BoxRec

Let the left hands fly!

Who takes it? More interested in the voting than the explanations, but feel free. I do believe this would be some fight, as spectacles go. I have submitted the opening vote --- for Dempsey.

There was no vote for Frazier destroys him early, so I was forced to select late.

You're such a cute little thing, tiny little balls all sinched up in an adorable hissy fit. It's really a shame you don't know what you see. But there is room in the world for retards, I guess you satisfy the board quota.

I changed the poll.

Your reply was creepy. Frazier early --- now that's what I call cute. Bonavena went the distance with him, but, as we all know, Dempsey was no Bonavena

You know not what you see. I'd suggest letting go of the 14 minutes of Dempsey film you have and watching some Frazier. But I doubt it would help any.

Anyway, let's get back to it. Perhaps others have a viewpoint.

My vote was for either way, but if pressed it's Frazier. It would be foolish to discount a prime and primal Dempsey completely, and Joe certainly could be hurt at times. Deep waters favor Joe though, and I think it may have ended up there.

I voted for Frazier, but I have pretty much the same idea as tzyu. As I said in the other thread, it would be foolish to ignore Dempsey's chances, most especially in the early rounds.

Dempsey . . .quicker feet, more tricks, and notably a much bigger one-punch knockout puncher. Frazier is one of my favorite fighters ever but he might not last 4 rounds here. No-one ever went straight at Dempsey and survived.

I'd bet on Frazier, My highly critical reasoning in this case?

On account of because! No one can argue with that reasoning.

This one could swing either way.....but my guess is it swings Frazier's way.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:There was no vote for Frazier destroys him early, so I was forced to select late.

You're such a cute little thing, tiny little balls all sinched up in an adorable hissy fit. It's really a shame you don't know what you see. But there is room in the world for retards, I guess you satisfy the board quota.

Dempsey comes out like a house of fire, but soon gets a taste of the relentless force he is facing.

After the 2nd round, Frazier returns to his corner with a little smile on his face.

Frazier then proceeds to punch Dempsey senseless.

yancey wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:There was no vote for Frazier destroys him early, so I was forced to select late.

You're such a cute little thing, tiny little balls all sinched up in an adorable hissy fit. It's really a shame you don't know what you see. But there is room in the world for retards, I guess you satisfy the board quota.

Dempsey comes out like a house of fire, but soon gets a taste of the relentless force he is facing.

After the 2nd round, Frazier returns to his corner with a little smile on his face.

Frazier then proceeds to punch Dempsey senseless.

Hmm, you thinkin Dempsey takes the Quarry path here huh?

dempseyfire wrote:Dempsey . . .quicker feet, more tricks, and notably a much bigger one-punch knockout puncher. Frazier is one of my favorite fighters ever but he might not last 4 rounds here. No-one ever went straight at Dempsey and survived.

Since he can't consistently avoid them with his style or defense, they really believe Frazier is going to walk through Dempsey's best shots.

I don't see it.

I think the key is that frazier would back jack up. Physical strength would be the main factor here for my money. Much like it was in holyfield/tyson when they finally fought.

Frazier wins by stoppage mid to late.

Neck-&-neck in the polling.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I think the key is that frazier would back jack up. Physical strength would be the main factor here for my money. Much like it was in holyfield/tyson when they finally fought.

Agree!

Joe would back Jack up just like he did with Quarry beginning in the 2nd round in their first fight.

dempseyfire wrote:Dempsey . . .quicker feet, more tricks, and notably a much bigger one-punch knockout puncher. Frazier is one of my favorite fighters ever but he might not last 4 rounds here. No-one ever went straight at Dempsey and survived.

Too bad it is too late to ask Jess Willard about that "much bigger one-punch knockout" ability.

Seems to me that Jess got up a time or two, didn't he?

BoxBuzz wrote:

yancey wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:There was no vote for Frazier destroys him early, so I was forced to select late.

You're such a cute little thing, tiny little balls all sinched up in an adorable hissy fit. It's really a shame you don't know what you see. But there is room in the world for retards, I guess you satisfy the board quota.

Dempsey comes out like a house of fire, but soon gets a taste of the relentless force he is facing.

After the 2nd round, Frazier returns to his corner with a little smile on his face.

Frazier then proceeds to punch Dempsey senseless.

Hmm, you thinkin Dempsey takes the Quarry path here huh?

Somewhat similar, but Dempsey ends on the canvas.

I would love to pull the old switch on these guys & place one another in each others' respective careers.

Dempsey would only have to survive thirty-odd fights, but his marquee adversaries would be far superior to anything he actually faced (sans Tunney), & his general level of adversary would also be more difficult.

Frazier would benefit there, but he always took a lot of punishment, & would need to last through well over twice as many bouts to accumulate Dempsey's end record. Facing a peak (& hungry) Tunney at the close of his career, on the back of a three-year lay-off, would also be a monumental hurdle.

It really would be interesting. To hazard a guess, I'll say Frazier makes it to however many bouts Dempsey had (was it seventy or so?), but with more losses. I just don't think he could take as much as he did over thirty or so fights & sustain it back in Dempsey's day. Many more fights, out in the open heat, with smaller gloves & no neutral corner rule --- I think Frazier's record ends spottier than Dempsey's, if they take the same route.

What about Dempsey in Frazier's shoes, though? Twelve fights into his pro career, I don't think he beats the Bonavena of 1966, so that's one extra defeat. However, I don't think he suffers any further hiccups (rematch with Bonavena when more seasoned, included) until he perhaps meets Ali, at his peak (as Frazier) was in 1971. Something tells me the Ali who narrowly, though clearly, lost to Frazier finds a way to beat a prime Dempsey, but I wouldn't call it any kind of sure thing. Assuming Dempsey drops a decision to that Ali, I think he also falls to Foreman in both fights (remember, he would be in about the same condition for the Foreman rematch as he was for the first fight with Tunney, to make it fair, as second time around, Frazier was a wreck & a shell against Foreman).

I might favour him to win the second fight with Ali, but who really knows. He probably loses the Thrilla, though, albeit close.

Bonavena is a different animal to Jim Flynn.

Robinson wrote:Bonavena is a different animal to Jim Flynn.

If you believe the legitimacy of that fight. Looking at Dempsey's full career, I don't.

Alot of fights from that era stink of 'work'. BUT... it's in the history
books and the great Dempsey agreed to it.

Robinson wrote:Alot of fights from that era stink of 'work'. BUT... it's in the history
books and the great Dempsey agreed to it.

If that's the reasoning, how do you feel about Ali-Liston II? It is, after all, in the books. Besides, I did say I expected a Dempsey twelve fights into his pro career to lose to the Bonavena Frazier barely bested.

That's not snide, btw, I'm genuinely asking. How much stock do you put in that result, being that it's, "in the books?"

Look at it this way...

I had a fight against a guy. This is what he told me a
year or so after he adn I fought.
He had decided that I was going to win for what ever
reason. He got this in his mind. So come fight time, we
mix it up. We go to the ground...
I end up getting his and I notice his neck is their.
I get the choke, no hooks no back control just a straight
all to easy choke...

On my record it reads I won by rear naked choke
in 90seconds.
The reality is I won before the fight happened. The guy
gave in and decided he didnt want to fight
The opponent gave in for whatever reason, got his
money, went home with a purse. He could have won, he
had just come off a pretty impressive fast KO win, so he
had the handspeed to test my chin. BUT...he quit in himself.

The winner, had no idea about it until there after.
When all has been said and done.

Whether that winner be Flynn...Ali or myself.

The reality is the loser was stopped. They gave up
the fight and that is what it is all about.

Some guys figure its better to lose a tought brawl,
others figure its better to take the paycheck and
go home without the pain.

Okay, so you accept the legitimacy of that first fight (in spite of Dempsey's having never been taken out before or since, in some seventy-odd pro affairs, & his repeated pummelings of Flynn in subsequent returns).

If so, wouldn't you consider what happened to Dempsey a flukish thing, given the way his entire career panned out? Is it not unreasonable to say he had a bad day, & that wasn't indicative of him at his best?

I'm just trying to gauge exactly how heavily you weigh that (admittedly embarrassing) result against him? I mean, surely you aren't this way with Norton for losing to Garcia? Marquez for his defeat against Duran? Hopkins going down to Mitchell?