Is this comment directed at me? If it is please show me one fighter the size, quality, speed or durability of Frazier that Dempsey beat. Dempsey was not George Foreman he is not going to manhandle Frazier and his power is not going to be anywhere near as effective. Foster had far more scary KO's than Dempsey against similiar sized men and he did no damage to Frazier at all. Far more evidence is tilted towards Frazier being able to weather Dempsey's "storm" than vice versa. Carpentier was a chinny ex fly who was outweighed by Dempsey by at least 16 pounds, took the fight to Dempsey badly stunned him and managed to last 4 rounds. I see no reason why Frazier couldn't last longer considering he's bigger, stronger, more durable, much more proven, faster, more skilled etc. etc. As for Dempsey's "storm" like I said in my other post count how many punches Frazier throws in the first 3 rounds of the Chuvalo fight and compare it to ANY Dempsey fight and see if he throws anywhere near as much. I wonder if some of you guys actually watch Dempsey fights or just read the hyperbolic tales written by fan boys.
I would say that maybe Frazier throwing/landing so many punches indicates that his one-punch power is a little bit lacking. But not in the case of the Chuvalo fight. It's probably more a case of Chuvalo being a flat-footed plodder there to be hit. None one was over 112 pounds when they were born, so calling Carpentier an 'ex-fly weight' is kind of meaningless. What KO's did Foster have that impress you more than Dempsey's KOs and beatings of bona fide heavyweights ? Fair enough to say Frazier beats Dempsey, or that people have made exaggerated statements on Dempsey's prowess, but I think you're stretching your disregard for Dempsey to incredible levels.
People saying Frazier would walk through Dempsey or would be a sure bet to beat him are being a little silly. This would be a brutal two-sided fight for as long as it lasts, whoever wins. Dempsey easily hit as hard as anyone Frazier ever beat, and Frazier always got hit. Quarry had him shook in round 1 of the first fight. Machen had him shook. Bonavena had him all over the place. Dempsey could be wobbled and decked too of course and tended to get hit too with his aggressive style. It would be a great fight.
joe frazier wins by ko, bigger, more compact,robust and stronger, probably even harder puncher, he had a better chin, he was better pressure fighter, he weighed 20 pounds more, frazier had the better left hook here too, frazier was proved against better fighters, frazier was more skilled ,frazier by ko or tko
MM, I may be one of your "fan boys", but I've been around the block a trifle longer than you. To prove your point that Dempsey wasn't what a myriad of great boxing figures have written of his prowess, you cite "an ex flyweight" Carpentier, who shook up Dempsey with a right hand...Horror of horrors, that Carpentier at 175, who flattened a Joe beckett, Billy Wells with one of the best right hands in history was able to shake up Dempsey. Let me reminbd you that before the fight at Boyles Acres, Tex Rickard told Dempsey,"don't end it soon,give the fans some rounds ". And Dempsey did just that until Carpentier's right hand aroused the tiger in Dempsey, and Dempsey flattened Carpentier pronto ! You ask what fighter of SIZE did Dempsey beat.? Well what about Pelkey, Carl Morris, Fred Fulton, Jess Willard, Luis Firpo etc, all big strong tough men who Dempsey absolutely destroyed...??? Though not great fighters these suckers fought in an era with NO MOUTHPIECES, smaller gloves, no 3 count knockdowns ,and were every bit as tough as any of today's steroid freaks and twice as durable... Frazier was a great heavyweight whom i loved as a fighter, but Dempsey at hs peak was a killer who was never outfought,and I am certain that the boxing experts who raved about him before La Dolce Vita in Hollywood in 1923, was just a tad better than Joe Frazier...I MAY be wrong, but my gut feelings tell me I am right. Sayonara...
Dempsey was great for his time, but it was a different era. I'm a Dempsey fan, so don't get me wrong, i think he was great, but it's not really fair to compare athletes from the 20's to those in the 70's (or even modern times). For example, would Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb be as great today (or even in the 70's) as they were when they played? No way. Sports change with the times. Imo Dempsey would definitely be capable of giving Frazier a good fight, but i see Frazier winning 99% of the time.
Okay, so some of them weren't as stationary as I may have described. But did Dempsey ever really face a man of Frazier's description?
the dempsey-firpo bout was the greatest display of inside power i have ever seen. few fighters ever would have even attempted to knockdown firpo in the first round with body shots- frazier and cooney may have tried-but to do so in the manner dempsey did has never been equalled, imo. regards
Outside of George Foreman (who Frazier got obliterated by), who did Frazier face who compared in any way to a prime 1918/1919 Jack Dempsey?? :hey
Certainly Frazier was no banger he although he undoubtably hit hard, he broke his man down, sometimes quite fast other times not so much. MAYBE Dempsey had more power but Frazier was the more effective puncher...if that makes sense. Much of Dempsey's destructive prowess is based on beating a flat footed plodder there to be hit. Fair enough in one regard but the point of the comment was that Carpentier was not a big man at all and he stunned Dempsey quite badly. Foster was naturally a bigger person and he did no damage to Frazier, this is going back to what I said about giving Frazier some benefit of the doubt. Yes, his resume isn't filled with many punchers but he faced nothing but Heavyweights his entire career and the one man he faced Dempsey size couldn't do anything against him. Some weight should be put into Frazier's favour that he can take what Dempsey can give. Foster's KO of Quarry impresses me more than any KO Dempsey produced bar Willard. Maybe the Fulton KO would be up there too but there's no footage. The Sharkey one was very good but it was following a nutshot. I don't disregard Dempsey at all, I'm a fan but people really just regurgitate the same ol' same ol' without thinking or viewing how Dempsey fought. For instance Dempsey bobbing and weaving in sparring against Bill Tate and Willard for half a minute get played like he did that all the time and was very effective. In fact most who picked Dempsey mentioned his great bobbing and weaving. Truth is it wasn't that great he never closed the distance effectively, got off effectively, or cut the ring effectively. The only thing he did was dodge a few punches and lunge with hooks that a decent boxer could've countered with ease. This was the reason Gibbons could last so long because Dempsey just followed him he didn't apply any sort of intelligent pressure or try and cut off the ring. I'm rambling but hope you understand what I'm getting at. All in all I think Frazier wins because he was the bigger, stronger, more durable man was more effective in close, more accurate puncher with a greater workrate and better stamina.