If you can be dropped, you can presumably be hurt, and therefore hurt worse/again dropped again/stopped. I've seen all available film of Dempsey and I've seen the short punches. I've seen all available film of Charles too and I am watching a better, more complete fighter who has a much better resume against much better opposition.
Dempsey by a KO via his left hook. I do, though, think very highly of Charles. The fact that Charles withstood everything Marciano had to offer in their first fight makes a Dempsey matchup intriguing, indeed!
Dempsey beat Charles. Charles wasn't as fast or powerful and had the lesser chin. Sometimes he liked to slug it out when he should have boxed. I do however think Charles could make a decent showing if he gets out of the first few rounds without taking any haymakers.
Somebody on here recently mentioned having read about these old time greats for years then seeing them on film, it's more often than not a let down. The first time I saw Dempsey beating Willand I couldn't believe it, he was awful Joe Louis would have put Dempsey to sleep quickly
The best way to beat Dempsey is the game plan shown by Tunney. Gene had the durability and movements when required to take punishment or keep out of harms way when required. I don't think Charles has those attributes or at least not in abundance as Gene.
Dempsey was a great heavyweight ,Charles was not. Charles never possessed Tunney's wheels, Dempsey would find him and take him out.
I don’t think that Charles was elusive enough to keep away from Dempsey nor able to survive his artillery. Sure he would have some success, but Dempsey would likely stop him at some point.
Charles would certainly give Dempsey a good fight. If the stars aligned he may put in a blinder. However, even if he swept up plenty of rounds Ezzard would have to deal with a rule-bending, lights out puncher in the later stages when a hard pace has gnawed away at his reflexes, and once those conditions appear Dempsey is going to make it his fight. Another scenario is Dempsey is on-point and Ezzard fails to see the sixth.
As been said before Ezzard Charles was a great lightheavy, and Jack Dempsey was {in spite of his detractors on ESB] a vicious punching heavyweight. Therefore the old adage holds true, namely a good big man beats a good small man. There is a tendency MAINLY on ESB, to obliterate the considerable reputation of Jack Dempsey's greatness by a vast amount of his peers who were around at his time...To them it seems that his contemporaries who saw him fight were re****ed idiots, and less able to judge his vaunted offensive powers, than his naysayers 90 years later...I'll stick to the opinions of his peers who saw him fight and raved about him...And if I am called a "fanboy" ,I'll wear that badge of honor proudly...
That was a freak punch if there ever was one, Walcott fought him 4 times and never landed a punch like that. It was one of the most well timed accurate punches of all time, its not like Charles was susceptible to a left hook saying Dempsey beats him because Walcott landed a freak left hook doesn't seem persuasive to me, and even if Dempsey was faster Walcott was a cleverer and more accurate puncher
Walcott landed an exact replica of that punch on Marciano in their first fight but Marciano had a better chin than Charles. Walcott badly wobbled Charles in the last round of their 4th fight with a left hook.