BoxRec

Who do u think wins and who do u rate higher on an all time HW list?

Frazier, head to head and all time.

Dempsey.

theone wrote:Frazier, head to head and all time.

why

Brockton we're old sparring mates on this topic I believe; but I will reiterate.

I believe Fraziers quality of oppisiton was better; Ali,Quarry Mathis,,Bonavena,Chuvalo Ellis, and Foster impress me more than Willard, Miske Brennan,Carpartier,Firpo and Sharkey.
Head to head I think Frazier would ko Dempsey early. The two fighters were somewhat similiar, but Frazier was bigger stronger and had a better chin.

I respectfully disagree. I think that Frazier's tendency to start slow would fall right into Dempsey's fast, swarming style. And I think Dempsey would have been able to take Frazier's shots. He had a good chin.

I say Dempsey KO5.

I respectfully disagree. I think that Frazier's tendency to start slow would fall right into Dempsey's fast, swarming style. And I think Dempsey would have been able to take Frazier's shots. He had a good chin.

If Dempsey tried to swarm Frazier he would be commiting suicide. He would be get caught by the hardest shots he ever been hit with. Dempseys chin served him well but he was staggered by fighters who didnt hit as hard as Joe. Joe also had a better chin than any fighter Dempsey ever faced and was no doubt physically tougher. The Mauler would be in over his head in this one.

theone wrote:

I respectfully disagree. I think that Frazier's tendency to start slow would fall right into Dempsey's fast, swarming style. And I think Dempsey would have been able to take Frazier's shots. He had a good chin.

If Dempsey tried to swarm Frazier he would be commiting suicide. He would be get caught by the hardest shots he ever been hit with. Dempseys chin served him well but he was staggered by fighters who didnt hit as hard as Joe. Joe also had a better chin than any fighter Dempsey ever faced and was no doubt physically tougher. The Mauler would be in over his head in this one.

how would that be suicide?


dempsey


- had KO power in BOTH hands

- he was a greater puncher- more accurate, faster handspeed, threw better combinations then frazier

- dempsey had a better defense, a lot more unpredictable


- dempsey was even more aggresive

- dempsey was stronger- frazier despite 205lb was not strong. dempsey was stronger than joe defintley. frazier used to be a fat kid when he was younger.

- dempsey had equal chin and heart

- dempsey had faster footspeed and better footwork

- dempsey very fast starter, frazier bad starter




if frazier tried to meet dempsey on inside, he would be bludgeoned. dempseys TWO FISTED attack and better faster punches would eat frazier alive.


Dempsey TKO 2 frazier

Frazier would knock Dempsey out faster than Fireman Jim did.

theone wrote:Brockton we're old sparring mates on this topic I believe; but I will reiterate.

I believe Fraziers quality of oppisiton was better; Ali,Quarry Mathis,,Bonavena,Chuvalo Ellis, and Foster impress me more than Willard, Miske Brennan,Carpartier,Firpo and Sharkey.
Head to head I think Frazier would ko Dempsey early. The two fighters were somewhat similiar, but Frazier was bigger stronger and had a better chin.

old willard = mathis


brennan = quarry


miske= ellis


gibbons= foster - remember foster was not a good heavyweight


fulton > bonavena


ali > sharkey


firpo= manuel ramos


battling levinskey> doug jones


georges carpentier> old eddie machen


Carl Morris= Joe Bugner


Chuvalo> Gunboat Smith





frazier was not stronger, he was not a strong guy. dempsey was a lot stronger.


dempsey also had a lot bigger muscle proportions than frazier and was taller and had a longer 77" reach than frazier.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Dempsey
*was a greater puncher- more accurate, faster handspeed, threw better combinations then frazier
*had a better defense, a lot more unpredictable
*aggresive

Dempsey TKO 2 frazier

BB included my main points for this matchup. Dempsey was not some reckless slugger, and moved in and out fluently and was rarely hit clean. His better accuracy and overall better offensive attributes take Frazier out in two. Not to mention a great counter to a left hook is the right cross, which was Dempsey's bread and butter punch.

I'd pick Frazier over more heavies i p-4-p matchups, but would lose in this one pretty convincingly in my eyes.

That's really being generous to the guys that Dempsey fought.

37 year old Jess Willard (who had 1 title defense in the previous 5 years) is not as good as Buster Mathis.

Gibbons=Foster. Well that may be (at heavyweight), but Frazier knocked Foster out in 2 rounds. Gibbons went the distance with Dempsey.

Fulton better than Bonavena? Don't agree with that either.

Carl Morris=Joe Bugner. No, Bugner was better.

Brennan as good as Quarry? That just silly. Quarry was much better.

As mentioned Ali was better than Sharkey. Dempsey never beat anyone remotely close Ali.

Joe Frazier wasn't a strong guy? Huh?

Frazier fought in (by far) the best era for heavyweights. Dempsey fought in one of the weaker eras.

If Frazier fought Dempsey's opponents, there is a very good chance that he would have went undefeated.
This doesn't by itself automatically that Frazier would be beat Dempsey. Frazier was a slow starter, and if Dempsey jumped on him at the beginning, perhaps he could get Frazier in trouble. However, the longer the fight went, the better Frazier's chances.

I would go with Frazier to win 7 out 10.

dempsey wins by KO in 5-6 rounds, and he is def. ranked higher on the alltime list

Ambling Alp wrote:I would go with Frazier to win 7 out 10.

10 out of 10

dempsey by brutal ko.no way did joe have a better chin.10 out of 10 is right but its jack who is victorious.

Tantum wrote:Frazier would knock Dempsey out faster than Fireman Jim did.

boxrec strikes again.

dempsey by brutal ko.no way did joe have a better chin.10 out of 10 is right but its jack who is victorious.

Based on what? Dempsey in his prime was staggered by Carpantier, and Bill Brennan. Light punching Sharkey had him staggering all over the ring, until Dempsey caught him. Foster who hit harder than Carpantier and Brennan if not Sharkey hit Fraizer flush several times and didnt even make him blink. Where is your evidence that Dempsey had a better chin?

Ambling Alp wrote:That's really being generous to the guys that Dempsey fought.

37 year old Jess Willard (who had 1 title defense in the previous 5 years) is not as good as Buster Mathis.

Gibbons=Foster. Well that may be (at heavyweight), but Frazier knocked Foster out in 2 rounds. Gibbons went the distance with Dempsey.

Fulton better than Bonavena? Don't agree with that either.

Carl Morris=Joe Bugner. No, Bugner was better.

Brennan as good as Quarry? That just silly. Quarry was much better.

As mentioned Ali was better than Sharkey. Dempsey never beat anyone remotely close Ali.

Joe Frazier wasn't a strong guy? Huh?

Frazier fought in (by far) the best era for heavyweights. Dempsey fought in one of the weaker eras.

If Frazier fought Dempsey's opponents, there is a very good chance that he would have went undefeated.
This doesn't by itself automatically that Frazier would be beat Dempsey. Frazier was a slow starter, and if Dempsey jumped on him at the beginning, perhaps he could get Frazier in trouble. However, the longer the fight went, the better Frazier's chances.

I would go with Frazier to win 7 out 10.

willard is underated. in his prime he was a much lighter better fighter than the big oaf u saw vs dempsey. but even still that big oaf who was ring rusty and overweight was still as good as a buster mathis.


heres a picture of willard in his peak


http://boxrec.com/media/images/e/ef/Willard.Jess.jpg





Carl Morris=Joe Bugner. No, Bugner was better.


perhaps, but bugner was nothing special. he looked atrcious in his title fight vs ali where ali and him looked like they fought the entire fight in slow motion.


carl morris like bugner was big 6'4 226lb but carl morris was a much harder hitter than joe bugner. though he didnt possecc the boxing skills of bugner, he made up for it with brute strength and power.

Brennan as good as Quarry? That just silly. Quarry was much better

in a head to head matchup i would most likely pick quarry but dont underate bill brennan. bill brennan was same size as quarry 6' 200lb and was a classic boxerpuncher. he not only possessed very solid boxing skills but he also could knock u out, he was even nicknames "KO". bill brennan gave a rusty jack dempsey a very tough title fight match outboxing dempsey most of the match and actually leading on the scorecards after 10 rounds. brennan defintley had a better defense than quarry and wasnt as susceptible to cuts. do more research on brennan before u belittle him, because he is underated simply because people do not know much about him.

Fulton better than Bonavena? Don't agree with that either.

why not? fulton was 6'5 210lb and was a huge puncher who had good boxing skills for a giant. he knocked jess willard down and gave him a licking in a exhibiiton match and after that willard ducked fulton. bonavena may have been strong and tough with a hard punch, but fulton hit even harder and was bigger with a long reach and he used his size well. fultons boxing skills were made off of his big long powerful jab which he used very well in his arsenal. bonavena however was more durable than fulton.

heres a pic of fred fulton

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/J ... posing.jpg

Joe Frazier wasn't a strong guy? Huh?

not stronger than dempsey, frazier's strength was defintley not one of his strongpoints. dempseys strength however was one of his strong points. he was naturally just as big as frazier, but he trained himself down to that fine weight of 185lb.


dempsey had bigger muscle proportions than frazier and had a much longer 77" reach

Gibbons=Foster. Well that may be (at heavyweight), but Frazier knocked Foster out in 2 rounds. Gibbons went the distance with Dempsey.

yes im talking HW, foster was not a good heavyweight. he didnt have the chin for heavyweight. gibbons proved he could take on the heavyweights.

theone wrote:

dempsey by brutal ko.no way did joe have a better chin.10 out of 10 is right but its jack who is victorious.

Based on what? Dempsey in his prime was staggered by Carpantier, and Bill Brennan. Light punching Sharkey had him staggering all over the ring, until Dempsey caught him. Foster who hit harder than Carpantier and Brennan if not Sharkey hit Fraizer flush several times and didnt even make him blink. Where is your evidence that Dempsey had a better chin?

bill brennan could hit, his nickname was "KO" for nothing, he had a hard punch in his heydey.


lightpunching sharkey? dont let his KO percentage fool u. sharkey had a terrific left hook very fast and powerful and in his early days he was a hard hitter until he suffered from terrible brittle hand problems later on.

sharkey knocked out tommy loughran who had a granite chin.


did u ever see sharkeys knockdown of carnera?? he sent the 270lb carnera flying across the ring in mid air with one left hook.

Foster who hit harder than Carpantier and Brennan if not Sharkey hit Fraizer flush several times and didnt even make him blink.

and when did foster prove he carried his power up to the heavyweight division??? once he left the light_H division he didnt have his power anymore






i think dempsey and frazier had equal chins

okay i'll bite.which great fighters did holmes beat?

gunboat smith,is that the same one jack beat 3 times?

Id have to say Frazier would beat Dempsey head to head. Joe was bigger and his competition was tougher. When did Dempsey ever fight anyone like Ali or Foreman?
On the all time list Dempsey left more of a legacy than Frazier, he kind of transcended boxing a bit like Ali. If it wasnt for the Foreman fights Smokin Joe would be in the top 5 all-time. Id put Frazier around no. 7 and Dempsey a bit behind at no. 8 or 9 on my all time list, both rank above Marciano imo. Id rank Tyson on about the same level i.e. no. 6-10 on the all time list

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:That's really being generous to the guys that Dempsey fought.

37 year old Jess Willard (who had 1 title defense in the previous 5 years) is not as good as Buster Mathis.

Gibbons=Foster. Well that may be (at heavyweight), but Frazier knocked Foster out in 2 rounds. Gibbons went the distance with Dempsey.

Fulton better than Bonavena? Don't agree with that either.

Carl Morris=Joe Bugner. No, Bugner was better.

Brennan as good as Quarry? That just silly. Quarry was much better.

As mentioned Ali was better than Sharkey. Dempsey never beat anyone remotely close Ali.

Joe Frazier wasn't a strong guy? Huh?

Frazier fought in (by far) the best era for heavyweights. Dempsey fought in one of the weaker eras.

If Frazier fought Dempsey's opponents, there is a very good chance that he would have went undefeated.
This doesn't by itself automatically that Frazier would be beat Dempsey. Frazier was a slow starter, and if Dempsey jumped on him at the beginning, perhaps he could get Frazier in trouble. However, the longer the fight went, the better Frazier's chances.

I would go with Frazier to win 7 out 10.

willard is underated. in his prime he was a much lighter better fighter than the big oaf u saw vs dempsey. but even still that big oaf who was ring rusty and overweight was still as good as a buster mathis.


heres a picture of willard in his peak


http://boxrec.com/media/images/e/ef/Willard.Jess.jpg





Carl Morris=Joe Bugner. No, Bugner was better.


perhaps, but bugner was nothing special. he looked atrcious in his title fight vs ali where ali and him looked like they fought the entire fight in slow motion.


carl morris like bugner was big 6'4 226lb but carl morris was a much harder hitter than joe bugner. though he didnt possecc the boxing skills of bugner, he made up for it with brute strength and power.

Brennan as good as Quarry? That just silly. Quarry was much better

in a head to head matchup i would most likely pick quarry but dont underate bill brennan. bill brennan was same size as quarry 6' 200lb and was a classic boxerpuncher. he not only possessed very solid boxing skills but he also could knock u out, he was even nicknames "KO". bill brennan gave a rusty jack dempsey a very tough title fight match outboxing dempsey most of the match and actually leading on the scorecards after 10 rounds. brennan defintley had a better defense than quarry and wasnt as susceptible to cuts. do more research on brennan before u belittle him, because he is underated simply because people do not know much about him.

Fulton better than Bonavena? Don't agree with that either.

why not? fulton was 6'5 210lb and was a huge puncher who had good boxing skills for a giant. he knocked jess willard down and gave him a licking in a exhibiiton match and after that willard ducked fulton. bonavena may have been strong and tough with a hard punch, but fulton hit even harder and was bigger with a long reach and he used his size well. fultons boxing skills were made off of his big long powerful jab which he used very well in his arsenal. bonavena however was more durable than fulton.

heres a pic of fred fulton

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/J ... posing.jpg

Joe Frazier wasn't a strong guy? Huh?

not stronger than dempsey, frazier's strength was defintley not one of his strongpoints. dempseys strength however was one of his strong points. he was naturally just as big as frazier, but he trained himself down to that fine weight of 185lb.


dempsey had bigger muscle proportions than frazier and had a much longer 77" reach

Gibbons=Foster. Well that may be (at heavyweight), but Frazier knocked Foster out in 2 rounds. Gibbons went the distance with Dempsey.

yes im talking HW, foster was not a good heavyweight. he didnt have the chin for heavyweight. gibbons proved he could take on the heavyweights.

First of all Willard isn't underrated. He never beat anyone of any reputation (except for the fight against Johnson). He was always awkward and clumsy. He is arguably the worst undisputed heavyweight champion of all time. He was just in the right place at the right time when he beat Johnson. Otherwise we probably would hardly ever heard of him. Buster Mathis wasn't an all time great, but he had good boxing skills, and certainly was a better fighter when he fought against Frazier than the old rusty Willard that fought Dempsey.

As for Brennan, well once again I will point out that he never beat good heavyweight in his entire career. Whenever he fought a decent heavyweight he lost. Other guys have big knockout record against weak competition, it doesn't mean anything.
Quarry fought in a much better era for heavyweights, and he beat some of them such as Patterson, Lyle, Shavers. Quarry was a much better fighter than Brennan.
As for Bonavena and Fulton, well they each had their ups and downs, but I would say Bonavena was better overall, though I will concede that it's atleast arguable.

Maybe Bugner didn't impress you against ali, but he was a very skilled fighter. He was fast on his feet and had good overall skills. Although he wasn't a big puncher, he was much better than Carl Morris. Watch Bugner against Frazier, he was pretty good. Bugner also beat Greg Page when Bugner was 37 years old.

Bottom line is that Frazier's competition was much more difficult than Dempsey's. Dempsey's era wasn't average at best for heavyweights. Dempsey beat limited white hopes on his way up and was reluctant to to put his title on the line after he was champion. (3 years without a title defense. Come on). And yes I've heard all the excuse regarding Rickard and Kearns.
Frazier only lost to two all time greats (Ali and Foreman) and beat Ali and many other good fighters. While Dempsey lost fights to lesser fighters. I know their is excuses for all of Dempsey's losses, but the truth is that Frazier has a more impressive record than Dempsey.

harry wills was teh no 1 contender adn woudl had ko dempsey in 10 rounds, the same sam langford would had ko dempsey in 10 rounds.