# Does Jack Dempsey Stop Joe Frazier?



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Or no? How do you see it playing out?


----------



## choklab (Jun 6, 2013)

Frazier could lead and double up with with more power shots shots than almost any any fighter i can think of. In his prime Frazier could unload and land accurately at any range. He punched as he came in, taking away space and forcing the other guy into reacting or being overwhelmed with pressure. It appeared that Frazier was starting slow but he wasn't really. What he did was press the guy without punching to see how he would react, force more work out of him so that he would be more tired when Frazier wanted to step things up once he found his range and set his rhythm to correspond to the other guys reactions. Once he got going Frazier could get off with his hooks as easy as most boxers can land jabs. It was a devestating experience for anyone faced with a prime Frazier.

Does Dempsey stop this man? It is a hell of a fight. Frazier was hitting world class after 10 or so fights and was talented enough to live with it. Dempsey fought so often and had that much experience at a comparatively young age I think he might have been ready for whatever Frazier had in store for him. Dempsey was razor dharp and could maul and turn Frazier inside and beat him to the draw on the outside. Dempsey would not panic if he were crowded because he relished the tighter mauling work that was different to the conventional freehanded inside work of Frazier. Dempsey could tangle himself with one hand and work the blind side and alternate one free hand at a time. He could work a clinch because he had more experience. He put giants over with one free hand within a clinch so Dempsey is capable of stopping Frazier. its not impossible.

I think Dempsey can make an impresion on Frazier before he gets overwhelmed. If he doesn't frazier takes him apart. I think Dempsey deserves an edge. I expect Frazier to win 4 out of ten. Both can stop each other.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

No, 'Don't hook with a hooker', Dempsey would be left hooking against a bigger left hooker, generally a recipe for disaster.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

choklab said:


> I think Dempsey can make an impresion on Frazier before he gets overwhelmed. If he doesn't frazier takes him apart. I think Dempsey deserves an edge. _*I expect Frazier to win 4 out of ten*_. Both can stop each other.


So you favour Dempsey?


----------



## Brownies (Jun 7, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> No, 'Don't hook with a hooker', Dempsey would be left hooking against a bigger left hooker, generally a recipe for disaster.


I agree with you, but some might say to Frazier : don't hook with a hooker like Dempsey...


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

No. A great part of Dempsey's mystique is built on deflating giant dirigibles... Fulton, Willard, Firpo... Smaller fellers did better. The only guy who was even close to Frazier in style and equal in excellence was Langford. Dempsey didn't even want to get in the same room with a shot version of Sam.

Frazier wins 10 out of 10... all by KO.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Frazier by KO.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Klompton said:


> Frazier by KO.


Yeah? Think Dempsey too crude?


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

No I dont think Dempsey was crude at all. I think he's susceptible to certain styles but thats not even the case here. I just rate frazier very highly and think that within a certain size range hes darn near unbeatable in his prime. I think that Dempsey would have a surprisingly hard time landing consistently on Frazier and that after five rounds Dempsey would fade and Frazier run him ragged.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Klompton said:


> No I dont think Dempsey was crude at all. I think he's susceptible to certain styles but thats not even the case here. I just rate frazier very highly and think that within a certain size range hes darn near unbeatable in his prime. I think that Dempsey would have a surprisingly hard time landing consistently on Frazier and that after five rounds Dempsey would fade and Frazier run him ragged.


Good post Not high on JD right now sowwww


----------



## choklab (Jun 6, 2013)

turbotime said:


> So you favour Dempsey?


Yes I think Dempsey deserves the edge on experience. Both could beat the other but the way Frazier struggled mauling with Bonevenna inside makes me think he could have nightmares with Jack. People will say oscar was stronger and bigger than Jack but thats not why Dempsey would be more effective inside. Dempsey was more effective inside because he was a much better fighter than oscar. An instictive fighter with ring sence. Fast hands. More power. Frazier never met anyone like that. Dont get me wrong, prime Frazier could still kill jack but Dempsey has every chance of doing the same. Dempsey has the edge on experience. I dont buy that crap about d list fighters of the 1960s would have reigned supreme in the 1920s because trainers in the 1920s who remembered the 1920s never said that. Dempsey fought in a good period.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

No, Frazier wins this


----------



## zadfrak (Jun 6, 2013)

Klompton said:


> No I dont think Dempsey was crude at all. I think he's susceptible to certain styles but thats not even the case here. I just rate frazier very highly and think that within a certain size range hes darn near unbeatable in his prime. I think that Dempsey would have a surprisingly hard time landing consistently on Frazier and that after five rounds Dempsey would fade and Frazier run him ragged.


I agree.

The thing I just don't see Dempsey doing well is absorbing to the breadbasket. He takes it to the head much better, but I think Joe's bodywork does him in. It'd serve Dempsey better if this opponent was a headhunter.

I just think Jack slows down or shows the effects early of the body punishment. Like before the 5th round. Then, he has no bag of tricks or anything to turn to to keep him in there against this guy. And nobody ever had to tell Smokin Joe what to do when he got a guy ready to go.

Still, the Dempsey competitive nature would likely seeing him trying to trade even on his way out. It'd be exciting all the way and even if he wins, Joe will dig deep himself at some point during the bout.


----------



## jorodz (Sep 14, 2012)

agree with the majority of posts. frazier takes this in my opinion unless he gets blitzed by dempsey before he starts smoking. i just don't see that happening


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

Nah, can't see it happening. Obviously Dempsey punched like a motherfucker, but as Klompton has already stated, I don't believe Dempsey would be landing consistently enough. Frazier's recuperative abilities and solid chin would allow him to see it out, in my opinion.

It's Dempsey that would have to worry about being stopped.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

No, Frazier would stop him not the other way around.

About this time on ESB Janitor, Burt and Co. come and wave the Dempsey flag.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

MadcapMaxie said:


> No, Frazier would stop him not the other way around.
> 
> About this time on ESB Janitor, Burt and Co. come and wave the Dempsey flag.


:lol: You just know it's coming.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

not even a chance... frazier was better in every department except maybe feet speed, he was bigger,more compact, heavier, stronger, more skilled, better body puncher, his bobbing and weaving was better, he had a better left hook than dempsey, more heart,he proved his chin against much greater fighters than dempsey did, not even foreman could stop frazier for the 10 count, no fighter in the history under 200 pounds would beat smokin joe frazier and yes marciano included. frazier would eat dempsey alive.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

nah. frazier whoops him.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Or no? How do you see it playing out?


Yes, early stoppage for the fast starting Mauler.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> not even a chance... frazier was better in every department except maybe feet speed, he was bigger,more compact, heavier, stronger, more skilled, better body puncher, his bobbing and weaving was better, he had a better left hook than dempsey, more heart,he proved his chin against much greater fighters than dempsey did, not even foreman could stop frazier for the 10 count, no fighter in the history under 200 pounds would beat smokin joe frazier and yes marciano included. frazier would eat dempsey alive.


 Dempsey was a two fisted puncher, Frazier was not.Dempsey devours Frazier.


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

Klompton said:


> No I dont think Dempsey was crude at all. I think he's susceptible to certain styles but thats not even the case here. I just rate frazier very highly and think that within a certain size range hes darn near unbeatable in his prime. I think that Dempsey would have a surprisingly hard time landing consistently on Frazier and that after five rounds Dempsey would fade and Frazier run him ragged.


I'd be about here with it. I don't think Dempsey was crude either but I feel Frazier is bigger and better. What a weird way to do a H2H thread for these two, Turbo. I think I'm going to take you out of my will, mate. :bart


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Boxed Ears said:


> I'd be about here with it. I don't think Dempsey was crude either but I feel Frazier is bigger and better. What a weird way to do a H2H thread for these two, Turbo. I think I'm going to take you out of my will, mate. :bart


:lol: This needs to be discussed :deal


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Dempsey was a two fisted puncher, Frazier was not.Dempsey devours Frazier.


worst argument ever


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> worst argument ever


Let me try harder, Dempsey had better offence, was more elusive, and possessed better power, tougher chin , faster hands , better lateral movement and was a more versatile puncher. imo


----------



## ROACH (Jun 6, 2013)

If you watch Dempsey against Williard, he's fleet of foot in the mold of Pacquaio. I don't think Frazier has the right style to beat Dempsey. Dempsey had trouble with boxers like Tunney and Carpentier.

Frazier will walk right into Dempsey's bombs. Dempsey would use his lateral movement and walk Frazier into straight right hands, turn him, fire off combinations, and eventually finish him with the hooks.

Dempsey was smaller and perhaps Frazier would wear him down, but like Pacquaio, Dempsey can punch.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Let me try harder, Dempsey had better offence, was more elusive, and possessed better power, tougher chin , faster hands , better lateral movement and was a more versatile puncher. imo


this one is even worse... dempsey never did show that he had more power than frazier who faced much better guys than dempsey did, dempsey got dropped by the light puncher natural lhw tunney, frazier took every shot from the hardest puncher lhw ever bob foster like nothing, george foreman could not put frazier down by the 10 count, frazier had a better chin here, more proved for sure,frazier was much better body puncher, he had a better left hook than dempsey(the best punch from dempsey was the left hook too), frazier was bigger,stronger,heavier. dempsey looked more elusive against a big heavy bag like willard, not master fighters like muhammad ali, monsters like george foreman (both top 10 hws)


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> this one is even worse... dempsey never did show that he had more power than frazier who faced much better guys than dempsey did, dempsey got dropped by the light puncher natural lhw tunney, frazier took every shot from the hardest puncher lhw ever bob foster like nothing, george foreman could not put frazier down by the 10 count, frazier had a better chin here, more proved for sure,frazier was much better body puncher, he had a better left hook than dempsey(the best punch from dempsey was the left hook too), frazier was bigger,stronger,heavier. dempsey looked more elusive against a big heavy bag like willard, not master fighters like muhammad ali, monsters like george foreman (both top 10 hws)


Dempsey knocked men unconscious then he then lifted up and carried them to their corner, who did Frazier ko?

Tunney had 48kos in 65wins he was not a light puncher, he was also not a lhvy when he fought Dempsey and had not been one for some time he scaled just 1/2 a pound less than Dempsey when he took the title from him. Foster never beat a good heavyweight ,and could never put on meaningful weight, he was 21lbs lighter than Frazier when they fought, Frazier had a better chin ? The best puncher he fought used him as a yo yo.
Sorry your arguments are irrational, no point continuing this.


----------



## Bil1234 (Jun 11, 2013)

I'd favor Frazier in this match up. He had better technique and a better left hook. Frazier was also a very strong, durable guy. Dempsey would be out there throwing wider punches than Frazier and he would get into exchanges that Frazier would come out on top in. Between Frazier's left that would constantly be getting ripped into Dempsey's ribs, stomach, and head and the uppercuts that Dempsey would be getting hit with, Dempsey would be quite damaged by the mid rounds. 

Prime Frazier was a machine that Dempsey wouldn't be able to handle. Dempsey flatout didn't have what it took to beat Frazier.


----------



## choklab (Jun 6, 2013)

I think Dempsey can beat Frazier to the punch at range and have too much experience for him within the clinches inside. Dempsey was a better fighter and seasoned at the art of old school mauling. Yes Frazier was lethal inside with both hands free but not within a tangle. shovel upercuts, arm pull turns and holding and hitting are a lost art. Dempsey would drop giants within a clinch. Sure Frazier can take Dempsey apart if he ever overwhelms Jack but Joe is taking shots shots outside and inside trying to do this.

In a ten fight serries I can see both winning by KO but i just see Dempsey doing it more times to Joe than Frazier does it to Jack. 

The laziest technical breakdown is "they are both hookers, the biggest hooker wins" which is simplistic garbage. Nobody would ever need a trainer or sparring if that were true. Just get a dietician so that the heaviest hooker can absorb more and hit harder. For fucks sake! Is that all there is to it? Heres something simple to think about You cant put pounds on a chin and the one who lands more punches wins.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Dempsey knocked men unconscious then he then lifted up and carried them to their corner, who did Frazier ko?
> 
> Tunney had 48kos in 65wins he was not a light puncher, he was also not a lhvy when he fought Dempsey and had not been one for some time he scaled just 1/2 a pound less than Dempsey when he took the title from him. Foster never beat a good heavyweight ,and could never put on meaningful weight, he was 21lbs lighter than Frazier when they fought, Frazier had a better chin ? The best puncher he fought used him as a yo yo.
> Sorry your arguments are irrational, no point continuing this.


tunney was a light puncher compared with bob foster, tunney dropped dempsey and foster could not even hurt frazier, frazier was 21 pounds heavier than foster just like he would have been 20 pounds heavier than dempsey as well., foster weighed 185 pounds when he faced frazier and prime dempsey weighed 188 firpo? firpo did put the ass of dempsey out of the ring and he was a bum, the only thing that firpo proved is that dempsey was beatable and overrated like hell, 
george foreman would have raped dempsey like his daddy, so it is irrelevant here. dempsey was effective under the old rules when he did not have to go to the corner after he dropped his rival and he could hit him once and again... the point is the frazier faced much better rivals than dempsey did ,frazier had ali drunk on the ring in 1971, ali had one of the best chins of all time and frazier did beat him and dropped ali with a single shot and probably under the old rules he would have stopped ali, frazier stopped jimmy ellis, busther mathis, bob foster, eddie machen, george chuvalo, he did beat jerry quarry twice, joe bugner, he did beat oscar bonavena , who did beat dempsey? jess willard? firpo? the lhw carpentier? sharkey? the lhw gibbons? he never faced harry wills he wanted no part of a past prime sam langford, a guy like willie wehan did beat him 2 times? bums like jack downey did beat him, he lost by ko against jim flynn...tunney schooled him twice. frazier just lost against 2 of the very best hws ever, foreman and ali... and he did beat ali once... frazier had by far more credentials here, he would kick the ass of the caveman.

(my points are by far more solid than yours)


----------



## On the Money (Jun 10, 2013)

Dempsey was a ferocious come forward brawler who bullied people in his era, not sure that would work against a cagey guy like Frazier. It would be brutal but I favour Frazier.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

Look at styles and their preferred victims. Your answer lies within. And if your answer is not Frazier, you are mistaken.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> tunney was a light puncher compared with bob foster, tunney dropped dempsey and foster could not even hurt frazier, frazier was 21 pounds heavier than foster just like he would have been 20 pounds heavier than dempsey as well., foster weighed 185 pounds when he faced frazier and prime dempsey weighed 188 firpo? firpo did put the ass of dempsey out of the ring and he was a bum, the only thing that firpo proved is that dempsey was beatable and overrated like hell,
> george foreman would have raped dempsey like his daddy, so it is irrelevant here. dempsey was effective under the old rules when he did not have to go to the corner after he dropped his rival and he could hit him once and again... the point is the frazier faced much better rivals than dempsey did ,frazier had ali drunk on the ring in 1971, ali had one of the best chins of all time and frazier did beat him and dropped ali with a single shot and probably under the old rules he would have stopped ali, frazier stopped jimmy ellis, busther mathis, bob foster, eddie machen, george chuvalo, he did beat jerry quarry twice, joe bugner, he did beat oscar bonavena , who did beat dempsey? jess willard? firpo? the lhw carpentier? sharkey? the lhw gibbons? he never faced harry wills he wanted no part of a past prime sam langford, a guy like willie wehan did beat him 2 times? bums like jack downey did beat him, he lost by ko against jim flynn...tunney schooled him twice. frazier just lost against 2 of the very best hws ever, foreman and ali... and he did beat ali once... frazier had by far more credentials here, he would kick the ass of the caveman.
> 
> (my points are by far more solid than yours)


Which heavyweight of any ability did Foster drop?

You need to read up on Dempsey's formative years and compare his being thrown to the wolves at the start of his career ,pressured to take fight against Langford,Smith and Moran when he was a scrawny lhvy, [fights he sensibly refused,]and the fact that he was a teenaged middleweight

when Downey beat him.

Langford was the Coloured heavyweight Champion in 1916 when Dempsey's then manager the ruthless John The Barber Reisler tried to

talk Dempsey into fighting him, that year Langford kod Wills, Clark,Jeannette ,and beat Mcvey twice, he 
was hardly past it.

The bona -fides of Dempsey's "ko " by Fynn are still debated today, his ko of Flynn in the rematch is not.

Meehan a 4 round specialist , beat Dempsey twice over that distance, 6 months later he did the same to Langford.
In comparing power you should bear in mind Dempsey knocked men OUT.

Quarry,Chuvalo, Bonavena ,Mathis,Machen ,Bugner ,Ali, were all on their feet at the end,and Ellis was retired on his stool.Frazier pounded on an old Machen for the best part of 10 rds before the referee halted matters in the last round.
Frazier was a grinder.
Dempsey sparked you.

Compare Dempseys early years when he was sleeping on park benches and subsisting on bar handouts ,with the cosseted start of Frazier, nursed along by Cloverlay, steered clear of the WBA elminating tournament by Durham, and after Bonavena dropped him twice, kept him away from punchers until that fateful day in Kingston.
Delve into Dempsey's origins as a fighter ,and gain some perspective about him.

Until then there isn't much point us continuing this.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Nah I don't think so


----------



## Bil1234 (Jun 11, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Which heavyweight of any ability did Foster drop?
> 
> You need to read up on Dempsey's formative years and compare his being thrown to the wolves at the start of his career ,pressured to take fight against Langford,Smith and Moran when he was a scrawny lhvy, [fights he sensibly refused,]and the fact that he was a teenaged middleweight
> 
> ...


It should be noted that in Dempsey's era he was allowed to stand over oponents who had just been dropped and wind up and hit them with his biggest punches as they litterally just got up. Give Frazier that same chance and he'd have a lot more KOs where the people were counted out, too.

Look at Dempsey's fight with Willard. He stood over Willard and hit him with huge shots as Willard was getting up and after 4 rounds of it Willard was finally stopped on his stool. I can only imagine how hurt Willard would have been if guys like Marciano, Foreman, Tyson, Cooney, Shavers, or Tua were allowed to do that to him...or even Frazier for that matter.

Dempsey is overrated head to head. Watch Frazier's fights with Chuvalo, Quarry, Mathis, Ellis, and Zyglewicz. Then watch Dempsey's fights vs Willard, Firpo, Carpentier, and Sharkey. It's pretty apparent to me that Frazier had the better tools on the inside, the better overall punching abilities, and the overall skill set/attributes needed to defeat Dempsey.


----------



## choklab (Jun 6, 2013)

Bil1234 said:


> It should be noted that in Dempsey's era he was allowed to stand over oponents who had just been dropped and wind up and hit them with his biggest punches as they litterally just got up. Give Frazier that same chance and he'd have a lot more KOs where the people were counted out, too.
> 
> Look at Dempsey's fight with Willard. He stood over Willard and hit him with huge shots as Willard was getting up and after 4 rounds of it Willard was finally stopped on his stool. I can only imagine how hurt Willard would have been if guys like Marciano, Foreman, Tyson, Cooney, Shavers, or Tua were allowed to do that to him...or even Frazier for that matter.
> 
> Dempsey is overrated head to head. Watch Frazier's fights with Chuvalo, Quarry, Mathis, Ellis, and Zyglewicz. Then watch Dempsey's fights vs Willard, Firpo, Carpentier, and Sharkey. It's pretty apparent to me that Frazier had the better tools on the inside, the better overall punching abilities, and the overall skill set/attributes needed to defeat Dempsey.


Frazier was a machine. A great fighter, but so was Dempsey.

Technically I give Dempsey a great chance because he had the faster hands and could hurt Frazier on his way in. His lead right was a pin point finisher and could come straight over the Frazier hook. On the inside Dempsey again has the edge. Frazier was a great inside fighter with two hands free where as Dempsey could really maul within a clinch. Frazier has size on his side and the ability to double up power shots, can grind you down but was largely a rythem fighter. Dempsey was a spurt fighter who worked an opening first before diving in. Frazier was programed like an energizer bunny and could be picked off. Joe stalked and gathered momentum rolling the way he did to direct weight from one foot to the other as much as to avoid being hit. If he had his feet in position Joe would pivot into action regardless of what was coming at him. And that could be suicidal against a tough, fast handed puncher like Dempsey who knew when to strike, when to smother and where to aim after hundreds of fights. Joe could chug all night out of a rhythm, he knew where the other guy was because joes movement often directed his opponent to where he wanted them to be. Thats why joe could fight with bad eyes but nobody can walk through the better punchers. Dempsey was one of the better punchers. He would meet Joe head on, time the attacks and maul away in close. Great great fighters can think on their feet and overcome weight advantages by landing more and using experience.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Bil1234 said:


> It should be noted that in Dempsey's era he was allowed to stand over oponents who had just been dropped and wind up and hit them with his biggest punches as they litterally just got up. Give Frazier that same chance and he'd have a lot more KOs where the people were counted out, too.
> 
> Look at Dempsey's fight with Willard. He stood over Willard and hit him with huge shots as Willard was getting up and after 4 rounds of it Willard was finally stopped on his stool. I can only imagine how hurt Willard would have been if guys like Marciano, Foreman, Tyson, Cooney, Shavers, or Tua were allowed to do that to him...or even Frazier for that matter.
> 
> Dempsey is overrated head to head. Watch Frazier's fights with Chuvalo, Quarry, Mathis, Ellis, and Zyglewicz. Then watch Dempsey's fights vs Willard, Firpo, Carpentier, and Sharkey. It's pretty apparent to me that Frazier had the better tools on the inside, the better overall punching abilities, and the overall skill set/attributes needed to defeat Dempsey.


Dempsey stopped Willard in 3 rds, Jess did not come out for the 4th.
Frazier pounded on Mathis for 11 rounds, he hit Machen with everything, including the kitchen sink.

Stoppages over Stander,Daniels and Ziggy are meaningless and devalue the title.
Frazier was essentially a one handed power puncher and imo his power does not rank with Dempsey's and because Dempsey had two handed power ,his "punching abilities "are superior ,imo.
How does Frazier have more skill than Dempsey? Frazier knew only one way to fight , he never circled an opponent and leapt in , he never regrouped then attacked , he came forward all the time, predictable, and one dimensional .against the only big banger he fought he was cake.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Which heavyweight of any ability did Foster drop?
> 
> You need to read up on Dempsey's formative years and compare his being thrown to the wolves at the start of his career ,pressured to take fight against Langford,Smith and Moran when he was a scrawny lhvy, [fights he sensibly refused,]and the fact that he was a teenaged middleweight
> 
> ...


yes, it is why your opinion is very supported on this thread , you are a master making excuses for every defeatd of dempsey :lol:


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Dempsey stopped Willard in 3 rds, Jess did not come out for the 4th.
> Frazier pounded on Mathis for 11 rounds, he hit Machen with everything, including the kitchen sink.
> 
> .


:rofl jesus you are not very smart.... dempsey did not have to go to the corner after he dropped willard and still he had to hit willard once and again and again and again to stop him... frazier would have looked a killer under these rules . frazier was bigger,stronger, harder puncher, tougher , more skilled, he was better in everything


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Which heavyweight of any ability did Foster drop?
> 
> .


 bob foster was a lhw in the golden era in the hw division, so he faced guys like ali or joe frazier, full sized ALL TIME GREAT hws, dempsey was not even a hw, he weighed 188 pounds, great difference, are you insinuating that tunney did hit as hard as bob foster?


----------



## Bil1234 (Jun 11, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Dempsey stopped Willard in 3 rds, Jess did not come out for the 4th.
> Frazier pounded on Mathis for 11 rounds, he hit Machen with everything, including the kitchen sink.
> 
> Stoppages over Stander,Daniels and Ziggy are meaningless and devalue the title.
> ...


The fact that Willard was stopped on his stool and not counted out does not look favorably on Dempsey, who was allowed to stand over him and repeatedly hit him as he was getting up. If Frazier had been awarded that same opportunity over people he dropped, he'd have many more flatout KOs instead of TKOs/corner retirements.

Frazier is a better puncher than Dempsey because he had shorter, crisper shots. His technique was much better, and he rarely wound up on his shots, unlike Dempsey. He obviously had the ever famous left hook, but he also had very good uppercuts that he very effectively dug in on the inside. His right hand is underrated. He showed just how well he can use it against Quarry. Frazier also used a good, jolting jab to keep guys along the ropes or in the corner so he could unleash his hellish body shots. Frazier's combinations were accurate and brutal. Once he started letting the combinations rip, the person he was fighting almost always ended up hurt.

Frazier most certainly did circle, he most certainly did regroup, and he most certainly did not just plod forward. Frazier was an expert at cutting off the ring and applying fast, educated pressure. His bobbing and weaving made him a constantly moving target that forced those fighting him to work hard at hitting him. He could be hit, but he was tough to hit clean with any consistency.

Frazier showed he could circle, reset, and regroup against the incredibly strong, hard punching, iron jawed George Chuvalo.






Frazier also demonstrated good jabbing and counter punching in the above video.

Frazier fought the hard punching Buster Mathis, George Chuvalo, Oscar Bonavena, Jerry Quarry, and Joe Bugner without being "cake." The only time he got completely destroyed by a hard puncher was by a prime George Foreman, who would steamroll nearly everybody who tried to move in on him and brawl.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> not even a chance... frazier was better in every department except maybe feet speed, he was bigger,more compact, heavier, stronger, more skilled, better body puncher, his bobbing and weaving was better, he had a better left hook than dempsey, more heart,he proved his chin against much greater fighters than dempsey did, not even foreman could stop frazier for the 10 count, no fighter in the history under 200 pounds would beat smokin joe frazier and yes marciano included. frazier would eat dempsey alive.


you really think he was stronger????I doubt that.....his left hook was not better.....he proved his chin again some good fighters.but it also felled him more often.....


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> yes, it is why your opinion is very supported on this thread , you are a master making excuses for every defeatd of dempsey :lol:


They are called facts not excuses, do some research.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Bil1234 said:


> The fact that Willard was stopped on his stool and not counted out does not look favorably on Dempsey, who was allowed to stand over him and repeatedly hit him as he was getting up. If Frazier had been awarded that same opportunity over people he dropped, he'd have many more flatout KOs instead of TKOs/corner retirements.
> 
> Frazier is a better puncher than Dempsey because *he had shorter, crisper shots.* His technique was much better, and he rarely wound up on his shots, unlike Dempsey. He obviously had the ever famous left hook, but he also had very good uppercuts that he very effectively dug in on the inside. His right hand is underrated. He showed just how well he can use it against Quarry. Frazier also used a good, jolting jab to keep guys along the ropes or in the corner so he could unleash his hellish body shots. Frazier's combinations were accurate and brutal. Once he started letting the combinations rip, the person he was fighting almost always ended up hurt.
> 
> ...


Oh I know....Dempsey really won because of low blows...lol...


----------



## Bil1234 (Jun 11, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> Oh I know....Dempsey really won because of low blows...lol...


Absolutely not. Dempsey won fair and square. He was putting on a lot of pressure and was digging into Sharkey. Sharkey, mid action, got the dumb idea to look away and he got knocked out.


----------



## kf3 (Jul 17, 2012)

can dempsy stop him? hell yes. would he? not very often imo, i think the most likely result in this fight(15rds) is frazier pts or stoppage beyond the 10th


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Bil1234 said:


> The fact that Willard was stopped on his stool and not counted out does not look favorably on Dempsey, who was allowed to stand over him and repeatedly hit him as he was getting up. If Frazier had been awarded that same opportunity over people he dropped, he'd have many more flatout KOs instead of TKOs/corner retirements.
> 
> Frazier is a better puncher than Dempsey because he had shorter, crisper shots. His technique was much better, and he rarely wound up on his shots, unlike Dempsey. He obviously had the ever famous left hook, but he also had very good uppercuts that he very effectively dug in on the inside. His right hand is underrated. He showed just how well he can use it against Quarry. Frazier also used a good, jolting jab to keep guys along the ropes or in the corner so he could unleash his hellish body shots. Frazier's combinations were accurate and brutal. Once he started letting the combinations rip, the person he was fighting almost always ended up hurt.
> 
> ...


Dempsey was master at throwing short ko punches ,watch his inside work against Firpo.
Dempsey has it all over Frazier, power two handed ,versatility, foot speed ,and elusiveness, resistance to cuts.
Ali is on record as saying Frazier was easy to hit and his face after his fights with Ali confirms it. Ellis nailed him with right hands so did Foster, but they didnt hit like Dempsey. Why didn't Frazier fight Liston, Lyle, Shavers, Garcia, Norton,Foster? Ever wonder?

Frazier avoided the WBA eliminator and instead fought unrated Mathis ,hard puncher? which rated fighter did Mathis ever ko? He was fed a diet of tomato cans before he faced Frazier .Mathis was unrated and undeserving , just like Ziggy ,Daniels, and Stander.
Frazier did get completely destroyed by Foreman ,who was the only real hitter he faced.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Bil1234 said:


> Absolutely not. Dempsey won fair and square. He was putting on a lot of pressure and was digging into Sharkey. Sharkey, mid action, got the dumb idea to look away and he got knocked out.


yes I agree..I was being a bit sarcastic with that.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> you really think he was stronger????I doubt that.....his left hook was not better.....he proved his chin again some good fighters.but it also felled him more often.....


oh yes, he was stronger for sure, frazier simply smashed guys who weighed under 200 pounds, and yes his left hook was much better to the face and to the body,more accurate and probably harder too, no question about here, and his chin was by far more proved. george foreman is irrelevant here because he would have killed dempsey in 2 rounds too.


----------



## Bil1234 (Jun 11, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Dempsey was master at throwing short ko punches ,watch his inside work against Firpo.
> Dempsey has it all over Frazier, power two handed ,versatility, foot speed ,and elusiveness, resistance to cuts.
> Ali is on record as saying Frazier was easy to hit and his face after his fights with Ali confirms it. Ellis nailed him with right hands so did Foster, but they didnt hit like Dempsey. Why didn't Frazier fight Liston, Lyle, Shavers, Garcia, Norton,Foster? Ever wonder?
> 
> ...


Frazier avoided noone. He was fearless. What his management did was get him to the title ASAP. Lyle and Shavers didn't make it to the top until after Frazier already lost his title and had pretty much stopped fighting, barring his rematches with Ali and Foreman in the mid 1970s. Norton was Frazier's top sparring partner for years and the two became good friends. The two had no interest in fighting eachother.

Being easy to hit and being easy to hit clean are two entirely separate things. Guys like Marciano, Tyson, Frazier, and even Dempsey were hittable. Tagging them with a punch wasn't the difficult part. The difficult part was hitting them with a solid shot. The only way, besides having a good chin, fighters of their ilk are able to be successful is to move in without taking too much damage. They might get caught with the occasional hard punch, but it was difficult for those facing them to capitalize on it and land more. This is because of the headmovement.

Saying Foreman is the only real puncher Frazier faced is just flatout not true. Writing off Quarry, Mathis, Chuvalo, and Bugner as not being hard punchers just because they weren't in the same power league as Foreman, Shavers, Liston, Tua, etc is just foolish.



Johnstown said:


> yes I agree..I was being a bit sarcastic with that.


Sorry, I am terrible at juding sarcasm when reading.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> oh yes, he was stronger for sure, frazier simply smashed guys who weighed under 200 pounds, and yes his left hook was much better to the face and to the body,more accurate and probably harder too, no question about here, and his chin was by far more proved. george foreman is irrelevant here because he would have killed dempsey in 2 rounds too.


stronger and punching power is too different things...for example Ali didn't have great punching power but was very strong...Tyson in spite of his punching power and stocky build could be shoved around.

power wise...I think the left hooks are close...I think Dempsey defintly has a harder right hand..but that might all be trumped by Frazier's higher activity...

but as far as who would be stronger in the clinch? I think Dempsey would be....guy would do dozens of pull ups.....wrestled in training camp....frazier was pretty easy to push back...

might not matter though if Frazier just keeps getting in his chest and throwing away....but I just think Dempsey was definitely "stronger".


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Bil1234 said:


> Frazier avoided noone. He was fearless. What his management did was get him to the title ASAP. Lyle and Shavers didn't make it to the top until after Frazier already lost his title and had pretty much stopped fighting, barring his rematches with Ali and Foreman in the mid 1970s. Norton was Frazier's top sparring partner for years and the two became good friends. The two had no interest in fighting eachother.
> 
> Being easy to hit and being easy to hit clean are two entirely separate things. Guys like Marciano, Tyson, Frazier, and even Dempsey were hittable. Tagging them with a punch wasn't the difficult part. The difficult part was hitting them with a solid shot. The only way, besides having a good chin, fighters of their ilk are able to be successful is to move in without taking too much damage. They might get caught with the occasional hard punch, but it was difficult for those facing them to capitalize on it and land more. This is because of the headmovement.
> 
> ...


charlie goldman said that bonavena did hit harder than marciano... and saying that frazier avoided lyle,shavers.. is just laughable because this guy faced foreman twice, george was the stylistical nightmare of frazier... so if he avoided lyle or shavers... why he fought foreman twice? ridiculous...


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> stronger and punching power is too different things...for example Ali didn't have great punching power but was very strong...Tyson in spite of his punching power and stocky build could be shoved around.
> 
> power wise...I think the left hooks are close...I think Dempsey defintly has a harder right hand..but that might all be trumped by Frazier's higher activity...
> 
> ...


i know perfectly that strength and hitting power are different things, AND I TOLD YOU THAT FRAZIER WAS THE STRoNGER MAN HERE. frazier looked pretty strong against anyone not called george foreman, ali looked the weaker man vs frazier in 1971 and like you said , ali was a very strong man(and his hitting power is underrated). frazier looked strong even against bulls like bonavena and chuvalo_(both men stronger than dempsey for sure)


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> i know perfectly that strength and hitting power are different things, AND I TOLD YOU THAT FRAZIER WAS THE STRoNGER MAN HERE. frazier looked pretty strong against anyone not called george foreman, ali looked the weaker man vs frazier in 1971 and like you said , ali was a very strong man(and his hitting power is underrated). frazier looked strong even against bulls like bonavena and chuvalo_(both men stronger than dempsey for sure)


"stronger than Dempsey for sure"....come on...everyone on here is guessing..you don't really know that at all....


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Frazier always looked a bit pudgy to me to be honest....not that that means a whole lot...but I don't know that I look at him and see him as "being stronger" because of the fact that he has a extra layer of fat on him...


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> Frazier always looked a bit pudgy to me to be honest....not that that means a whole lot...but I don't know that I look at him and see him as "being stronger" because of the fact that he has a extra layer of fat on him...


frazier had absolutely no fat at 205-209 pounds foster-ellis- ali


















frazier was clearly a big boned guy, more compact and stronger than dempsey


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

jesus tyson looked a pig here


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Bil1234 said:


> Frazier avoided noone. He was fearless. What his management did was get him to the title ASAP. Lyle and Shavers didn't make it to the top until after Frazier already lost his title and had pretty much stopped fighting, barring his rematches with Ali and Foreman in the mid 1970s. Norton was Frazier's top sparring partner for years and the two became good friends. The two had no interest in fighting eachother.
> 
> Being easy to hit and being easy to hit clean are two entirely separate things. Guys like Marciano, Tyson, Frazier, and even Dempsey were hittable. Tagging them with a punch wasn't the difficult part. The difficult part was hitting them with a solid shot. The only way, besides having a good chin, fighters of their ilk are able to be successful is to move in without taking too much damage. They might get caught with the occasional hard punch, but it was difficult for those facing them to capitalize on it and land more. This is because of the headmovement.
> 
> ...


The only real puncher Frazier fought was Foreman that is a fact.
To state that Frazier would have had more kos if he was allowed to stand over his opponents presupposes that he would be capable of flooring them.
Besides which the premise falls down because many of his contemporaries managed better figures as far as count outs are concerned.Frazier kod just 8 men,Quarry14,Machen17,Chuvalo34 Bonavena,23.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> frazier had absolutely no fat at 205-209 pounds foster-ellis- ali
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> charlie goldman said that bonavena did hit harder than marciano... and saying that frazier avoided lyle,shavers.. is just laughable because this guy faced foreman twice, george was the stylistical nightmare of frazier... so if he avoided lyle or shavers... why he fought foreman twice? ridiculous...


Frazier took on Foreman because his camp perceived George as being too green and short of his peak,and they did not want to put him back in with an Ali would had fought the rust off.
Frazier had won the FOTC but ended up in hospital.

Joe fought George the second time because George held the NABF title,and Joe had been convincingly stopped by Ali in his previous fight ,there was nowhere else for him to go, unless he fought another big puncher like Lyle or Shavers who held out as much risk but significantly smaller reward.

If you seriously think Bonavena was even on the same planet as Marciano for power I've wasted a lot of time.


----------



## jorodz (Sep 14, 2012)

has anyone made the obligatory "he won't fight frazier cause he's black" joke?


----------



## Bil1234 (Jun 11, 2013)

Cormac said:


> The only real puncher Frazier fought was Foreman that is a fact.
> To state that Frazier would have had more kos if he was allowed to stand over his opponents presupposes that he would be capable of flooring them.
> Besides which the premise falls down because many of his contemporaries managed better figures as far as count outs are concerned.Frazier kod just 8 men,Quarry14,Machen17,Chuvalo34 Bonavena,23.


 Considering the fact that he dropped most of the people he stopped, I am quite confident that Frazier would indeed have more flatout KOs. It should also be noted that Quarry, Machen, Chuvalo, and Bonavena all had more fights than Joe and fought many who weren't near the calibre of people Joe was in with.

Frazier fought many durable fighters who were very difficult to stop, let alone get a clean KO over.
Jerry Quarry, Eddie Machen, George Chuvalo, Oscar Bonavena, Muhmmad Ali and Jimmy Ellis were all durable fighters. Joe managed to drop or stop all of them.

Chuvalo, while he did not go down, was never dropped in his entire career.
Quarry was famous for his toughness.
Bonavena was a bull who was as tough as they come.
Jimmy Ellis was slick yet durable. Only stopped 4 times, twice by Frazier, once by Shavers, and once by Ali.
Ali's chin and durability speaks for itself.
Machen was stopped just 3 times, by Frazier, Johannson, and in his last fight. He fought a numerous hard punchers and at the very least made it the distance with nearly all of them.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Bil1234 said:


> Considering the fact that he dropped most of the people he stopped, I am quite confident that Frazier would indeed have more flatout KOs. It should also be noted that Quarry, Machen, Chuvalo, and Bonavena all had more fights than Joe and fought many who weren't near the calibre of people Joe was in with.
> 
> Frazier fought many durable fighters who were very difficult to stop, let alone get a clean KO over.
> Jerry Quarry, Eddie Machen, George Chuvalo, Oscar Bonavena, Muhmmad Ali and Jimmy Ellis were all durable fighters. Joe managed to drop or stop all of them.
> ...


Machen had no legs for the second half of the Frazier fight, Joe punches him almost at will yet cannot stop him until the last minute of the fight ,whenthe ref steps in with Machen on his feet. Ellis was not particularly durable, he was dropped by Ruben Carter.
Quarry was stopped twice by Ali , who also kod Bonavena which Frazier could not do in two tries, nor even floor him.

Interesting debating with you.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Frazier took on Foreman because his camp perceived George as being too green and short of his peak,and they did not want to put him back in with an Ali would had fought the rust off.
> Frazier had won the FOTC but ended up in hospital.
> 
> Joe fought George the second time because George held the NABF title,and Joe had been convincingly stopped by Ali in his previous fight ,there was nowhere else for him to go, unless he fought another big puncher like Lyle or Shavers who held out as much risk but significantly smaller reward.
> ...


 you are the master making excuces.
sorry my boy, but i will listen charlie goldman , he knew bonavena and rocky more than you could know about them ever


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

by cormac
On what do you base this assertion that Frazier was stronger than Dempsey, a photo? *Frazier failed abysmally at weightlifting when he was in the superstars*,Dempsey picked up 210lbs Firpo like he was a pillow.

o jesus the worst argument ever... this show was in 1973 and we are not talking about weightlifting , we are talking about functional physical strength in a ring of boxing, tyson could bench much more weight than ali for sure, but ali had more functional physical strength in the ring, i will not spend my time with you anymore :lol:


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

jorodz said:


> has anyone made the obligatory "he won't fight frazier cause he's black" joke?


:lol:

Well, to be fair, he probably wouldn't.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> you are the master making excuces.
> sorry my boy, but i will listen charlie goldman , he knew bonavena and rocky more than you could know about them ever


If it makes you happy, go with it.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> by cormac
> On what do you base this assertion that Frazier was stronger than Dempsey, a photo? *Frazier failed abysmally at weightlifting when he was in the superstars*,Dempsey picked up 210lbs Firpo like he was a pillow.
> 
> o jesus the worst argument ever... this show was in 1973 and we are not talking about weightlifting , we are talking about functional physical strength in a ring of boxing, tyson could bench much more weight than ali for sure, but ali had more functional physical strength in the ring, i will not spend my time with you anymore :lol:


 Well, that's a relief.
:happy


----------



## Bil1234 (Jun 11, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Machen had no legs for the second half of the Frazier fight, Joe punches him almost at will yet cannot stop him until the last minute of the fight ,whenthe ref steps in with Machen on his feet. Ellis was not particularly durable, he was dropped by Ruben Carter.
> Quarry was stopped twice by Ali , who also kod Bonavena which Frazier could not do in two tries, nor even floor him.
> 
> Interesting debating with you.


Ellis was indeed dropped by Carter, but it was a flash knockdown, which is shown at 17:45 of the below. It was the result more of Ellis losing his footing than being actually knocked to the ground by a punch. Carter was also a very powerful middleweight who hit like a mule could kick.






Ellis proved to be plenty durable at heavyweight later on by fighting hard punchers such as Bonavena, Lyle, Chuvalo, and Bugner. Frazier stopped Ellis quicker than anyone outside of the enormous punching Earnie Shavers, who caught Ellis clean with his hardest uppercut.

Quarry was stopped once by Ali on cuts and the second time not so much from him being hurt but more from him being hopelessly outclassed and saved from taking punches that weren't needed.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Bil1234 said:


> Ellis was indeed dropped by Carter, but it was a flash knockdown, which is shown at 17:45 of the below. It was the result more of Ellis losing his footing than being actually knocked to the ground by a punch. Carter was also a very powerful middleweight who hit like a mule could kick.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wouldnt call either Chuvalo or Bugner punchers,certainly not at top level. Shavers sparked Ellis, something that Frazier did not do in two tries.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> frazier had absolutely no fat at 205-209 pounds foster-ellis- ali
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ehhhh I can play the same fucking game...you get a pic of Frazier fighting..where all his muscles are flexed..and put it next to about the worse picture of Dempsey one can find...most likely when he was older and just starting training camp for a fight....























































again it doesn't mean much...but hey why not....


----------



## Bil1234 (Jun 11, 2013)

Cormac said:


> I wouldnt call either Chuvalo or Bugner punchers,certainly not at top level. Shavers sparked Ellis, something that Frazier did not do in two tries.


Chuvalo and Bugner weren't huge punchers, but they both did have power. You didn't want them connecting clean with any regularity or you'd get hurt.

Shavers was also the hardest puncher of all time and hit Ellis square on the button with a huge uppercut. Ellis still attempted to get up but his legs failed him.

The bell saved Ellis from being cleanly KOd in the first fight with Frazier.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Bil1234 said:


> Chuvalo and Bugner weren't huge punchers, but they both did have power. You didn't want them connecting clean with any regularity or you'd get hurt.
> 
> Shavers was also the hardest puncher of all time and hit Ellis square on the button with a huge uppercut. Ellis still attempted to get up but his legs failed him.
> 
> The bell saved Ellis from being cleanly KOd in the first fight with Frazier.


You and I are never going to agree on who has the greater power, so let us agree to differ.

I leave you with one question ,if Frazier hit harder than Dempsey how come NO list of any credence ranks him above Dempsey in ko power? The Ring for example, has Dempsey at no 7 Frazier at 39. The Ring Almanac has Dempsey at no 6 ,and Frazier outside the top 20 what are they missing that you have spotted?


----------



## Bil1234 (Jun 11, 2013)

Cormac said:


> You and I are never going to agree on who has the greater power, so let us agree to differ.
> 
> I leave you with one question ,if Frazier hit harder than Dempsey how come NO list of any credence ranks him above Dempsey in ko power? The Ring for example, has Dempsey at no 7 Frazier at 39. The Ring Almanac has Dempsey at no 6 ,and Frazier outside the top 20 what are they missing that you have spotted?


Fair enough on agreeing to disagree.

I don't think that Frazier hit harder than Dempsey, but I do think that if Frazier was awarded the same luxury of standing over downed fighters and allowed to load up and clock them with his biggest shots just as they were getting up that he'd have many more flatout KOs. I also think that if he had fought much of the same competition that Dempsey did that he'd have many more flatout KOs.

I've always felt Dempsey was overrated both in his all time standing and in his head to head abilities.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> Ehhhh I can play the same fucking game...you get a pic of Frazier fighting..where all his muscles are flexed..and put it next to about the worse picture of Dempsey one can find...most likely when he was older and just starting training camp for a fight....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


your point is?.... frazer is still bigger,heavier and stronger... dones not matter the image that you pick prime vs prime...


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Bil1234 said:


> Fair enough on agreeing to disagree.
> 
> I don't think that Frazier hit harder than Dempsey, but I do think that if Frazier was awarded the same luxury of standing over downed fighters and allowed to load up and clock them with his biggest shots just as they were getting up that he'd have many more flatout KOs. I also think that if he had fought much of the same competition that Dempsey did that he'd have many more flatout KOs.
> 
> *I've always felt Dempsey was overrated both in his all time standing and in his head to head abilitie*s.


me too, and yes i think that frazier did hit harder


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Frazier by decision in a war, Dempsey would rock him quite few times though and it would really be close, think Quarry-Frazier but more competitive


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> me too, and yes i think that frazier did hit harder


You also think" Larry Holmes is way overated," so I don't think we need to worry too much about you.


----------



## Rattler (May 16, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Or no? How do you see it playing out?


Frazier - TKO - 5

Dempsey made a career or beating up bit, tall, stand up straight guys who didn't move and certainly didn't bob and weave. Jack would've wondered if he was fighting a wizard with what Frazier was doing, trying hard not to be mesmerized by Frazier... no, really, Frazier would systematically beat down Dempsey, eating shots that would not find an easy mark because Dempsey's marks were always stationary. He never fought a tough motherfucker like Frazier who ate punishment like breakfast and never stopped moving forward. After the initial Dempsey blitz, that I trust Frazier would weather, he'd do what he always did - wear Jack down, break his body and not stop until he was done. Dempsey had no defense. Joe's left hooks would consistently find his temple and frustrate Dempsey to no end. Then he'd get sloppy and Frazier would catch him with one too many and Dempsey is done.


----------



## Rattler (May 16, 2013)

Don't look for a decision victory by either man.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Rattler said:


> Frazier - TKO - 5
> 
> Dempsey made a career or beating up bit, tall, stand up straight guys who didn't move and certainly didn't bob and weave. Jack would've wondered if he was fighting a wizard with what Frazier was doing, trying hard not to be mesmerized by Frazier... no, really, Frazier would systematically beat down Dempsey, eating shots that would not find an easy mark because Dempsey's marks were always stationary. He never fought a tough motherfucker like Frazier who ate punishment like breakfast and never stopped moving forward. After the initial Dempsey blitz, that I trust Frazier would weather, he'd do what he always did - wear Jack down, break his body and not stop until he was done. Dempsey had no defense. Joe's left hooks would consistently find his temple and frustrate Dempsey to no end. Then he'd get sloppy and Frazier would catch him with one too many and Dempsey is done.


Funny how with no defence he has only one debatable ko against him,and both Tunney, and Gibbons said he was hard to catch.:huh


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> your point is?.... frazer is still bigger,heavier and stronger... dones not matter the image that you pick prime vs prime...


he wasn't even stronger than fucking skiers...






slow as a zombie as well....






I am kind of just trolling...but really....a 13 second 100 YARD dash is pretty fucking horrible....having said that....we don't really know who was "stronger" in that ring.....but you will of course keep on claiming you do...


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> your point is?.... frazer is still  bigger,heavier and stronger... dones not matter the image that you pick prime vs prime...


Bigger..hmmmmm depends on how you define that....



















anyhow on a serious note...Frazier did generally fight about 20 pounds heavier..he also looks like he usually had a good 10 more pounds of fat on him.....I guess you can say he was "bigger" although it wasn't by much. anyhow...I just love how you go and find the worst possible picture of Dempsey in existence....than when I show some regular photos of Frazier...in which he looks pudgy as all fuck...you say "your point is?..."

*my point is you are a joke :lol:*


----------



## Rattler (May 16, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Funny how with no defence he has only one debatable ko against him,and both Tunney, and Gibbons said he was hard to catch.:huh


How good was George Chuvalo's defense? He was never knocked down... he must be the greatest defensive fighter in the history of the sport... two guys say it, in a career that spans well beyond two guys. That's not definitive proof.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> he wasn't even stronger than fucking skiers...
> slow as a zombie as well....
> I am kind of just trolling...but really....a 13 second 100 YARD dash is pretty fucking horrible....having said that....we don't really know who was "stronger" in that ring.....but you will of course keep on claiming you do...


Frazier was pretty lucky arm power is 100% useless when throwing a hook.

Also how was his 30 yard dash?
That's a better indicator for explosiveness, being fast in a 30 yard dash lets you do funny Tua like leaping left hooks.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Frazier was pretty lucky arm power is 100% useless when throwing a hook.
> 
> Also how was his 30 yard dash?
> That's a better indicator for explosiveness, being fast in a 30 yard dash lets you do funny Tua like leaping left hooks.


well the shoulder comes into a hook....but you know its lifting..the other guys likely lifted...frazier never did.

I do think that 100 yards is pretty bad though......of course..no one is sprinting in the ring.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Rattler said:


> Frazier - TKO - 5
> 
> Dempsey made a career or beating up bit, tall, stand up straight guys who didn't move and certainly didn't bob and weave. Jack would've wondered if he was fighting a wizard with what Frazier was doing, trying hard not to be mesmerized by Frazier... no, really, Frazier would systematically beat down Dempsey, eating shots that would not find an easy mark because Dempsey's marks were always stationary. He never fought a tough motherfucker like Frazier who ate punishment like breakfast and never stopped moving forward. After the initial Dempsey blitz, that I trust Frazier would weather, he'd do what he always did - wear Jack down, break his body and not stop until he was done. Dempsey had no defense. Joe's left hooks would consistently find his temple and frustrate Dempsey to no end. Then he'd get sloppy and Frazier would catch him with one too many and Dempsey is done.


Where do you get this impression from, 3rds against Willard?
Dempsey beat bobbers and weavers like Miske, stylish boxers like Gibbons ,quick in and out boxers like Levinsky,boxfighters like Brennan.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> Bigger..hmmmmm depends on how you define that....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

He's not entirely a joke,Frazier did have bigger legs.:yep


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Rattler said:


> How good was George Chuvalo's defense? He was never knocked down... he must be the greatest defensive fighter in the history of the sport... two guys say it, in a career that spans well beyond two guys. That's not definitive proof.


 I'd say the opinion of two men who actually fought Dempsey and saw him fight in the flesh,[and Tunney made a career out of studying Dempsey,] is more definitive proof than the opinion of a man who did not [you].

To state categorically that Dempsey had no defence,does not inform us about Dempsey, but it says a hell of a lot about you,imo.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Cormac said:


> He's not entirely a joke,Frazier did have bigger legs.:yep


yeah he had bigger thighs....although smaller calves.....thighs do matter for power..but of course..how much of that frazier thigh size was muscle and how much was some fat...


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Where do you get this impression from, 3rds against Willard?
> Dempsey beat bobbers and weavers like Miske, stylish boxers like Gibbons ,quick in and out boxers like Levinsky,boxfighters like Brennan.


I don't really think he "beat" Levinsky...but Dempsey did fine even though he was retired...he actually did fight him a bit different...maybe due to his being older...back problems....whatever, he actually used more of a shoulder roll defense with Levinsky.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> yeah he had bigger thighs....although smaller calves.....thighs do matter for power..but of course..how much of that frazier thigh size was muscle and how much was some fat...


Frazier was a fat-boy who originally went to the PAL gym to lose flab.Dempsey has it al over him in upper body dimensions, not that this indicates power/strength, it just illustrates, Heavy Hands is talking through his rectum.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> I don't really think he "beat" Levinsky...but Dempsey did fine even though he was retired...he actually did fight him a bit different...maybe due to his being older...back problems....whatever, he actually used more of a shoulder roll defense with Levinsky.


J ,I was referring to Battling Levinsky whom Dempsey became the first man to stop when he kod him in 1918, not The King Fish who embarrassed him when he made his abortive come-back/exhibition.

1918-11-06Battling Levinsky*37*-*6*-*10*

Olympia A.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USAWKO36
Levinsky estimated he had about 250 bouts to this point, including about 60 under name Barney Williams. He also claimed that although he had been knocked down about 25 times, he had never taken a ten-count prior to this bout. It was Dempsey's right to the jaw that knocked him out. Result as given in the _Philadelphia Public Ledger_ (Paul Zabala)and the _Philadelphia Record_ (Jack Kincaid).
 


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Frazier was a fat-boy who originally went to the PAL gym to lose flab.Dempsey has it al over him in upper body dimensions, not that this indicates power/strength, it just illustrates, Heavy Hands is talking through his rectum.


I like how he posted that first set of pictures, one of frazier and one of Dempsey. He found, literally the worse picture of Dempsey you can find (I am assuming he was just starting a training camp) and he found one of frazier in the middle of throwing a punch, where he had sweat on him and all his muscles are flexing due to the punch.

so I come back and post a few others of Dempsey and some of Frazier...and he instantly goes to the "pictures don't matter" position.

So yeah he is pretty fucking full of shit.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Cormac said:


> J ,I was referring to Battling Levinsky whom Dempsey became the first man to stop when he kod him in 1918, not The King Fish who embarrassed him when he made his abortive come-back/exhibition.
> 
> 1918-11-06Battling Levinsky*37*-*6*-*10*
> 
> ...


well king got the better of him but Dempsey held up ok for being so far out of his prime.... 




but ok....and yeah Battling was by all reports a hell of a fighter.


----------



## Rattler (May 16, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Where do you get this impression from, 3rds against Willard?
> Dempsey beat bobbers and weavers like Miske, stylish boxers like Gibbons ,quick in and out boxers like Levinsky,boxfighters like Brennan.


Yes, he fought and beat all kinds of fighters... but none of them were as good as Frazier, as consistent as Frazier nor as well-trained as Frazier. Frazier is a relentless freak, who only lost tightness in his technique when he was exhausted and beaten up, and it took a good amount of time for that to happen. Since I don't see the fight going beyond five, I don't see Frazier getting tired. Dempsey's defense was his offense and Frazier won't stay out of range enough for Dempsey's patented duck and bull offense to be effective the way it was against inferior fighters.


----------



## Rattler (May 16, 2013)

Cormac said:


> I'd say the opinion of two men who actually fought Dempsey and saw him fight in the flesh,[and Tunney made a career out of studying Dempsey,] is more definitive proof than the opinion of a man who did not [you].
> 
> To state categorically that Dempsey had no defence,does not inform us about Dempsey, but it says a hell of a lot about you,imo.


No, it says that you think he put effort into his defense; I say it says that the effort he put anything into was his offense, and because he was a superior athlete (in quickness and flexibility) to most of his opposition, he was hard to hit because he was always on the offensive.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Rattler said:


> Yes, he fought and beat all kinds of fighters... but none of them were as good as Frazier, as consistent as Frazier nor as well-trained as Frazier. Frazier is a relentless freak, who only lost tightness in his technique when he was exhausted and beaten up, and it took a good amount of time for that to happen. Since I don't see the fight going beyond five, I don't see Frazier getting tired. *Dempsey's defense was his offense* and Frazier won't stay out of range enough for Dempsey's patented duck and bull offense to be effective the way it was against inferior fighters.


that "defense was his offense" statement is more true of frazier than Dempsey.....have you honestly watched Dempsey fights? like more than just the second half of the first round of Willard Dempsey?

I am being serious, because allot of folks haven't...


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Rattler said:


> No, it says that you think he put effort into his defense; I say it says that the effort he put anything into was his offense, and because he was a superior athlete (in quickness and flexibility) to most of his opposition, he was hard to hit because he was always on the offensive.


so when he bobbed and weaved...that wasn't "defense" just quickness and flexibility...and when he slipped...and when blocked...and when he shoulder rolled punches..none of that was defense?


----------



## Rattler (May 16, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> so when he bobbed and weaved...that wasn't "defense" just quickness and flexibility...and when he slipped...and when blocked...and when he shoulder rolled punches..none of that was defense?


A conscious effort to avoid punches or a means by which to increase his opportunities on offense... defense is making a concerted effort to not get hit while or not while inflicting an offensive attack on the opponent. I don't belive that what Dempsey did was defense, a concerted effort towards it, it was a byproduct of his offensive attitude in the ring.

"The best defense is a good offense" - Jack Dempsey


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Rattler said:


> No, it says that you think he put effort into his defense; I say it says that the effort he put anything into was his offense, and because he was a superior athlete (in quickness and flexibility) to most of his opposition, he was hard to hit because he was always on the offensive.


Dempsey fought more quick guys than you could count, fast as he was there must have been quite few times his speed was not on a par with his opponents.
Tunney is on record as stating Dempsey was hard to catch on the chin with the right hand.

If you want the template for , "his defence is his offence" , look no farther than Frazier. Frazier was always on the offensive , but he was not hard to hit.

Ali found him time and again, the punch that Ali could not land consistantly on Frazier in their first fight was the follow up right cross,after tagging him with the jab. Then again nearly 4 years of ring rust will not improve your timing.
Ali caught Frazier with the right in their second and third encounters, because,imo he had had frequent ring action under his belt and timed Frazier rythmn better.

Dempsey pracitsed that bob and weave incessantly it's extremely hard to excecute efficiently ,I know because I tried it when I was much younger.
Watch the sparring with Tate and see how Dempsey ducksans weaves under the leads and then counters, he was no one- dimensional swarmer.
I've no problem with anyone picking Frazier in this matchup , just with some of their reasons.


----------



## Rattler (May 16, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Dempsey fought more quick guys than you could count, fast as he was there must have been quite few times his speed was not on a par with his opponents.
> Tunney is on record as stating Dempsey was hard to catch on the chin with the right hand.
> 
> If you want the template for , "his defence is his offence" , look no farther than Frazier. Frazier was always on the offensive , but he was not hard to hit.
> ...


Dempsey was a well-versed offensive fighter. Frazier would get tagged a lot. It would be a bleeder and thudding affair. I think of Frazier in Manila, when he was past it and still able to batter Ali says to me that a peak Frazier could withstand the onslaught of Dempsey - I don't know that Dempsey would sustain the same way - because it's not going to be a feeling out affair, it's going to get nasty fast. I trust the Frazier, in that environment can keep laying in those hooks and slow down Dempsey. I don't know that Dempsey, in that environment, can do what Frazier did against Ali. I believe it's going to be like that Manila fight, only one man won't stay in there into the championship rounds. My pick is Dempsey to go down... which means nothing, since this is a purely subjective excersize in the first place.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Rattler said:


> Dempsey was a well-versed offensive fighter. Frazier would get tagged a lot. It would be a bleeder and thudding affair. I think of Frazier in Manila, when he was past it and still able to batter Ali says to me that a peak Frazier could withstand the onslaught of Dempsey - I don't know that Dempsey would sustain the same way - because it's not going to be a feeling out affair, it's going to get nasty fast. I trust the Frazier, in that environment can keep laying in those hooks and slow down Dempsey. I don't know that Dempsey, in that environment, can do what Frazier did against Ali. I believe it's going to be like that Manila fight, only one man won't stay in there into the championship rounds. My pick is Dempsey to go down... which means nothing, since this is a purely subjective excersize in the first place.


 Not so, if I give an opinion I expect it to become the established given for the future.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Is a very interesting fight. It's the tipping point. I don't think Frazier can be beaten without being stopped. I'm not sure that Dempsey can stop him.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> You also think" Larry Holmes is way overated," so I don't think we need to worry too much about you.


oh yes, larry holmes is overrated h2h and legacy too,he avoided thomas, page, tubbs, he never fought a rematch with spoon, i never saw in him a dominant champion like ali,tyson,foreman... he struggled with several average guys and he lost his title against a lhw. he could not stop guys like trevor berbick, and i could not care less about your opinion :lol:


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Rattler said:


> A conscious effort to avoid punches or a means by which to increase his opportunities on offense... defense is making a concerted effort to not get hit while or not while inflicting an offensive attack on the opponent. I don't belive that what Dempsey did was defense, a concerted effort towards it, it was a byproduct of his offensive attitude in the ring.
> 
> "The best defense is a good offense" - Jack Dempsey


there use to be some gifs on esb of Dempsey weaving away from punches..can't find it though...

as for the quote...I think its pretty fucking clear that Joe Frazier fought using the same principle....


----------



## Setanta (May 24, 2013)

Seamus said:


> No. A great part of Dempsey's mystique is built on deflating giant dirigibles... Fulton, Willard, Firpo... Smaller fellers did better. The only guy who was even close to Frazier in style and equal in excellence was Langford. Dempsey didn't even want to get in the same room with a shot version of Sam.
> 
> Frazier wins 10 out of 10... all by KO.


Even Manila Frazier ?


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> oh yes, larry holmes is overrated h2h and legacy too,he avoided thomas, page, tubbs, he never fought a rematch with spoon, i never saw in him a dominant champion like ali,tyson,foreman... he struggled with several average guys and he lost his title against a lhw. he could not stop guys like trevor berbick, and i could not care less about your opinion :lol:




Ditto. in fact the only time I would worry about your opinion is if you agreed with me, that would automatically tell me I was wrong.atsch


----------



## Arka (Jul 25, 2012)

Johnstown said:


> there use to be some gifs on esb of Dempsey weaving away from punches..can't find it though...


From this video? Shows some decent head movement here.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Seamus said:


> No. A great part of Dempsey's mystique is built on deflating giant dirigibles... Fulton, Willard, Firpo... Smaller fellers did better. The only guy who was even close to Frazier in style and equal in excellence was Langford. Dempsey didn't even want to get in the same room with a shot version of Sam.
> 
> Frazier wins 10 out of 10... all by KO.


Dempsey was pressured to fight with Langford in early of 1916.Langford was the Coloured Champion at the time and kod Wills,Jeannette, and Clark that year as well as beating McVey 2 out of 2.
By 1917 Langford was slipping, he lost his Coloured title to Bill Tate, Dempsey's sparring partner, lost to Wills and was dropped and stopped by Fulton who ,less than a year later could not manage more than 23seconds with Dempsey, but would go on beat Langford again, 5 months after Dempsey destroyed him.

Langford lost to Wills on the same day that Dempsey butchered Willard, and then pretty often lost to the better fighters he met.
Drawing with a debuting Godfrey in 1920 ,[another Dempsey sparring partner,] and losing to13-7-8 Lee Anderson,and15-7-8 Jack Thompson the same year,he also lost to Tate again.

He was not a top fighter anymore, why on earth would Dempsey fight him? 
For Dempsey to have fought Langford during his title reign would have made no sense, since Langford was losing to Dempsey's sparring partners and victims, it would not even have been a " big risk ,little reward ,"scenario ,[Frazier v Liston who at least was on an unbeaten run when Joe was champ ], it would have been small risk zero reward.
Dempsey takes out Langford as Wills and Fulton had done = verdict,"Well old Sam was done anyway, it proves nothing"
Dempsey beats Sam, either by dec or by late stoppage.= verdict "Jeez ,Dempsey couldn't even do what Fulton did, maybe he isnt so hot after all".
I don't think you really believe what you posted, but that you wanted a reaction , well you succeeded.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Dempsey was pressured to fight with Langford in early of 1916.Langford was the Coloured Champion at the time and kod Wills,Jeannette, and Clark that year as well as beating McVey 2 out of 2.
> By 1917 Langford was slipping, he lost his Coloured title to Bill Tate, Dempsey's sparring partner, lost to Wills and was dropped and stopped by Fulton who ,less than a year later could not manage more than 23seconds with Dempsey, but would go on beat Langford again, 5 months after Dempsey destroyed him.
> 
> Langford lost to Wills on the same day that Dempsey butchered Willard, and then pretty often lost to the better fighters he met.
> ...


jesus what a parrot... you spend your complete life trying to convince anyone with your own opinion.

joe frazier would beat dempsey always... why? because he was bigger, 20 pounds heavier peak vs peak, he was stronger, more skilled, better body puncher, he had a better left hook, he had better bobbing and weaving ,he was more modern, he was tested against much greater fighters than dempsey. and no 188 pounder would beat joe frazier, joe simply smashed all them, period, if you disagree who cares?


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> jesus what a parrot... you spend your complete life trying to convince anyone with your own opinion.
> 
> joe frazier would beat dempsey always... why? because he was bigger, 20 pounds heavier peak vs peak, he was stronger, more skilled, better body puncher, he had a better left hook, he had better bobbing and weaving ,he was more modern, he was tested against much greater fighters than dempsey. and no 188 pounder would beat joe frazier, joe simply smashed all them, period, if you disagree who cares?


well since you said it it must be true :lol:


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> well since you said it it must be true :lol:


if you are happy thinking in the fantasy world.. ok... dempsey would win by ko, he did beat the giant willard, he would beat anyone,:lol:


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> if you are happy thinking in the fantasy world.. ok... dempsey would win by ko, he did beat the giant willard, he would beat anyone,:lol:


Its all fantasy fuckhead..they are both dead :lol:


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

#El Turbo said:


> How do you see it playing out?


Dempsey has to hurt Frazier straightaway and finish him off within a round or two, otherwise Frazier's superior size, technique, and consistent attack will pick him apart and result in a mid-round stoppage IMO.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> Dempsey has to hurt Frazier straightaway and finish him off within a round or two, otherwise Frazier's superior size, *technique*, and consistent attack will pick him apart and result in a mid-round stoppage IMO.


serious question..where do you feel Frazier has superior technique?


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> serious question..where do you feel Frazier has superior technique?


He made much better use of the jab, and his head movement was more polished and consistent.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> He made much better use of the jab, and his head movement was more polished and consistent.


well I guess that is one area we would disagree...I was never a huge fan of Frazier's constant head movement....that has a tendency to get timed...although Frazier was so herky jerky that he didn't get timed much (although he was open to uppercuts).


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> ...I was never a huge fan of Frazier's constant head movement....that has a tendency to get timed...


Frazier could be timed by a master boxer like Ali, but Dempsey simply walked wide-open into some big punches from Carpentier and Firpo.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> Frazier could be timed by a master boxer like Ali, but Dempsey simply walked wide-open into some big punches from Carpentier and Firpo.


or by the master boxer young Foreman...lol


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> or by the master boxer young Foreman...lol


You think Foreman timed him? It looked to me more like he just fired away until something landed - plus he continually shoved Frazier into the ideal punching range for himself.

Besides, I wouldn't expect Foreman to have any more difficulty landing on Dempsey either.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> You think Foreman timed him? It looked to me more like he just fired away until something landed - plus he continually shoved Frazier into the ideal punching range for himself.
> 
> Besides, I wouldn't expect Foreman to have any more difficulty landing on Dempsey either.


Dempsey would be smarter than Frazier..hell watch the first minute of Dempsey Willard...Dempsey's footwork and lateral movement is fantastic


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> well since you said it it must be true :lol:


Heavy Hands The Oracle.:yep


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> You think Foreman timed him? It looked to me more like he just fired away until something landed - plus he continually shoved Frazier into the ideal punching range for himself.
> 
> Besides, I wouldn't expect Foreman to have any more difficulty landing on Dempsey either.


but yeah he did time him.....and yes he shoved him as well....but he saw that frazier was going up and down with a certain rhythm, and than he hit him with that uppercut.






some timing in that I think...


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> serious question..where do you feel Frazier has superior technique?


jesus the parrot 2 is back, you and cormac are the 2 parrots, just shut the fuck up, frazier is better, he wins , period


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> jesus the parrot 2 is back, you and cormac are the 2 parrots, just shut the fuck up, frazier is better, he wins , period


is it because of the modern training that Frazier employed? Like the time he lifted on CBS?






well...tried to lift really...


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> or by the master boxer young Foreman...lol


"the master boxer young foreman" would have destroyed the complete era of dempsey, and he would make dempsey look a complete weak garbage:lol:


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> "the master boxer young foreman" would have destroyed the complete era of dempsey, and he would make dempsey look a complete weak garbage:lol:


----------



## Burt Brooks (Jun 6, 2012)

No heavyweight ever beats Dempsey in the trenches...I love Joe Frazier but Dempsey needed but 6"distance to raise havoc.Why he 
tossed around Luis Firpo like a rag doll almost in a clinch....The only thing Frazier had over Dempsey was the ability to go all out from the start to the finish,
whilst Dempsey's mode was more measured ....Dempsey did enormous damage from almost in a clinch,especially with that deadly left hand...
Watch in the first round with Firpo, crude but powerful. Almost in a clinch Dempsey ,able to release his left hand, rips about 8 left hook
uppercuts with virtually no punching room on Firpo, from a clinch....I still marvel at this display of power punching and savagery from a clinch...
One other point. Dempsey hit terribly hard with two hands, while Frazier was truly a left-hooker...One other thing...Dempsey at his best were he hurt, was able to 
scoot away from danger as he had a good set of wheels...


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> Dempsey would be smarter than Frazier..hell watch the first minute of Dempsey Willard...Dempsey's footwork and lateral movement is fantastic


I wouldn't go so far as to call it "fantastic," but aside from that - 
1. He wasn't able to actually _fight_ while bouncing on his toes - just stay out of harms way until he saw an opening to attack.
2. He was only able to do it for about a minute, after which he descended into a straight-up, free swinging, wide-open attack for the rest of the fight. That was my point about consistency - Dempsey has shown good defense and technique, but only _in spots_. He doesn't have the discipline or temperament to maintain it for a significant length of time, like Frazier did.

Watch Frazier's fight with Chuvalo, or the final minute against Stander, and you'll see that he's not only capable of bouncing on his toes too, but he can also outscore his opponent while doing it (unlike Dempsey). Frazier tried that approach in the rematch with Foreman, but it achieved little to nothing.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> I wouldn't go so far as to call it "fantastic," but aside from that -
> 1. He wasn't able to actually _fight_ while bouncing on his toes - just stay out of harms way until he saw an opening to attack.
> 2. He was only able to do it for about a minute, after which he descended into a straight-up, free swinging, wide-open attack for the rest of the fight. That was my point about consistency - Dempsey has shown good defense and technique, but only _in spots_. He doesn't have the discipline or temperament to maintain it for a significant length of time, like Frazier did.
> 
> Watch Frazier's fight with Chuvalo, or the final minute against Stander, and you'll see that he's not only capable of bouncing on his toes too, but he can also outscore his opponent while doing it (unlike Dempsey). Frazier tried that approach in the rematch with Foreman, but it achieved little to nothing.


I just randomly looked at this...in the beginning Dempsey does stay more or less in tight and crouched.

however if you go to the 7:15 mark on you will see him up on his toes doing some boxing and moving laterally.


----------



## Screamin' Al Pacino (Jun 7, 2013)

*Turbo thinks if he changes his name he can outrun his past! *


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

Screamin' Al Pacino said:


> *Turbo thinks if he changes his name he can outrun his past! *


Yeah! :twisted


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> I just randomly looked at this...in the beginning Dempsey does stay more or less in tight and crouched.
> 
> however if you go to the 7:15 mark on you will see him up on his toes doing some boxing and moving laterally.


He does get up and bounce on his toes occasionally, but he still isn't scoring while he's doing that. In fact, he's getting hit with a lot of jabs (which Frazier routinely slipped) and getting timed with power shots probably more consistently than Frazier ever did. He also is lunging and over-extending himself with a lot of outside shots (Frazier knew how to close the distance before delivering punches), and he doesn't seem to have any idea how to deal with Brennan on the inside either (Frazier knew how to maneuver for position and score on the inside).

All in all, this fight says a lot more about Dempsey's technical weaknesses rather than strengths IMO.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Burt Brooks said:


> *No heavyweight ever beats Dempsey in the trenches*...*I love Joe Frazier but *Dempsey needed but 6"distance to raise havoc.Why he
> tossed around Luis Firpo like a rag doll almost in a clinch....The only thing Frazier had over Dempsey was the ability to go all out from the start to the finish,
> whilst Dempsey's mode was more measured ....Dempsey did enormous damage from almost in a clinch,especially with that deadly left hand...
> Watch in the first round with Firpo, crude but powerful. Almost in a clinch Dempsey ,able to release his left hand, rips about 8 left hook
> ...


 and you saw it in your glass baLL right?:lol: jesus.... it is a fucking fact!!!

and the best part of the partical comments is " I LOVE FRAZIER BUT..." YOU DON´T LOVE FRAZIER A CRAP... it is just your opinion and the 90% disagree


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> and you saw it in your glass baLL right?:lol: jesus.... it is a fucking fact!!!
> 
> and the best part of the partical comments is " I LOVE FRAZIER BUT..." YOU DON´T LOVE FRAZIER A CRAP... it is just your opinion and the 90% disagree


 You do understand that is what a Forum is for don't you? To proffer your opinion, and to read others.
Because it seems to me and I would guess others, that anyone who happens to disagree with you becomes the target for personal verbal abuse from you.
I understand that English is not your first language, but you don't have to insult everyone who holds a differing opinion to yours, it isn't compulsory.
Personally I don't mind because your opinion holds no value for me, but your posts follow a very predictable abusive pattern,perhaps you could learn some new insults to vary things a bit? What do you say, in the interest of variety,how about giving it a go?


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> and you saw it in your glass baLL right?:lol: jesus.... it is a fucking fact!!!
> 
> and the best part of the partical comments is " I LOVE FRAZIER BUT..." YOU DON´T LOVE FRAZIER A CRAP... it is just your opinion and the 90% disagree


 @heavy_hands ....you are high level stupid aren't you?

I actually agree with you that Burt does not know for sure and for that reason he would make a better argument not to speak in such certainty.

Having said that...that goes both ways....and you have been speaking with definitive certainty on this subject this whole thread. You have made multiple posts in which you act like you know for sure that frazier would win all the time everytime.... Than when someone does something similar...but honestly, more respectful towards the other guy (Burt does respect Frazier..I remember from ESB, I know he does...you on the other hand seem to have a almost personal hatred for someone dead for 30 years) you jump on them.

You are really not good at this....so why don't you get some picture evidence to help you?


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

You know, picture evidence heavy...like the one photo you could find of Dempsey looking a bit fat...than the one photo of Frazier in a action shot showing his muscles at work...


GO post some more of those....

oh that's right..you posted basically all the ones you could find to make your point......


:lol:

Of course you seem to be a double standard kinda guy..because when I posted several photos of Dempsey looked ripped and solid as fuck and Frazier looking "meh"....your response was "what's your point?"


the point is you are a double standards kind of guy.


----------



## Bummy Davis (Jun 6, 2013)

This fight would start fast and it could be a factor of who got off first. Dempsey had the original "hands of stone" but Frazier was a pressure machine. I think both men could take a punch and come back but Jack had the 2 hands of power while Frazier was a Left hooker and Jack had the edge in speed.....Action fight and my bet is it ends before 5-7 rounds


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> You do understand that is what a Forum is for don't you? To proffer your opinion, and to read others.
> Because it seems to me and I would guess others, that anyone who happens to disagree with you becomes the target for personal verbal abuse from you.
> I understand that English is not your first language, but you don't have to insult everyone who holds a differing opinion to yours, it isn't compulsory.
> Personally I don't mind because your opinion holds no value for me, but your posts follow a very predictable abusive pattern,perhaps you could learn some new insults to vary things a bit? What do you say, in the interest of variety,how about giving it a go?


THANKS PARROT 1


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> @heavy_hands ....you are high level stupid aren't you?
> 
> I actually agree with you that Burt does not know for sure and for that reason he would make a better argument not to speak in such certainty.
> 
> ...


the parrot 2 is back haha


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> You know, picture evidence heavy...like the one photo you could find of Dempsey looking a bit fat...than the one photo of Frazier in a action shot showing his muscles at work...
> 
> GO post some more of those....
> 
> ...


FRAZIER LOOKED STRONGER THAN DEMPSEY IN EVERY IMAGE THAT YOU PICK..(PRIME VS PRIME). DEMPSEY NEVER LOOKED "solid like fuck" he looked at best a "decent ripped" naturally slim 188 pounder, that´s all... frazier was a tank with 2 thick elephant legs... he was a big boned guy, bulker than dempsey, frazier was built for the power and dempsey for the speed..

sorry parrot 2....


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> FRAZIER LOOKED STRONGER THAN DEMPSEY IN EVERY IMAGE THAT YOU PICK..(PRIME VS PRIME). DEMPSEY NEVER LOOKED "solid like fuck" he looked at best a "decent ripped" naturally slim 188 pounder, that´s all... frazier was a tank with 2 thick elephant legs... he was a big boned guy, bulker than dempsey, frazier was built for the power and dempsey for the speed..
> 
> sorry parrot 2....


you know why he was heavier....fat legs...


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> FRAZIER LOOKED STRONGER THAN DEMPSEY IN EVERY IMAGE THAT YOU PICK..(PRIME VS PRIME). DEMPSEY NEVER LOOKED "solid like fuck" he looked at best a "decent ripped" naturally slim 188 pounder, that´s all... frazier was a tank with 2 thick elephant legs... he was a big boned guy, bulker than dempsey, frazier was built for the power and dempsey for the speed..
> 
> sorry parrot 2....


 Frazier had huge thighs,which does not automatically mean you are a big puncher.You like pictures ?Well look at these.





















































All punchers.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Frazier had huge thighs,which does not automatically mean you are a big puncher.You like pictures ?Well look at these.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lmao what the hella re you talking about? i never told you that you have to be a thick man to hit hard...
i told you that frazier was a stronger guy than dempsey bulker built for the power, dempsey was a guy built for the speed(i never said that he did not hit hard) i am talking about power.strength, not hitting power


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> you know why he was heavier....fat legs...


frazier was heavier because he was naturally a bigger man, simply like that, he had thicker thorax, thicker head, thicker legs, thicker arms... he was bigger framed..


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> frazier was heavier because he was naturally a bigger man, simply like that, he had thicker thorax, thicker head, thicker legs, thicker arms... he was bigger framed..


Dempsey was the bigger man from the waist up as has been pointed out to you Frazier had huge thighs .
Dempsey 
Biceps 16.25
Forearm 12
Chest 42 
Chest Exp 46
Neck 16'5
Reach 77
Thigh 23

Frazier
Biceps 15
Chest 42
Chest Exp 44
Neck 16
Forearm 12
Waist 34
Reach 73.5 
Thigh 26

Frazier has 3" bigger thighs than Dempsey,and an inch bigger waist.
Dempsey has 2 inches bigger chest expansion, 2.5 inches longer reach,a half inch bigger neck, an inch and a quarter bigger biceps.

Frazier was"bigger framed" from the waist down, but this is not UFC, you are hitting with your arms and fists, not your legs .and butt.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Dempsey was the bigger man from the waist up as has been pointed out to you Frazier had huge thighs .
> Dempsey
> Biceps 16.25
> Forearm 12
> ...


 DO YOU REALLY BELieVE IN THis information FROM THE era OF JESUS? LOL, all you have to do is to see that






































JOE FRAZIER IS A BIGGER MAN, HE WAS A NATURAL HW, JACK DEMPSEY WAS A CRUISER..


>


:lol:


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Dempsey was the bigger man from the waist up as has been pointed out to you Frazier had huge thighs .
> Dempsey
> Biceps 16.25
> Forearm 12
> ...


I WAS TALKING ABOUT WHO WAS NATURALLY BIGGER, PERIOD...


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> I WAS TALKING ABOUT WHO WAS NATURALLY BIGGER, PERIOD...


Dempsey had a naturally bigger upper body.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> Dempsey had a naturally bigger upper body.


We have established that,I think H H may be regrouping.:bbb


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Cormac said:


> We have established that,I think H H may be regrouping.:bbb


I don't know if he realizes that...I am sure he will come back with a powerful refutation of a youtube video of two parrots though.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> I don't know if he realizes that...I am sure he will come back with a powerful refutation of a youtube video of two parrots though.


 He has us at his mercy!atsch


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

here you go hands....


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> here you go hands....


Now you're stealing his thunder.:lol:


----------



## BUMPY (Jul 26, 2012)

Frazier beats Dempsey.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> Dempsey had a naturally bigger upper body.


DID YOU SEE THE IMAGES? FRAZIER WAS BIGGER OVERALL, DEMPSEY WAS TALLER, FRAZIER WAS WIDER, BIGGER, HEAVIER.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> DID YOU SEE THE IMAGES? FRAZIER WAS BIGGER OVERALL, DEMPSEY WAS TALLER, FRAZIER WAS WIDER, BIGGER, HEAVIER.


not really...Dempsey had a wider back, wider shoulders....thicker chest.....


----------



## The Comedian (Jul 24, 2012)

Joe had a bigger cock 'JT.


----------



## It's Ovah (Jun 6, 2013)

The Comedian said:


> Joe had a bigger cock 'JT.


Not true. Dempsey had a truly massive Johnson that, when engorged, measured an impressive 12 and a half inches. He called it his Totem Pole after the Choctaw Indian tribe from which he drew a portion of his heritage.

Wlad in comparison has a measly 2 inch wiener that stands erect in the stiff European style.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

It's Ovah said:


> Not true. Dempsey had a truly massive Johnson that, when engorged, measured an impressive 12 and a half inches. He called it his Totem Pole after the Choctaw Indian tribe from which he drew a portion of his heritage.
> 
> Wlad in comparison has a measly 2 inch wiener that stands erect in the stiff European style.


:rofl


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

It's Ovah said:


> Not true. Dempsey had a truly massive Johnson that, when engorged, measured an impressive 12 and a half inches. He called it his Totem Pole after the Choctaw Indian tribe from which he drew a portion of his heritage.
> 
> Wlad in comparison has a measly 2 inch wiener that stands erect in the stiff European style.


http://www.lpsg.com/99945-sports-legends-penis-sizes-collected-3.html

http://www.adultcomicsbox.com/nude-celebs/male/jack-dempsey-nude.html



> Jack Dempsey Nude pic
> He poses and shows his sexy body just in front of the camera. And you better believe, skillful poser won't hide any spot of his muscled body from you. When this handsome male celebrity demonstrates his perfectly shaped body and his brawny muscled torso especially, the view makes everybody totally crazy. Right now skillful poser Jack Dempsey is nude and demonstrates his firm ass and he's ready to show you other spots of his gorgeous body. Jack Dempsey's nude pictures will make you crazy. He demonstrates his gorgeous nude body in all sexy positions.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

http://www.male-stars.net/nude/jack-dempsey-nude.html (don't open link unless you are cool with seeing cock)



> Jack Dempsey nude.
> One of the most popular celebrities Jack Dempsey is very sexy and handsome. Sure, you will lose your mind while this lustful guy with voluptuous body is demonstrating the most attractive spots of his gorgeous body for you. The very hot guy's nude pictures will make all your dreams come true. Yes, this naughty celebrity knows how to get your motor running. He is really handsome. Seize the opportunity of getting pleasure of hot and sexy man with gorgeous body expose his gorgeous ass right in front of the camera. Seize the opportunity of getting pleasure of skillful fellow with perfectly shaped body expose his values right in front of the camera. Have to admit that his sexy attraction has no limits and no taboos.


on a serious note...some of these do seem to suggest that a nude pic exists of Dempsey

http://www.circumstitions.com/Famous4.html


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

and here...I found it...said to be jack Dempsey nude

http://vintagenudeguysandporn.blogspot.com/2012/09/jack-dempsey-pro-boxer.html?zx=82237658e44b286d

I can't believe I spent that much time looking up a pic of jack Dempsey nude...


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

lol fuck it I don't care if I get gulaged..that shit is funny


----------



## Ricky42791 (Jun 7, 2013)

They both pack fire power, very similar styles but Jack has the better chin and I think that would end up being the ultimate difference in this fight


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

Wasn't suggesting a title defense but somewhere before.

However, Dempsey himself admitted he wanted nothing to do with Sam.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Seamus said:


> Wasn't suggesting a title defense but somewhere before.
> 
> However, Dempsey himself admitted he wanted nothing to do with Sam.


 Lazy post which I answered in full on page 8. Dempsey not yet the finished article, took out Fred Fulton in under half a minute .Fulton stopped Langford a year later ,and beat him again some months after.Stop trolling.


----------



## Leftsmash (Oct 22, 2012)

Jermain Taylor had bigger biceps than both Dempsey and Frazier and he was MW - SMW at 16inches.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Leftsmash said:


> Jermain Taylor had bigger biceps than both Dempsey and Frazier and he was MW - SMW at 16inches.


Dempsey's were 16.25"


----------



## Capaedia (Jun 6, 2013)

The Comedian said:


> Joe had a bigger cock 'JT.


This is a misconception due to poor photo quality


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Dempsey was the bigger man from the waist up as has been pointed out to you Frazier had huge thighs .
> Dempsey
> Biceps 16.25
> Forearm 12
> ...


Where do people get these bullshit tale of the tapes for Dempsey it's like when someone said Dempsey had 9" wrists. His best performance is the destruction of Willard where he admitted he actually weighed 180lbs. Frazier was his absolute best at around the 205lbs. Dempsey like Frazier had 15" Biceps, his chest was 41" 44 when expanded, 22" legs, 17" neck and 11 1/2" Fists and his reach was 73". Frazier had 13" fists, 18" neck, 26" thighs, 42" chest and 73 1/3" reach. Dempsey is the smaller man HANDS DOWN. In any case despite being bigger Frazier would win because he is the superior fighter, more skilled, much better in close, better workrate and more accurate with his punches and more intelligent with his pressure.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Dempsey's were 16.25"


No they were not.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

If anyone did 5 seconds of searching they would've found:

http://sports.mearsonlineauctions.com/ItemImages/000051/51007a_lg.jpeg

http://www.josportsinc.com/item_images/1248191887.jpg

I have another Tale of the Tape saved on my computer that has the same sort've stats NOTHING like the shit that's been spewed on here. 16 1/4 Biceps? Maybe with a jumper on.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

MadcapMaxie said:


> Where do people get these bullshit tale of the tapes for Dempsey it's like when someone said Dempsey had 9" wrists. His best performance is the destruction of Willard where he admitted he actually weighed 180lbs. Frazier was his absolute best at around the 205lbs. Dempsey like Frazier had 15" Biceps, his chest was 41" 44 when expanded, 22" legs, 17" neck and 11 1/2" Fists and his reach was 73". Frazier had 13" fists, 18" neck, 26" thighs, 42" chest and 73 1/3" reach. Dempsey is the smaller man HANDS DOWN. In any case despite being bigger Frazier would win because he is the superior fighter, more skilled, much better in close, better workrate and more accurate with his punches and more intelligent with his pressure.


 So because the tape does not support your opinion ,it's bullshit? Maybe you can produce a Tale of the Tape that contradicts this one?[ Frazier did NOT have an 18" neck] If so I've never seen it. Frazier was bigger from the waist down, Dempsey from the waist up FACT.
Frazier was a one dimensional swarmer who had real power in only his left.Dempsey was superior in chin, inside ability, shortpunching , foot speed , power and versatility ie two fisted power.imo. Frazier intelligent with his pressure? He only knew one way to fight, keep coming in, whenever Foreman bounced him he got up and ,like a clockwork toy running into the skirting , did exactly the same thing again .Dempsey had the capability to circle and jump in, he could be evasive. Frazier might as well have had a bullseye painted on him.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

Cormac said:


> So because the tape does not support your opinion ,it's bullshit? Maybe you can produce a Tale of the Tape that contradicts this one?[ Frazier did NOT have an 18" neck] If so I've never seen it. Frazier was bigger from the waist down, Dempsey from the waist up FACT.
> Frazier was a one dimensional swarmer who had real power in only his left.Dempsey was superior in chin, inside ability, shortpunching , foot speed , power and versatility ie two fisted power.imo. Frazier intelligent with his pressure? He only knew one way to fight, keep coming in, whenever Foreman bounced him he got up and ,like a clockwork toy running into the skirting , did exactly the same thing again .Dempsey had the capability to circle and jump in, he could be evasive. Frazier might as well have had a bullseye painted on him.


The two links above show that the Dempsey stats are BS and here's one for Frazier: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images...21051526200/chart-compares-the-stats--014.jpg There are more avaliable if you look around for a few minutes.

Dempsey was KO'd cold by Flynn, badly stunned by a light heavy in Carpentier, decked by Tunney and decked twice by Firpo. I don't see Frazier having much trouble with absorbing damage from any of these guys and I don't see Dempsey getting up after being knocked down by Foreman. Dempsey had no inside ability Tunney exposed this, he fought at mid range and practically always lead with a left hook. Frazier's pressure was intelligent in that he was able to get inside and STAY inside, Dempsey couldn't do this to Tunney and he couldn't do this to Gibbons. When did Dempsey ever circle and jump in? For 10 seconds against Willard in the first round? "Like a clockwork toy running into the skirting"? Sounds like Dempsey against Firpo to me. Also Dempsey may have been more "evasive" however Frazier was certainly harder to hit coming in watch the Chuvalo or Ellis fight for proof. Foot speed and power I will give to Dempsey however when did Dempsey ever use the former effectively. So in the end Dempsey has power over Frazier...and that's about it really.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

MadcapMaxie said:


> The two links above show that the Dempsey stats are BS and here's one for Frazier: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images...21051526200/chart-compares-the-stats--014.jpg There are more avaliable if you look around for a few minutes.
> 
> Dempsey was KO'd cold by Flynn, badly stunned by a light heavy in Carpentier, decked by Tunney and decked twice by Firpo. I don't see Frazier having much trouble with absorbing damage from any of these guys and I don't see Dempsey getting up after being knocked down by Foreman. Dempsey had no inside ability Tunney exposed this, he fought at mid range and practically always lead with a left hook. Frazier's pressure was intelligent in that he was able to get inside and STAY inside, Dempsey couldn't do this to Tunney and he couldn't do this to Gibbons. When did Dempsey ever circle and jump in? For 10 seconds against Willard in the first round? "Like a clockwork toy running into the skirting"? Sounds like Dempsey against Firpo to me. Also Dempsey may have been more "evasive" however Frazier was certainly harder to hit coming in watch the Chuvalo or Ellis fight for proof. Foot speed and power I will give to Dempsey however when did Dempsey ever use the former effectively. So in the end Dempsey has power over Frazier...and that's about it really.


"Dempsey had no inside ability".End of our discourse I think.


----------



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

MadcapMaxie said:


> No they were not.


I guess you beleive Gene Tunney had 19inch biceps aswell as your amazing find says aswell?? Hahaha you burn yourself to find the one tale of the tape that backs up your argument and you fail to spot the glaring mistakes all over it - suggests to me that you haven't been around very long because if you had you would know that the vast majority o tale of the tapes have always given Dempseys biceps as 16" (whatever the issue about that is anyway?) but yeah it's pretty much common knowledge but if your gunna break your butt to find something that says otherwise just check it all first before you take it as read hahaha


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> not really...D*empsey had a wider back, wider shoulders....thicker chest..*...


:lol:


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

MadcapMaxie said:


> Where do people get these bullshit tale of the tapes for Dempsey it's like when someone said Dempsey had 9" wrists. His best performance is the destruction of Willard where he admitted he actually weighed 180lbs. Frazier was his absolute best at around the 205lbs. Dempsey like Frazier had 15" Biceps, his chest was 41" 44 when expanded, 22" legs, 17" neck and 11 1/2" Fists and his reach was 73". Frazier had 13" fists, 18" neck, 26" thighs, 42" chest and 73 1/3" reach. Dempsey is the smaller man HANDS DOWN. In any case despite being bigger Frazier would win because he is the superior fighter, more skilled, much better in close, better workrate and more accurate with his punches and more intelligent with his pressure.


agreed 100%,
end of the thread, just ignore to the stupid parrot.

frazier weighed 209 pounds against bob foster and he was in great shape and he was 5´11 and dempsey weighed 185-188 in his prime and he was 6´1 , frazier was obviously the bigger man... dempsey could not be bigger in any part of the body... frazier was shorter,bigger framed and heavier, more compact, he was bigger, pure logic..


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> "Dempsey had no inside ability".End of our discourse I think.


yes, madcapmaxie should stop to answer your stupid partial comments


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> yes, madcapmaxie should stop to answer your stupid partial comments


Thank goodness we can rely on your concise and witty sound bites .:happy


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Wonder who had the "heavier hands"?:bbb


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Wonder who had the "heavier hands"?:bbb


on the forum of course you, because it is yout home... your skin must be white like snow...


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> agreed 100%,
> end of the thread, just ignore to the stupid parrot.
> 
> frazier weighed 209 pounds against bob foster and he was in great shape and he was 5´11 and dempsey weighed 185-188 in his prime and he was 6´1 , frazier was obviously the bigger man..dempsey. could not be bigger in any part of the body... frazier was shorter,bigger framed and heavier, more compact, he was bigger, pure logic..[/QUO TE]
> ...


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> on the forum of course you, because it is yout home... your skin must be white like snow...


I am pure alabaster.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> heavy_hands said:
> 
> 
> > agreed 100%,
> ...


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> Cormac said:
> 
> 
> > yeah maybe in your fantasy world not ... in the real world , if you are shorter and naturally bigger framed and heavier guy , you are bigger in every part of the body...
> ...


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> heavy_hands said:
> 
> 
> > Did you know Frazier had very small toes?
> ...


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> Cormac said:
> 
> 
> > sure that he had bigger cock than dempsey, he was black after all
> ...


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Cormac said:


> heavy_hands said:
> 
> 
> > Certainly it would have been bigger than all those Latins their pricks are like radishes.
> ...


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

rockyssplitnose said:


> I guess you beleive Gene Tunney had 19inch biceps aswell as your amazing find says aswell?? Hahaha you burn yourself to find the one tale of the tape that backs up your argument and you fail to spot the glaring mistakes all over it - suggests to me that you haven't been around very long because if you had you would know that the vast majority o tale of the tapes have always given Dempseys biceps as 16" (whatever the issue about that is anyway?) but yeah it's pretty much common knowledge but if your gunna break your butt to find something that says otherwise just check it all first before you take it as read hahaha


Yes that's a glaring mistake but when 3 official tale of the tapes say 15" I think it's fair to assume it's 15 not 16 1/4. Please show me one that says 16" since it is "common knowledge".


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

MadcapMaxie said:


> Yes that's a glaring mistake but when 3 official tale of the tapes say 15" I think it's fair to assume it's 15 not 16 1/4. Please show me one that says 16" since it is "common knowledge".


Dempsey was measured on film just prior to the Firpo fight


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

Like I said mate show me an official tale of the tape that says that says 16.25" biceps and I'll recant my statement.


----------



## The Sweet Science (Jun 5, 2013)

Frazier wins.


----------



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

MadcapMaxie said:


> Like I said mate show me an official tale of the tape that says that says 16.25" biceps and I'll recant my statement.


"Official" tale of the tape? Well here's "a" tale of the tape? What you mean by "official" I don't know but here's "one" tale of the tape anyhow
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/dempsey_louis.html


----------



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

MadcapMaxie said:


> Like I said mate show me an official tale of the tape that says that says 16.25" biceps and I'll recant my statement.


Ps not at home at the minute but have about 4 or 5 books an magazines which document his tale of the tape and all of them have his bicep measurement at 16" - one of the sources I know for sure is a Mike Tyson special edition of The Ring just before he was released from prison the first time but yeah have about 4 or 5 books/magazines which all give that as his bicep measurement so there it is for what it's worth


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Monte Cox gives Dempsey's biceps as 16.25" the same as I said.So did The Ring and B I,I can't be arsed to look through all my mags to prove this to M M. let him go his own way.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

rockyssplitnose said:


> Ps not at home at the minute but have about 4 or 5 books an magazines which document his tale of the tape and all of them have his bicep measurement at 16" - one of the sources I know for sure is a Mike Tyson special edition of The Ring just before he was released from prison the first time but yeah have about 4 or 5 books/magazines which all give that as his bicep measurement so there it is for what it's worth


If you say you have sources that say he has 16" biceps I'll take your word for it RSS, however I believe the tale of the tape you posted to be highly bogus. I have 3 official (Made and distributed during the actual time) that paint a much different story than that one you posted which is highly circulated but has no source. For me it seems whoever decided to write that one up had one thing in mind and that's make Dempsey appear bigger than he really is. It's no surprise I see that tale of the tape pop up when Dempsey is being put against guys like Ali and Tyson. However there are some GLARING differences between the ones I've seen and that one:

1) Weight: Posting Dempsey's weight as 192 is like posting Ali's weight as 230, Dempsey was his absolute best around the 185 mark and at his absolute best performance he admitted to weighing only 180. 
2) Reach: ALL other tape of the tapes I've seen have Dempsey's reach as being 73" or around that mark 77" is 4 inches longer. Again to me this looks like someone trying to make Dempsey appear bigger than he actually is. 
3) Biceps/Forearms/Wrist: Compared to the tales of the tape I've seen Dempsey's bicep is 1 1/4" bigger, forearms are 2" bigger and wrist 1" bigger.

Perhaps you have sources on the contrary but all the official tale of the tapes as well as footage I've seen of the guy show a well built athletic guy, not a brick shithouse. With those stats Dempsey should be looking more like this guy 
http://a.yfrog.com/img532/4709/65lbor.jpg Except with those stats Dempsey actually has bigger wrists and forearms.


----------

