I think Charles at his best out boxes Dempsey and avoids his big punches. Plus, Charles was an underrated puncher himself. He had enough of a punch to make Dempsey think twice.
I think Charles comfortably outboxes him. Lamotta hit it in the head. Charles was an underrated puncher because he never again punched with impunity after killing a man in the ring. If he was taken into a dogfight with Dempsey, he would have some reservoirs to tap to pull it out.
Dempsey by decision Charles was brilliant and while he was better than Tunney, i do not think he was as fleet footed as Tunney was. Plus, young Dempsey was very very fast. I think Dempsey wins a hard fought decision, perhaps scoring a knock down along the way.
I like Charles for reasons already stated by other posters. While Jack Dempsey was a force, Ezzard’s winning streak from 1944-1950 was one of the best achievements in boxing.
Charles is a bit better technically. But remember the saying 'don't hook with a hooker'? Dempsey fought very poor opposition for varying reasons. But he had a great knockout left hook and was in his element at mid range. Charles while a skilled boxer liked to box inside and that suits Dempsey down to the ground. He's boxing at Dempsey's ideal range. If he could jab and move I'd favour him but that isn't how Charles boxed. Leans Dempsey
Ezzard never saw as savage and feral attack like it. The fastest hands he has seen. Pure, snarling killer instinct. JACK BY KO IN 1.
I'm pretty surprised by the poll. I would've thought more people would pick Dempsey by stoppage. I did anyway.
Charles can definitely jab and move. Definitely that is not a question. He would also know to limit his output when he does get inside when Dempsey, even the prime version, presents vulnerable moments for him to capitalize on. I think the question is can Dempsey land the perfect left hook when Charles is in range. Over 15, I dont think he can.
