No problem. (Hey, that's what we're all here for.) I like the way the checks and balances thing works out, don't you? I've screwed up plenty of facts and been corrected myself a number of times, and fully expect this to continue. Nobody's infallible here (except maybe Hascup), and I'm here to be educated like many others. I do think Brennan II is crucial to Dempsey's legacy, as it displays late round potency we'd otherwise not believe him capable of. (And he dropped the rock hard 200 pound KO Bill with body shots, requiring a huge explosion of power.) Incidentally, the latest round Charles ever floored anybody in was round 11 (Layne I and Baksi). If Charles had an advantage in stamina, I don't think it was quite as marked as might be supposed. And Dempsey was coming on against Sharkey when the controversial ending occurred.
Lobotomy A. Dempsey is not a greater puncher than Marciano, so I wouldn't go there. I would call them even. B. Gibbons may be more durable than Charles, but Charles blows gibbons away in the skill and hand speed department. Once again, Jack Dempsey never came close to beating a fighter with speed, skill, ring science, footwork, combination punching, of a prime ezzard charles. This is by no means an early round blowout. Charles will really make Dempsey work. Dempsey had excellent head movement, but he kept his hands low, and against a deadly sniper like charles, charles will tatoo dempseys face with his sharp pinpoint punches.
I would give Charles a fair chance here. I think that Dempsey would do a lot better against Charles than against Tunney or Walcott because Charles was more willing to mix it up.
Dempsey's effectiveness in close range would be the difference for me. As you said, Charles was more willing to mix it up and didn't have the mobility at HW that Tunney or Walcott possessed- that'd be his downfall against Dempsey.
Charles was, in my opinion, a far greater heavyweight than most people rate him. But I believe prime-for-prime Dempsey would have knocked him out.
When I read statistics like that it's like listening to Ronnie Spector with a handcuff on my johnson. It's easy to go a click too far. Shhhhhaaaaaboom boom.
A very interesting fight .. you have to favor a prime Dempsey takes it but it would be a very interesting fight ... the best we have to go by is the Gibbons fight and I believe that Joack did beat him easily coming off a huge layoff .. I would not bet this one ...
I would take Charles to win on points here.. He has a great work rate and is slick enough, has the chin and stamina for the long haul and over the distance I see him scoring enough points to beat Dempsey. Jack would stalk all night and would be an open target for Charles, I don't think Charles could take him out but if Jack gets cute Charles may surprise him with his punches.. Like an early poster said if Ezzard can make the full distance with Rocky then I think he could do the same against Jack.. Charles would need to stay alert especially early on, but if Tunney could box circles around Jack at times I feel as though Charles could as well.. Charles W DEC
Been watching a lot of Charles lately, and I'm not sure I can agree with what I wrote here (second sentence). Dempsey "could have" knocked him out, and certainly had the stamina to stay in there as a threat to the end, but I think Charles might well have outpointed Dempsey over the distance - perhaps very clearly too !
Why would Dempsey be an open target for Charles?:huh Charles was sparked by one left hook from Walcott, Dempsey ices him.
What about the lhw version of Charles? The one that beat Archie Moore 3 times, Loyd Marshall, Elmer Ray, Teddy Yaroz and Joey Maxim to name a few. He would've been lighter on his feet but every bit as dangerous, maybe even more so. If Gibbons could take Dempsey to 15 I don't think it's a stretch to say that Charles could as well. When I watch Ezzard's battles with Marciano, I can see that he stands right in front of Rocky, fighting brilliantly but seemingly unable to get out of the trenches. I think that version of Charles would be beaten by Jack because Dempsey thrived on that type of warfare. but the faster and lighter Charles could avoid any real danger...or at least enough danger to possibly take a decision. Agree anyone?
