Bigger Puncher: 1951 Rocky Marciano or 1919 Jack Dempsey?

[he grant]

Dempsey was a far more dangerous two handed puncher. He KO'ed much bigger, tougher guys. No doubt Rocky was brutal as well but Louis was a shell, Walcott a cruiser, Charles a blown up light heavy as was Moore ... I never saw Rocky pound out a massive KO over talented , large heavy in prime condition ... his best KO to me was the shot that put out Layne. Terrific shot. Dempsey is reported to have a dozen of those himself but just not on film ...

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by he grant

Dempsey was a far more dangerous two handed puncher. He KO'ed much bigger, tougher guys. No doubt Rocky was brutal as well but Louis was a shell, Walcott a cruiser, Charles a blown up light heavy as was Moore ... I never saw Rocky pound out a massive KO over talented , large heavy in prime condition ... his best KO to me was the shot that put out Layne. Terrific shot. Dempsey is reported to have a dozen of those himself but just not on film ...

and which of dempsey's opponents would you put in this category?

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Willard was as shot as Louis and older I believe and more innactive

Shot Louis>Shot Willard

Yes but Willard was just demolished, while Louis put up a competitive fight.

And Firpo was a never was who wasn't bigger than Louis

Firpo was undoubtedly a top 2 contender when he fought Dempsey.

Willard and Firpo are both fighters who Marciano would have needed rounds to stop.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

and which of dempsey's opponents would you put in this category?

A lot more than I would with Marciano's opponents.

Dempsey was more proven against bigger fighters, period.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by janitor

A lot more than I would with Marciano's opponents.

Dempsey was more proven against bigger fighters, period.

bigger? 100%

better? debatable.

i will go along with the theory that marciano will need more rounds than dempsey to get the job done against some of dempsey's opponents. I chalk that up to styles

willard, fulton, and firpo would need to stand on a ladder to kiss walcott and charles' ass in terms of quality though

[janitor]

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

could be but just the same, his level of competition could also be discussed. size or not, fred fulton is likely MUCH easier to tag clean than the walcott than marciano fought

Yes and no.

Fulton might not have had the defensive genius of Walcott, but it is almost unheard of for a fighter Dempsey's size, to reach up to and destroy a tall defensive fighter like Fulton.

Mike Tyson never did it.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

bigger? 100%

better? debatable.

The best big guy that Marciano beat was Johny Shkor.

i will go along with the theory that marciano will need more rounds than dempsey to get the job done against some of dempsey's opponents. I chalk that up to styles

That is all that I was trying to argue.

willard, fulton, and firpo would need to stand on a ladder to kiss walcott and charles' ass in terms of quality though

Yes, they do.

But we still have to not Dempsey's uncanny ability to destroy very good very big fighters very quickly.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by janitor

Yes and no.

Fulton might not have had the defensive genius of Walcott, but it is almost unheard of for a fighter Dempsey's size, to reach up to and destroy a tall defensive fighter like Fulton.

Mike Tyson never did it.

i wouldn't call fulton defensive necessary but he could neutralize superior punchers.

tyson didn't do that but he demolished the 6'4 carl williams (and struggled against the 6'4 smith who fought scared)

it is hard to destroy a much taller fighter but monte barrett destroyed the much taller tye fields, does he get credit for it? fred fulton was simply not that good. he beat gunboat, he beat a fat blind langford. that's about it.

[Nightcrawler]

[quote=janitor;13403817]

The best big guy that Marciano beat was Johny Shkor.



That is all that I was trying to argue.



Yes, they do.

But we still have to not Dempsey's uncanny ability to destroy very good very big fighters very quickly.

as explosive and skilled a giant killer as there ever war (as long as the giant couldn't move worth a shit)

[Bill1234]

I think Marciano. Dempsey tended to bounce guys off of the canvas, but Marciano tended to put them down once and they'd be unconcious and litterally asleep.

I haven't seen Dempsey knock guys out with 1 shot the way Marciano did to Layne or Walcott. I can't envision Marciano landing as many clean, hard, wound up punches to Willard's jaw as Dempsey did and Willard being stopped in the corner. I think he'd have been out cold on the ground long before it was up to the corner to stop it.

People seem to attributing Dempsey's early round knockouts as evidence that Dempsey hits harder, but I don't really agree with it. Dempsey was a very, very fast starter and would often catch guys before they warmed up. Marciano, on the other hand, was a slow starter and didn't really get going until a few rounds had passed.

Swap Marciano and Dempsey's styles, I think Marciano would have ended up with several early round knockouts like Dempsey had. Dempsey in turn would most likely have many mid round knockouts like Marciano had.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

i wouldn't call fulton defensive necessary but he could neutralize superior punchers.

Anybody alive at the time would have called Fulton a defensive specialist, and not always to his credit.

tyson didn't do that but he demolished the 6'4 carl williams (and struggled against the 6'4 smith who fought scared)

Anybody who wanted to fight scared against Dempsey was free to do so.

The big guys just got demolished.

it is hard to destroy a much taller fighter but monte barrett destroyed the much taller tye fields, does he get credit for it? fred fulton was simply not that good. he beat gunboat, he beat a fat blind langford. that's about it.

The bottom line is that Fulton was the #1 contender for several years, and Fields was a fringe contender.

There is honestly no comparison.

[Nightcrawler]

[quote=janitor;13404134]

Anybody alive at the time would have called Fulton a defensive specialist, and not always to his credit.



Anybody who wanted to fight scared against Dempsey was free to do so.

The big guys just got demolished.



The bottom line is that Fulton was the #1 contender for several years, and Fields was a fringe contender.

There is honestly no comparison.

1) didn't know that about fulton, good to know

2) same with tyson, and all but a few got demolished. for first round fury, i don't put dempsey above tyson...i consider them even

3) fair point but that doesn't mean he was that good. he was #1 but still sloopy, uncoordinated with little more than size and a jab

[LittleRed]

The correct answer is Ingemar Johansson.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by LittleRed

The correct answer is Ingemar Johansson.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

1) didn't know that about fulton, good to know

Fulton was the "not quite formed Wladamir Klitschko", of his day.

He could dominate anybody at the top level, but they might just starch him.

2) same with tyson, and all but a few got demolished. for first round fury, i don't put dempsey above tyson...i consider them even

To be fair though, a big guy who could hold a lot could last the distance against Tyson.

Dempsey seems to have had subtle ways of unraveling the ball of wool.

3) fair point but that doesn't mean he was that good. he was #1 but still sloopy, uncoordinated with little more than size and a jab

You will not find another example of a guy Dempsey's size, demolishing elite superheavyweights so quickly.

Or a guy 15lbs heavier for that matter!

He was prety unique.