REVISED: Under 185lb Tournament, FINALS # 1 Rocky Marciano vs # 2 Jack Dempsey

Why do people keep thinking Dempsey was fast? He wasn't fast, Rocky beat plenty of quicker fighters

 

he was faster than Marciano, if Dempsey was slow then Marciano was snail

 

I have no idea how on God's Green Earth somebody can be considered the best of all time and not beat ONE single ATG or even close to one ATG great figther. That is just silly.

 

who you talking about, Dempsey or Marciano?

Who's calling them the best of all time?

 

I'm talking about Dempsey obviously... People have cited "experts" saying he was the best they ever saw in the 50's.. after marciano and louis were already around. Plus, for example Bert.. seems to think he was and would favor him against anybody

 

If this was back in the late 50's or 60's, this vote would be a run away in favor of Dempsey. Now all the people that actually saw Dempsey fight are all gone, so they can't voice there opinion. I learned a long time ago, to listen to what others have to say, especially the old-timers.

They told me that he was bigger, faster, and anything Rocky could do, Dempsey could do little better. That is the reason I will go with Dempsey on this one.

 

Its a fair question.

Fighters do often high standing in their division without beating an ATG, and if they do beat one they are often outside their prime. I would not rate Dempsey significantly more highly if he had beaten up on a shot Jack Johnson or Sam Langford. Failing to beat another ATG is not necisarily a deal breaker.

I don't think that there is any question of Dempsey being the best. Joe Louis closed the deal on that one, and people who came after him put it further out of Dempseys grasp. I think that Dempsey rates more highly head to head, than he does in terms of resume.

 

:deal

 

The durability discrepancy in my opinion is significant for Marciano. Almost as significant as the durability difference between Tyson & Frazier.

 

Bert is a dramatising mad man, tells a good story though

 

Fair enough Janitor and I get your point. I guess h2h Dempsey could rate higher than his resume.. but even then.. If the packers played the St. Louis cardinals all year long and in the playoffs.. they would look like the 72' dolphins, 85' bears, 89' 49ers all wrapped in one. People can look like worldbeaters if they face competition that isn't so great.. that doesn't mean they are though.

 

Dempsey ducked Sam Langford in 1917, a black mark on his record. This would have been a big win for a young Dempsey. Then he ran out of the ring against a 40 year old Joe Jeanette in 1918.

 

I think that you underestimate Dempseys opposition, and what it meant.

Fred Fulton had been the top contender for years, and the public had been crying out for Willard to fight him. When Jack Dempsey iced him 23 seconds into the first round, everybody was like "What the f***!"

He followed that up by demolishing Jess Willard. One of those wins that nobody genuinely predicted before the fight, but everybody knew was going to happen after!

Miske and Gibbons were damn good fighters. The more you look into them, the better you will like them!

The least that you can say for this crew is that they were the cream of their era.

 

I agree. Marciano at no point in his career would be knocked out cold in 1 round by a 38 year old Fireman Flynn

 

I don't hold either of these against him.

There are legitimate criticisms of Dempsey in terms of the colour line, and these are not two of them!