Jack Dempsey was far more modern and skilled than the flat footed Jack Johnson. Dempsey had much better foot and head movement, power, speed and offense. Johnson's pawing, clinching, grappling, wrestling, holding style wouldn't translate very well in modern times.
I really can't pick one. Drastically different styles. I could get a headache trying to decide which was the "greater" fighter. Too many variables for this old brain. I think they were both greats in their times. Head to head would be _easier_ to pick, but still far from easy.
Dempsey would beat Johnson’s ass imo...Johnson had a better resume perhaps but Dempsey fought better fighters and destroyed the man who dethroned Jack Johnson
As has been said, Johnson had a much deeper resume and far more longevity. He was champion at an age in which Dempsey was finished. Johnson did fight all or at least most of the top men of his era, even if many were small, old, or green when he got to them. Dempsey didn't fight his top contender and then lost to the best man he did fight. Dempsey fought in a more modern style, but I think Johnson was clearly the more accomplished fighter within his time, which is what I rate on. As has been said, Johnson overcame the opposition of the boxing establishment to forge his career. Dempsey had the boxing establishment firmly in his corner.
I disagree about "much" tougher road. Jack Dempsey earned his shot. He fought the top heavyweights and beat Hall of Famers on the way up, too. He got his title shot in his 66th pro fight. (Johnson got his in his 60th.) Jack Dempsey didn't have to beat basically a middleweight in Tommy Burns for the belt, he had to beat the biggest heavyweight champion in history to that point, in Willard, who Johnson couldn't even beat. (And he tried.) Dempsey did so easily. Jack Dempsey wasn't loved by the boxing establishment ... until he lost he title. He was cast as the villain basically for his whole reign. Dempsey was had the prostitute wife and he was also considered a draft dodger, which was about as bad you could get after WWI. His promoter went on trial as a pedophile. We're all well-versed in Johnson's problems. But the boxing "establishment" wasn't against him as much as the U.S. Government was. The boxing establishment all over the world recognized Johnson as the best. The boxing establishment paid him more money than any champ in history to that point when he beat Jeffries. In fact, Australia, loved black fighters. That's why they all the top black heavyweights went there to fight. And Johnson didn't have to "chase" Burns all over the world to get a title shot. He went to Australia, where Burns was regularly defending his title at the time. And where his win was celebrated. Dempsey wasn't coddled. He had a hard life and hard road to the title, too, and was basically on the receiving end of boos every time he fought until he finally lost. At least Johnson had the support of the black community in the U.S. and he was welcomed all over the world when he fought. I'm sure most will say Johnson had it harder, because of the racism in the U.S., and that's probably true. But Dempsey wasn't the "establishment" heavyweight by any means. And Dempsey was the better fighter of the two.
A bit like saying Mike Tyson was better than Ali, because Ali couldn't beat Holmes, but Mike Tyson could.
Much of your post is true, I agree. But Johnson's quest for the title began in 1903. He didn't get the shot until the last week of 1908. In between he lost twice, once to Hart in a close one, once to Jeannette who he battered repeatedly in returns (and either one or two draw/drawish fights). In 1917, Dempsey went 6-4-2, including a pitiful first-round knockout loss. He was fighting for the title by the following summer. Johnson gets nowhere near Burns in 1908 if he goes 6-4-2 in 1907 because he wouldn't have got anywhere near the contenders Dempsey was able to get into the ring despite a pathetic 1917, and you know that. Jack Johnson's loss to Hart (which was debatable) was used for months and months to exclude him from title contention ("Jack Johnson, eliminated from title contention by Hart"). Being knocked unconscious by Jim Flynn (69-34) had no affect on Jack's title stab. It's wrong to call Dempsey "coddled" by our standards, I agree, but he was coddled by Jack Johnson's standards.
Not like that at all. Jack Johnson's style wasn't a moden style. At all. Not even a little bit. It was 99 percent holding and hitting.
Not so much. Who threw parades and which cities had parties when Dempsey won the title? Because whole cities and sections of major cities celebrated when Johnson did.
You are the one who missed the point, if all you got out of that was Dempsey beat Willard and Johnson didn't, so Dempsey's better.