1919 Jack Dempsey vs 1967 Muhammad Ali

Jack Dempsey would beat the living **** out of Muhammed Ali and win by KO in Round 11.

 

“Dempsey would have absolutely beaten any fighter who came after him – without a doubt. I know all about Joe Louis and how he knocked guys’ teeth out. I have every respect for Joe – I rate him number two. But Dempsey would have killed Louis, George Foreman, any of those guys. What Jack had was God-given – you can’t develop the kind of talent he had.

Marciano? Same result. Dempsey would have murdered Rocky. I tell you, Jack would have chased everyone out of the ring. I trained Max Baer a couple of times and often got asked how good that booming right of his was and whether it was as good as anything Dempsey had. Are you kidding? It wasn’t even close.

“Mike Tyson might have got through a round with Dempsey, maybe two. People always asked me what Jack’s weaknesses were. That’s the point – he didn’t have any.”

That doesn't sound like a fanboy to you?

 

that is is total fanboyism. mike tyson one round or two. give me a break. that french MW lasted longer and beat Dempsey azz during the time he lasted.

 

Ali is bigger, faster and the better boxer. He also has an alltime great chin to go with legendary recovery ability. Dempsey has virtually no chance here. Can Dempsey even take Ali`s straight right? If so how many before he can`t continue.

Ali`s jab slices and the right ends it when the Greatest wants to.

"Honey I forgot to Duck" Estelle Taylor would be horrified seeing her husband`s face after this one.

 

more a case of Honey the Muslim blew up my face. unrecognisable. estelle would be yelling why hes wearing her husbands clothes.

 

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, because it simply isn't true.

If Dempsey was slipping nearly twice as many punched per round as Joe Frazier, as Michael Hunnicut's analysis suggests, then he objectively had very good head movement for a come forward fighter.

You are basing your assertion upon one punch thrown in one fight, while Hunnicut is basing his analysis on all the punches thrown in a 15 round fight.

In fact you could mount a strong argument that his defense was as good as we have seen, in a heavyweight of this style.

 

If your question who did Dempsey fight that was a bigger puncher than Ali the answers are obvious .. otherwise I don't understand the question.

 

Ali was bigger, faster, and a better boxer than Joe Frazier, but then styles make fights.

Great as Ali was, he was not a dynamite puncher.

Dempsey would have fought much harder hitters.

 

I will go on record as saying that he was a better finisher than any of them, with the possible exception of Liston.

 

Sounds like the opinion of one of boxing's greatest minds. Arcel saw Jack fight in person with his own two eyes, you've seen shady footage from 100 years ago at best. Arcel also said Jack wasn't impressive at all in 1916.

That quote was obviously an exaggeration or a misquote entirely because its on video that Ray said Joe Louis might have beaten Jack as well as alluding to Ali having a chance.

 

I happen to think that Arcel did let his enthusiasm for Dempsey color his judgment a bit, but your sole argument against what he is saying, is that it does not align with your expectations.

This is a logical fallacy, because It could just as easily be the case that your expectations are misguided.

Also you act as if the only options open to you, are either to accept Arcel's position in its entirety, or dismiss it completely.

There are in fact a number of intermediate options open to you.

 

Arcel saw the man fight and saw every heavy after that up to Tyson so his opinion carries a ton of weight

 

None of those fighters were around when Dempsey was unfortunately. Ali was a talented fighter and had the opportunity to shine due to competing in a fantastic era. Dempsey crushed every top contender they put in front of him from 1918-1923.