I feel George beat better and bigger fighters than Dempsey did, Norton and Frazier were smaller than Willard but far better as was Chuvalo, but which of these bangers was better overall inthe ring?
Dempsey was the better student of the sweet science but Foreman was the overall better fighter due to his sheer brute force and granite chin
I would say Dempsey was the better all round fighter, however in a match up i see Foremans size and power being too much for Dempsey, though if it got taken into second half of fight may be Foremans stamina might be found wanting.
I'll dodge your question by saying that I think Dempsey advanced the art of fighting more than Foreman did. To support my argument, I submit Dempsey's little tome, "Championship Fighting -- Explosive Punching and Aggressive Defense." As I understand it, the book was based on 50 pages handwritten by Dempsey himself and then made ready for publication with the help of sportswriter Jack Cuddy. I also refer readers to pages 89 to 93 of volume one of The One Is Jack Hurley trilogy. The volume's subtitle is Son of Fargo.
First of all you have a skill for making simple questions confusing .. if I have your question right, I'd say P4P Dempsey was the much better fighter but H2H I'd have to favor George but give Jack a shot ..
Dangerous fight for both men- Dempsey was fast hit very hard and mean as a junkyard dog. Young Foreman was a beast -flawed- and lacking stamina - make no mistake Dempsey had hands of stone was mean and quick - this would be a shootout and IMO not last 5 - could go either way Foreman's comeback enforced his career and it was impressive- however the older version loses to a prime Dempsey....The younger version more dangerous but also vulnerable this fight - Prime Dempsey also a beast Foreman had the longer impressive record but a lot of cannon fodder mixed in with impressive wins - Dempsey inactivity - Foreman more impressive resume but head to head prime I may favor Dempsey -shootout- 5 rounds most
