. according to BoxRec and Willard was 245 lbs. Dempsey also gave up almost 6 inches in height and considerable reach and still made Willard quit in 3 rounds. Gotta go with Dempsey in this one by brutal beatdown.

Edited to add this. A long dead Jack Dempsey beats a live Fury :deal:deal


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Fury with ease. Would be a fun scrap but he's too big and too skilled. 

I can't believe people compare him to Willard...a Willard that was getting battered in sparring by a natural welterweight no less.

Dempsey is overrated, Fury is underrated. Dempsey is still greater for now (and maybe forever) but Fury already has a better single win than Dempsey.

The rose tinted spectacle wearing by some people is unbearable.


----------



## Jdempsey85 (Jan 6, 2013)

Dempsey better get contracts drawn up that he wont be jailed if he kills Fury


----------



## D-U-D-E (Jul 31, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Fury with ease. Would be a fun scrap but he's too big and too skilled.
> 
> I can't believe people compare him to Willard...a Willard that was getting battered in sparring by a natural welterweight no less.
> 
> ...


This. It's fucking hilarious. Hell I think the Cunningham that Fury poleaxed would give Dempsey absolute hell.

Fury gets up off the floor early to batter Dempsey for the next 3 or 4 rounds and stop him mid-late. Not only is he technically better, the speed difference between the two is also negligible and he's just so much bigger.

He'd also beat the shit out of Marciano too :hey


----------



## Mr Magic (Jun 3, 2013)

Styles makes fights.

The size difference might be too much in this one, but stylistically, Jack Dempsey is an absolute nightmare to Tyson Fury.


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

You people have no idea about boxing. Fury is a horrible fighter....just terrible. Have boxing fans gotten so bad that they can no longer recognize boxing ability or in this case the lack of it? Dempsey utterly destroys the inept Fury. Here is what Jack Sharkey said of Dempsey. 

He stated Dempsey had a harder punch than Joe Louis. "I never thought anyone could hit that hard". "When Dempsey hits you on the shoulder he breaks your shoulder. When he hits you in the body it feels as if his fist is coming out your back. When he hits you on the hip he dislocated your hip". 

Dempsey was very quick, ultra short punching and was a devastating puncher. Tunney..."Dempsey was no crude puncher but instead a fine melt of great boxer and puncher.


----------



## Bukkake (Jul 19, 2013)

So how many documented cases do we have, of boxers suffering a broken shoulder or dislocated hip as a result of fighting Dempsey?


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

Perry said:


> You people have no idea about boxing. Fury is a horrible fighter....just terrible. Have boxing fans gotten so bad that they can no longer recognize boxing ability or in this case the lack of it? Dempsey utterly destroys the inept Fury. Here is what Jack Sharkey said of Dempsey.
> 
> He stated Dempsey had a harder punch than Joe Louis. "I never thought anyone could hit that hard". "When Dempsey hits you on the shoulder he breaks your shoulder. When he hits you in the body it feels as if his fist is coming out your back. When he hits you on the hip he dislocated your hip".
> 
> Dempsey was very quick, ultra short punching and was a devastating puncher. Tunney..."Dempsey was no crude puncher but instead a fine melt of great boxer and puncher.


I feel the same way. Fury gets destroyed by the shorter, lighter man. I think most of the posters saying Fury are doing so out of loyalty to country. British boxing fans so love to boast about their fellow countrymen when they hold a title-----or even challenge for one.

And for the poster that said Fury would beat Marciano--------you have no clue do you? I certainly hope that post was done tongue in cheek because it was so bad if he actually believes that.


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

I could not care less what country a fighter is from or the color of his skin. Great boxing is great boxing. Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali among many others could FIGHT. Great all time abilities. Fury in contrast is a big nothing. A very large but very low skilled Hwt.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

gumbo2176 said:


> I feel the same way. Fury gets destroyed by the shorter, lighter man. I think most of the posters saying Fury are doing so out of loyalty to country. British boxing fans so love to boast about their fellow countrymen when they hold a title-----or even challenge for one.
> 
> And for the poster that said Fury would beat Marciano--------you have no clue do you? I certainly hope that post was done tongue in cheek because it was so bad if he actually believes that.


YOU have no clue. I am in no way patriotic.

Fury would beat Marciano with ease.

Take the Rose tinted spectacles off. Cheers.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Perry said:


> I could not care less what country a fighter is from or the color of his skin. Great boxing is great boxing. Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali among many others could FIGHT. Great all time abilities. Fury in contrast is a big nothing. A very large but very low skilled Hwt.


You literally have no clue whatsoever about boxing. Log out and don't come back. Cheers.


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

If you think Fury is anything more than a very lousy fighter you really need another sport to follow. At the very least man you need to know boxing basics and understand when you are seeing a fighter with real boxing skills. Watch Ali Frazier 3 then watch the keystone cops like Wlad-Fury fight. If you think the recent bout is a display of improved boxing ability in any way......forget it buddy you are lost as any person can be. You are the result of fans watching a watered down hwt division the past 30 years. No one needs to know how to really fight anymore because it's easy to make a living when there can be four-five hwt champions and 40-50 top contenders.


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

Just to add my $0.02 to what you've said Perry, to call that bout between Wlad and Fury a fight is like calling an anthill Mt. Everest. That was one of the worst, if not the absolute worst heavyweight title matches--------------hell, forget it was a title match, it was one of the worst ever bouts I've witnessed in my over 50 years of watching the sport.

At one time I though John Ruiz was a snooze fest to watch until Wlad came onto the scene, and I don't see it getting any better with this overgrown clown holding the title. I kills me to think that this was once the premier division in boxing and to see it degenerate into the farce it is today is appalling to me.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Hard to say.

Fury is beatable and doesn't seem to control range that well for me. Yes he beat Wlad from range but that is because he's quicker than Wlad and Wlad is one dimensional unable to set himself.

Does Fury have the power to keep Dempsey away? Doubtful. Does he have the movement and jab, well of Tunney can then surely Fury can.

Right now I'm gonna say Dempsey but it is a fluid situation that could see opinions change.


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

Tunney was one of the all time great boxers. A unique talent. To compare Fury to Tunney in any way is beyond ridiculous.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Perry said:


> Tunney was one of the all time great boxers. A unique talent. To compare Fury to Tunney in any way is beyond ridiculous.


Tunney proved that you could box Dempsey from range. Fury has just outboxed the man who was probably the rangiest boxer in history.

The point I made is a simple one, if Tunney can box from range and beat Dempsey with a jab and footwork then that is a strategy that Fury can follow.

If Fury allows Dempsey inside he will lose the fight. He has no option but to follow the game plan set by Tunney.

If you disagree you tell me what strategy you think Fury should employ?


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

Your entire premise is incorrect. Fury nor Wlad are in Tunney or Dempseys class. Fury can't fight a lick...just a horrible low skilled hwt. He is not beating Dempsey with such a low skill set. An ATG PRO vs a large but rank amateur.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Perry said:


> Your entire premise is incorrect. Fury nor Wlad are in Tunney or Dempseys class. Fury can't fight a lick...just a horrible low skilled hwt. He is not beating Dempsey with such a low skill set. An ATG PRO vs a large but rank amateur.


My premise is that Dempsey was beating with jab and movement. Do you think that is incorrect?

If so how do you feel Tunney beat him.

And again, what strategy do you suggest Fury should use?


----------



## Jdempsey85 (Jan 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> Tunney proved that you could box Dempsey from range.


Why is that version of Dempsey always brought up,a inactive Dempsey still managed to floor him too


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

An old Dempsey was beaten by one of the greatest technical boxers ever to live. Fury in comparison is a rank amateur that does not know how to slip a jab. Ring able to lumber to one left or right does not mean you beat Jack Dempsey.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

There's a difference between beating a stiff giant and a fluid good boxer giant.
And I don't think Fury would ever lose to a lhw like Willard did.

Tyson has a funtional jab
Tyson has head movement
Tyson can move his feet

Willard is not even close to Fury.


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

Tyson Fury is a rank amateur. If you can't see this as an absolute fact either learn something about BOXING or find another sport to follow.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Jdempsey85 said:


> Why is that version of Dempsey always brought up,a inactive Dempsey still managed to floor him too


Because everyone has to lose at some point.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Perry said:


> An old Dempsey was beaten by one of the greatest technical boxers ever to live. Fury in comparison is a rank amateur that does not know how to slip a jab. Ring able to lumber to one left or right does not mean you beat Jack Dempsey.


I like how you totally duck my post.

I like it because it is an admission if defeat.

1) Tunney beat Dempsey with jab and movement.

2) imo that would be Fury's best strategy to replicate.

3) right now I favour Dempsey but it is a fluid situation.

You do not disagree with any of those 3 points and if you do the only feasible one to disagree with is the 3rd point which would mean you then disagree with yourself.

So you either agree with me or you disagree with you.

Check mate


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

It's not my fault you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. 

Just because Tunney beat Dempsey by great all time boxing skills that included a great jab and movement does not mean a fighter with amateur level talent would do the same!

Fury is not and will never be Gene Tunney. Fury is s big lumbering oaf of a fighter who does not possess a tenth of the boxing ability of a Tunney. 

Finally Tunney beat a very old Dempsey not the prime version. 

So again your false logic does not pass the test. Also anyone who tries to compare Tunney to a nobody like Fury needs a new sport to follow. Man you have so much to learn.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Perry said:


> It's not my fault you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> Just because Tunney beat Dempsey by great all time boxing skills that included a great jab and movement does not mean a fighter with amateur level talent would do the same!
> 
> ...


Tell me which of my 3 points you disagree with and we can proceed.


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

The ghosts of Gene Tunney and Jack Dempsey are likely enjoying this debate between you two. That is until Luf throws in that pitiful excuse of a boxer named Tyson Fury into the mix like he truly belongs in the same sentence with 2 all time greats.

Luf, I've got to agree with Perry on this one. Fury is nothing more than a big oaf, but a big oaf that holds the Heavyweight Championship, and that in a nutshell is a huge disgrace to that division of boxing.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

gumbo2176 said:


> The ghosts of Gene Tunney and Jack Dempsey are likely enjoying this debate between you two. That is until Luf throws in that pitiful excuse of a boxer named Tyson Fury into the mix like he truly belongs in the same sentence with 2 all time greats.
> 
> Luf, I've got to agree with Perry on this one. Fury is nothing more than a big oaf, but a big oaf that holds the Heavyweight Championship, and that in a nutshell is a huge disgrace to that division of boxing.


If you're disagreeing with me please say which of my 3 points you disagree with.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

How would Ricardo Lopez do against Naseem Hamed I wonder?


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

Your entire premise is faulty because you are relating Gene Tunney, an ATG hwt, to Tyson Fury, a low skilled amateur level Hwt. Totally incomparable. Fury connot comprehend in his mind the skills Tunney possessed let alone duplicate them in the ring. Back to the boxing basics drawing board with you.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Perry said:


> Your entire premise is faulty because you are relating Gene Tunney, an ATG hwt, to Tyson Fury, a low skilled amateur level Hwt. Totally incomparable. Fury connot comprehend in his mind the skills Tunney possessed let alone duplicate them in the ring. Back to the boxing basics drawing board with you.


Ok you won't comment on my 3 points, that's fine.

Who do you think wins between Ricardo Lopez and Naseem Hamed.


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

Luf said:


> How would Ricardo Lopez do against Naseem Hamed I wonder?


Two entirely different weight classes. Why would this fight be made? Lopez fought under 110 and Hamed fought in the mid 120 range.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

gumbo2176 said:


> Two entirely different weight classes. Why would this fight be made? Lopez fought under 110 and Hamed fought in the mid 120 range.


How can you say this whilst dismissing a matchup between a man weighing 185 and a man weighing 245.


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

In the hwt division weight is far less important. At lower weights 5 pounds can be a huge deal. 

I wont comment on your points because your points do not make sense.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Perry said:


> In the hwt division weight is far less important. At lower weights 5 pounds can be a huge deal.
> 
> I wont comment on your points because your points do not make sense.


It's not 5 pounds, it's 60 pounds.
And by todays standards Dempsey and Tunney aren't heavyweights, one is a lhw and the other is a man perfect for the 190 pound cw division.

Where are all the sub-200 pound men dominating the heavyweight division these days?
You barely even see sub-200 pounder at cruiserweight, Ilunga Makabu is probably the lightest of the bunch in the top 20 and Lebedev coming in 2nd, the rest are all 200-215 pounds at fightnight.

People even complain these days if a heavyweight isn't 6'3 calling him "too small".

Makabu is probably the perfect modern Dempsey, good but not good enough for the giants.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Perry said:


> In the hwt division weight is far less important. At lower weights 5 pounds can be a huge deal.
> 
> I wont comment on your points because your points do not make sense.


Ok so 5 pound, we're talking about Ricardo Lopez. He weighed in at 105 pound for most of his career that's a percentage of 4.8%

And that is a big deal according to you. So 4.8% of Dempsey puts a weight of 199 pounds. So we have to take your big deal percentage and add on a further 48 pounds. So as well as your body weight percentage that you claim is a big deal, you have an extra 48 pounds of weight. So that is over 5 times more than the weight you yourself say is a big deal.

I can only conclude you don't appreciate consistency when making an argument.


----------



## Jdempsey85 (Jan 6, 2013)

Butterbean should KO all these skeletons


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

Again for the uneducated....5 pounds can mean a lot in lower weights divisions.....featherweight, welterweight etc. A man like Dempsey, Louis, Marciano could ko any fighter at any weight. 

No fighter in the higher weight divisions are as skilled as Tunney or Dempsey. You just don't find that level of ability any longer. If you think otherwise find another sport to follow. You don't know boxing. If you look at Fury and see Tunney ability you have no hope. 

Hwt boxing history is filled with smaller higher skilled hwts beating the stuffing out of much bigger fighters.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Perry said:


> Again for the uneducated....5 pounds can mean a lot in lower weights divisions.....featherweight, welterweight etc. A man like Dempsey, Louis, Marciano could ko any fighter at any weight.
> 
> No fighter in the higher weight divisions are as skilled as Tunney or Dempsey. You just don't find that level of ability any longer. If you think otherwise find another sport to follow. You don't know boxing. If you look at Fury and see Tunney ability you have no hope.
> 
> Hwt boxing history is filled with smaller higher skilled hwts beating the stuffing out of much bigger fighters.


I think Robinson has more skill than Tunney should I favour him over Dempsey?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Jdempsey85 said:


> Butterbean should KO all these skeletons


How dare you disrespect HW boxing history by referring to the great fighters such as Dempsey and Tunney as skeletons.


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

Last time I checked SRR was a welter/middleweight.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Perry said:


> Last time I checked SRR was a welter/middleweight.


Third thing you've said I can agree on.

Just a shame you are so clueless at forming a valid argument.


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

Nothing to argue about. Tyson Fury is a complete amateur and you're comparing him to Gene Tunney the greatest technical boxer ever to hold the hwt title. The only clueless person is you.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Perry said:


> Nothing to argue about. Tyson Fury is a complete amateur and you're comparing him to Gene Tunney the greatest technical boxer ever to hold the hwt title. The only clueless person is you.


You can't refute a single point I've made.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Tunney couldn't even keep one hand above his navel, his high guard is more non-existant than Muhammad Ali's.

How can you rate Tunney over Ezzard any way?
Gene also has a rather weak resume.


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

The best of the best held hands low and were very difficult to hit cleanly. Benny Leonard, Tommy Loughran, Tunney, Ali. Many more. Classic boxers were taught to keep hands in on guard position to better protect the body, have hands better in position to punch and then use classic boxing techniques (ever hear of slipping a punch, ducking, bobbing and weaving, parrying and great footwork?) to avoid head shots. The great boxers who had these skills were rarely hit cleanly.


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

Tunney was the greater technical fighter than Charles. Did everything better.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Perry said:


> Tunney was the greater technical fighter than Charles. Did everything better.


This is total nonsense. There is no way anyone who has watched the two fight cam conclude Tunney did everything better than Charles.

Atleast now you have something you can disagree with me about because the previous 4 points you did agree despite thinking you didn't, just to remind you:

1) Tunney beat Dempsey with jab and movement

2) Outboxing Dempsey from range is the strategy Fury should use

3) I favour Dempsey to win

4) I favour Hamed over Lopez.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

I'm certain Tunney could slip a punch well but I'm uncertain whether he could slip a punch as well as he could let fights against black fighters slip.

Besides I don't think Gene was _that_ hard to hit, his reputation as "defensive master" mainly comes from the fact that he could make a past it Dempsey look very crude.
And I don't think it's enough evidence to call Gene a defensive master.

Also a big shame Tunney only ever fought an infantile Loughran once, if it was the 180 Loughran the fight may had been an entirely different fight.

But I think it's pretty insulting to say Gene did everything better than Charles when their resumes are in a totally different class.
Tunney never proved it against the standard of men Charles had to fight.
It's almost like comparing Shane Mosley with Benny Leonard.


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

If you know how to fight Tunney was a far greater technical fighter. Better footwork, better jab, better technical skills. But then again you need to know what you are looking at. 

For the fifth time Fury is not GenevTunney. I can move about the ring and throw a good jab. That does not mean I am beating prime Dempsey.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Perry said:


> If you know how to fight Tunney was a far greater technical fighter. Better footwork, better jab, better technical skills. But then again you need to know what you are looking at.
> 
> For the fifth time Fury is not GenevTunney. I can move about the ring and throw a good jab. That does not mean I am beating prime Dempsey.


Ok so you now agree with me that Tunney beat him with a jab and footwork and you agree that Dempsey is the favourite here.

The only other point I've made is that Fury should try to beat Dempsey from range, do you disagree with this? Surely you don't think Fury is a better inside fighter than Dempsey? If so I suggest you follow a different sport.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Perry said:


> Nothing to argue about. Tyson Fury is a complete amateur and you're comparing him to Gene Tunney the greatest technical boxer ever to hold the hwt title. The only clueless person is you.


atsch


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

I appreciate old timers and give them all the respect they deserve.

So why can't older fans of the sport do the same for current fighters?


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

One to watch said:


> I appreciate old timers and give them all the respect they deserve.
> 
> So why can't older fans of the sport do the same for current fighters?


I'm one of the old timers and I like to think I do appreciate today's talent in the sport and have no problems recognizing it and commenting on it--------when talent is present. As for this thread about Fury, I just don't really see much talent. I know he beat Wlad, but I have really never been impressed with him either.

I'm more like his former trainer, and the late, Manny Steward when he was seen totally frustrated in Wlad's corner more than a few times pleading with him to just fight the guys, let the hands go and get the opponent out of there.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

For me it doesn't matter whether a guy is from this century or the last or the one before.

Just watch footage of two fighters and make a decision on which you think the better one was.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Luf said:


> For me it doesn't matter whether a guy is from this century or the last or the one before.
> 
> Just watch footage of two fighters and make a decision on which you think the better one was.


as simple as that really.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

gumbo2176 said:


> I'm one of the old timers and I like to think I do appreciate today's talent in the sport and have no problems recognizing it and commenting on it--------when talent is present. As for this thread about Fury, I just don't really see much talent. I know he beat Wlad, but I have really never been impressed with him either.
> 
> I'm more like his former trainer, and the late, Manny Steward when he was seen totally frustrated in Wlad's corner more than a few times pleading with him to just fight the guys, let the hands go and get the opponent out of there.


But Fury does have talent, being big is also a talent just like speed and chin are.

6'8 lanky people will never look as smooth as a 6'0 lhw for the same reason why you don't see olympic gymnasts above 5'8 or so.
But for a man of Fury's size his footwork and movement are great.

He moves around like a 200-220 pound man but coupled with the size of his 6'7-8 frame. All that range he has in his jab makes up for his "lesser boxing ability" and his movement is excellent for such an enormous man.

Jess Willard was a complete stiff oak tree compared to Fury, Tyson has a proper jab and actual movement.
If Dempsey can't get past Tunney's jab how would he get past a much longer more powerful jab if Tyson is in boxing mode.


----------



## D-U-D-E (Jul 31, 2013)

dyna said:


> But Fury does have talent, being big is also a talent just like speed and chin are.
> 
> 6'8 lanky people will never look as smooth as a 6'0 lhw for the same reason why you don't see olympic gymnasts above 5'8 or so.
> But for a man of Fury's size his footwork and movement are great.
> ...


This. The people that can't see Fury's undeniable talent simply aren't looking hard enough, he'd give most past Heavyweight greats a run for their money with his sheer size and skill, and would beat a good handful (I'd favour the current versions of both Fury and Wlad to outbox the much smaller Tunney from range, for instance).

And it's funny how Gumbo compares himself to Manny, when it was Steward himself that saw the tremendous amount of talent in Tyson Fury years ago, and actually tipped him to be Wlad's successor. No one knows boxing like Manny Steward.


----------



## DharmaBum (Jun 5, 2013)

I vote for Dempsey whether he could do it or not. Out of pure spite. I'd load up his gloves personally. I just hope those kids in the division evolve fast. Save us SNV.


----------



## BuffDopey (May 6, 2014)

People been underrating tyson fury since day one and it's like a poster above said Manny Steward seen the potential in him a long time ago and so did I

There's no heavyweight his size that moves like he does, not one. Wach, Helenius, all those guys are immobile, Klitschko was probably the fastest big guy we'd seen and fury made him look slow and robotic.

You add into that movement the fact he has a very good jab, mixes up his shots nicely and is capable of fighting on the inside and you have a real problem

people on forums tend to fall in love with perfect form and power punching, you have to be a real fan and really well educated to look at someone like fury and see the talent he has because it's intangible and it doesn't translate into the most pleasurable viewing experience

as for the question, Fury would stop dempsey in about the 6th round, it really would be that simple


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

To mention a rank amateur in the same breath as Dempsey or Tunney is ridiculous. Fury is so bad he stinks. Product of the times however. Watered down talent within a watered down sport.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

What makes Fury a "rank amateur"?
Because he looks clumsy? Usain Bolt is also clumsy compared to Justin Gatlin but he's still the better sprinter because of physical attributes.

You don't need a picture perfect jab when your reach is that enormous compared to the past "heavyweights".
And Fury his movement is excellent for his size.

Tyson has a good jab and good movement, and when he's in boxing mode he's responsible enough to not get careless.
Totally the opposite of a stiff like Willard


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

Fury is a rank amateur because he performs in an amateurish fashion. Throwing a jab and moving clumsily to the left or right is just the very tip of the iceberg when it comes to boxing ability. Certainly the most amateurish hwt champion in my lifetime. In comparison Leon Spinks had Gene Tunney capabilities!

if you can't see this you need to look into yourself as to why. Do you know how to box scientifically?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Tbf.

I've embarrassed Perry by exposing the shallowness of his argument as well as his lack of debating ability regarding key focus points. 

I feel bad for the guy focusing on his weaknesses. 

So instead let's pretend he can win an argument and leave it there with him?


----------



## D-U-D-E (Jul 31, 2013)

Perry getting his wig pushed back, he's having a mare :yep


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

Not my fault you two have no technical knowledge of boxing. Fury can't fight well at all. Very low skilled fighter. That's just the way it is. If you can't see it then really go find another sport to follow. Dempsey is an example of a highly skilled ATG fighter. Low skilled vs. very high skill. You feel the low skilled fighter will win. I believe the very high skilled ATG will win. I believe my viewpoint is more reasonable.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Is Dempsey allowed to fill his gloves with bolts?


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

Trust me he would not need to do anything out of the ordinary to beat the big lummox that is Fury. 

Here is what Jack Sharkey said of Jack Dempsey. Sharkey was the only man ever to fight both Dempsey and Joe Louis.

"I never thought any fighter could hit that hard."

"When Dempsey hits you in the shoulder he breaks your shoulder. when he hits you to the body it feels as if his fist is coming out of your back. When he hits you on the hip he dislocates your hip."

Everyone understands and realizes the power Joe Louis possessed. Sharkey felt Dempsey hit Harder than Louis. That is an incredibly hard puncher.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> I can't believe people compare him to Willard...a Willard that was getting battered in sparring by a natural welterweight no less.







:bart


----------



## DharmaBum (Jun 5, 2013)

Low blow. DQ.


----------



## DharmaBum (Jun 5, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Is Dempsey allowed to fill his gloves with bolts?


I'll do it. I'll rub tigerbalm in his glove, drop nails in his corner, drop on a paraglider in the first row, whatever. Just get him outta there.


----------



## D-U-D-E (Jul 31, 2013)

Jack Dempsey's punches were so hard they could shatter steel like glass guys. I think it's obvious who wins here. You uneducated fucks.


----------



## D-U-D-E (Jul 31, 2013)

dyna said:


> :bart


That right hand Tommy threw definitely shook Ali, legit power baby :hey


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Perry said:


> Not my fault you two have no technical knowledge of boxing. Fury can't fight well at all. Very low skilled fighter. That's just the way it is. If you can't see it then really go find another sport to follow. Dempsey is an example of a highly skilled ATG fighter. Low skilled vs. very high skill. You feel the low skilled fighter will win. I believe the very high skilled ATG will win. I believe my viewpoint is more reasonable.


I don't even think Dempsey is all that great.

You're just an anus.


----------



## Sister Sledge (Oct 22, 2012)

Fury does not deserve to be mentioned in the Historical forum.


----------



## James Figg (Jul 15, 2012)

Sister Sledge said:


> Fury does not deserve to be mentioned in the Historical forum.


Yes he does because he is the current Lineal heavyweight Champion: a Championship which stretches back to John L. Sullivan and even further if you are willing to list the pre-gloved champions.

Anyway, back to the question at hand.

Fury is better than most his critics believe but isn't skilful enough to keep Dempsey at bay for the distance and eventually the latter's pummelling body shots have an effect and is the main difference.


----------



## Sister Sledge (Oct 22, 2012)

James Figg said:


> Yes he does because he is the current Lineal heavyweight Champion: a Championship which stretches back to John L. Sullivan and even further if you are willing to list the pre-gloved champions.
> 
> Anyway, back to the question at hand.
> 
> Fury is better than most his critics believe but isn't skilful enough to keep Dempsey at bay for the distance and eventually the latter's pummelling body shots have an effect and is the main difference.


Fury is a low-level champion I could be wrong, but I don't rae him highly at all. Th fact that he is champion just shows how bad the HW division is. There are fighters that can beat him. Hopefully, he loses soon.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Sister Sledge said:


> Fury does not deserve to be mentioned in the Historical forum.


Name a 6'6+ boxer with better/faster foot movement.
You can even include kickboxers if you want.


----------



## James Figg (Jul 15, 2012)

Sister Sledge said:


> Fury is a low-level champion I could be wrong, but I don't rae him highly at all. Th fact that he is champion just shows how bad the HW division is. There are fighters that can beat him. Hopefully, he loses soon.


He would have been a nightmare to fight in any era in my humble opinion.

His build and style are difficult to fight against and although I have him much closer to the bottom of the lineal hierarchy than the top there is no-one in the list of lineal champions who wouldn't struggle against him or at best struggle to look good.


----------



## Sister Sledge (Oct 22, 2012)

dyna said:


> Name a 6'6+ boxer with better/faster foot movement.
> You can even include kickboxers if you want.


Wilder for one. Fury is akward and big. That in itself makes him a difficult fighter to face. That doesn't necessarily make him a good fighter.


----------



## Sister Sledge (Oct 22, 2012)

James Figg said:


> He would have been a nightmare to fight in any era in my humble opinion.
> 
> His build and style are difficult to fight against and although I have him much closer to the bottom of the lineal hierarchy than the top there is no-one in the list of lineal champions who wouldn't struggle against him or at best struggle to look good.


One can say the same thing abour John Ruiz.


----------



## James Figg (Jul 15, 2012)

Sister Sledge said:


> One can say the same thing abour John Ruiz.


Hmmm.

The way Jones, Toney and Haye beat Ruiz suggests that although he could be a great spoiler it wasn't impossible to look decent against him.

I sincerely doubt that Fury will ever be beaten with the victor looking as impressive as any of those did in beating Ruiz.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

James Figg said:


> Yes he does because he is the current Lineal heavyweight Champion: a Championship which stretches back to John L. Sullivan and even further if you are willing to list the pre-gloved champions.
> 
> Anyway, back to the question at hand.
> 
> Fury is better than most his critics believe but isn't skilful enough to keep Dempsey at bay for the distance and eventually the latter's pummelling body shots have an effect and is the main difference.


That lineage actually ended with Tunney.

Fury's lineage is questionable as it is. Although I do agree he's the no.1, and that Wlad was.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Sister Sledge said:


> Fury is a low-level champion I could be wrong, but I don't rae him highly at all. Th fact that he is champion just shows how bad the HW division is. There are fighters that can beat him. Hopefully, he loses soon.


Ridiculous in my opinion.


----------



## James Figg (Jul 15, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> That lineage actually ended with Tunney.
> 
> Fury's lineage is questionable as it is. Although I do agree he's the no.1, and that Wlad was.


ooo, you're being pedantic!

Most "lineal" heavyweight lists will have Schmeling winning the vacant title as Wlad did when he beat Chagev....

I agree with you but are are being pedantic ;-)


----------



## James Figg (Jul 15, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> That lineage actually ended with Tunney.
> 
> Fury's lineage is questionable as it is. Although I do agree he's the no.1, and that Wlad was.


Do I take it that you exclude Marvin Hart too BTW?


----------



## Sister Sledge (Oct 22, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Ridiculous in my opinion.


WHY?


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Sister Sledge said:


> Wilder for one. Fury is akward and big. That in itself makes him a difficult fighter to face. That doesn't necessarily make him a good fighter.


I disagree, Wilder can't use his feet to control range like Fury can.
His eye got completely busted up by Duhaupas his jab while Fury on the other hand completely neutralized the jab of a great jab artist.


----------



## Sister Sledge (Oct 22, 2012)

dyna said:


> I disagree, Wilder can't use his feet to control range like Fury can.
> His eye got completely busted up by Duhaupas his jab while Fury on the other hand completely neutralized the jab of a great jab artist.


fury actually may have quicker feet than Wilder, but that's about it. he does nothing special. Wlad is past prime and unmotivated. even so, I think he beats Fury in a rematch.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

James Figg said:


> Do I take it that you exclude Marvin Hart too BTW?


Yes. But when Johnson beat Jeffries the lineage started again.

Hart's lineage was contested even in his time.

And nah, I wasn't being pedantic. I agree with you that Wlad essentially _restarted_ the lineage.

I do disagree that it stretches all the way back to John L. Sullivan.


----------



## James Figg (Jul 15, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Yes. But when Johnson beat Jeffries the lineage started again.
> 
> Hart's lineage was contested even in his time.
> 
> ...


Were Marvin Hart and Jack Root considered the best not subjected to the colour bar?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

James Figg said:


> Were Marvin Hart and Jack Root considered the best not subjected to the colour bar?


Everyone--regardless of colour--struggled for legitimacy in the wake of Jeffries' retirement.

Johnson didn't carry much clout though as he was seen as very negative and someone who often tried to fiddle his way through fights.

Hart did end up getting a bit of respect, but with what I've read even then it seemed a token 'Well I guess it is Hart if this is what we've got to work with'.

This was after he beat Root though. Even with Jeffries giving his blessing to the 'title fight' not everyone was sold on it.

Jeffries was still seen by many as 'the man' even in retirement.


----------



## Mr. Brain (Jun 4, 2013)

The big doofus beats the The Manassa Mauler, mid round KO.


----------



## James Figg (Jul 15, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Everyone--regardless of colour--struggled for legitimacy in the wake of Jeffries' retirement.
> 
> Johnson didn't carry much clout though as he was seen as very negative and someone who often tried to fiddle his way through fights.
> 
> ...


Yep, I've rad a few articles/books which stressed an opinion that Jefferies was still the Champion when he fought Johnson: similar, I suppose, to when Ali fought Frazier in '71 and when Spinks fought Tyson (though only sad cases like me thought it when Briggs fought Lewis!).

Always fascinating when the lineage is broken to see how quickly a new Champion is acclaimed not only in word but in perception too.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

James Figg said:


> Yep, I've rad a few articles/books which stressed an opinion that Jefferies was still the Champion when he fought Johnson: similar, I suppose, to when Ali fought Frazier in '71 and when Spinks fought Tyson (though only sad cases like me thought it when Briggs fought Lewis!).
> 
> Always fascinating when the lineage is broken to see how quickly a new Champion is acclaimed not only in word but in perception too.


I must be a sad case as well then


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Fury with ease. Would be a fun scrap but he's too big and too skilled.
> 
> I can't believe people compare him to Willard...a Willard that was getting battered in sparring by a natural welterweight no less..


I haven't heard that one mate but I know Willard lost to other 180 something pound fighters in his prime prior to the Johnson fight who seemingly weren't top contenders. Against Dempsey he had 1 fight in 4 years and was parading around as a circus act, which he made a ton of money out of, stating he wasn't interested in fighting the top contenders



Luf said:


> If Fury allows Dempsey inside he will lose the fight.


Not necessarily, Fury could smash Dempsey with uppercuts but he would be better jabbing, stepping off and countering. If Dempsey rushes inside he can counter smash with the right or uppercut.


----------



## D-U-D-E (Jul 31, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> I haven't heard that one mate but I know Willard lost to other 180 something pound fighters in his prime prior to the Johnson fight who seemingly weren't top contenders. Against Dempsey he had 1 fight in 4 years and was parading around as a circus act, which he made a ton of money out of, stating he wasn't interested in fighting the top contenders
> 
> Not necessarily, Fury could smash Dempsey with uppercuts but he would be better jabbing, stepping off and countering. If Dempsey rushes inside he can counter smash with the right or uppercut.


Who do you have bro?, you always seem fair and balanced when it comes to these sort of things.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

D-U-D-E said:


> Who do you have bro?, you always seem fair and balanced when it comes to these sort of things.


Well I'm very much a modernist though, in that I consider the 80s and 90s to be the golden age of the sport. Old time fans will consider me to be biased or to favour newer age boxers.

I'm not sure it's completely fair comparing eras because it was harder to learn a boxing skillset in the 1900s and sports nutrition was none existant.

I'd go with Fury, I'm not a fan of his, but I always believe you have to ask "who lands first", and usually it's the jab unless there's a massive speed disparity. Then you have to ask if the other fighter can walk through the fighter who lands first jab and right. Or can the smaller fighter slip the punches to land his own. And Dempsey fans believe he can do this. But he couldn't slip Brennan's punches in his prime, or Miske in their first fight (Miske was suffering from a disease he would die of in their title fight) or Meehan in their series of 4 round bouts. And ultimately could rarely get past Tunney's 1-2. Bigger pressure fighters than Dempsey struggle to land punches that bother Fury.

But as many point out they were harder times. Boxing and other sports is about building on the shoulders of those that came before.


----------



## D-U-D-E (Jul 31, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Well I'm very much a modernist though, in that I consider the 80s and 90s to be the golden age of the sport. Old time fans will consider me to be biased or to favour newer age boxers.
> 
> I'm not sure it's completely fair comparing eras because it was harder to learn a boxing skillset in the 1900s and sports nutrition was none existant.
> 
> ...


I think that's fair enough. Like you say I just don't see how Dempsey can get inside consistently enough to make his power count, especially considering the significant size advantage Fury has, that combined with his excellent footwork for such a big man and good long jab. I agree it's two completely different eras though, it's almost an unfair comparison.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Power puncher mentions sport nutrition being nonexistent . ..but if you followed the diet that Dempsey puts down in championship fighting i think you would be doing pretty well.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

D-U-D-E said:


> I think that's fair enough. Like you say I just don't see how Dempsey can get inside consistently enough to make his power count, especially considering the significant size advantage Fury has, that combined with his excellent footwork for such a big man and good long jab. I agree it's two completely different eras though, it's almost an unfair comparison.


Fury did almost get his head taken off by a cruiserweight though right?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Johnstown said:


> Fury did almost get his head taken off by a cruiserweight though right?


Who was still a stone heavier than Dempsey.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Actually, Dempsey vs U.S.S is a 50-50 fight if we're being honest.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> I haven't heard that one mate but I know Willard lost to other 180 something pound fighters in his prime prior to the Johnson fight who seemingly weren't top contenders. Against Dempsey he had 1 fight in 4 years and was parading around as a circus act, which he made a ton of money out of, stating he wasn't interested in fighting the top contenders
> 
> Not necessarily, Fury could smash Dempsey with uppercuts but he would be better jabbing, stepping off and countering. If Dempsey rushes inside he can counter smash with the right or uppercut.


Joe Chip--the only man to legitimately stop Greb--was sent home by Willard after battering him in sparring a few days in a row.

Willard is probably the worst ever legitimate heavyweight champ IMO.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Guillermo Jones would walk right through that Dempsey.


----------



## Jdempsey85 (Jan 6, 2013)

dyna said:


> Guillermo Jones would walk right through that Dempsey.


Paul Dempsey yeah


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Jdempsey85 said:


> Paul Dempsey yeah


Nah, Jack Dempsey.


----------



## Jdempsey85 (Jan 6, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Nah, Jack Dempsey.


Nah Paul Dempsey


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Jdempsey85 said:


> Nah Paul Dempsey


What does Jack do better than Lebedev?


----------



## Jdempsey85 (Jan 6, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> What does Jack do better than Lebedev?


Fucked a lot more broads than Dennis

Better at everything


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Jdempsey85 said:


> Fucked a lot more broads than Dennis
> 
> Better at everything


In terms of actual boxing skill? No chance.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> I haven't heard that one mate but I know Willard lost to other 180 something pound fighters in his prime prior to the Johnson fight who seemingly weren't top contenders. Against Dempsey he had 1 fight in 4 years and was parading around as a circus act, which he made a ton of money out of, stating he wasn't interested in fighting the top contenders
> 
> Not necessarily, Fury could smash Dempsey with uppercuts but he would be better jabbing, stepping off and countering. If Dempsey rushes inside he can counter smash with the right or uppercut.


Yes it isn't absolute. Any SHW that can leverage their uppercut can end a fight instantly at that range.

For me, Dempsey is a favourite up close because he is much quicker handed and should be able to land consistently up close.

Shame we'll never see to know who was right.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> In terms of actual boxing skill? No chance.


He has better head movement and quicker hands imo.

He has the same stalk and destroy style employed by Kovalev but I do believe he's harder hitting than Sergey despite having a massively inferior jab.

I know you're likely to question the power disparity and you might be right, but I have to give historical knowledge some due when it comes to debates like this. Would Kovalev really smash Willard ten ways from Sunday? I've no idea.

It could be that Sergey would have bettered Jacks career given the opportunity, or it might be he never gets past Fulton. Shame we'll never know.

Despite that I'm not sitting on the fence. I am giving Jack an edge in power, hand speed, foot speed and head movement.


----------



## Lampley (Jun 4, 2013)

Fury would win this fight handily, as would most modern HWs. Dempsey is a midget by today's standards and lacked the athletic fluidity and the defense to compensate for that. 

I know it hurts people's feelings to set limits on their heroes, but this was almost 100 years ago. The world has evolved.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

These types of questions are so hard to answer. Even asking who would win a 210 pounds Holmes or Klitchko who is 240 is hard.


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

Lineage did NOT end with Tunney. 

If you believe Fury is a good fighter best to stop watching this sport. You don't know what you are looking at. 

Fury is an example of how bad the hwt division has become. The result of the potential of 4-5 champions and 40-50 top 10 contenders the past 30 years. 

Regarding Dempseys punching power...... Only one man fought Dempsey and Louis. Jack Sharkey felt Dempsey was the harder puncher of the two. To quote Sharkey....

"I never thought anyone could hit that hard"

"If Dempsey hit you on the shoulder he breaks your shoulder. If he hits you to the body it felt like his fist came out your back. If he hit you on the hip he dislocated your hip". 

Jack Sharkey was former hwt champion of the world and a top hwt contender for over ten years. His comments carry lots of weight. With Dempsey you were fighting an unusually hard punching hwt.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Perry said:


> Lineage did NOT end with Tunney.
> 
> If you believe Fury is a good fighter best to stop watching this sport. You don't know what you are looking at.
> 
> ...


The lineage stretching back to Sullivan DID end with Tunney.

Can you not fucking read or something? Spastic.


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

Once again. Lineage did not end with Tunney. Study up!


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Perry said:


> Once again. Lineage did not end with Tunney. Study up!


It did. Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries, Johnson (either via Hart and Burns or from Jeffries it ends up with Johnson), Willard, Dempsey, Tunney.

Tunney retired. The lineage ends.

New lineage is re-established but the original comment I quoted: 'lineage that stretches back to Sullivan' DID end with Tunney, you thick piece of shit.


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

Flea...you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. The lineal title DOES NOT end just because a current hwt champion retires. The lineage CONTINUES as long as historically the two leading contenders, in this case Schmeling and Sharkey, fight to determine the new champion. This they did and Schmeling won on a foul. Your complete ignorance of this sport shows up like a sore thumb. Study up! You need boxing 101 lessons!


----------



## Jdempsey85 (Jan 6, 2013)

Lampley said:


> Dempsey is a midget by today's standards and lacked the athletic fluidity and the defense to compensate for that.
> .


A 6FT+ Midget :huh Can you explain what ''athletic fluidity'' is?


----------



## Jdempsey85 (Jan 6, 2013)

''athletic fluidity'' anyone:conf


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Jdempsey85 said:


> ''athletic fluidity'' anyone:conf


Yea i dont know...trying to sound smart i think...

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Jdempsey85 said:


> A 6FT+ Midget :huh Can you explain what ''athletic fluidity'' is?


There have been a few 6ft featherweights.. :bart
http://boxrec.com/boxer/58328


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Jdempsey85 said:


> ''athletic fluidity'' anyone:conf


Athleticism basically.

Anyways i'd expect Fury to maul him.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Perry said:


> Flea...you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. The lineal title DOES NOT end just because a current hwt champion retires. The lineage CONTINUES as long as historically the two leading contenders, in this case Schmeling and Sharkey, fight to determine the new champion. This they did and Schmeling won on a foul. Your complete ignorance of this sport shows up like a sore thumb. Study up! You need boxing 101 lessons!


When did I dispute that?!? Anyone with half a brain can see what I'm saying. You are clearly retarded.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Lineage in the sense of man who beat the man did end with tunney. You cab say it was reestablished than endwd when marciano retired....than it remained.. sometimes going quiet...like when ali was out for 3 years but lost it to Frazier...than it went away again with lewis retirement. Ring magazine says vitali got it than wlad.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Fury, wlad k, vitali k, (non fight lineages ) lewis, briges lol, foreman, moorer, holyfield, bowe,:holyfield, douglas, tyson, Michael spinks, holmes, ali, leon spinks, foreman, Frazer, ali/clay, liston, patterson, Johansson, patterson....

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Once again, you have oversimplified everything to an extreme!:-( Things just aren't as uncomplicated as you try making them out to be.


----------



## smokinjoe 89 (Apr 16, 2016)

a bit of a one sided fight since Jack was about 6ft 1 while Fury is 6ft 9. Jack would have to slip through Tyson's jab which would be hard to avoid as Fury has 7 inch reach advantage (fury:86in and Jack:77in), Jack could overwhelm him with his bull like pressure slipping some punches to body whilst bobbing and weaving (a good of example of this is Willard taking on the Mauler). noticing fury's fighting style he will regularly switch stances and likes to be on the move but this can get exposed men who knocked down fury which were small men were Steve Cunningham and Nevan Pajkic and all boxing fans know that Dempsey have incredible punching power. He could have a chance but at the end of the day who knows how it would've played out XD


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Yeah this is one where the size disparity has become too big over time.

I doubt anyone would take a Jack Johnson v Erislandy Lara thread too seriously and its probably less size difference in that one.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Yeah this is one where the size disparity has become too big over time.
> 
> I doubt anyone would take a Jack Johnson v Erislandy Lara thread too seriously and its probably less size difference in that one.


Although Dempsey did beat guys almost as big as fury.

Oh but fury is so modern...so skilled...so athletic...


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Yeah this is one where the size disparity has become too big over time.
> 
> I doubt anyone would take a Jack Johnson v Erislandy Lara thread too seriously and its probably less size difference in that one.


Choynski got stopped by 5'1 147 pound Walcott.
Joe then managed to stop Johnson exactly 1 year and 2 days later.

Choynski weighed in at 163 for Walcott, and Lara is like 165 on fightnight.
So it doesn't seem very farfetched.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

dyna said:


> Choynski got stopped by 5'1 147 pound Walcott.
> Joe then managed to stop Johnson exactly 1 year and 2 days later.
> 
> Choynski weighed in at 163 for Walcott, and Lara is like 165 on fightnight.
> So it doesn't seem very farfetched.


Choynski could bang much more than Erislandy though, it was a massively green Johnson as well.


----------



## joe56685 (12 mo ago)

Luf is a idiot why would it be hard to pick fury is way to good a mover and way to big jack fought nothing like him easy win for fury


----------



## Sister Sledge (Oct 22, 2012)

If it was the Fury who fought Cunningham, Dempsey would stop him. Champion Fury would beat Dempsey up. Fury uses his size and weight to his advantage now, and he is just a smart fighter.


----------

