Big George...

[HEGrant]

I think your dreaming by saying Dempsey keeps a cool head, glides side to side and chops George down. Dempsey never went anything but full steam ahead in his entire career, especially when hit. You are confusing the fact that against very fast boxers such as Carpentier ( for a few rounds) and Gibbons he did not do so effectively. He did not do it effectively because he could not. It took him a few rounds to nail Carpentier and 15 to decision Gibbons.

The Sharkey fight is a terrible example. For the first five rounds Sharkey kicked the shit out of a semi-shot Dempsey. Dempsey showed tremendous heart and a good chin to survive. Then, as Sharkey started to tire as he often did, Dempsey, still boring in, caught him. However, this was no way Dempsey playing it cagey. He simply kept moving in and caught the other man.

Foreman would have tore Dempsey's head off. He would have speared him with that monster jab. He would have crushed him with terrific uppercuts and hooks to the body. They really do not belong in the same ring. It is a terrible clash of styles for Dempsey. George was way too big, strong and hard hitting. Why not have Tony Zale fight Rocky Marciano ?

I have always felt that Dempsey gets an incomplete as a champion in my ratings. He had terrific heart, tremendous power, speed, heart and a great chin. However, once he won the title, he became an inactive fighter and regressed from the progress he made with Kearns in 1918 - 1919. He never became the best he could be. Dempsey would have had to have been the best fighter he ever might have been to have a chance to display the discipline to fight Foreman like E says he would. I don't believe he could have based on his actual career. It's completely romanticising the guy.

[Chuck1052]

George Foreman made the most out of his comeback
in many ways. Do you think he would make those
millions in connection with those grills, let alone
his fights and other business interests? Moreover,
Foreman appears to have been smart about handling
his money the second time around.

- Chuck Johnston

[JimmyShimmy]

...Concerning Dempsey's bouts with Carpentier and Gibbons:

Against the popular French man he was all over him in the first 20 seconds of the bout-on the film you will notice how the first 30-40 rows of the great 80,000 crowd stand up as it looks like Carpentier is going down in the first round.

Jack bloodies his nose and then just steps off the gas as Rickard (before the fight) stressed to Jack he wanted the fight to see a few rounds first (to give the crowd their money's worth/prevent a riot etc).

Vs. Gibbons Jacked tested the water in the first round and noticed he was a very cagey and defensively adept fighter. He then chose to continue his pace and just outwork/muscle his smaller opponent.

In the very last round Gibbons is repeatedly holding on (not letting go of Jack's arms)-he had had enough by then.

Willard, Carpentier, Firpo and Tunney II are Jack's most famous fights and 3 of them are extreme cases. Jack was going all out against Willard in an attempt to win his first round wager, Firpo was a wild fight after Dempsey got tagged/head hit a typewriter and the Tunney rematch was an over boiled reaction after 17 rounds of chasing him-they don't accurately depict the pugilist he was (just like the Ruddock or Golota fight does not demonstrate the kind of fighter Lewis was).

Generally Dempsey was a very controlled fighter.

Perhaps Foreman would have "tore Dempsey's head off", but to me there is not much evidence to suggest he would have. Every fighter Jack faced that weighed over 215lbs did not see the fourth round-he loved fighting bigger men famously claiming "There's more to hit". Foreman could box a bit and did what he did great but his inability to defend against such a slick n' quick fighter with serious fire-power is problematic.

I believe Dempsey would win, I consider the fact anything can happen in boxing and who ever would come out on top it's clear to me Dempsey very much can create a solid foot hold in the fight by using the advantages he possess' (speed of hand/foot, smart's, variety in arsenal).

You're correct in stating Dempsey could have done more as champion. He was going to fight Wills (during 1924) but it never came off, a rematch with Gibbons was talked of (In a response to his accomplishment of going 15 with Jack) and a fight with Greb was on the cards in 1920.

When you study Dempsey consider 1918 is the most significant year of his career. He was hungry, challenging all the time and destroying a wide collection of quality/contrasting fighters.

[mike21]

i have to disagree with he grant, i see this foreman bout as a complete lock for dempsey, and i do not feel this way many times . just the opposite terrible matchup for foreman. a very easy victory for dempsey for reasons previously stated by me and others. thanks.

[HEGrant]

Puting all 6'3" men into one catagory is ridiculous...there is a tremendous level of skill and talent that seperated Foreman from a Fred Fulton or a Carl Moris. Saying that Dempsey beats Foreman becaue he beat those guys is a complete reach.

To say that Dempsey held back against Carpentier is simply to engage in revisionist history. His vicotru over Gibbons, while a decent performance, was in no way a display of scientific boxing or self control. He simply outmuscled a very good , smaller (light heavy) , older man over 15 rounds.

[HEGrant]

Does anyone know the exact details of Foreman's 5 man exhibition after Zaire ? Who did he fight ? What was the order ? What were the results ?

[JimmyShimmy]

Puting all 6'3" men into one catagory is ridiculous...there is a tremendous level of skill and talent that seperated Foreman from a Fred Fulton or a Carl Moris. Saying that Dempsey beats Foreman becaue he beat those guys is a complete reach.

Fulton was described as a solid boxer with good offensive variation; I would put Foreman in the same group although what he did he did great.

The weight and size is just a factor to consider; Dempsey's track record depicts he was at the peak of effectiveness when matched with bigger/heavier targets.

To say that Dempsey held back against Carpentier is simply to engage in revisionist history. His vicotru over Gibbons, while a decent performance, was in no way a display of scientific boxing or self control. He simply outmuscled a very good , smaller (light heavy) , older man over 15 rounds.

It was said Jack was told not to put Carpentier away, I viewed the film and I concluded he really does ease up after his inital assualt-he had little respect for Carpentier and just walked him down; usually he was always ducking and dodging (there was little of that in this fight).

Jack went on to say Carpentier could not take a punch.

I guess we share different opinions of Dempsey's performance against Gibbons, but consider the man who shared the ring with him who went onto famously say:

"Don't let anyone tell you that Jack can't box".

[HEGrant]

I think youhave your story confused (or at least different that the version I have always read). Tex asked him to go easy before the fight and Dempsey told him to get lost.

As far as Fulton goes, although he was a big guy with a good jab and hard right hand, he differed from Foreman in that he had a china chin. George had a rock.

[PeteLeo]

Seems Fulton's chin didn't crystalize until after he was blown away by Dempsey: only two stoppage losses in fifty-two recorded bouts. Actually, until Wills dropped him in three awhile after the Dempsey debacle, Fulton showed some fairly sturdy whiskers. The poor beard came to the fore only over the last quarter or so of his 100+ bout career (not uncommon with aging fighters, of course, due to wear and tear). Dempsey had freakish power at his best and wrecked more than one "hard rock" jaw. Given the Foreman-Lyle results, I can surely see a clearly quicker and harder-hitting J.D. crunching Big George. Of course, I can also envision a Foreman win (though I'd bet Dempsey). PeteLeo.

[Mr E]

Fulton went to JAIL for throwing the fight against Tony Puente and an awful lot of people thought he threw the fight against Billy Miske too. [Fulton's manager at the time was the same guy who was managing Dempsey when Dempsey threw the 1st Flynn fight.] Lots of that going on in those days. IMO, it makes sense to conclude that, after the Wills loss removed him from contention, ol' Freddy was in there for the payday. Why bring all that up? I think there is ample evidence to suspect that Fulton's late-career 'chinniness' may have had as much to do with how much he was paid as with how well he took a punch. At the very least, one has to wonder.

As for the Tommy Gibbons fight, let's take a look. Gibbons was a fast-moving slickster who knew all the tricks and who took a GREAT punch -- stylewise, EXACTLY the type of fighter the mythology tells you should have given Dempsey fits. Yet, Dempsey waxed him HANDILY, winning 12 of 15 rounds. He needed no last second heroics to catch up to the "boxer," a la Jeffries-Corbett I, Louis-Conn I, or Marciano-Walcott I, et al. To the contrary, Dempsey out-boxed the boxer, precisely because he wasn't the kind of mindless brawler revisionist historians would like us to believe that he was. Dempsey does not get near enough credit for the wax-job he laid on Gibbons.

[beddows]

April 26, 1975, in Toronto. He fought Charley Polite, Boone Kirkman, Terry Daniels, Jerry Judge and Alonzo Johnson. I believe Polite and Kirkman took him the full three rounds, while the others went out in two.

[PeteLeo]

I have this series of "fights" on tape. It's a weird scene, man (as we used to say back in the Seventies). PeteLeo.

[beddows]

Did Foreman look as bad as they say, Pete?

[HEGrant]

Oh E, you choose to leave out Gibbons was a light heavyweight. Make sure you add that to Dempsey's "tremendous" achievement next time you tell that tale. Image if Foreman fought a light heavy ?

Frazier, who you brush aside like he was Tommy Burns, crushed a much greater light heavyweight named Foster in two devastating rounds.

[PeteLeo]

Aw, come on -- everybody crushed Foster when he tried to step up to the next weightclass. When did Ali knock down another worldclass opponent six or eight times? Personally, I think some of Bobby's vulnerability at heavy was mental. PeteLeo.

[Roberto Aqui]

Much ado over nothing. Foster and Gibbons were great lightheavies that had some success against heavies. To call Foster much greater than Gibbons is to lose all perspective.

Foster was matched against top heavies early in his career rather than be developed slowly towards a LH title, probably because of managerial greed. It's no shame to lose to great fighters like Frazier, Ali, Tunney or Dempsey at any time of your career.

What does this have to do with George? He never took on many LH types. Peralta was probably the closest and he was more a heavy who could make LH when he was younger. People criticize George for those fights, but Peralta was a crafty good fighter and that was early in George's career.

[thumper3852]

Foreman vs Peralta (1)

I always felt that Peralta fought a very smart fight against the bigger George, and gave a pretty good blue print on how Foreman could be beat. He never gave a George a clear target for the biggest shots, rolled well with the punches, etc. It seemed like a very frustrating night for Foreman...the big problem for Peralta was he didn't have a real punch to go along with his other considerable skills.

[Mr E]

Oh E, you choose to leave out Gibbons was a light heavyweight. Make sure you add that to Dempsey's "tremendous" achievement next time you tell that tale. Image if Foreman fought a light heavy ?

Imagine if Foreman fought a light-heavy like Gregorio Peralta, you mean? Yes, imagine that.

I didn't "choose" to leave out anything. I presume we all know what everyone of these guys weighed. Billy Conn was a light-heavyweight, too. [I didn't mention that, either.]

The point of my post was that Gibbons was a defensive speedster who employed a style most Dempsey bashers will tell you, based on what a shot Dempsey did against Tunney, was a style with which Dempsey was unable to cope. Yet Dempsey won easily under circumstances -- and against a fighter -- whom I could envision causing a lot of heavyweight champions, George Foreman included, a lot of trouble.

Finally, I can't see putting Foster ahead of Gibbons on the all-time light-heavy list, precisely fbecause of the issue you raise. I doubt very severely Gibbons would have embarassed himself against Mauro Mina, Ernie Terrell and Zora Folley the way Foster did -- and I gotta believe he last a lot more than 2 against Smokin' Joe.

[handtomouth]

re:

I think your dreaming by saying Dempsey keeps a cool head, glides side to side and chops George down. Dempsey never went anything but full steam ahead in his entire career, especially when hit. You are confusing the fact that against very fast boxers such as Carpentier ( for a few rounds) and Gibbons he did not do so effectively. He did not do it effectively because he could not.

did you watch the willard fight?... the first half of the first rd was just that... gliding side to side... stalking... calibrating range... setting up... & then unleashing quick destructive power... once he nailed willard w/ that crushing 4 punch combination ending w/ that dead eye left hook... then yes, at that point it was straight ahead... as it should've been in 110 degree heat vrs a fighter as big & durable as willard...

I think your confusing that elite blodd thirsty finishing skill he had w/ his other arsenal to set it up... dempsey wasnt a one trick straight ahead pony as you seem to imply...

sure, his momentum & style was foward pressing movement...

but watch the films closely & you'll also notice a fighter who came at fighters from angles: stalking, feinting, weaving, drop stepping & jabbing to the body... not a straight ahead bull... & not just like tyson in his short prime as some claim... it was actually a more varied box of tools he set up w/ then tyson's excellent but limited styles of hooks & uppercuts ...

dempsey through '23 had athletic feet & knew had to subtly use them to create inside space in several different ways...

hegrant... if he was so incapable of varying style from just a straight ahead bull... then how was it he was able to outpoint a faster gibbons? ...

if your theory was correct, not only would he not be able to effectively hurt gibbons (not being able to land)... but he would also not be able to pile up the points to win rds much like duran couldnt vrs leonard in the second fight...

yet dempsey did...

what gives?...

what it shows is dempsey could & did vary styles ...

& w/ gibbons he used sharp quick punching skills from angles along w/ underrated feet to put him into position to pile up the rds... granted to gibbons credit he never really landed flush power shots... but he did nevertheless keep up a clipped pace & was able to land enough body and head shots to win rds... straight ahead bulls w/o that arsenal would find themselves bottled up & ineffective.

The Sharkey fight is a terrible example. For the first five rounds Sharkey kicked the shit out of a semi-shot Dempsey. Dempsey showed tremendous heart and a good chin to survive. Then, as Sharkey started to tire as he often did, Dempsey, still boring in, caught him. However, this was no way Dempsey playing it cagey. He simply kept moving in and caught the other man.

your description of the first 5 rds of the sharkey fight is accurate... but to dismiss it simply as survival w/o an effective gameplan is off base imo...

this is the only way at this point in his career dempsey was going to beat sharkey... dempsey didnt have the sprite legs anymore to glide away from a in his prime sharkey attack...

dempsey also knew that eventually his power advantage would start to wreak havoc on sharkey... & it would only be w/ that power that he could wear the younger powerful fighter down...

you missed a key element of that fight past rd 3....

though sharkey continued to connect & pile up pts... he wasnt connecting as effectively... dempsey had weathered the early storm and now was measuring better the rhythm of & space in their inside war... he was slipping punches & starting to score to the body... the momentum was turning by mid rds... had the fight continued on... i see a further capitulation of sharkey & increased dempsey pressure... almost a model of the earlier ko brennan fight...

the question wouldve been, did dempsey have the stamina to finish him off... tough call... that said I have little doubt that sharkey was on a downward slide from mid rds on... & the trench warfare was beginning to play to dempsey's hand...
you your self as a fan of the sport know that the inside game can be just as nuanced as a jab and move fight...

dempsey indeed was cagey... b/c he knew (if in shape enough) that later in this fight he could unravel the irratic boston fighter... & dont kid yourself sharkey wasnt hurting even before the ko punch... he stated several times in interviews later in his life... the punches he was taking were the type you feel pain into the marrow of your bone...

I really in a way wished the fight couldve gone longer to see if indeed this plan would play itself out... whose guile, power heart & even stamina would you've banked on in the rounds past 10?

to say this

Foreman would have tore Dempsey's head off. He would have speared him with that monster jab. He would have crushed him with terrific uppercuts and hooks to the body. They really do not belong in the same ring. It is a terrible clash of styles for Dempsey. George was way too big, strong and hard hitting. Why not have Tony Zale fight Rocky Marciano ?

again, i'm the first to admit that foreman wouldve been a very tough fight.. & would take dempsey in top form bulking up to the 200-210 lbs level w/o losing the agility & quickness in his feet... he would have to be able to at least hold enough ground in clinches to not be tossed around like a pinwheel...

it would also take the same type of measured plan he used early in the willard fight... but actually more time & patience to pull it off... foreman had more power, plus quicker hands & reflexes early in a fight then willard did...

again though my $ would still be on dempsey to pull this off...

b/c not only do i think he had the head & patience to execute the plan needed... i more importantly think he had the sharpness, punching form, power & handspeed to carry it out in dispatching form...

dempsey fought very well against large fighters...

let me rephrase that: dempsey fought great against large fighters...

he pulled this off w/ a mixture of focus, mental toughness, lanky but very powerful frame maximized for power & underrated athletic agility...

it all fell into place in the ring first starting w/ a steel trap concentration & lack of fear to track down & seek space & openings in his oppenent... allowing leverage placement for his long frame & feet to position itself to exploit gaps... & then inside the space as the opening revealed itself... a vicious uncorking of textbook formed power that wasted little space & got to the target very fast... punches that seemed to sharp shoot vulnerable pain areas in challengers...

along w/ tyson & louis the most effective, quick & lethal dispatching power thats been seen in the division... to think this wasnt possible against foreman... is imo simply overrating foremans boxing skills & underrating dempsey's gifted agility...

sure george hit w/ the most powerful force seen since baer... & granted his hands werent glacier either & his straight right & uppercut could be crisp...

but its a huge oversight to not also factor in a guy who had clumsy feet, windup punches and box like arm punching form... another words, the guy wasnt that efficient & left himself open...

the huge advantage he had of course was his power, wh/ was devasting & truely scary... keeping many a sane fighter from venturing into zones wh/ could exploit georges akward form ... due to the palpable fear of what they themselves may endure while in that firing zone... along w/ the knowledge they didnt have the gifted arsenal of a dempsey or louis to even try to exploit the inside range...

but vrs a dempsey, unfortunately for george, he would face a fighter who could keep a steel eye inside that eerie dangerous center in wh/ the hurricane wraps itself around ...

& unlike a frazier, dempsey could move well enough laterally w/ his feet to snake into that hot zone...

& unlike joe or even tyson he had the arm length span to be able to keep more distance before he move into those openings...

george simply wouldnt be able to do the basketball dribble act to the head the way he did vrs joe for just for those reasons...

dempsey infact would have a much harder time imo vrs a lennox lewis or even an older foreman due to their abilities to block off open striking areas ranges more effectively then the young much clumsier foreman did...

I have always felt that Dempsey gets an incomplete as a champion in my ratings. He had terrific heart, tremendous power, speed, heart and a great chin. However, once he won the title, he became an inactive fighter and regressed from the progress he made with Kearns in 1918 - 1919. He never became the best he could be. Dempsey would have had to have been the best fighter he ever might have been to have a chance to display the discipline to fight Foreman like E says he would. I don't believe he could have based on his actual career. It's completely romanticising the guy.

agree w/ this to some degree.... but in fairness, dempsey thru '23 still prepared well & came in near toledo form for his fights....

firpo is a classic example... his training paid off in that fight... he had added 5 lbs of bulk muscle for the fight, wh/ can clearly be seen in his shoulders... this paid dividends in his ability to hold his own in grapples w/ the bigger firpo & also added snap to the lethal power he already had...

he also trained his alertness & lungs to peak form... if he hadnt, there wouldve been no way he couldve weathered what he did in that fight... that same type of stamina paid dividends in the very close '20 ko brennan fight in the garden...

I actually think a good arguement could be made that the '23 dempsey was better then the '19 one...

granted he wasnt fighting at the same frequency... but he also didnt have huge layoff gaps either like he would from '24-'26...

his frame was also more filled out & stronger, he had more experience w/ big fights & he was also still young enough (27) to be in his athletic prime, thus still possessing the same type of reflexes & hand/foot speed he had when he won the belt...

i dont see wills for ex in '23 having much of a chance... esp considering he was a tall fighter... i think even jack johnson may have had a hard time bottling dempsey b/c the mauler's upper body power & ability to bend his legs & angle his back in ... may very well have allowed him to even get inside the stealth like D johnson possessed.

tunney was so gifted w/ foot & hand skills he may have still beat dempsey in '23... but he would've had to contend w/ much better legs & inturn compressing intensity that couldve closed the door on angles much more effectively then did the later slogging dempsey...

bottomline... he was at his best vrs big men... simply the most devasting smaller vrs big fighter ever (sorry langford fans)... gifted w/ a lean but symmetrically long & powerful back & arms w/ athletic agility & reflexes to boot... sort of like a hybrid between a cornerback & linebacker in football... this allowed him to vary styles enough to adapt to various sizes & styles...

cagey small fighters were toughest for him, but his guile & underrated gym skills were enough to couple w/ the punching power to find wins...

yet w/ large fighters this form became a destructive dismantling machine... scary freak power for such light sub 200lb weight in the heaviest division...

granted dangerous as foreman was... his akwardness set the plate for a prime dempsey to unleash the david vrs goliath tornado power so...

infact, i'd not only bet a gourmet meal of ones choice on it... but i'd also bet (& i'm purely speculating here) that the popeye cartoon character not only came after & not before dempsey made the scene... but that the fighting style the creator used w/ the character wh/ made the cartoon exciting for kids to watch... got its orginal fighting theme from the legendary day in toledo caught on film.

[handtomouth]

re:

Seems Fulton's chin didn't crystalize until after he was blown away by Dempsey: only two stoppage losses in fifty-two recorded bouts. Actually, until Wills dropped him in three awhile after the Dempsey debacle, Fulton showed some fairly sturdy whiskers. The poor beard came to the fore only over the last quarter or so of his 100+ bout career (not uncommon with aging fighters, of course, due to wear and tear). Dempsey had freakish power at his best and wrecked more than one "hard rock" jaw. Given the Foreman-Lyle results, I can surely see a clearly quicker and harder-hitting J.D. crunching Big George. Of course, I can also envision a Foreman win (though I'd bet Dempsey). PeteLeo.

I've read on this thread a while back that there actually exsisted a film of the 18 sec ko of dempsey vrs fulton... but unfortunately the film was later destroyed... cant remember what poster stated that... but i'm pretty sure they actually got to see it...

if someone indeed did see this film... i'd really like to hear their specific recollections of the fight... or anyone who has read specific journalist reports on the fight... the 2 bios ive read on dempsey are sketchy on what in reality was a crucial win for him against the #1 ranked contender to willard... it essentially was the fight that setup the willard fight.. thus the stakes were huge... it would also i assume be the only footage ever of dempsey in that magic year for him- 1918...

fulton's reputation would suffer after this fight... even w/ claims of fixed fights... but in this particular fight, his record & career were in top form... plus he had a lot at stake in this fight & a huge oppty to get a shot at the belt... so the motive for taking a fix seems doubtful... plus even though it was an important fight... it wasnt a huge media event, nor a huge gate... so the betting juice & $ it would seem wouldnt be high enough to make a fix desirable in comparison to the trade-off of winning & having a shot at the belt...

to anyone who saw the film or have read detailed reports on the fight:

- was there any taint after the fight.... that the 18sec ko was a fix?

- secondly, to take a big guy out so quick must have taken a really well placed punch.... was the punch similar to the left hook he connect w/ on willard? .. & how hurt & what damage did fulton endure from this fight? .

- lastly, how close was fulton to getting up & trying to continue? ... & what comments did he make after the fight in re to dempsey's skills & power?

... thanks for any insights

[handtomouth]

re:

Oh E, you choose to leave out Gibbons was a light heavyweight. Make sure you add that to Dempsey's "tremendous" achievement next time you tell that tale. Image if Foreman fought a light heavy ?

Frazier, who you brush aside like he was Tommy Burns, crushed a much greater light heavyweight named Foster in two devastating rounds.

true gibbons was a light heavy.... but the fact remains he came into the fight at 176 lbs... dempsey weighed 188... thats only a 12lb difference.... not a huge spread... dempsey himself many times fought at a larger weight discrepancy w/ him on the lighter end...

foster on the other hand was 21 lbs lighter then frazier when they fought... nearly 10 more lbs more then the advantage in weight dempsey had over gibbons.

[JimmyShimmy]

I have never veiwed Dempsey vs Fulton but I've heard it use to exist. I'd imagine it's still around somewhere.

To answer your questions handtomouth:

was there any taint after the fight.... that the 18sec ko was a fix

I have followed paper reports and all that is expressed is a great praise of Dempsey:

Jimmy De Forrest (veteran trainer who took looked after Dempsey for Willard) explained after this fight that Dempsey is here to stay a while, that he is a quality pugilist with a bright future-he commented on how viscous he is during sparring.

secondly, to take a big guy out so quick must have taken a really well placed punch.... was the punch similar to the left hook he connect w/ on willard? .. & how hurt & what damage did fulton endure from this fight? .

Fulton recieved 3 punches:

A right underneath the heart that backed him near the ropes, a left hook that shook him and a right hook that laid him out for the count.

Fulton was nearly completly out.

lastly, how close was fulton to getting up & trying to continue? ... & what comments did he make after the fight in re to dempsey's skills & power?

Freds manager Mike Collins was begging him to rise but Fulton was barely able to lift his body.

I have not heard anything in the way of praise only a complaint were Fred said Dempsey cheated and tied up his arms near the ropes...

Here is a few pictures of the bout:

[mike21]

these are some EXECELLANT POSTS ! lots of knowledge and alot of great points made. dempsey was told by rickard to take it easy for the carp and firpo fights. he did it for the carp fight but told rickard to go to hell for the firpo bout. as far as dempsey's prime, im inclined to agree with handto mouth that it may be 23. deforst thought the dempsey of 1919 was the best, and the 23 version 'good''. but he cinditioned dempsey during that time. jack may have been a little rusty for the firpo fight, im not sure. any body else on this subject? dempsey always felt 18 thru 21 was his prime.

[mike21]

does anybody have any contempory accounts of the 14 second ko of morris- any futher knowledge of this bout? thanks.

[mike21]

i have read that following the bout morris stated " he's the hardest hitter i ever fought. a man killer." perhaps the first time the man killer phrase used for dempsey- according to nat fleischer. other than this, not much info. dempsey was quoted in 25 that " i nearly drove my fist right through him. he didnt white hope any more." dempsey didnt like him much.

[handtomouth]

first off.... jimmyshimmy thanks for the info & photos on fulton... fascinating images... it doesnt sound like there was any fix in place, from all the accounts you reference... just sounds like dempsey once again mastered the quick assault... his forearms were underrated in strength... the technique you allude to is a wrestling like maneuver that takes quicks hands & vicing forearm power... dempsey used any advantage at hand to gain leverage... its obvious here he mauled open a channel & then quickly unloaded dispatching power to fulton.

in re to:

i have read that following the bout morris stated " he's the hardest hitter i ever fought. a man killer." perhaps the first time the man killer phrase used for dempsey- according to nat fleischer. other than this, not much info. dempsey was quoted in 25 that " i nearly drove my fist right through him. he didnt white hope any more." dempsey didnt like him much.

mike thanks also for this info... the morris fight too is an awesome display, considering morris himself was highly ranked, big & very tough... yet dempsey went thru him w/ frightening fury...

I didnt realize he had that much animosity towards him... not an experience I'd like to go thru... an angry dempsey trying to put a fist thru you... no wonder he used the man killer phrase..

looking back, I found an interesting newspaper quote in re to an earlier feb 1918 fight vrs the very tough ko brennan fight... this sounds like a very exciting fight to have witnessed... to bad this one wasnt on film also.. see quote below:

"Just one man, Fred Fulton, stands today between Jack Dempsey, the shiftiest two-fisted fighter since Bob Fitzsimmons, and Jess Willard, the heavyweight champion of the world. When Dempsey fights as he fought against Bill Brennan here last night, no lesser man can stand against him. Dempsey knocked Brennan out in the sixth round, and it was a masterly piece of work. Very few fighters have taken a better licking or taken their licking better than Brennan did last night. In sixty-seven fights Brennan had not been knocked off his feet, and his record includes about forty knockouts. Dempsey had him down four times in the second round and twice in the sixth. That ought to be answer enough to the question, can Dempsey hit? Just once did Brennan's robust wallop net Dempsey for a punch that stung. Dempsey took that punch and came back fighting like a tiger. Brennan's vaunted defense crumpled like paper before Dempsey's attack and his deadly left hand could not find its mark. Dempsey punished the big Chicagoan in every round but one." (Warren Evening Times)

[HEGrant]

How funny is that ? There seems to have been a time when they questioned if Dempsey could punch ...imagine ?

[HEGrant]

E, try apples to apples...Foreman fought Peralta early in his career, not as a title defense in his prime as Dempsey did with Gibbons. Try keeping it accurate and equal when comparing.

[robertk]

Another thing with that early perelta bout; they had a rematch before foreman was champ.

How often do you see that with heavyweights? It's a rarity w/ other divisions but with the heavies it's almost always a case of avoid that guy at all costs. It's a huge huge risk and about every heavyweight has some close encounter they squeek by. That scoring for that first foreman/perelta bout was atrocious and george was not even close to losing on the scorecards.

But other than foreman, what other heavyweight had that close bout turn into an immediate rematch anyway? I cannot recall anyone going back to say marty marshall/sonny liston? Or whom?

[thumper3852]

Foreman had 8 more fights (and about 1 1/2 yrs) before he was rematched with Peralta. The cards on the first fight were rather varied: I thought it was a pretty close fight.