Prime Jack Dempsey vs. a prime Muhammad Ali?

[NYDominican]

A prime Jack Dempsey against a prime Muhammad Ali.

What advantages would Jack have over Muhammad?

What advantages would Muhammad have over Jack?

What do you see happening in this fight?


Who would win?


Why?

[gilgamesh]

Who would win and why?

Muhammad Ali because he's all wrong for Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney was able to win 19 out of 20 rounds against Dempsey Boxing and Moving, well Ali could Box and Move better than Tunney. So I don't think Dempsey would be able to make much of a fight of this honestly. It's just a terrible style matchup for him.

[beaujack]

Who would win and why?

Muhammad Ali because he's all wrong for Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney was able to win 19 out of 20 rounds against Dempsey Boxing and Moving, well Ali could Box and Move better than Tunney. So I don't think Dempsey would be able to make much of a fight of this honestly. It's just a terrible style matchup for him.

To bring up Jack Dempsey losing to Gene Tunney as a guide to why Clay/Ali would beat Dempsey ,both in their primes is not fair to history. Remember, the Dempsey who fought Gene tunney
did not fight for THREE years, was about 32 years old, was suing his onetime great manager Jack Kearns, was tons slower and rusty, and was a shell of the Dempsey who wrecked havoc in his prime.
So to cite this Dempsey to fight a prime Ali does not address this thread. If I would cite Ali's career by his fights with Trevor Berbick, Spinks or Larry Holmes would also be unfair...

[gilgamesh]

Who would win and why?

Muhammad Ali because he's all wrong for Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney was able to win 19 out of 20 rounds against Dempsey Boxing and Moving, well Ali could Box and Move better than Tunney. So I don't think Dempsey would be able to make much of a fight of this honestly. It's just a terrible style matchup for him.

To bring up Jack Dempsey losing to Gene Tunney as a guide to why Clay/Ali would beat Dempsey ,both in their primes is not fair to history. Remember, the Dempsey who fought Gene tunney
did not fight for THREE years, was about 32 years old, was suing his onetime great manager Jack Kearns, was tons slower and rusty, and was a shell of the Dempsey who wrecked havoc in his prime.
So to cite this Dempsey to fight a prime Ali does not address this thread. If I would cite Ali's career by his fights with Trevor Berbick, Spinks or Larry Holmes would also be unfair...

Dempsey was also outboxed by the pudgy Willie Meehan in his prime in 1917. I brought up Gene Tunney because he's the only guy that remotely resembles Ali stylistically that I ever saw.

I agree Dempsey wasn't in his prime for the Tunney fights, and could perform better if we're talking about the 1919 or 1920 version of Dempsey, but nevertheless I still feel like Ali would win very clearly without any particularly scary moments.

[fzambleth]

I've always hated Ali, but he would win. Dempsey had trouble with shifty, quicker fighters like Tommy Gibbons. Ali also had a great chin, so it'd' be hard for Dempsey to win w/ one punch.

[Ezzard]

Neither man would enjoy the other guy’s style. Jack’s crouching bob-and-weave, constant pressure and fast feet is the exact combination of traits that Ali struggled with. Of course I’d back Ali to solve the puzzle.

But Dempsey would not be going into the fight looking for a 3 rounds KO. He’d know he’d have to be in there for the long haul and would base his game plan on just that.

So much depends on how you think Dempsey translates. If you think he’s comparable to Frazier then this is anyone’s fight. If you think guys from back then can’t compete then you have a very different outlook.

[Ambling Alp II]

Dempsey does translate well, and would probably do better against a prime Ali than almost anyone. He probably would win or 3 or 4 rounds in a 15 round fight; and be competitive in a few more. His underrated hand speed would enable him to get to Ali more than most guys.
Against Ali in the early 1970s (which what most people think of when they think of Ali) would have been more competitive and Dempsey might even win one out of 3.

A few side points about Dempsey: He did lose to Meehan, but that is a little deceiving. He really had not quite reached his prime, and it was a 4-round decision.
Dempsey was undoubtedly rusty going into the first Tunney fight; though probably not quite as much as you might think. He had fought a lot of exhibitions in those 3 years. He was also was supposedly sick, which if true could made more of a difference.
In the 2nd fight, he was a bit better than the first one. He had the Sharkey fight, which helped get rid of of some of the ring rust. However, he was clearly not the fighter he had once been.

[witherspoon]

Neither man would enjoy the other guy’s style. Jack’s crouching bob-and-weave, constant pressure and fast feet is the exact combination of traits that Ali struggled with. Of course I’d back Ali to solve the puzzle.

But Dempsey would not be going into the fight looking for a 3 rounds KO. He’d know he’d have to be in there for the long haul and would base his game plan on just that.

So much depends on how you think Dempsey translates. If you think he’s comparable to Frazier then this is anyone’s fight. If you think guys from back then can’t compete then you have a very different outlook.

This is a very good post. I don't think that Dempsey is comparable to Frazier, crucial difference being that Dempsey was over a stone lighter than Frazier in his best days, all of that weight difference (and probably more) being located in Fraziers legs. Hard head, low centre of gravity and exceptional leverage, physical traits that Joe utilised to give Ali hell.
I don't know how Dempsey's physical strength measures up to Ali, but he's only 2 inches shorter and one inch less in reach. Dempsey had more tactical perception than he is given credit for, so while I fully expect Ali to win, I think Dempsey would fight smart, and I would probably put my money on Dempsey as a live underdog.

[Ezzard]

Sorry, I meant comparable in all-round ability. If I asked you to give them a mark out of 10 as a fighter would they be close together?

They have style similarities but as you point out there were physical differences.

[witherspoon]

If I had to give a mark out of 10 I would probably rate Frazier slightly higher than Dempsey.
But I have to say there is a huge discrepancy in what I have seen and what I know about Joe and his competition and what I know and have seen of Dempsey and his competition.
It's why you hit the nail on the head when you said that everything depends on how Dempsey translates.

[dempseyfire]

I could see them splitting fights. Dempsey's superior head movement and most importantly far quicker and shiftier feet would make him more dangerous for Ali than Frazier was. That said Ali also had the style, chin, and stamina to give Dempsey tons of issues as well. Forced to pick when you have a great pressure fighter and a great boxer/mover, I'll go for the latter. Ali in a close decision.

[Broomhall]

Ali for me easily and probably by stoppage, but there is a slight thought about the left hook that Henry Cooper nearly chinned the young clay with, and also knockdowns against Sonny Banks and Frazier, I think all by the left hook (not sure about the banks knockdown) which Dempsey could throw well.

But this is a slight doubt as Dempsey was fighting at a time when Heavyweight championship boxing was pretty dire .

[HomicideHenry]

Depends on which version of Ali and Dempsey we are talking here...

Prime for Prime, we almost have two mythical figures--- Ali, being the fastest, almost untouchable boxer who had yet to really be tested and put through the ringer--- and Dempsey, being the most ferocious and indestructible warrior of the first fifty years of the 20th century... both perspectives are wrong, but not so far off the mark that it doesnt warrant one to believe that it could be true of either man.

Ali, for his part, never really faced a man anywhere near in his league while in his prime--- he wouldnt face an equally great fighter, or near great fighter, until the 1970's. So the 1960's Ali, I view with a level of doubt as to how he would have faired with a Frazier, Dempsey, Marciano, etc. at that time.

Dempsey, for his part, was a greater contender and challenger for the title than he was a champion--- he faced far inferior opposition as champion than he did on the way up--- and it wasnt until Tunney beat him, did he gain this measure of immortality in the eyes of fans around the world, elevating him to the status of John L. Sullivan and Jim Jeffries and beyond.

Ali, usually called rough and tough and tumble fighters "washer women" as a sign of respect--- that he knew that if he fought them, it wouldnt of been an easy night--- and Dempsey may of been the biggest washer woman of them all. Prime Dempsey had the speed and the endurance to keep on Ali--- and his left hook was just as great as Frazier's--- and when the occasion called for it, Dempsey could box a bit. He started fast, and generally kept up that pace until the finish of a fight. That's the sort of work rate and tenacity needed to beat an Ali.

I wont pick a winner, but this would of been one of the top five fights of all time.

[Broomhall]

Depends on which version of Ali and Dempsey we are talking here...

Prime for Prime, we almost have two mythical figures--- Ali, being the fastest, almost untouchable boxer who had yet to really be tested and put through the ringer--- and Dempsey, being the most ferocious and indestructible warrior of the first fifty years of the 20th century... both perspectives are wrong, but not so far off the mark that it doesnt warrant one to believe that it could be true of either man.

Ali, for his part, never really faced a man anywhere near in his league while in his prime--- he wouldnt face an equally great fighter, or near great fighter, until the 1970's. So the 1960's Ali, I view with a level of doubt as to how he would have faired with a Frazier, Dempsey, Marciano, etc. at that time.

Dempsey, for his part, was a greater contender and challenger for the title than he was a champion--- he faced far inferior opposition as champion than he did on the way up--- and it wasnt until Tunney beat him, did he gain this measure of immortality in the eyes of fans around the world, elevating him to the status of John L. Sullivan and Jim Jeffries and beyond.

Ali, usually called rough and tough and tumble fighters "washer women" as a sign of respect--- that he knew that if he fought them, it wouldnt of been an easy night--- and Dempsey may of been the biggest washer woman of them all. Prime Dempsey had the speed and the endurance to keep on Ali--- and his left hook was just as great as Frazier's--- and when the occasion called for it, Dempsey could box a bit. He started fast, and generally kept up that pace until the finish of a fight. That's the sort of work rate and tenacity needed to beat an Ali.

I wont pick a winner, but this would of been one of the top five fights of all time.

It just seems to me that no no one really analyses these old timers records and looks at the standard that was around then, like Tunney and all the other "greats" active at that time Dempseys record is full of KO's of guys having just a handful of fights, or even no fights in many cases and it seems there is often a myth then built up, even fighters like Gibbons and Carpentier who may have been decent weighing 170 lbs, (not much more than super middleweight) in one of his many draws Dempsey is floored 9 times.

Firpo was pretty much a novice and Willard hadnt fought for 3 years and was in his late 30s. Unlike Ali most of Dempseys losses came in his prime so he could be outboxed, he even lost his title to a light heavyweight.

Frankly it doesnt make sense when you compare these guys to more modern bigger, faster and stronger athletes. If there was any real organisation or structure then why could Dempsey and Willard go so long before defending titles?

[Ezzard]

I wouldn’t get too caught up in the numbers. Today many guys get fed smaller, older, lesser fighters until they get to the magical 20-0 at which point they get to fight a title and appear to be a genuine contender when they aren’t.

But if you don’t appreciate Tunney’s record then there’s not much to say. This kind of thing just isn’t for you.

[Ambling Alp II]

People can always spin things and give an inaccurrate picture.

He calls Firpo a novice when he fought Dempsey. Firpo had been a pro for 6 years and had beaten contenders. He was in his prime.
He criticizes Dempsey for fights when he had been a pro for just 3 years, and one when he had been a pro for less than a year.

Yes Dempsey fought some inexperienced fighters during his career. As Ezzard alluded to, the sport was set up differently now. Experienced fighters fought inexperienced fighters. Which means on your way up, you probably had fights against opponents with much more experience. Later in your career when you had a lot of experience yourself, you probably would have fights against opponents with much less experience that yourself.

When trying to get a handle of how good a fighter was, just ignore the wins over guys with record of 3-4 or whatever.
Look at the fights against good competition. In Dempsey's case, he had wins over guys like Billy Miske, Bill Brennan, Carl Morris, Fred Fulton, and Luis Firpo. Not legends, but good fighters.

[Broomhall]

People can always spin things and give an inaccurrate picture.

He calls Firpo a novice when he fought Dempsey. Firpo had been a pro for 6 years and had beaten contenders. He was in his prime.
He criticizes Dempsey for fights when he had been a pro for just 3 years, and one when he had been a pro for less than a year.

Yes Dempsey fought some inexperienced fighters during his career. As Ezzard alluded to, the sport was set up differently now. Experienced fighters fought inexperienced fighters. Which means on your way up, you probably had fights against opponents with much more experience. Later in your career when you had a lot of experience yourself, you probably would have fights against opponents with much less experience that yourself.

When trying to get a handle of how good a fighter was, just ignore the wins over guys with record of 3-4 or whatever.
Look at the fights against good competition. In Dempsey's case, he had wins over guys like Billy Miske, Bill Brennan, Carl Morris, Fred Fulton, and Luis Firpo. Not legends, but good fighters.

How can you ignore then when they make up the bulk of a fighters record? how can you ignore defeats/draws in a fighters prime? it is because of the Demspey "myth" I think Ezzard Charles, larry Holmes, Joe Frazier, Lennox Lewis and several other lesser regarded champions beat Dempsey, and i also think light heavy weight greats like bob foster, archie moore also beat him let alone a genunie great heavy like Ali

[klompton]

Why dont we address the obvious elephant in the room. Dempsey ducked the biggest, best black fighter of his era because he was too threatening (not because he was black). Ali was bigger and better than that guy in almost every department. Dempsey wouldnt have gone anywhere near Ali and if he had he would have had his ass handed to him.

[Ambling Alp II]

I can't speak for anyone else, wasn't even thinking if Wills. I think he would have beat Wills. He would not have beaten Ali.

[Ambling Alp II]

People can always spin things and give an inaccurrate picture.

He calls Firpo a novice when he fought Dempsey. Firpo had been a pro for 6 years and had beaten contenders. He was in his prime.
He criticizes Dempsey for fights when he had been a pro for just 3 years, and one when he had been a pro for less than a year.

Yes Dempsey fought some inexperienced fighters during his career. As Ezzard alluded to, the sport was set up differently now. Experienced fighters fought inexperienced fighters. Which means on your way up, you probably had fights against opponents with much more experience. Later in your career when you had a lot of experience yourself, you probably would have fights against opponents with much less experience that yourself.

When trying to get a handle of how good a fighter was, just ignore the wins over guys with record of 3-4 or whatever.
Look at the fights against good competition. In Dempsey's case, he had wins over guys like Billy Miske, Bill Brennan, Carl Morris, Fred Fulton, and Luis Firpo. Not legends, but good fighters.

How can you ignore then when they make up the bulk of a fighters record? how can you ignore defeats/draws in a fighters prime? it is because of the Demspey "myth" I think Ezzard Charles, larry Holmes, Joe Frazier, Lennox Lewis and several other lesser regarded champions beat Dempsey, and i also think light heavy weight greats like bob foster, archie moore also beat him let alone a genunie great heavy like Ali

How do you ignore? Seriously? Just count the guys with experience. He had plenty of fights against opponents with experience.

His only loss during his prime was a 4 round decision. The draws were over 4 rounds as well. They were for 4 rounds because of a State law at the time. You shouldn't put too much stock in fights that tied 2 rounds to 2.

[Broomhall]

How do you ignore? Seriously? Just count the guys with experience. He had plenty of fights against opponents with experience.

His only loss during his prime was a 4 round decision. The draws were over 4 rounds as well. They were for 4 rounds because of a State law at the time. You shouldn't put too much stock in fights that tied 2 rounds to 2.[/quote]


Ok lets ignore ignore the 10 and 6 round draw to the renowned jonny Sudenberg 5-7-9 and john lester Johnson 12-3-0 over 10 rounds and the one round ko loss to fireman Jim Flynn in a 15 round bout, the 10 round draw to Billy Miske where most reports indicated Miske was the winner, the two losses to Gene Tunney when Dempsey was still a young man etc etc

Is anyone seriously going to argue that Ali would have drawn or lost to the guys above at any point in his career?

[Cap]

Wills was not that great. Dempsey would've licked him easy. Best Wills could manage against Firpo, fer instance, was a single off-balance knockdown. Rest of his career not much to brag about. That being said however, Dempsey at 188 pounds against a bigger, stronger, fast-moving ring master like Ali. Dempsey has no chance. Fired-up Ali puts Dempsey away in under six rounds without breaking much of a sweat. In his day, Dempsey was a monster, but an awful lot of the heavyweight contenders then were slow unskilled amateurs who regularly lost to smaller guys like Dillon, Gibbons and Greb.

[Ambling Alp II]

Wills did beat Langford, McVey, and Jeannette in his career; so he did have something to brag about. I do agree that Dempsey would probably have beaten him.
Also agree that Ali would have beaten Dempsey.

[Ambling Alp II]

How do you ignore? Seriously? Just count the guys with experience. He had plenty of fights against opponents with experience.

His only loss during his prime was a 4 round decision. The draws were over 4 rounds as well. They were for 4 rounds because of a State law at the time. You shouldn't put too much stock in fights that tied 2 rounds to 2.

Ok lets ignore ignore the 10 and 6 round draw to the renowned jonny Sudenberg 5-7-9 and john lester Johnson 12-3-0 over 10 rounds and the one round ko loss to fireman Jim Flynn in a 15 round bout, the 10 round draw to Billy Miske where most reports indicated Miske was the winner, the two losses to Gene Tunney when Dempsey was still a young man etc etc

Is anyone seriously going to argue that Ali would have drawn or lost to the guys above at any point in his career?[/quote]

I am guessing that you are not familiar with the term "double standard".
You don't want to give Dempsey credi for winning fights when he was experienced and his opponent was not. (btw I agree with that).
However, you then want to count losses/draws when he was inexperienced.

the reason nobody talks about the Sudenberg fights is because Dempsey was very inexperienced. He had bee a pro for less than a year, with almost no Amateur career. He didn't have a real manager or trainer. He was just a 19 yer old kid taking fights whenever and against almost whomever he could get them. Same with the Johnson draw.

He only had a bout 3 years experience when he fought Flynn. Flynn was a seasoned veteran who had been in the ring with several top pros.
Billy Miske? First of all, Miske was a very good fighter in his own right. The fight was a no-decision, which means there was no official verdict. It is considered a newspaper decision draw. Not exactly damming evidence against someone.

Dempsey wasn't remotely the fighter he would become when he fought Sudenberg, and Johnson. He was getting closer to his prime when he fought Flynn, and Miske, but still wasn't his best. He fought Flynn and Miske later and beat them easily.

Would Ali or some other great heavyweight have lost or drawn with these guys with that little experience, no team around him? Who knows. Doesn't really matter. It's irrelevant.

Tunney? More evidence of your double standard reasoning. You mentioned that Willard had been off for a long time when Dempsey beat him. Then you rip Dempsey for losing to Tunney. Dempsey was off for 3 years before fight Tunney.

No, I don't know if even Ali could have taken off 3 years and then beat Gene Tunney in his first fight back.
Yes Dempsey was less rusty in the rematch with Tunney, but he clearly wasn't the fighter that he had once been.

Stop using double standards, and start using commonsense.

[drunkenpiper36]

Muhammad Ali. significant advantage in size, speed, skill, and had the proven durability to survive Jack's best.