Jack Dempsey vs George Foreman.

No one said anything about Tunney.

Young Foreman also has good accuracy. Stop looking at Zaire as if that represents his entire career. He was blasting Frazier, Norton, Ledoux, Chuvalo, etc with vicious shots to vital areas and it was no accident. He targeted the nose, kidney, ribs, even the neck if he could get away with it. He didn't simply swing for the fences as soon as the bell ring, that's a total myth.

 

My initial point (the comment you replied to) was about Foreman's accuracy in comparison to Tunney and Carpentier.

Where and when did I say that Foreman just swung for the fences? I simply said he wouldn't be able to hit Dempsey frequently like those guys did and that his power was so great that he didn't always have to catch the guy clean. Don't misquote me.

 

You started this off by claiming he lacked the precision and skill to land like Tunney and Carpentier.

And I was simply saying that he had underrated accuracy. Everything I pointed out you keep trying to dismiss by saying things like "it was older Foreman who had accuracy".

If I make the statement that he didn't swing for the fences it doesn't mean I'm saying you said that, I'm simply emphasizing a point. Stop being so defensive. I think Foreman would land plenty on Dempsey. He's certainly more capable than a caveman like Firpo who thrashed Dempsey multiple times. He doesn't need to have the polished technique of Tunney to land some leather.

 

Well he didn't have the skill or precision that those guys did, thats factual. The older version of Foreman was more measured and accurate with his punches, that is also a fact. Of course Foreman would have landed some punches, just not at will.

 

To much firepower and puncher smarts from Foreman's end.

George knocks him down several times, and Jack gets up and blasts away every time.

It continues like this into the 4th round, when the ref has seen enough. Dempsey throws a fit, the crowd too, but he's looking really hurt and he won't stop coming at him.

 

You do not need to be some scientific,shrewd boxer to land on Dempsey. He got caught by plenty of guys not in Foreman's class. That's all I'm saying. When Dempsey was at his best, he could be very quick and elusive but this is a very ugly clash of styles. Even thought Dempsey could be alert, he fought with the intensity of an aggressive jungle cat and could sometimes walk right into something because he was so focused on hurting the opponent. This is precisely how Firpo managed to hurt him because he became less and less concerned with what was being thrown at him. Even if he did manage to hurt Foreman, if he just went for the kill immediately I do not think that would end well as Foreman will respond with a shove, an uppercut, framing, etc.

 

Great insights. Foreman's framing (grooming) of his opponents for big shocks is proof of his brilliance imo. No, he wasn't much on slick, but for certain fighters he didn't need to be.

 

Not exactly. Objectively speaking the top heavyweights of Foremans day were essentially the size of today's cruiserweights. Arguing that Usyks wins there don't count in a matchup and he has to do more at heavyweight just doesn't logically add up regardless of what your opinions are on who wins.

Whether you like it or not Foreman is closer in size to someone like Cieslak than he is to Fury.

 

Those were the guys that landed on Dempsey more frequently - like I said in my original comment they were able to hit him with near-impunity. Dempsey imo was past it when he fought Firpo, he had stopped fighting regularly at that point. I don't think your classification of Dempsey is true, I think he was more cerebral than people gave him credit for - he was very concerned about hat was being thrown back at him, thats why he kept his chin tucked in and would bob-and-weave. Foreman was not especially calm when he got hurt, so your scenario where he simply frames and uppercuts is wishful because Foreman was wild and impatient when in trouble, certainly more-so than Dempsey was.

 

That isn't true. Foreman even after being dropped by Lyle was framing, targeting the body, using his jab, etc. It was very scientific brawling, he wasn't just throwing wild bombs.

Jack was 28 when he fought Firpo and Firpo is closer in style to Foreman than freaking Gene Tunney.

 

The biggest difference between Firpo and Foreman might just be film. Both guys weren’t all that and I think a prime Dempsey would’ve minced Firpo up, by extension… Foreman

 

Foreman: gold medalist, 2x champion, destroyed hall of famers. Had one of the best jabs of all time, tremendous body puncher, could cut off the ring, frame, and parry.

Firpo: the only reason people remember him is a fight he lost. Never became champion and had a thin manufactured resume. A caveman who threw random wild haymakers with no fundamentals to speak of.

Totally the same other than film quality. We know you don't like Foreman, no need to remind people in every thread with idiotic posts.

 

Dempsey wasn't fighting regularly at that point, he was living good and trying to make it as an actor. The last fight of what can be considered his prime was the Carpentier fight.
Foreman v Lyle was a shootout. There was some intelligent maneuvering here and there but it was really a shootout.
NSS

 

I don't know that I agree with you saying Foreman wasn't 'all that'. But you're right in pointing out the similarity between him and Firpo, they are not as far apart as people like to think. Watch Firpo v Willard, he wasn't a dumb lumbering heavyweight like people say he was. Foreman is definitely the better fighter though and an ATG.