Jack Dempsey vs Ezzard Charles! (1920s Gloves rule-set)

Ruleset favours Dempsey. People talk about Dempsey as if he was Mike Tyson Mk 0.5, when in reality he could best be compared to Roberto Duran, style wise. His jab wasn't much of a weapon (but the left cross was), more of a rangefinder and a set up tool, fast, springy footwork, left hand lowered, he held his stance in a more classical weight distribution, rolled his shoulders, and neck, was a top class short puncher and was a very good infighter - which is where the ruleset comes in. Ezzard was obviously master boxer but he wasn't untouchable and I think Jack could exploit how Ezzard widened his stance to sometimes land shots. I can see jack coming in low and throwing disguised left hook to counter Ezzard's jabs, alongside his cross counter. Ezzard would likely time Jack with uppercuts and screw shots but Jack would be able to clinch here and get a lot of work done inside due to your specified ruleset. Not that Ezzard was bad inside, but Jack was more experienced, skilled and actually fought in this manner, head on the shoulder, controlling the other mans hands and even fouling with head, elbows and 'heeling' of the hand. Dempsey would likely throw some brutal short inside punches then follow them up to the head, and this could slow Ezzard down. Ezzard however would likely adapt later - maybe the double left hook - right hand he liked to throw would position Demspey's head in a favourable position for a follow up of uppercuts or maybe even the straight right. The hook off the jab would also work very well for him mid to late imo to exploit when Jack rushes in bobbing and possibly goes to parry an Ezzard jab. Yeah, I can see him landing that quite a bit, actually.

Both men are as tough as it gets so I don't see a KO happening. Dempsey is also naturally the bigger man here (which usually counts for a lot on Classic ) and is the bigger puncher. If Ezzard comes in smaller, he would be faster but lose out in strength which would not be good against Jack's infighting. If he comes in heavier he would be stronger and rough but then lose the true speed advantage he has against Dempsey in the first place.

For the actual 'story of the fight', I see Jack steaming in early, taking a lead and even stunning Charles. Ezzard however would work his way back in mid to late rounds as Jack slows somewhat and begin to stay outside before picking his spots, particularly inside, more and more. It becomes a close affair but ultimately Dempsey takes it due to his early work and flashes of ferocity throughout.

Also, inb4 'Dempsey fought no black contenders!' as if that's an actual argument for a stylistic H2H. Just warning you that this will probably happen as it usually does and make your thread 100 pages lmao.

 

Not for me.Dempsey under any rule set.

 

With those conditions I'll take Dempsey all day long

 

Dempsey by a decision which is more competitive than the Gibbons fight, but Jack wins. This is his ruleset, and he'd take it. Charles' infighting ability was very modern (70s/80s) and Jack's was very then. Obviously that works for him there. I'd favour Ezzard under his own rules, but not these ones.

 

Duran and Pacquiao loved turning their jab into a cross. Laguna, Marcel, and Zapata too.

 

Driscoll. Jofre too (there was even a picture instructional from him on how to throw it). Kovalev is good for modern fighters, usually throwing it as part of a 1-2-1(cross).

Guys like Sullivan would probably have the best but of course there is no film.

 

Basically changing the orientation of the jab into a backhand. There's loads of ways to do it, but the end goal is the same. The end goal is always to turn into the fighters regular lead hand like it's a cross. Then from there the situational uses are varied, and normally depend on how you set up the shot in the first place.

Pacquiao did it as a part of a combination while coming forward, a 1-2-1. It's hard to land the lead hook from most positions as a southpaws because the shoulder gets in the way. Pacquiao got around the issues by following through the with the cross, letting the momentum of him coming forward build, and used the position of left shoulder being forward build the snap on his right hand. In a position where he couldn't put his hips into it, he used his shoulders. Less rotation, but still builds power. He dropped Algeri with it, and if I remember right, Morales too in their third fight. It's a situational punch, but as a southpaw vs taller opponents, it was a big part of his arsenal. Especially when he needed to both close the distance and get around their shoulder with his right. Catching them unawares didn't hurt. He also dropped Thurman with it by switchinh to head and body.

However, Duran (and GGG, for example) did this differently. He didn't simply allow momentum to carry him forward and capitalise, he switched stance as he threw a one-two. This, bringing his rear leg forward, turned the hand he'd jabbed with into his cross more literally. He did this great against southpaws, specifically Leoncio Ortiz, and it had the benefit of letting him wrap his arm around their midriff and getting inside. It also took Ortiz by surprise and beat him to the punch.

Laguna literally just swapped the one and the two around. He used the cross to rotate his hips do he'd have power in the jab. Most Panamanians in that style of fighting did so. Similar to Pacquiao, but they'd do it all the time. It might not build as much as power, but it's also a much lighter commitment.

 

I'll take the minority position. Charles could very easily be mauled, but I think at their respective bests, I've got Charles winning this, regardless of rule-set.

Charles has the edge in terms of hand and foot speed. Better defensively, too. Dempsey's ruleset put a premium on mauling on the inside, but also allowed accurate outboxers to shine, too. I think he can make Dempsey over-extend and counter him like he did with Walcott; and once Dempsey goes down (and I think he would), Charles was an underrated finisher. Charles by KO after he catches Dempsey with something he doesn't see and then successfully follows through for the finish.

 

I disagree about the footspeed. Prime Dempsey had very fast feet

 

He did !!! only seen what we all have, fights against Williard, Carpentier, Tunney, etc, and cant remember thinking at the time " wow Jack has very fast feet " did I miss something ? enlighten me please... keep well.

 

His legs had gone when he fought Tunney and Sharkey.

I think his footspeed was most noticable against Gibbons.

The speed is all messed up on the old fights, so it is hard to say to be fair.

 

His feet were pretty fast, but I think Charles at his best was a bit faster.