Holyfield had his hands full with past prime Mike Tyson. Dempsey is just as big (perhaps doesn't weigh as much) as Holyfield and better on the inside than him or anyone that Holyfield faced. Dempsey could knock fresh guys out with a single punch. Watch the Firpo fight. Dempsey lands a couple of solid punches on the inside and Firpo collapses. Nobody can take Dempsey to war and come out on top. I doubt Holyfield would outbox Dempsey, I never saw Holyfield outbox a top heavyweight that could apply pressure like Dempsey.
Attempting to use Firpo as a reference point for anyone that Holy faced in his career is just desperate. Bert Cooper would smash the sh*t out of Firpo faster than he did Joe Savage. Find a better reference point. Dempsey didn't take out a fresh and off beat Brennan with his first punch nor did he do so to career lightheavy Gibbons.
Both men give as good as they get. Neither one wants to back down, this will result in some vicious exchange s. But it's not going to be a short fight despite the hard punches been thrown. Both guys are getting hurt with holyfield dropping demps a couple of occasions but Jack s not staying down. Can see dempsey hurting a exhausted holyfield round about the twelve and brutally finishing him.
No, you didn't read my post. I am referencing the Firpo fight as an indication of Dempsey's punching power. Firpo was tough and could take a punch. Dempsey knocked him down with a couple punches on the inside to the body and/or head. This isn't Cooper vs Firpo. Just because A beats B and B beats C doesn't necessarily mean that A beats C. Gibbons and Brennan ran. The film is right there. They avoided Dempsey like the plague the entire fight and in return Dempsey won nearly every round against both of them. Also Dempsey knocked Brennan out pretty brutally. Dempsey detractors seem to want to make it sound like Brennan went the distance in a close competitive fight. It was not that at all. Btw neither of those guys took Dempsey to war.
Brennan did not run ,he fought a clever counterpunching fight and was gradually worn down by a superior fighter and harder hitter,he tore Dempsey's ear nearly off. This content is protected The July 1964 issue of Boxing Illustrated had an article about the Dempsey-Brennan fight titled "Dempsey's Toughest Fight: It wasn't with Firpo—it was with Bill Brennan." https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=MtQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1699,2568681&hl=en Asked who gave him his hardest fight Dempsey said, "they were all hard, but no-one hurt me more than my pal Bill Brennan".
McVey beat me to the punch on Brennan. Regarding Gibbons, Tommy was working inside on body as his approach. He was hardly running. Dempsey applied plenty of the rough stuff in that fight, hitting below the belt mostly as his old roommate Jimmy Daugherty looked the other way. Gibbons showed his black and blue groin (picture that in your mind's eye) to reporters the next day. Hey, do what you gotta do to win... I understand that. But if Dempsey thought it prudent to foul a lightheavy in order to win, and he tries the same on Vander, Vander might teach him a thing or two in the fine art of bending the rules.
Holyfield is a class above anybody Dempsey beat by a wide margin. Dempsey imo would walk right into some huge shots and pay a heavy price to land any of his blows. He eventually gets stopped, probably by round 9.
Have you even read what you posted? 1964. Written over 40 years after the fight took place. He rarely engaged and the fight wasn't even close. Have you even read the newspaper reports on who won each rd? Use your eyes and not reading ****ing newspaper articles written almost half a century later. https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=MtQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1699,2568681&hl=en Scored 8-3 until the knockout by people who were actually there at the fight. There is absolutely nothing close at all about this fight. In fact that's called a landslide. Dempsey had a split left ear not one that almost fell off. This is that misrepresentation thing you do all of the time. Provide the source for the quote at the end of your reply.
What are you talking about? The film clearly shows Dempsey being the aggressor taking the fight to the inside. How does Dempsey dominating Gibbons and Brennan prove he would lose against Holyfield? The burden of proof is on you to show that Dempsey would have lost had he not gone low. Which champions in history never fouled? Dempsey is stronger then Holyfield, has better defense, hits harder, faster, and better on the inside. Holyfield got hit too much to beat Dempsey.
Stronger? Better Defense? These are blatantly false statements. Nor do I even believe he's faster or better on the inside. Have you ever seen Holy work on the inside? If you had, I doubt you'd say Dempsey is better, especially from a technical point of view.
Are you kidding me? It is completely obvious from the film that Dempsey was stronger and had better defense. He handled guys in the clinch that were BIGGER than Holyfield. His defense is clearly better as well. Just watch the film instead of reading some comic book. The common dogma is guys like Dempsey, Marciano, Lamotta, etc. were easier to hit than the heavy bag. This is FLASE. WATCH THE TAPE!!! I have seen every Holyfield fight from Qawi to Lewis. He's one of my favorites of all time and is in my top 10 but he doesn't beat Dempsey. Dempsey fought in an era where inside fighting was a must have. Holyfield for sure didn't. Close quarter fighting is NOT infighting. Holyfield NEVER worked guys over on the inside like Dempsey. There is no evidence to support your claim.
I find Dempsey very difficult to evaluate objectively. I'm a huge fan of his, or at least of his style, and so I tend to focus on his superb assets when I think of him. But if I'm being honest, it's hard to erase images of him getting staggered by Carpentier and sent out of the ring by Firpo (who was big and could certainly punch, but was as wild as they come). It's at that point that I don't want to think much about pitting him against the much stiffer competition of other ATGs. And then here's the other problem: We don't have a lot of filmed fights to go on. It seems fairly uncontroversial to say that the Sharkey fight and two Tunney fights were not Jack at his best. So that leaves us Willard, Firpo, Carpentier, Brennan and Gibbons. Those have been covered here ad infinitum, but none of them leaves me convinced of anything about how he would do against Holyfield. Maybe he had other fights on the way to Willard that would tell us more, and contemporaries whom I respect certainly had plenty good to say about Dempsey (Ray Arcel gushing about him comes to mind), but I haven't seen those fights. Given all that, here's my best shot at it: Dempsey was fast of hand and foot, extremely aggressive, effective in the clinches, powerful combination puncher, and tough. He was not great at cutting off the ring or dealing with counters as he closed the distance. Holyfield, I think, would counter Jack a lot and use his physical strength (at heavyweight) to stifle and shove Jack around when he wasn't able to counter effectively. It's a toss-up for me as to who gets the better of the in-fighting and clinching, but Holyfield was also very good at sneaking in hard punches inside and while separating. Of course the oft-repeated fact that Holyfield could be drawn into brawls doesn't help him here, but he was no slouch in his own right when it came to mid-range wars. While it's hard to see Jack getting knocked out in any of these exchanges, it's not hard to see him getting knocked down. Holyfield I think would be often hurt and sometimes badly in these trades, but I can't imagine a KO, or even a KD. Overall, I think it's probably a draw at in-fighting and a slight edge to Dempsey in middle-ranges. At longer range, I see Dempsey missing a lot, getting countered a lot, and hurting Holyfield when he connects but not connecting often enough to make the difference. Holyfield UD.