Jack Dempsey vs Ezzard Charles Jersey Joe

Gorilla's they look big and bad on the outside, but bring the fight inside to them and they can't take it to the body. Glass ribs

 

does anyone has the links for tunney's articles?

 

This content is protected

 

I think powerpuncher is right, I'd go to the body.
I won't be jabbing him in the mouth, that's for sure.

 

So did janitor

 

One thing I'd just like to drop in on this is everyone is going on about Walcott's footwork and movement but Dempsey was had pretty great footwork too for his type of fighter he was light and bouncey on his feet pretty quick and moved pretty easily and fast for a fighter usually up on his toes and he had quick changes of direction and shifts - in his young prime he was a constant motion fighter feet wise - see Willard fighter first half of first round aswell as Bill Tate sparring footage and also one or two other early examples of his movement from early title days sparring footage - he also tracked the ridiculously fast back pedalling Carp fairly well even though it was obvious he was merely going through the motions early in that one

 

I see what you're saying. Walcott's footwork was good as far as I'm concerned, but he wouldn't be used to fighting at such a pace. Dempsey wouldn't give Jersey Joe much time to move and get set, he would be in his chest and on him at all times.

 

I wonder how Jack would take their punches.

 

Walcott's footwork gets overrated. I mean, he had some nice turns and shuffles but I don't see great elusive movement consistently.
Ezzard Charles was better in that regard.

Walcott shuffled his way into getting KO'd by an over-the-hill Joe Louis, even if he was robbed in the first fight it was apparently a very close battle. Joe Louis was a bit of a plodder by this stage in his career.
A prime Dempsey was fleet-footed.

I'm not sure what happened to Walcott's alleged superior movement against Rex Layne, or Marciano for that matter. Guys who were more slow-footed and flat-footed than Dempsey.

 

I think Dempsey takes out Charles early. Dempsey is just too relentless, too fast, powerful and, dare I say it, skilled in his style. I think Jack overwhelms Charles early, never get him anywhere, hurts him in the first and puts him away in the second.

Walcott is a more difficult task for Jack. Walcott has the footwork, smartness and power to trouble Dempsey. But I think Jack would set a high tempo, never lwt Wlacott get into any rythm. I think Walcott will be able to counter Jack and put him down but I think Dempsey´s chin will hold up, he´ll survive and start an onslaught Walcott won´t survive.

I´m not so sure Charles was faster than Gibbons or Carpentier.

 

Dempsey would maul Ezzard Charles. too much pressure, too much power, body attack honestly I think Dempsey would simply overwhelm Charles in the first few rounds i'd say Jack wins by KO in under 6

 

Of the two he has a tougher fight with Walcott. Charles did not have the wheels to keep out of Dempseys way. Wallcotts issue was he made a glaring error which Louis waited for and capitalized upon in fight 2. With his footwork he would at times stand with hands down feet together slipping punches with head and upper body movement. If you watch round 11 vs Louis he does just that, Louis steadies Walcott with his left and crashes a right on his chin staggering him. Seconds later Walcott was counted out. I see Walcott starting well until being caught by a similar blow which knocks him out.