Jack Dempsey vs Bob Foster

1. Foster did beat HWs.
2. Besides his losses against ATGs Frazier and Ali, the rest came when he was quite green (under 20 fights).
3. He was only once KO'd by anyone under 200 lbs (in his 10:th fight).
4. Dempsey didn't KO'd any of the top fighters he fought who were 175-185 lbs (Foster's weight) under 3 rds. He went the distance with them several times, drew once and lost twice.

I don't think these facts support that a quick, easy KO would be a given. More subjectively, I can say that the film of Gibbons and Carpentier doesn't show them to be as good as Foster in my mind.

 

Completely and utterly disagree.

 

I'll have to answer your post this time tomorrow Duo. I've got a bit up my sleeve tho

 

b,tommy Gibbons kod 47 men..CHECK out the film of Tommy Gibbons knocking out Jack Bloomfield of Britain..I saw this on youtube months ago,
and Gibbons could HIT !!!This bout if seen, is a key to understanding the
calibre of Gibbons and his contemporaries..Who has this film now ???

 

What I am about to say is in no way ment to knock Joe Fraizer. But Fraizer really wasn't much bigger then dempsey. In fact all his measurements suggest he was smaller. The weight advantage was due to heavier legs (much of that being fat) and also his body seemed to have a layer of fat on it which dempsey did not have until maybe the end of his career.

Just saying this because of the whole argument about size and all.

 

No argument there. What can be said is that his HW record is hard to get a good reading from. He took on three good/very good contenders when green and then two ATG HWs when prime. It is hard for natural LHW to look good with such match-up. If he had waited until his prime to face the HW contenders then (let's say Quarry, Mathis and Ellis) it might very well have looked better.

He did. But they seemed better suited for him stylistically, which his trainer also later suggested.

As I said, Dempsey has to be considered the favourite here and probably before full time. I just see little that suggests a blow out in one round, and I wouldn't be surprised if Foster manages to both do some damage with his jab (which probably was better than any jab Dempsey faced bar possibly Tunney's) and stagger Dempsey with the occasional right (which Carpentier managed).

 

It shouldn't be, though. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Then that has to apply to Johnson-Willard too, right?

 

Actually some good discussions taking place.

 

I have always defended willard on that one despite being a Johnson suporter.

There is realy only Johnsons testimony to back up a fix, and it contradicts statments he made earlier. There is also film of the fight.