Prime Jack Dempsey vs. a prime Muhammad Ali?

[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.

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?

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.[/quote]


Me use common sense? you are talking about a small cruiserweight (at most) who was not experienced enough to win over 16 of his fights, was KO d once, drubbed by a light heavyweight twice whilst in his prime as a heavyweight at 32, knocked down 9 times in one fight, won his title off an inactive 40 year old and you are saying that this man would have beaten one of the greatest fighters to grace the ring?

And you say I dont use common sense.....

[drunkenpiper36]

I don't know enough about the specific circumstances surrounding Dempsey's earlier defeats to draw conclusions from them. But I do agree that there are double standards that are present when comparing modern fighters to ones of much earlier periods. The older guys get a pass for just about every blemish they've ever acquired while the modern men are scrutinized and convicted for everything right down to a fart.

[Ezzard]

How so?

[Datsue]

How so?

[chews popcorn]

[drunkenpiper36]

How so?

Easy. Because anytime someone calls out Dempsey's loss to Flynn, there are those who come to his rescue and make excuses about him being green despite the fact that he had 30 pro fights and was just two years away from winning the crown. But when Lennox Lewis's loss to McCall is mentioned, look out, because the same people who defended Dempsey are all over it like flies on sh-t. That's just one of many examples.

[Ambling Alp II]

They are 2 completely different situations.
Dempsey had almost no amateur career to gain experience, and had been a pro for a bout a year and a half. He no real trainer behind him yet. He was still at the stage where he was getting better fight by fight.
Lewis had a lot of amateur experience and was a pro for 5 years before fighting McCall. He was much closer to his prime than Dempsey was.
btw- I think Lewis got ripped off by the referee on the stoppage, and I rank Lewis a head of Dempsey.

[Broomhall]

They are 2 completely different situations.
Dempsey had almost no amateur career to gain experience, and had been a pro for a bout a year and a half. He no real trainer behind him yet. He was still at the stage where he was getting better fight by fight.
Lewis had a lot of amateur experience and was a pro for 5 years before fighting McCall. He was much closer to his prime than Dempsey was.
btw- I think Lewis got ripped off by the referee on the stoppage, and I rank Lewis a head of Dempsey.

But no two fighters will ever be the same so all you can base any opinion on is the facts. The facts are that Dempsey was small. He had many losses, draws and other blemishes on his career-maybe whilst he was young and inexperienced, but even later his record is dotted with draws and also the fact that at 32-a prime age for a heavyweight-he lost to a reasonably mobile light heavyweight-not just lost but got hammered and easily outboxed.

How anyone could even compare him to Ali is beyond me

[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?

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.

Me use common sense? you are talking about a small cruiserweight (at most) who was not experienced enough to win over 16 of his fights, was KO d once, drubbed by a light heavyweight twice whilst in his prime as a heavyweight at 32, knocked down 9 times in one fight, won his title off an inactive 40 year old and you are saying that this man would have beaten one of the greatest fighters to grace the ring?

And you say I dont use common sense.....[/quote]

Yes I say you don't use commonsense because you don't.
No, I never said Dempsey would have beaten Ali. I said on 3 different occasions on this thread that I think Ali would have beaten Dempsey.
He wasn't as good as Ali and wouldn't have beaten him at Ali's best. No one else would have either.
I am saying most of your criticisms of Dempsey are absurd and have explained why.

You seriously think Dempsey was in his prime when he fought Tunney? He had not fought in 3 years. You don't just pick up right where you left off after that kind of layoff. Tunney was not a light heavyweight when he fought Dempsey.
Dempsey beat several good experienced heavyweights who weighed well over the all important 200 pounds. Also beat several that were a little under.

[drunkenpiper36]

They are 2 completely different situations.
Dempsey had almost no amateur career to gain experience, and had been a pro for a bout a year and a half. He no real trainer behind him yet. He was still at the stage where he was getting better fight by fight.
Lewis had a lot of amateur experience and was a pro for 5 years before fighting McCall. He was much closer to his prime than Dempsey was.
btw- I think Lewis got ripped off by the referee on the stoppage, and I rank Lewis a head of Dempsey.

Okay. Fair response. Perhaps that example wasn't the best, but I still see it a lot with modern guys getting the shaft while classic fighters get passes for losses, draws, bad performances, etc..

[Ambling Alp II]

I think that happens with some people. Some are biased towards fighters of long ago. They think every fighter with a pulse was "tough". On the other hand, some people seem to think the sport was invented during their child and/or are obsessed with weights with heavyweights. I think we just have to try to look hard at the circumstances as best as we can.

There were great fighters and horrible fighters way back. There have been great fighters and horrible fighters in more modern times. And course, most fighters are somewhere in between.

[Broomhall]

You seriously think Dempsey was in his prime when he fought Tunney? He had not fought in 3 years. You don't just pick up right where you left off after that kind of layoff. Tunney was not a light heavyweight when he fought Dempsey.
Dempsey beat several good experienced heavyweights who weighed well over the all important 200 pounds. Also beat several that were a little under.[/quote]



I do think Dempsey was in his prime when he fought Tunney. He was 32 and had fought in several exhibitions, he had a 3 year layoff-but so did Ali and on his return he fought and beat and top heavy contender in Quarry, he also had the return against Tunney and was again drubbed, and Tunney may have been a heavyweight by then but in the same way that Bob Foster or Billy Conn or Roy Jones fought at heavy.

So back to the question, could Dempsey have beaten Ali-not ever. Not even close.

[HomicideHenry]

Someone on this thread earlier brought up the fact that Dempsey had no amateur fights.... while this is true... we must not forget a couple of facts here.... Number one, Dempsey was under the tutelage of his brother Bernie for several years, learning the tricks of the trade from a rather decent regional boxer (the only fault Bernie had was that he had a glass jaw) and he often sparred him... Number two, when Dempsey left home at the age of fifteen, he embarked on a rather colorful and well known bare knuckle career travelling far and wide under the alias Kid Blackie and fought men of all sizes and ages (reportedly over a 100 such contests)... Number three, by the time Dempsey made his debut he was already a "prizefighter" for almost half a decade and was able to defeat men who had rather deep professional records, that you wouldn't expect some non-amateur to beat... He of course would change his name to Jack Dempsey permanently in 1916... So when you put it altogether, his loss to Jim Flynn, does seem worse than one expected--- after all he would of had 130+ bouts already in his lifetime... So what is the excuse?

One could be, that he took a dive because he was in desperate need for the money. This old tale, Dempsey denied up and down until his dying day--- though many said it was indeed true.

Two, Dempsey could simply of been in rough shape. After all, he was married to a prostitute who ate up and drank up and spent all their money--- he had to work as a ranch hand, miner, bouncer, etc. to make ends meet and seldom got to train and fight on a regular basis--- and when one really looks at his record, Flynn was certainly the first nationally known (or internationally known) fighter Dempsey had fought and prior to that, Dempsey had just beaten regionally known talents.

I happen to believe the second scenario more... after all, are we to forget, Dempsey's venture into New York? He seen he was a big fish in a small pond, while in the Big Apple and simply did not impress no one. And this was mainly because, he was living on park benches and eating sandwhiches at bars for a nickel a piece--- hardly the kind of lifestyle for a boxer on the rise.

[Ezzard]

I am not one who looks at a boxer’s defeats as a way of downgrading his historical significance. Not fighting rivals should be the bigger sin.

Defeats do show up style issues and weaknesses in H2H. Ali lost fights to Frazier and Norton even though he was the better overall fighter. That tells me something about the kind of fighters he struggled with. At the same time he dominated Liston and Foreman in a way that made them look very ordinary. They weren’t…Ali just dealt with those kind of guys really well…they suited him.

Guys like Ali, Lennox, Foreman etc… often by the age of 12 they were being bankrolled by a syndicate of investors…looked after and nurtured…very carefully matched on their way up…given top sparring and essentially lived the life of professional athletes from a very young age. They didn’t have to take fights on short notice and from day one the top promoters wanted to work with them.

That’s totally different to fighters back in Dempsey’s day. Losing was just a way to earn money and get more experience. It wasn’t the big deal that unfortunately it is today. Similarly fewer fighters maintained their prime years beyond 30. Especially not all action swarmer-punchers like Dempsey.

The HWs were smaller and that can be a factor… But Holyfield was really no bigger pre-juice.

[drunkenpiper36]

I think that happens with some people. Some are biased towards fighters of long ago. They think every fighter with a pulse was "tough". On the other hand, some people seem to think the sport was invented during their child and/or are obsessed with weights with heavyweights. I think we just have to try to look hard at the circumstances as best as we can.

There were great fighters and horrible fighters way back. There have been great fighters and horrible fighters in more modern times. And course, most fighters are somewhere in between.

Agreed

[Ambling Alp II]

You seriously think Dempsey was in his prime when he fought Tunney? He had not fought in 3 years. You don't just pick up right where you left off after that kind of layoff. Tunney was not a light heavyweight when he fought Dempsey.
Dempsey beat several good experienced heavyweights who weighed well over the all important 200 pounds. Also beat several that were a little under.

I do think Dempsey was in his prime when he fought Tunney. He was 32 and had fought in several exhibitions, he had a 3 year layoff-but so did Ali and on his return he fought and beat and top heavy contender in Quarry, he also had the return against Tunney and was again drubbed, and Tunney may have been a heavyweight by then but in the same way that Bob Foster or Billy Conn or Roy Jones fought at heavy.

So back to the question, could Dempsey have beaten Ali-not ever. Not even close.[/quote]

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone else who think Dempsey was in his prime against Tunney. You keep saying that he was 32 as if that is evidence that he was in his prime. 32 while not ancient, is past the prime of most fighters. What % of fighters do you think are as good at 32 as they are in their mid 20s? I would guess it's less than 10%.

Ali was only 29 when he came back. Maybe not a night and day difference, but enough where it might make a difference of winning and losing. Dempsey at 29 would have have a better chance against Tunney.
Ali was not at his best when he came back. Quarry got cut early, or otherwise that may have been a tough fight. He did not look anywhere remotely as good in his next fight against Bonavena as he did during his title reign of 1964-1967. Ali eventually got rid of some of the ring rust, but he was never the fighter that he had once been.

Exhibitions are better than nothing, but they are nearly the same as a real fight. There have been boxers in history who have come back after a layoff of 3 years or more. None were better when they came back; almost all were significantly worse.

Gene Tunney was not a light heavyweight like Foster, Conn, and Jones. Conn was small for a light heavyweight. Foster didn't adapt well at all when he moved up in weight. Roy Jones had one fight at heavyweight and it was against Ruiz who was mediocre.
Tunney beat against several other heavyweights and won several fights when he himself was well over 175.

For the umpteenth time, I have never said that Dempsey would beat Ali during Ali's prime. On the contrary, I have said several times that Ali would win. I am just countering your ignorant statements belittling Dempsey.

[Broomhall]

You seriously think Dempsey was in his prime when he fought Tunney? He had not fought in 3 years. You don't just pick up right where you left off after that kind of layoff. Tunney was not a light heavyweight when he fought Dempsey.
Dempsey beat several good experienced heavyweights who weighed well over the all important 200 pounds. Also beat several that were a little under.

I do think Dempsey was in his prime when he fought Tunney. He was 32 and had fought in several exhibitions, he had a 3 year layoff-but so did Ali and on his return he fought and beat and top heavy contender in Quarry, he also had the return against Tunney and was again drubbed, and Tunney may have been a heavyweight by then but in the same way that Bob Foster or Billy Conn or Roy Jones fought at heavy.

So back to the question, could Dempsey have beaten Ali-not ever. Not even close.

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone else who think Dempsey was in his prime against Tunney. You keep saying that he was 32 as if that is evidence that he was in his prime. 32 while not ancient, is past the prime of most fighters. What % of fighters do you think are as good at 32 as they are in their mid 20s? I would guess it's less than 10%.

Ali was only 29 when he came back. Maybe not a night and day difference, but enough where it might make a difference of winning and losing. Dempsey at 29 would have have a better chance against Tunney.
Ali was not at his best when he came back. Quarry got cut early, or otherwise that may have been a tough fight. He did not look anywhere remotely as good in his next fight against Bonavena as he did during his title reign of 1964-1967. Ali eventually got rid of some of the ring rust, but he was never the fighter that he had once been.

Exhibitions are better than nothing, but they are nearly the same as a real fight. There have been boxers in history who have come back after a layoff of 3 years or more. None were better when they came back; almost all were significantly worse.

Gene Tunney was not a light heavyweight like Foster, Conn, and Jones. Conn was small for a light heavyweight. Foster didn't adapt well at all when he moved up in weight. Roy Jones had one fight at heavyweight and it was against Ruiz who was mediocre.
Tunney beat against several other heavyweights and won several fights when he himself was well over 175.

For the umpteenth time, I have never said that Dempsey would beat Ali during Ali's prime. On the contrary, I have said several times that Ali would win. I am just countering your ignorant statements belittling Dempsey.[/quote]


I would agree with you that many fighters are going over the top at 32, where I would disagree with you is that heavyweights in particular mature older than other fighters-I think Ali beat Foreman at 32, Walcott was 37 when he won the title, Marciano retired on top at 33, The current crop of heavyweight champs are all in their late 30s, Foreman was arguably a better fighter after his layoff and return.

Why wasnt tunney a light heavyweight like Foster and Conn? He weighed pretty much the same as Foster through his career and Foster was taller and according to you Tunney beat an old man at 32 whereas Foster fought the top heavyweights when they where good, I think Frazier and Alis wins over Foster mirror pretty much exactly what would have happened to Tunney in the same fights.

I am not belittling Dempsey, I think it belittles Ali to believe as you do that Dempsey would have beaten him.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes Ali beat Foreman when he was 32; Ali was also much better in his mid-20s than when he was 32.
Marciano was 32 in his last fight and looked like he was starting to slip, though he was still the best at the time.
Foreman arguably better after his layoff? Are you out of your mind? Foreman was much, much better in his mid-20s.
Let me answer the question that you are ask; Well how did a 32 year old Ali beat Foreman at his best? Because Ali was the greatest heavyweight of all time. Past his best, he was good enough to beat one of the best heavyweights of all time at his best. Ali was that great.

Walcott has always a rare exception. He was better in his 30s than his 20s; partially do to better management when he got older. Almost every other heavyweight champion from Sullivan to Holyfield was better in their 20s than when they were 32. Most were much better. Some even retired by 32. A fighter usually isn't washed up by 32 (if he hasn't taken too much punishment in his career), but he is almost always declining.
Add that to a 3 year layoff (in Dempsey's case) and you have a fighter well past his best.

Bob Foster was nowhere near as good at heavyweight as Tunney was. Foster was almost a disaster at heavyweight. Besides getting whipped by Ali and Frazier, he got beaten badly by Ernie Terrell and Zora Folley. Foster's power at light heavyweight didn't have much effect on top heavyweights. He also had a chin that was usually good enough against light heavyweights, but was vulnerable against heavyweights.
Tunney had a good chin, was hard to hit, and was very fast on his feet. He adapted very well at heavyweight. No, he wouldn't have beaten Ali or Frazier (so don't say I said that) but he was a very good heavyweight; much better than Bob Foster.

I am just saying that Dempsey was a great fighter and most of your criticisms of him are stupid. Stop saying that I said that Dempsey would beat Ali. I have said over and over that Ali would win. Are you really that dense?

[Broomhall]

Yes Ali beat Foreman when he was 32; Ali was also much better in his mid-20s than when he was 32.
Marciano was 32 in his last fight and looked like he was starting to slip, though he was still the best at the time.
Foreman arguably better after his layoff? Are you out of your mind? Foreman was much, much better in his mid-20s.
Let me answer the question that you are ask; Well how did a 32 year old Ali beat Foreman at his best? Because Ali was the greatest heavyweight of all time. Past his best, he was good enough to beat one of the best heavyweights of all time at his best. Ali was that great.

Walcott has always a rare exception. He was better in his 30s than his 20s; partially do to better management when he got older. Almost every other heavyweight champion from Sullivan to Holyfield was better in their 20s than when they were 32. Most were much better. Some even retired by 32. A fighter usually isn't washed up by 32 (if he hasn't taken too much punishment in his career), but he is almost always declining.
Add that to a 3 year layoff (in Dempsey's case) and you have a fighter well past his best.

Bob Foster was nowhere near as good at heavyweight as Tunney was. Foster was almost a disaster at heavyweight. Besides getting whipped by Ali and Frazier, he got beaten badly by Ernie Terrell and Zora Folley. Foster's power at light heavyweight didn't have much effect on top heavyweights. He also had a chin that was usually good enough against light heavyweights, but was vulnerable against heavyweights.
Tunney had a good chin, was hard to hit, and was very fast on his feet. He adapted very well at heavyweight. No, he wouldn't have beaten Ali or Frazier (so don't say I said that) but he was a very good heavyweight; much better than Bob Foster.

I am just saying that Dempsey was a great fighter and most of your criticisms of him are stupid. Stop saying that I said that Dempsey would beat Ali. I have said over and over that Ali would win. Are you really that dense?

It is good to see you are finally coming round to my way of thinking and finally admitting (albeit grudgingly) that Ali would have beaten Dempsey.

As for Foster/Tunney well you have along way to go there but I am sure with time you will also come round as you did with Dempsey. Fosters oppononts at heavy where much better than Tunneys, as you admitted when you said Dempsey was washed up at 32 and as we already discussed on another thread how many of Tunneys fights where wins over cowboys and farmhands at state fairs etc. As for Tunneys chin he was nearly KO'd by the washed up Dempsey (the long count) so not sure about his chin as Dempsey was really only a cruiser himself.

Many holes in your arguments amblingalp.

[Ambling Alp II]

I guess the answer is yes to my question.

I said on September 3, (before you even commented on this thread) that Ali would beat Dempsey. I said again several times after that. Look it up.

Yes, some of Foster's heavyweight opponents were better than Tunney's. That doesn't mean that Foster was better. Foster fought 4 quality heavyweights. He went 0-4, and lost badly each time. He did beat a few journeyman heavyweights, none of them as good as a declining Dempsey. Tunney was clearly the better heavyweight.
You were the one on the other thread talking about the crap about Tunney fighting farmhands and cowboys. I and others pointed out how stupid that was.
As for Tunney's chin, the Dempsey knockdown was the only time he was knocked down in his entire career. Foster was decked more times as a light heavyweight and as a heavyweight.

[Broomhall]

I guess the answer is yes to my question.

I said on September 3, (before you even commented on this thread) that Ali would beat Dempsey. I said again several times after that. Look it up.

Yes, some of Foster's heavyweight opponents were better than Tunney's. That doesn't mean that Foster was better. Foster fought 4 quality heavyweights. He went 0-4, and lost badly each time. He did beat a few journeyman heavyweights, none of them as good as a declining Dempsey. Tunney was clearly the better heavyweight.
You were the one on the other thread talking about the crap about Tunney fighting farmhands and cowboys. I and others pointed out how stupid that was.
As for Tunney's chin, the Dempsey knockdown was the only time he was knocked down in his entire career. Foster was decked more times as a light heavyweight and as a heavyweight.

ah I see another man who resorts to insults when losing a debate. I put a point of view, you disagree, albeit you are now coming round to my view that Ali would have beat Dempsey, but it is sad you have to resort to insults.

Tunney was not clearly the better heavy or light heavy than Foster. Tunney was fighting at a time when the sport was largely unregulated and when reasonably decent fighters could build up impressive records, much like Buck Smith did. I believe Foster would have beaten Tunney, and I also believe Archie Moore, Saad Muhammed, Roy Jones and maybe even Billy Conn would have beaten Dempsey and Tunney.

[Ezzard]

I guess the answer is yes to my question.

I said on September 3, (before you even commented on this thread) that Ali would beat Dempsey. I said again several times after that. Look it up.

Yes, some of Foster's heavyweight opponents were better than Tunney's. That doesn't mean that Foster was better. Foster fought 4 quality heavyweights. He went 0-4, and lost badly each time. He did beat a few journeyman heavyweights, none of them as good as a declining Dempsey. Tunney was clearly the better heavyweight.
You were the one on the other thread talking about the crap about Tunney fighting farmhands and cowboys. I and others pointed out how stupid that was.
As for Tunney's chin, the Dempsey knockdown was the only time he was knocked down in his entire career. Foster was decked more times as a light heavyweight and as a heavyweight.

ah I see another man who resorts to insults when losing a debate. I put a point of view, you disagree, albeit you are now coming round to my view that Ali would have beat Dempsey, but it is sad you have to resort to insults.

Tunney was not clearly the better heavy or light heavy than Foster. Tunney was fighting at a time when the sport was largely unregulated and when reasonably decent fighters could build up impressive records, much like Buck Smith did. I believe Foster would have beaten Tunney, and I also believe Archie Moore, Saad Muhammed, Roy Jones and maybe even Billy Conn would have beaten Dempsey and Tunney.

Roy Jones is the very definition of decent fighters building up impressive records. He wouldn't train at the same gym as Dempsey, Tunney, Foster, Moore let alone fight them.

[Cap]

I guess the answer is yes to my question.

I said on September 3, (before you even commented on this thread) that Ali would beat Dempsey. I said again several times after that. Look it up.

Yes, some of Foster's heavyweight opponents were better than Tunney's. That doesn't mean that Foster was better. Foster fought 4 quality heavyweights. He went 0-4, and lost badly each time. He did beat a few journeyman heavyweights, none of them as good as a declining Dempsey. Tunney was clearly the better heavyweight.
You were the one on the other thread talking about the crap about Tunney fighting farmhands and cowboys. I and others pointed out how stupid that was.
As for Tunney's chin, the Dempsey knockdown was the only time he was knocked down in his entire career. Foster was decked more times as a light heavyweight and as a heavyweight.

If I were you, I'd ignore this rube's comments. This Broomball obviously just likes to argue for the sake of arguing.

[drunkenpiper36]

Some nice discussions here, but outside of creative arguing and debating does anyone REALLY think Jack Dempsey beats Muhammad Ali?

[Cap]

Some nice discussions here, but outside of creative arguing and debating does anyone REALLY think Jack Dempsey beats Muhammad Ali?

Only in a bar-room or back alley. That being said, if that had been Dempsey in there with young Cassius Clay instead of Henry Cooper, I have to wonder what the outcome would've been. Great thing about boxing, in a single event, almost anything can happen.....

[Ambling Alp II]

I have said all a long that a Dempsey would not have beaten a prime Ali. (I have said many times on other threads that nobody else would have either.) I think most people would pick Ali; and have on this thread.

Clay dominated almost the entire Cooper fight except for the the 3 count knockdown. That being said, he had not reached his best; maybe Dempsey could have beaten this version, though I would still lean toward Ali (Clay).
However you can do that quite a bit; match one guy at this best against another guy who either hasn't reached his best or is past it. Really isn't fair, though it can be interesting.