there's not much size difference between them and jones is light years ahead of dempsey in the skill department. i'd bet heavy on jones.
Jack Dempsey would tear Jones a new a-hole ... look at what Johnson did to him ... it would be ugly and not go past five or six ..
Dempsey has the speed and reflexes to chase jones down...Dempsey is one of the best finishers of all time, and Jones didn't really take a good punch. This spells doom for Roy. Roy would land a few big shots early on to show he has handspeed on a special level, but dempsey will just snarle back and ferociously attack him until he lands the sunday left hook punch. Then he finishes him off with a big combo.
we have geniuses on here that are pointing to the glen johnson fight on why jones would lose. this would be a one sided decision for jones. dempsey had trouble with boxers like tunney and the same thing would happen with jones imo. seamus, it's embarrassing that you think dempsey was more skilled than jones. also, you need to edit and erase my quote that you changed, thanks.
It's embarrassing that you can not recognize the skills Dempsey possessed. They are patently obvious both in film and anecdote from the greatest observers of the sport in the earliest part of the last century. Roy, while a great (though lesser) fighter, relied on preternatural reflexes, spacing and speed. His "skills" were not orthodox but well-suited to his own gifts. I would not classify them as being among the greatest skillset. I need to change what? Are you ****ing serious?