Jack Dempsey vs Ingemar Johansson & Floyd Patterson

Not in this case. Floyd would be a handful for most boxers in history. an inside fighter with an iron chin, one punch knockout power in each hand, and blazing speed himself, is not one of them.

 

Patterson and Ingo have falliable chins. Dempsey wins. Patterson has a tiny chance if KD's are counted because he can score those powerless KD's that get him points and nullify Dempsey's KD's he's going to get. He's not going to survive the whole fight but if he soldiers through that's a path. Ingo I see no path.

Ingo's a guy whose career ended because he got hail mary KO'd by Brian London in a fight he was winning by shut out. Can't see him beating Dempsey.

Ingo and Pattersons power isn't going to trouble a guy who went almost 20 rounds with Miske. Miske was able to two shot a superheavy under 190 pounds. Patterson and Ingo aren't that guy. Hein Hoff is not Fred Fulton.

 

Johansson zero chance. Sub zero chance if there was such a thing.

Patterson slim chance. Better chance against later, wealthy, secure, non-hungry Dempsey, Floyd could outquick him like Tunney did but if Dempsey nails him he's history. Zero chance against the beast that fought in Toledo in 1919 or separated Carpentier from his senses in Jersey City two years later.

 

I think all pre 30s fighters were at a massive disadvantage maybe more so then steroids. They lacked film. Once film was available boxing secrets were spread to the masses. Styles were adjusted and finessed. The sport advanced quickly. As he was he would lose. He had the natural power speed and reflexes to beat them but he wasn’t advanced enough yet. Had he come along in any era he would be a contender/champ though.

 

You could make a case for Floyd that other then the Ingo fluke that he twice reversed with KOs he only lost to 2 people those being the 2 greatest champs of all time (up to those days). Quarry and Ellis loses he was older and the decisions were hotly disputed.

 

Some great input on this thread, thanks all. I think Patterson has been treated very unfairly over time, the historic perspective being that he is some chinny flash in the pan, whereas he was one of the quickest, most athletic, biggest hearted champions we have seen. His comprehensive defeats only come at the hands of two ATGs who would likely beat most everyone else.

 

You either believe in Dempsey in any way or you don't .. I do and feel he'd bomb out either of these two ..

 

Patterson would win unless he got hit with a long count punch. The boxing ability and hand speed would be miles ahead of any natural heavyweight that Dempsey fought. Patterson has more ways to win, but Dempsey could land a shot if his feet allow him to get there. Ingo would make a great fight of it, but I cannot see him melting Dempsey with (basically) one shot like he did to Patterson.

 

Patteqrson would have lost to Dempsey, Sharkey, Tunney and Gibbons . He was not light years ahead of Tunney in speed or skill. Silly statement.

 

Patterson would pick Tunney apart with hand speed and power. If Dempsey could find the shot on Tunney, Patterson would find it several times over. Not to rely on the cliche of boxing evolved, but Patterson was a man of a caliber they didn't have yet. Films vs fables. Patterson boxed and took rounds off of some of the best heavyweights ever and stuck around a lot longer than he had any right to.