Jack Dempsey vs Joe Frazier

nonsense? a guy is from the early 1920s and th eother one is from the 1970s. frazier and his trainers saw tons of archaic fighters since dempsey... jack would not be a new thing for frazier, dempsey never ever saw anything close to frazier.. frazier and easily

 

I stand on my statement.

In another thread, somebody asked who the five hardest hitting heavyweight champions of all time were.

Not only was Dempsey not on my list, but all bar one of my names, were fighters who fought from the 60s onward.

Now if they had asked me to name the five best finishers of all time, among the heavyweight champions, then Dempsey finds himself pretty high up the list.

Tyrannosaurus rex is not a product of an overactive imagination, it actually existed.

 

the problem is that dempsey here is more like a velociraptor lmao, foreman is the trex, andHELL NO!!! FOREMAN IS THE BETTER FINISHER AND IT IS NOT SPECIALLY CLOSE. DEMPSEY fought under the archaic rules when he did not have to go to the corner and hekeep hitting his rival. still foreman fought bigger,better men and he had better %ko, when george had a guy hurt and down nearly the 100% of the times he stopped his rival. in his first career it was the 100% of the times. so your argument in favour of dempsey is based on your huge imagination

 

There is no debate BOTH of these guys were great punchers. That being said justifying Foreman being a better finisher because he had a better ko % is something that someone would say who never watched either of these fighters fight but just looks at boxrec.

Had they fought the same people then that reasoning would be acceptable but in that is not the case.

 

I don’t dispute Foreman’s power, but he was not a finisher.

He basically had power, and the ability to plaster it around.

Dempsey had the ability, to use his power methodically.

We are comparing a butcher with his meat cleaver, to a duellist with his rapier here!

 

The most pertinent part of F & D's post, which you conveniently ignored is quite simple but unpalatable to a lot of old timer's fans.

Make no mistake if Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, or either of the K2 brothers, had been allowed to stand directly over a fallen opponent and smash him in the head as soon as he started to rise, you would NOT be talking about Jack Dempsey as an ATG finisher.

 

I obviously had no problem with any other part of his post other than that.

Quit d*ckriding

 

And you know this how ?

 

It was common knowledge that Joe was a slow starter. If I had a dollar for every boxer, commentator, boxing writer, trainer from that period who stated that Joe "does not get smoking until the fifth round" or "the fifth round was the point in time where you look for Joe to turn up the smoke" I'd be much richer than I am today. This was COMMON KNOWLEDGE back in the late 60's and early to mid 70's. Just as common as Frazier being a one handed fighter.

 

Yes, Frazier had a slow starter reputation.



But, REPEAT....since you are clearly a SLOW learner.



It did NOT take 5 or 6 rounds for him to heat up.

 

Joe Frazier would have had some earlier Knockouts if he had faced the likes of gunboat Smith, Fred Fulton, Bill Brennan, George's Carpentier, terminally ill Billy Miske and the always porky Fearsome Dan Flynn.

 

Whoops, no disrespect intended I meant "the always fearsome Porky Dan Flynn.

 

It sure did and it's well documented.

 

But either way Frazier is toast fighting a Dempsey or a Tyson. Both deadly quick starters.

 

Probably how i would assess it too. For me the safer bet is Frazier but i wouldn't count out Dempsey.