Head-To-Head --- Smokin' Joe & The Manassa Mauler?

[Robinson]

The point I am trying to make is some times one guy is in on the
'work' only. If a guy decides for whatever reason to give up during
the fight, then that is an indication of his character.

Dempsey never faced a man that would get in his face and bang
with him like Frazier. Frazier has a better chin and better power than
Firpo all day long.

Bonavena, Chuvalo, etc were not as 'great' as Dempsey but Frazier
met this type of fighter and would thump back and win. Like he did
with Quarry.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Your contention, then, is Dempsey will (or likely will) fold mentally against Frazier?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

The point I am trying to make is some times one guy is in on the
'work' only. If a guy decides for whatever reason to give up during
the fight, then that is an indication of his character.

Dempsey never faced a man that would get in his face and bang
with him like Frazier. Frazier has a better chin and better power than
Firpo all day long.

Bonavena, Chuvalo, etc were not as 'great' as Dempsey but Frazier
met this type of fighter and would thump back and win. Like he did
with Quarry.

Imagine Frazier in a questionable fight? Joe would chew on Dempsey like a dog on a bone.

[Robinson]

However you look at it..these are the facts

LKO 1 Flynn.
3 years as champion where he never defended it.
Drew a colour line.
Defended against LHWs for the most part, besides
Firpo and Brenan.

Frazier

KOd every LHW he met.
Lost to two big, talented men. One considered the sports
and divisions best, the other considered the hardest hitter.
Stopped or beat nearly every man who tried to slug with him
besides Bonavena..
Frazier had his 'soft' title defences but never drew any


In my opinion Dempsey tries to rush Frazier, looks to stop or
stun Frazier. His wild over bearing attack is soon picked apart
and countered. Frazier kO or TKO.
colour line and stayed active as a fighter and champion.

[Goodnight, Irene]

The point I am trying to make is some times one guy is in on the
'work' only. If a guy decides for whatever reason to give up during
the fight, then that is an indication of his character.

Dempsey never faced a man that would get in his face and bang
with him like Frazier. Frazier has a better chin and better power than
Firpo all day long.

Bonavena, Chuvalo, etc were not as 'great' as Dempsey but Frazier
met this type of fighter and would thump back and win. Like he did
with Quarry.

Imagine Frazier in a questionable fight? Joe would chew on Dempsey like a dog on a bone.

[Adamj1987]

frazier to win IMO as he did have the ability to box not just steam in dempsey didnt if he couldnt land cleanly consecutivly he struggled
i dont think dempsey punched as hard as foreman maybe as hard as ali but without the skill or accuracy

frazier by late stoppage or points

[Ezzard]

Wow! This thread has shocked me.

Robinson and Saad, you’re both good posters which is why I’m surprised that you’re not giving Dempsey even a chance in this fight.

I’m also surprised that people are questioning Jack’s reputation as an elite puncher. His KO record is excellent. He knocked out many big men (often the big criticism of the smaller older HWs) and put them away early. Many of the old champs didn’t have reigns that compare with today’s fighters because there were no mandatories etc… so it’s a bit unfair to compare on that level. It was a different sport and people had different expectations of the champs back then. You also have to accept that Dempsey’s pre-title days were very impressive. He blew away most of the top contenders and cleaned the decks just like Liston and Tyson would do later. But for the most part fighter's pre-title records rarely match those of the old-timers. My guess would be that Dempsey beat at least as many top contenders in his career as Frazier did. Joe has the better single win and the better title of course.

I’d also question the idea of drawing the colour line. Dempsey missed 2 fights. An old Langford, who he most likely would have beaten at that stage. And Wills. By comparison is there any great champion who hasn’t been shredded on these boards for not fighting someone? Of course it’s a smudge on the record but I think you have to put it in perspective.

Watch an old faded Jack get beaten by Tunney in the rematch. He’s getting beaten badly, then when he does catch Gene he is on him in a flash and puts him down. I think that’s impressive for a creaking HW who has lost his speed and stamina. It also shows how dangerous he could be.

It’s a close fight. Jack has the upper hand for the first 2-3 rounds. If Frazier survives those then the scales start to tip in his favour.

It’s an even sort of fight. If anything Frazier preferred fighting boxers as he could chase them down and overwhelm them as the fight played out.

[Robinson]

I think a Marciano - Dempsey fight would be cool to watch.
But a Frazier fight with Holyfield or Marciano gets me damned
excited every time I imagine it.

Ezzard, I am not trying to engange in any Dempsey bashing, as
he was a great man, a likeable champion. I am stating some
facts about him however.
If I watch his fights against Gibbons for example, I do so to take
notes on Greco Roman more than Boxing.

[Ezzard]

I think a Marciano - Dempsey fight would be cool to watch.
But a Frazier fight with Holyfield or Marciano gets me damned
excited every time I imagine it.

Ezzard, I am not trying to engange in any Dempsey bashing, as
he was a great man, a likeable champion. I am stating some
facts about him however.
If I watch his fights against Gibbons for example, I do so to take
notes on Greco Roman more than Boxing.

That's a bit cheeky, mate! You are stating facts to show him in a negative light. There are other facts which would show him in a positive light.

Dempsey struggled with smaller mobile fighters, who could frustrate his early attacks. Gibbons was also an all-time great fighter.

I agree that the wrestling and tying up isn't that exciting to watch but how many times do posters here criticise Jack Johnson and then hail Hopkins?

Dempsey was a trukly great fighter, as was Frazier. I don't really care who people favour of the two but to dismiss either one is unrealistic.

[Robinson]

It is cheeky yes ;)

The clinching i see hopkins use is a lil more active than the blanket hugs of
say a Johnson or the collar tie ups used by Gibbons.

I think an in shape, driven Dempsey is a dangeous man, and it will be hell
for Frazier intially. I do not see Dempsey stunning or gurting Frazier, backing
him up with an on slaught, sure. But then i see Frazier banging back and then it
will be a matter of time.

Hagler-Hearns was brief, but boy was it cool. So would this one.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Imagine Frazier in a questionable fight? Joe would chew on Dempsey like a dog on a bone.

- Imagine this as state of the art boxing analyis?

DOG.........ON BONE.........BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just reading the NY Times review..............8)

[Ezzard]

It is cheeky yes ;)

The clinching i see hopkins use is a lil more active than the blanket hugs of
say a Johnson or the collar tie ups used by Gibbons.

I think an in shape, driven Dempsey is a dangeous man, and it will be hell
for Frazier intially. I do not see Dempsey stunning or gurting Frazier, backing
him up with an on slaught, sure. But then i see Frazier banging back and then it
will be a matter of time.

Hagler-Hearns was brief, but boy was it cool. So would this one.

I think when it comes down to it you don't seem to accept that Dempsey was a great puncher.

Dempsey's left hook was on a par with Frazier's. It may even have been better.

I'm of the opinion that Jack could stop anyone. Doesn't mean he always would and doesn't mean he stops Frazier but he's more than capable of hurting him, stunning him and dropping him.

[Robinson]

I think he has wear down power. He is relentless, tenacious, aggressive
raw. His namesake is correct..a mauler.

I think a Frazier left hook would have closed Willard's eyes there and
then.

Dempsey was a hungry hound that wanted to feed on you. He wanted
to break you down, beat you down and stand over your carcass.

Frazier was a similar fighter, but he had that sudden thumping explosive
power that put big men away. In the late 1960s before he was obsessed
with his left hook, Frazier showed he had damned nice all round skills.
His game was about body work, working of a jab, getting inside, stalking
and hunting. It seemed after his win over Ali, he figured his left hook was
enough, and it seemed he built his game around delivering this
trump card.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I think he has wear down power. He is relentless, tenacious, aggressive
raw. His namesake is correct..a mauler.

I think a Frazier left hook would have closed Willard's eyes there and
then.

Dempsey was a hungry hound that wanted to feed on you. He wanted
to break you down, beat you down and stand over your carcass.

Frazier was a similar fighter, but he had that sudden thumping explosive
power that put big men away. In the late 1960s before he was obsessed
with his left hook, Frazier showed he had damned nice all round skills.
His game was about body work, working of a jab, getting inside, stalking
and hunting. It seemed after his win over Ali, he figured his left hook was
enough, and it seemed he built his game around delivering this
trump card.

Let me get this straight --- he gets up seven times against Dempsey, endures a broken jaw, unscrewed teeth, & busted ribs to retire on his stool --- but one Frazier left hook is going to level Willard for the count?

Not many great things you can say about Willard, but he was teak-tough.

[Ezzard]

I think he has wear down power. He is relentless, tenacious, aggressive
raw. His namesake is correct..a mauler.

I think a Frazier left hook would have closed Willard's eyes there and
then.

Dempsey was a hungry hound that wanted to feed on you. He wanted
to break you down, beat you down and stand over your carcass.

Frazier was a similar fighter, but he had that sudden thumping explosive
power that put big men away. In the late 1960s before he was obsessed
with his left hook, Frazier showed he had damned nice all round skills.
His game was about body work, working of a jab, getting inside, stalking
and hunting. It seemed after his win over Ali, he figured his left hook was
enough, and it seemed he built his game around delivering this
trump card.

I'm not arguing over who wins but I disagree wholeheartedly on your assessment of Dempsey. He was a KO puncher. He had the speed and snap that made us all drool over Tyson for a while. He knocked many big men out with single shots and combos.

Dempsey himself said he wanted to get fights over as quickly as possible. Dempsey was an explosive puncher. His whole game was based on that.

I think that after Ali there was something missing for Frazier. I think he proved his point in the ring and then the shoddy treatment he got from people outside of the ring took the shine off it all. He got to the top of the mountain. realised he was never going to get the respect he deserved.

[The Great John L]

I am very surprised at how many posters seem to dismiss Dempsey's KO power. Dempsey was a very hard puncher as evidenced by the many early round KOs over very capable ooposition in his run up to the title. With a few exceptions, Frazier was not regarded as a one punch KO guy but more for wearing his opponents down. Both were great fighters, and Frazier is one of my all time favorites, but Dempsey was a fast starter who I would give a very good chance of smothering Joe early before Joe really started smoking.

[raylawpc]

I agree with Ezzard and John. Dempsey's hallmark was one-punch kayo power.

[dempseyfire]

I think he has wear down power. He is relentless, tenacious, aggressive
raw. His namesake is correct..a mauler.

I think a Frazier left hook would have closed Willard's eyes there and
then.

Dempsey was a hungry hound that wanted to feed on you. He wanted
to break you down, beat you down and stand over your carcass.

Frazier was a similar fighter, but he had that sudden thumping explosive
power that put big men away. In the late 1960s before he was obsessed
with his left hook, Frazier showed he had damned nice all round skills.
His game was about body work, working of a jab, getting inside, stalking
and hunting. It seemed after his win over Ali, he figured his left hook was
enough, and it seemed he built his game around delivering this
trump card.

This is just wholly inaccurate. Dempsey proved time and time again his vaunted one-punch knockout power. He bludgeoned both Fulton (the skilled number 1 contender) and Morris (the perennial White Hope who had a damn fine chin), both much bigger men, in under a minute and a half. Was given early trouble by Sharkey and Brennan but both were KO'd by one punch, the incredibly durable Tunney dropped down hard by a past-it Jack, Billy Miske in over 104 fights only KO'd once . . by Dempsey. The ATG Battling Levinsky only stopped once in his prime . . .by Dempsey. We all know the Willard fight. Dempsey's power was rightly feared as the best in boxing.

To suggest Frazier, who I love, would have taken out Willard even earlier or had as much power as Firpo (who was crude as hell but had great punching power) is just insane. And why is it a knock on Dempsey that Gibbons fought an ugly, clinch filled fight vs Jack? Jack still had enough inside tricks and fighting ability to win a dominant decision.

And Dempsey in over 80 fights never faced a man who 'got in his face'? What ludricious nonsense is that? Just going by the film one can see that Brennan, Firpo,and Sharkey were definitely in Jack's face and banging away, and I'm sure many of the other top fighters he beat while cleaning out the division pre-Willard were as well. I definitely do not see Frazier doing as well as Dempsey did vs the comp he faced 1918-1920.

[BoxBuzz]

Interesting post BRR. I agree with some of your reasoning, but leave you in your final anlaysis. I would put my money on Frazier. It would be a painful affair for both men. It's so hard to compare careers of the different eras. .... the "talent pool' of different eras is something that is often debated here. I suspect that overall it improves in time. Though we may be living in times that are an exception to the rule.

[Robinson]

I don't get all wet when I see Dempsey-Firpo. I am just stating
how I see it. I do not wish to get into Dempsey bashing , which
is how I come across. BUT I do think this era is a very over
rated and shows some flaws in a lot of the fighters.
i am sorry to offend lads.

[raylawpc]

I don't get all wet when I see Dempsey-Firpo. I am just stating
how I see it. I do not wish to get into Dempsey bashing , which
is how I come across. BUT I do think this era is a very over
rated and shows some flaws in a lot of the fighters.
i am sorry to offend lads.

Why would we be offended? All this stuff we talk about on this website is fun, but its also pretty inconsequential in the total scheme of things. Nobody should get offended by any of it. We're not offended; we just think you are dead wrong.

[BoxBuzz]

....excuse me, but I was fairly certain the fate of humanity rested on these hallowed transcripts. Have my perceptions of the worlds priorities been somehow skewed?

[Collins2000]

R0n Lipt0n.

[prodigious1]

Frazier without a doubt for me. I feel he was more skilled and could back Jack up, which would be his undoing. Too open for Joe, IMO.

[Djanders]

Dempsey would win...by knockout...early...in my opinion.