This is a real 50-50 fight. We are talking here of real great fighters who always found a way to win. Technically Holmes might appear more sophisticated or advanced..but that would be overlooking the prime Jack Dempsey who was a fast moving athlete with a vast amount of experience and instinctive ring sense. A heavyweight version of a young Roberto Duran. you can really make a case for both. With great fighters like this you really shouldn’t expect size to make a difference. nobody has the edge in heart or speed.
I mentioned earlier in this thread, and I'm surprised no one else has mentioned it yet. How Dempsey got schooled by Tunney twice 19 out of 20 rounds, does that not have any relevance that Dempsey struggled against a good boxer with movement, and that he also may have same issues with Holmes ? Or is that to black and white ? Also was Dempsey considered past his prime in Tunney fights ? He was heavily favoured I thought as it was named upset of the year.
I could be wrong, but I think Jack was a bit past it, my friend. I don't think Tunney would have made out half as good as he did against the Dempsey who first won the title.
I think Larry Holmes would show Jack Dempsey a “dance” that Dempsey had never seen in his era. Larry Holmes wins, most likely by decision.
This one ends up a lot like Holmes-Leon Spinks. Dempsey has some fleeting success early with his swarming style but Larry buckles down on that jab and soon enough runs Jack into an uppercut as he weaves under the jab and that’s the beginning of the end. Don’t forget Dempsey isn’t the only one here with killer instinct — Larry could smell blood when he got a guy hurt and he pummels Jack into submission somewhere within seven rounds.
