I think you just dislike old Foreman because you are hung up that people said he beats a prime Tyson. Also you rate Dempsey in your top 3 favorit boxers, making your opinion totaly bias towards him. Where as i although i probably prefer yong Foreman am about equal for both and i still stand by the fact that this is not as clear cut as you lie to belive.
I think it is pretty clear cut. I mean, if Tommy Morrison can out-box old Foreman, why would Dempsey have trouble? Dempsey was much more skilled than Morrison, with better feet, better defense and probably a better chin. It's true that come-back Morrison was troubled terribly by mediocre fighters, and Dempsey was far from mediocre.
Sorry. Went off a bit, there. It just gets frustrating when eventually every thread related to Jack Dempsey eventually descends into the same discussion. It's been gone over again and again.
So that's all it comes down to for you, then? Size? Dempsey was a better boxer than Morrison, more mobile, tougher, more durable, more defensively sound and a better puncher yet somehow he couldn't do what Morrison did because he's smaller? Morrison wasn't in Dempsey's class, other fighters that gave comeback Foreman heaps of trouble were far from Dempsey's class, yet he couldn't do better than them?
Morrison may have been a heavyweight, but he had a chin like my grandma. Dempsey's use of angles, speed, and two fisted attack would pick apart a slow plodding old man like foreman. Difference between Holyfield and Dempsey is Jack had power, enough power to leave foreman staggering all over the ring.
Well what exactly do you think Dempsey was? He won the title by beating a guy who was as big as Vitally Klitschko.
:rofl Wrong, I think it's hilarious that people have faith that old Foreman can beat the likes of prime Tyson and Frazier (they ain't Michael Moorer), but I don't find the 'arguments' for it remotely credible. I also love the way my opinion here is automatically "totally bias towards Dempsey", just becuase he is one of my top favorites (what about the many who picked Dempsey to win easily who don't have him as a favourite?) and because I have the sense to call this clear cut fight for what it is. Hell I am very much a fan of George Foreman, I just understand it's pretty silly to pick him here, however if it were prime for prime, i' would pick Foreman over Dempsey, how "totally bias" would that be? :good :good :good :good
Well I certainly didn't expect some petty argument over the result between us... I just thought, why not ask a contact, if they would like to add to my topic and it certainly brought it back to life.. Bottom line is it appears that we thoroughly disagree on the outcome of this match-up and will never change each other's opposing opinions.
You stagger us too. And this is too strong of an opinion. Stylistically, 90's Foreman can still be formidable. But he's troubled and weak against many types of great fighters. Tyson and Dempsey aren't these ones.
This is viable, and the only chance for Dempsey. But I don't see Dempsey backing up and boxing. He was way too much of animal and he's going to dart in and out. Tommy fought off the back foot. That's one of the biggest differences. I just see a Foreman KO.