Jack Dempsey vs Joe Frazier

With all due respect, you clearly do not understand what is mean by the term “finisher”.

A finisher is a fighter proficient in closing a fight, at a given point.

A high KO% would not in any way imply that a fighter was a good finisher, or even necessarily a hard puncher for that matter.

Foreman battered his opponents into submission with a barrage of clubbing punches, and while his style was very effective, it does not make him a finisher.

Jack Dempsey for contrast either waited for his opponent to make a mistake, or induced them to make a mistake, and used it to set up a combination to close the deal.

He was much more methodical in putting his opponents away, and that is what makes him a finisher.

 

I lean Frazier, but Dempsey would be a live underdog.

 

Wasn't Frazier a very talented black man?

No way Dempsey fights him. He hides behind the color line and uses the same excuse his nuthuggers have always used to defend him. If the fight takes place in 1971 Dempsey would get absolutely dismantled because he wouldn't be able to choose the distance, his own referee, or be allowed to incessantly foul to his advantage by hitting low, rabbit punching, elbowing, hitting after the bell, and literally standing over his opponent to hit him when a knee rose off the canvas.

 

"an old Foreman"

I don't want to sound overly defensive, but I did mention that in Foreman's case it was in the fights early in his career.

 

For all that, Frazier would still have to find a way to survive his onslaught, while he worked his attrition based strategy.

Sometimes the bad man wins!

 

Absolutely no evidence Dempsey had any issues fighting a black man. He fought them during his career and every day in training for his fights.

 

I would go as far as to say that he had a lot less issues with them than Gene Tunney.

 

You really think those are the reasons he was successful?

Talk about missing the plot

 

Tell him Burt...

 

Seems like a bit of an overstatement...

 

Kevin.....the village idiot.

 

Your take is probably the majority view but the distinction you are drawing here seems pretty meaningless. The talk about certain fighters being better "finishers" because they were more deliberate with their punches when their opponents were hurt is mostly just yet another aspect of boxing that fans romanticize and exaggerate. Finishers finish people, period.

 

I've been called worse by better!

 

I think Dempsey would nullify Fraziers best abilities with his speed, timing, and of course, his power.

Dempsey in his performance against Willard had such a strange rhythm. You could hardly time it or predict it. Sometimes he bobs, weaves, and takes 4 steps back with his back almost towards Willard. Other times he uses lateral movement to set up a rush to the inside.

Fraziers movement was more straightforward, but once he got on the inside, he could confuse you with the timing of his power punches and knock you out. He was as much dangerous, if not more in round 15, than he was in round 1. The man was a machine.

I think Dempseys style, and his ability to execute it would make him the ring master. And I consider him a much more dangerous puncher than Frazier. I have him scoring the KO 4, with fear motivating him to end it as soon as possible.

It would be such an incredible and exciting fight.

 

Rez......good ****ysis. In fact Dempsey was the far greater technical fighter. Frazier was tough but this fight would not go three rounds and Frazier would take an incredible battering.