Who was the better fighter, Jack Dempsey or George Foreman?

Jack Dempsey had the power.

 

The power to terrorize internet boxing forums, yes

 

I just ordered it.

 

Thank you!!

 

Again this is revisionism. Frazier was a 3:1 favorite. Norton had a good record and was given a chance due to his close fights with Ali. Chuvalo was iron chinned with good stamina, decent ring IQ and good body shots cand foreman would have been in serious trouble if he didn't manage to stop him early.

There was no talk of this "tailor made" stuff until after foreman won.

 

Dempsey...

 

Ron Lyle was a quality win.

 

Tommy Gibbons and Billy Miske.

 

No doubt a dramatic one but a far from dominant performance against a 34 year old hard hating but limited fighter.

 

It is not revisionism, it is fact. Revisionism would be changing the reasons for the results such as injury, poorly prepared, a refs premature stoppage, etc .. Frazier , this filtered version was made for him. Chuvalo the same. Norton who never defeated one big puncher in his carer the same.

 

Dempsey having stamina issues is revisionism .. he fought a brutal fight with Brennan and still was the stronger man and showed late round KO power in stopping Brennan .. despite being high inactive he went a very strong , fast paced 15 with Gibbons and dominated.

 

Duane Bobick was a big puncher imo.

 

Fair enough, you know far more about this era than I do. I would only add that any aggressive fighter's bane is a smart boxer, be it Dempsey, Foreman or anyone else. If Dempsey can lose to a Willie Meehan or be extended by a Gibbons, then I don't know one can fairly say he was necessarily more adept at fighting clever boxers. He had more fights and therefore more chance to prove it. Dempsey may have beaten a few but also lost a few. Foreman has to figure to at least duplicate those kinds of numbers.

 

He wasn't the same style as Chuvalo, Frazier or even Norton. He didn't crouch. He was a big heavyweight as well.

 

Call it revisionism or hindsight or whatever you want. Nothing you say will change the fact he was a 3-1 underdog and most felt he'd lose. And no it isnt an "easy fight" in theory, frazier had superior hand speed, head movement, combinations, stamina, etc. Foreman didn't simply overpower him, he actually fought a brilliant fight and happened to have the raw strength tp end it earlier. It wasnt simply his size, frazier had beaten other large heavies like Ali, Mathis, Burner, etc. Quarry and Bonavena werent as hard hitting as foreman obviously but they had good solid power with many good KO's and Frazier couldn't just shrug then off. No one wants to give foreman credit for a good game plan they dismiss it as simple rock papers scissors and he was just born with enough size and power to beat his style. The fact we are even arguing about this tells me you haven't done your research. Yes Foreman had some obvious advantages IN HINDSIGHT, but not every advantage. He was still vastly inferior in speed, stamina, experience, technique, etc.

Explain to me how Chuvalo, a guy with good ring IQ, a granite chin, insane stamina, and a powerful body puncher is a horrible matchup and an "easy" opponent for a young inexperienced impatient slugger who lacks defense and had stamina issues?

How is michael Moore built for old George? Dont give me the glass jaw nonsense either because he had only 2 ko losses in 57 fights. Literally almost anyone in history would have gotten KO'd if an aggressive tua landed flush or they got caught by foremans sneaky nuclear 1-2. He was an undefeated skilled hard hitting south paw with a great resume. Foreman was a slow as molasses old man who was relatively easy to hit and outbox with nothing left but power and toughness.

Do you agree the briggs fight was a robbery? Because that definitely wasnt an "easy win" on paper or after the fact. Name some 48 year olds who would beat a prime Briggs? Or Alex Stewart?