Yes, Dempsey above Ali, pound for pound. Ali may have been the fastest man in boxing during his peak, but nobody inflicted physical damage on an opponent so much larger than Willard was to Dempsey. (Keep in mind, that until Carnera/Loughran, this was the greatest weight disparity ever between contestants for the HW Title. (I think it might still hold the record for second place.)
I disagree. Dempsey may well have inflicted more physical damage on Willard. But that accomplishment alone doesn't make him special, well it obviously does to a certain extent, but not special enough to have a career more impressive than Ali's. Dempsey reigned for longer than Ali did without tasting defeat, I'm not going to dispute it. Ali beat Liston, Frazier, Foreman, and Norton. Does Dempsey hold wins over fighters of equal or greater quality than those four?. The awnser is, no. Willard, Firpo, Gibbons, etc. Ali also came back from adversity during his career. His ability to regain the title after Frazier beat him was questioned, and nobody gave him a chance against the powerful punchers, Liston and Foreman. What other heavyweight has wins over three other heavies who could easily make a top 10 list. Liston, Frazier, and Foreman.
20 lbs doesn't matter much. Once you get above 185-190, you can hurt anyone. Ali would have dealt with better opposition than Dempsey.
Yep, I think this statement ends the debate in one sentence! If you 'scale' Ali down to Dempseys size, his speed and elusiveness start to go through the roof.
Quite right - but is it not also true that Dempsey is stronger and more powerful scaled up? If he's already hitting harder than Ali as things stand...
I would have to pick Ali over Demsey. Ali faced all comers, Dempsey could be held behind the "color line." It may not have been Dempsey's fault, but is true anyway.
Hell no. Apples to oranges here. Ali was a completely different KIND of fighter - size is not the issue.