Ezzard Charles vs Jack Dempsey

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 16 Mar 2006, 21:51

prime for prime who this this all time heavyweight matchup?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 16 Mar 2006, 23:55

Dempsey

Too fast, too strong, too relentless for Charles, whose best weight was 175

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 17 Mar 2006, 02:23

How the f uck is Dempsey too fast for Ezzard Charles?

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 17 Mar 2006, 05:24

Tantum wrote:How the f uck is Dempsey too fast for Ezzard Charles?

When you combine Dempsey's blazing speed with his crippling power, you have a guaranteed sleeping pill for Ezzard(whom I respect as the greatest LH ever).

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 17 Mar 2006, 05:51

It's easy to pick Jack for this. His left hook was devestating. He was the bigger man and had enough speed to keep up with Ezzard. But Dempsey was extended by boxers and I do think Charles has the edge over Tunney. Okay, Jack was past his best by then but Charles would have been a big problem for Jack.

Post by **The Law** » 17 Mar 2006, 09:44

Gene Tunney would beat them both (well he did beat Dempsey twice, and he also beat Harry Greb a few times)

Tunney is the most under-rated heavyweight ever. He should be in everyone's top ten heavies of all time. He beat everyone he ever faced.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 17 Mar 2006, 10:11

lawllb wrote:Gene Tunney would beat them both (well he did beat Dempsey twice, and he also beat Harry Greb a few times)

Tunney is the most under-rated heavyweight ever. He should be in everyone's top ten heavies of all time. He beat everyone he ever faced.

Tunney is a very underrated fighter but Ezzard beats him IMO.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Mar 2006, 12:24

lawllb wrote:Gene Tunney would beat them both (well he did beat Dempsey twice, and he also beat Harry Greb a few times)

Tunney is the most under-rated heavyweight ever. He should be in everyone's top ten heavies of all time. He beat everyone he ever faced.

disagree, tunney is overated as a heavyweight.

- you also failed to mention tunney lost to 165lb greb TWICE

he fought only 11 times at heavyweight, with only 3 of them vs world class heavyweights

- risko was very green when tunney beat him

- gibbons was well past his prime as noticed on film

so that leaves just two wins over dempsey and a knockout over tom heeney. dempsey was well past his best, and i think a prime dempsey would beat tunney.

- when tunney beat dempsey, dempsey wasnt even the best contender in the world anymore. dempsey sould have lost to sharkey, but he cheated and took advantage of sharkey.

tunney never fought a black fighter, and there were some very good top black heavies in the 20s. there was a chance to fight harry wills in mid 20s when wills was still a good fighter, but tunney never took the fight.

- tunney retired when great fighters like jack sharkey, max schmeling, george godfrey, larry gains, etc were all top contenders and looking for a shot. tunney could have proven himself vs these guys.

IMO tunney is very unproven as a heavyweight, he certainly did not have enough fights at heavy nor did he face the best heavyweights of his era.

- tunney's career is similiar to michael spinx, because both had relativley few fights at heavyweight, difference is tunney never lost and did a lot better vs dempsey than spinx did with holmes.

a prime dempsey knocks out tunney

ezzard charles 15 unanimous tunney

ezzard was a more polished and smooth boxer and I think he was the better well rounded of the two. tunney was a little bit too herky jerky for me.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 17 Mar 2006, 12:31

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
lawllb wrote:Gene Tunney would beat them both (well he did beat Dempsey twice, and he also beat Harry Greb a few times)

Tunney is the most under-rated heavyweight ever. He should be in everyone's top ten heavies of all time. He beat everyone he ever faced.
disagree, tunney is overated as a heavyweight.

he fought only 11 times at heavyweight, with only 3 of them vs world class heavyweights

- risko was very green when tunney beat him

- gibbons was well past his prime as noticed on film

so that leaves just two wins over dempsey and a knockout over tom heeney. dempsey was well past his best, and i think a prime dempsey would beat tunney.

- when tunney beat dempsey, dempsey wasnt even the best contender in the world anymore. dempsey sould have lost to sharkey, but he cheated and took advantage of sharkey.

tunney never fought a black fighter, and there were some very good top black heavies in the 20s. there was a chance to fight harry wills in mid 20s when wills was still a good fighter, but tunney never took the fight.

- tunney retired when great fighters like jack sharkey, max schmeling, george godfrey, larry gains, etc were all top contenders and looking for a shot. tunney could have proven himself vs these guys.

IMO tunney is very unproven as a heavyweight, he certainly did not have enough fights at heavy nor did he face the best heavyweights of his era.

- tunney's career is similiar to michael spinx, because both had relativley few fights at heavyweight, difference is tunney never lost and did a lot better vs dempsey than spinx did with holmes.

BB, I agree with many of your points but I don't think he is overrated. Most people don't even consider him when picking their top 10. The Ring placed him at number 4 in their all-time HW list in the 1980s.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Mar 2006, 12:48

most lists now a days i see rate tunney pretty high at heavyweight and almost always over ezzard it seems. i dont think tunney accomplished enough to be rated over charles at HW. plus i feel ezz would beat tunney but hey thats just an opinion.

i think tunney is a top 20 heavyweight of all time, but his accomplishments dont allow him to be rated any higher.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 17 Mar 2006, 12:53

I dont think Tunney is overated either , Dempsey has always been a Boxing legend and Tunney has always seemed to be the other guy recieving begrudging respect from boxing fans. In fact Dempsey became more popular in his losses to Tunney. Supposedly, Gene was a little bit of a standoffish guy, maybe that hurt his ranking.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 17 Mar 2006, 16:50

..at 175 to 180 ezzard takes them both. thank you for asking.

..at 171 he takes tunney.....tunney's weight of no significance.

p.s. i'm one who rates tunney as a highly underrated fighter.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 17 Mar 2006, 17:13

Jaclem wrote:..at 175 to 180 ezzard takes them both. thank you for asking.

..at 171 he takes tunney.....tunney's weight of no significance.

p.s. i'm one who rates tunney as a highly underrated fighter.

If you add to this a three way round robin, each fighter getting multiple shots at each other, Archie Moore outhshines both of them in the last reel of the film.

Yeah yeah I know Archie was bested by Ezzard on the record, but Ezzard was bested by Harold Johnson whom Archie had the upper hand with. And for those of you who want to add Burley into the equation I ask you to just sit down, I"m the one typing here.

Honestly those losses to Ezzard were on days that Archie was just having a bad day. He had those once in a while between knockout sessions. Too much pasta maybe.

OK...sorry I digress....

As to the original point of this thread. I think Tunney is great and he shows us how to beat Jack, Ezzard simply uses the same playbook with perhaps even better skills. Ezzard and Tunney would be a chess match to behold that I would find impossible to predict a winner in advance.

There does seem to be an unavoidable truth in boxing. All things being equal the best matadors usually prevail over the best bulls. And when fighters have both qualities look to the matador side of each to gain insight and likely outcome.

theone · Post by **theone** » 17 Mar 2006, 18:57

Charles was very capable of outboxing Dempsey. The excitment Dempsey caused hase always made him look a bit greater than he actually was.
He made his name by pounding on big no skill stiffs who were thrown into the ring because of their relatively large size for the time. Back then sometimes size was enough. Alot of these guys were in there twenties when they first stepped into a ring. If Morris Fulton or Willard had amatuer careers someone please correct me.
Beating Carpantier, an undersized lightheavy champ and a somewhat past his best Gibbons round out the highlights of his prime.
Charles like Gibbons and a few other technical fighters, could use his skill to make Dempsey miss badly and look amatuerish. Unlike Gibbons, Charles would possess the power to earn Dempseys respect. If Dempsey did drop him he wouldnt have the luxury of standing over him and smashing him as soon as he rose.

On the plus side for Dempsey was that he was extremely strong for his size, hit extremely hard, and was very fast.As I play this fight over in my
mind I can actually see Dempsey taking more punishment that he ever had but being powerful and tenacious enough to pound out a very close,and probably split decision, very similairly to what Marciano did in his first fight with Charles. Or Charles deflty boxing his way to a similiarly close decision. I cant quite decide which to make my official prediction.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 17 Mar 2006, 19:42

I feel that Tunney is vastly OVER-rated. He was carefully matched and avoided several top battlers(Kid Norfolk, Harry Wills, etc.) A prime Dempsey would have knocked him out.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 17 Mar 2006, 19:49

BoxBuzz wrote:
Jaclem wrote:..at 175 to 180 ezzard takes them both. thank you for asking.

..at 171 he takes tunney.....tunney's weight of no significance.

p.s. i'm one who rates tunney as a highly underrated fighter.

If you add to this a three way round robin, each fighter getting multiple shots at each other, Archie Moore outhshines both of them in the last reel of the film.

Yeah yeah I know Archie was bested by Ezzard on the record, but Ezzard was bested by Harold Johnson whom Archie had the upper hand with. And for those of you who want to add Burley into the equation I ask you to just sit down, I"m the one typing here.

Honestly those losses to Ezzard were on days that Archie was just having a bad day. He had those once in a while between knockout sessions. Too much pasta maybe.

OK...sorry I digress....

As to the original point of this thread. I think Tunney is great and he shows us how to beat Jack,

Yeah, by waiting for him to get old before challenging him.

A past prime Dempsey was outboxed by a prime Tunney.

A prime Charles was knocked out by Lloyd Marshall, floored and hurt badly 7 times by Jimmy Bivins. So I don't find it a big stretch to say Dempsey could do the same. I think the evidence favors Jack.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 17 Mar 2006, 20:02

Its funny how when it comes to the older fighters , we can sometimes be influenced by the legends told to us by the oldtimers around us who had seen these guys fight. Man when I was a kid it was Dempsey all the time that my Grandfather used to talk about . That long count was here in Chicago and I dont think these oldtimers ever gave Tunney any credit . They were too pissed at him I think.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 17 Mar 2006, 20:09

..ezzard was also floored eight times by lloyd marshall....plus the seven by bivins. kept getting up and lasted the distance with bivins... despite not having been able to train properly for either match. reversed the losses.

ezzard was well past his prime when he fought harold johnson...i have seen no films of that one, so o don't know if the dozens of people who say he was robbed are correct.

back to the original thread....i think charles beats tunney...but he gives ezzard a harder time than dempsey would...and might even decision him. i just think ezz was a little bit quicker.....but it would be a classic boxing match.

buzz has moore beating ezzard in some kind of fantasy match just to irritate me. pay no attention .

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Mar 2006, 02:59

Yeah yeah I know Archie was bested by Ezzard on the record, but Ezzard was bested by Harold Johnson whom Archie had the upper hand with.

watch the johnson fight, its a total robbery. charles won at least 6 or 7 rounds. This was a horrible decision. like lewis-holyfield I. i wouldnt say charles was well past his prime. charles had lost a step, but he looked very good coming in at a trim 185lb and clearly winning this fight. charles outboxed harold johnspon the whole way

- archie moore probably should have got the decision in the 2nd charles fight

A prime Charles was knocked out by Lloyd Marshall, floored and hurt badly 7 times by Jimmy Bivins. So I don't find it a big stretch to say Dempsey could do the same. I think the evidence favors Jack

woa woa that was not a prime charles

that version of charles was a 21 year old 165lb fighter who was nowher near his heavyweight prime.

charles heavyweight prime came in the late 1940s.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 18 Mar 2006, 03:03

....i shall remind those of you who are being taken in by buzzy's hoax that ezzard had archie on the floor in all three of their fights...and in the third one he stayed down. granted the mongoose had the cobra in trouble in the third one but the smarter, harder hitting and quicker charles uncorked a beauty and scored the knockout. have i mentioned that archie never had ezzard on the floor in any of these fights?

an oddity...in nature the mongoose beats the cobra...in boxing it was the other way around.

..i'll repeat....'tis not that i love archie less...it's that i love ezzard more.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Mar 2006, 03:03

comparing the 1943 charles is like the 1916 dempsey. both well before there primes

* i wil try uploading the harold johnson fight. boxbuzz and jaclem, this fight was a robbery. ezzard won 7 rounds out of 10.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Mar 2006, 03:05

i have read that archie moore won the 2nd ezzard charles fight

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 18 Mar 2006, 03:11

...now i have to dispell a myth, repeated here by brockton boy. because the second charles/moore fight was close..and in cincinnati...some have stretched that to say archie really won that one. he did not. no way. the fight was pretty even until around the sixth or seventh round when ezzard knocked archie down. archie got up but from then on just stopped fighting....stayed in his shell....threw very few punches for the rest of the fight. charles clearly won rounds 7,8,9 and 10... at least two of the ones previous....and the point system was in effect. do the math.

all of those who disagree ...AND WHO SAW THE FIGHT...OR A FILM TAKEN FROM THE FIFTH OR SIXTH ROW ....please feel free to enter your disagreement....and your scoring.

thank you.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Mar 2006, 03:23

Jaclem wrote:...now i have to dispell a myth, repeated here by brockton boy. because the second charles/moore fight was close..and in cincinnati...some have stretched that to say archie really won that one. he did not. no way. the fight was pretty even until around the sixth or seventh round when ezzard knocked archie down. archie got up but from then on just stopped fighting....stayed in his shell....threw very few punches for the rest of the fight. charles clearly won rounds 7,8,9 and 10... at least two of the ones previous....and the point system was in effect. do the math.

all of those who disagree ...AND WHO SAW THE FIGHT...OR A FILM TAKEN FROM THE FIFTH OR SIXTH ROW ....please feel free to enter your disagreement....and your scoring.

thank you.

thanx for the fight report on moore-charles II. interesting how in each fight, charles knocked moore down but moore never knocked charles down.

theres film of this fight? damm, where can i get it!

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 18 Mar 2006, 03:37

...alas my brockton buddy...no....you can't get it.