Dempsey was better at taking out tall lumbering guys and blitzing stiff Orthodox fighters who lack defense. Foreman was a master at neutralizing pressure fighters and out slugging sluggers Both struggled with technical defensive guys who could counter. Both had stamina issues in the later rounds (foreman improved on this in his older age). Dempsey had better head movement and hand speed and had more crisp combinations. Foreman had a devastating jab, great glove control with his mummy stance and could cut off the ring better. Both were devastating finishers with killer instinct. Both good body punchers. On paper it seems like they're even and they each have skill sets the other doesn't have. However foreman was more effective over a longer period of time (2 eras essentially), had a gold medal and won the title twice. It was also more difficult to win in 2 of the most talent filled eras (70's and 90's) full of guys who were more athletic and morr skilled on average than a lot of the fighters in Dempsey's era. I think due to longevity and having success against better opponents I'll have to give it to foreman for overall skill and h2h ability. The only thing Dempsey is significantly better at is his erratic head movement and fast combinations. He has a lot of the same weaknesses as foreman and foreman can do almost everything else dempsey can do.
Foreman was the greater ATG and probably fighter. Dempsey wasn't entirely unlike Frazier and Tyson in style...Foreman blasted out Frazier (granted, it was an already-past it Frazier both times), and I feel young Foreman would have blasted out even Iron Mike in 3 (tops). Foreman takes out Dempsey in 3, though the first two rounds might be an exciting Lyle/Foreman slugfest. I actually predict prime Mike would have been pretty much the same. Both men might get floored.
Look, I feel the first incarnation of Foreman was both immensely physically gifted and ridiculously overated .. he basically had three devastating wins. Chuvalo, Frazier and Norton ... all three were made for him .. George and Joe were small swarmers and Norton froze and turned to china against big punchers .. Ali exposed him and Young , a crafty cutey but a bit over rated himself beat him .. If, and its a huge if, Dempsey fought smart he would have a real shot at lasting the first few rounds by boxing fast and pot shooting like he did the first half round against Willard and after a few rounds take Gorge out ... If Dempsey fought like he did against Firpo he had very little shot .. unlike Chuvalo and Frazier Dempsey was very fast of hand and foot and could move .. unlike Norton he had both a terrific chin and toughness .. I'd favor George because it was basically a Cruiserweight against a big heavyweight but I do feel Dempsey had the skill to take it ..
Dempsey is as much myth as man. Previous eras were all about building myths. This era is concerned with tearing them down. Foreman.
You know what might be an interesting match up? Tunney/Foreman. I mean, I know Tunney might get completely blown away with a flush shot...but the man could move.
That is such an easy cop out to claim all of foremans best opponents were tailor made for him. No one was saying that before he fought them now all of a sudden he's overrated. He fought nearly all of the best opponents available and only had 5 losses in 81 fights (one of which was a blatant robbery). Cut the nonsense. Dempsey was KO'd in 1 by a nobody, struggled in multiple fights with Willie Meehan and got thoroughly schooled by a light heavyweight twice.
A strong argument can be made either way, whether you mean greater historically, or better as a fighter. A person wanting to make the case for Dempsey, could point out that he dominated a definable era, and was the standout of his era. They could argue that he was a much better fighter than Foreman technically, and that he acquitted himself against a much greater range of styles, and by extension that he would have been successful against a wider range of styles at the elite level. You could make a case for him being the better head to had fighter, even if you thought that Foreman would have beaten him. A person making the case for Foreman could point to the quality of his best wins, and the fact that they were achieved over a period of two decades. They could argue that this swung the legacy argument in his favour, despite Dempsey doing more in his prime. When it came to the head to head argument, they could argue that he would always have had the style and dimensions to beat Dempsey. They could also site the quality of his best wins, as evidence of his head to head superiority. I have laid out the argument for both men, so you decide!
I referred to his first go round and stand by it .. Frazier, Norton and Chuvalo aside who were his biggest wins ?
Interesting ? I'd say the Tunney that beat Heenan beats him flat out .. way to fast, talented and well conditioned.
I disagree. While Dempsey clearly had problems with this kind of fighter, he has wins over Battling Levinsky, Billy Miske, and Tommy Gibbons. This is enough to show that he could beat this kind of fighter.
Prime George Foreman hit like a mule's kick, and would not let an opponent set up his strategy. Jack Dempsey was quite a hitter, but he did take his time to set his strategy into play, then he destroyed his adversaries, piece by piece, like Jess Willard in 1919.
