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

It wasn't my intention to mock thinking that undermines Dempsey. Or, as you said in previous post, dismiss recent opinion as ridiculous because it contradicts contemporary opinion.
If I'm mocking any opinion it would be ChrisP's opinion that we are better off having the fragments of footage and the internet, than the guys who made their careers out of judging, observing and handling the actual fighters in the real world at the actual time.
That's not really about Dempsey at all. (it just seems to come up on Dempsey threads, because there's burt and there are the anti-burts. )

I'd say the same thing about an old-time opinion on fighters that I DON'T rate highly. For example, I'm not exactly 100% sold on Jim Jeffries or Jim Corbett at the moment, ratings-wise. But I wouldn't dismiss the testimony of old-timers who put them above Louis or Dempsey, or mock anyone who quotes that opinion in defence of their high rating. I think contempoary opinion does go a long way to validate a rating, but it doesn't make that rating a necessity.

Of course, we could say that my view on ChrisP's idea is just another opinion regarding an opinion. And as absurd as it sounds to me it's really not something I wish to argue about. And Chris's broad points about distorted memories are good ones, but to elevate "us" to be in a better position than some of those old-timers is just wrong, I reckon.

:good

Yeah, it was a little skit for burt.
He provides this place with so many jokes after all.

 

Thank you kindly Mc. I needed that compliment,because just a short while ago someone I know called me two-faced ! I hurt, replied , "if I were two-faced ,would I wear this one ?
Yes Mc, I may seem redundant to others,but what should my response be
to what I honestly perceive to be a posters "wrong" devaluation of a Jack Dempsey,who since puberty oldtime boxers,and fans I knew growing up,
were in awe of his fighting abilities,and what few films I have seen time after time,have been impressive to me.? Should I disregard these unfair and bogus [in my eyes] posts, therefore giving credence to these posters,
or do I join the fray, which is the purpose of this boxing forum, and defend the legacy of a legend, who I fervently feel has been villified much too long.? Where am I wrong Mc ? I can assure you I have better things to do for my pleasure, such as watching the paint dry on my walls ! So Mc,
redundant I might seem to others, but to me it is defending a fighter who
I feel is constantly being defamed today,by posters not as astute as great boxing experts of Dempsey,s, Joe Louis, and Marciano's day..Good day to you,and back to watching the paint dry on my wall...:hi:

 

GA, The the thread was "who would win at 185 lbs Marciano VS Dempsey "?
Solely on that fight alone,and question, I chose Dempsey,not ONLY because almost all writers who saw them BOTH in Marciano's reign,chose Jack Dempsey, but on MY evaluation,of Dempsey's much greater hand speed,which will most surely get their first,and the accuracy of his punches, whilst Marciano missed half of his hand grenades, Dempsey's would land and no one survives Dempsey at his best except a cutey like
master boxer Tommy Gibbons...Solely on that H2H basis. Style MAKES fights.
For example Ike Williams [best LW I saw] lost THREE times to Willy Joyce
who had the defensive style to beat him. And so with a Dempsey who in close quarters was a much more accurate and faster puncher than Marciano. Not for nothing was the prime Dempsey called a "man-killer". Cheers.

 

I gotta say, I have no bias towards either fighter but it just seems to me that dempsey was a bit better in every regard, barring stamina, :think

maybe I need to watch mnore of marciano's fights, I dunno. I picked him to lose to both langford and dempsey despite his dominant stint as champion (one of the most dominant in history imo, the valdes criticism is ridiculous for me because moore and arguable charles beat nino both got destroyed shortly after by rocky).

At one time rocky was my number 3 hw and a solid pick against anyone in history, but recently I did a re-evaluation and I found he fell up short. Dropping to 9th on my list. Maybe I'm focusing too much on his heart, will and stamina. Maybe the man's heart has blinded me to his more subtle skillsets that lead people to believe he's a formidable h2h force.

Kepping in line with this thread I'll just outline my basic comparison's in some categories and anyone disagreeing could well sway me back to my old viewpoint of the rock.

Speed: dempsey
Frame: dempsey
Power: dempsey
Accuracy: dempsey
Timing: dempsey
Defence: dempsey
Durability: rocky
Stamin: rocky

when I lay it out like that I just can't envision rocky winning. I am massively conscious now of how I rate rocky because it seems I credit him as just a rugged fighter who willed himself to victory, but no man could do this 49 times and clean out an era so there is something I'm missing :think

all in all h2h matchups are soemthing to be taken overly serious imo, they're just a bit of fun with one opinion being as valid as the next. However I question my lack of appreciation for overall skill when it comes to rocky.

I'm happy with how I view jack but perhaps I need to evaluate rocky further :think

 

I don't think it's foolish to pick Dempsey over Marciano since it's such a close match-up to call (Dempsey's speed vs Marciano's durability).

What I'm saying is that Marciano is not as easy a fighter to appreciate as Dempsey since at first he may appear more crude but I personally think there's every bit as much substance to him as there is to Jack Dempsey.

The observers who saw him coming up probably didn't think much of him at first when comparing him to established legends such as Dempsey and Louis but as the years went by he became far more appreciated.

I wouldn't give any decisive advantage to Dempsey in the power category and the stamina, durability and consistency of Marciano could end up being a huge factor in this fight.

Dempsey had the more impressive looking defense but you never saw Marciano getting hit with wild punches like the ones Firpo hit Dempsey with. He was very consistent in tucking his chin, using awkward upperbody movement and parrying to avoid the most punishing blows. Even when he got hit, his expression would barely change while Dempsey admitted to fighting recklessly in a daze whenever he got stunned.

Categorizing the fighters' attributes can be misleading because there's so much to boxing that has to be taken into account.

 

the firpo fight is something I considered strongly but whilst his defence was porous, he was never beaten up the way rocky was by charles or moore so I wonder if his wild style did incorporate swift head movement.

chargin in like that owuld get him sparked off sam langford though, I'm not sure rocky could counter him even if it was just a huge war like jack v firpo was.

you are right about how crude rocky looks at first glance and I think this is where I'm going wrong because I'm not appreciating his subtle skillset :think

 

Mc,A parody of myself when I say my dad and his contemporaries saw or had access to see in the New York area a great boxing card SIX nights a week in the Metropolitan area. My dad and i would go to two or three cards a week and we seldom missed the Friday night great bouts in the old famous Madison Square Garden on 8th Ave, N.Y.And I as a youngster visited the great Stillman's gym on Sat. morning religiously. What I saw from a few feet away in Stillman's was dozens of the greatest fighters of the 1940s golden age.We saw the greatest boxing trainers that ever lived
mentoring and teaching their famous fighters,who listened to them intently. In the audience, I would sit or stand next to old HOFamers as Harry Wills, Kid Norfolk, Ben Jeby,and a slew of old time and present day fighters who were'nt in training. If you think that the old fight fans, i cited as being "different" than today's tv fans, were not much more exposed to
the boxing game than today's tv or website fans, watching main eventers who would not get a 6 round bout in the old MSG, than experience is a waste of time by your standards. So Mc if my saying that the boxing fans of
the 40s who saw three times as many fights ringside,were not on a different level generally, as I had posted, is a parody of "myself", then
I'll wear that badge with honor....
Mc,I'm sure were you seeing what we old fans saw live boxing almost every night if one desired, you would see the light and be on my side. And not
parody. The truth cannot be stated too often...The oldtimers saw much more,because there were 4 or more times pro fighters active in the 1940s.
Yours in good faith Mr. Parody...

 

This fight could go either way though I'm inclined to go with Dempsey in this one. We all know that Jack would attack right from the start in the hope of ending it as soon as possible. "The sooner the safer" was his motto after all and that marciano was a slow starter in comparison. I think it all boils down to whether or not Rocky could survive Dempsey's early onslaught and make this a war of attrition. Even if he can it's still no guarantee. jack could fight a distance fight and his power went with him into the later rounds just as Marciano's did. Speed kills as we've all heard and I think this would hold true in this fight. Dempsey is faster on the attack both in hand and foot and would get there first. Walcott tried to do it in his first fight with Rocky and almost succeeded. If Jack hurts Rocky early he'll end it and that's what I see happening.

 

Some people on this forum say that Dempsey is over rated.

They have seen to it that he is decidedly under rated within their own sphere of influence!

 

Tell me this, what is more admissible as evidence in court:
a) An eyewitness who saw the event 20 years ago;
b) Camera footage of the same event.

Thanks.

As for the experts in that field: I think most posters here in the Classic section are at least as qualified as most experts/IBHOF members. We're all human and we all have our bias. Take Monte Cox. Excellent, excellent writer, but doesn't always have an honest, balanced view. When talking about Marciano, he describes Layne as something along the lines of "a decent fighter who lost every time he stepped up". He then goes on to praise Louis for defeating guys like Conn, Pastor, Godoy and the likes; that's neither a balanced nor a fair assessment.

Does that make Monte a bad historian? Of course not, but my point is that just because someone is or was an expert/boxing historian/IBHOF member, it doesn't instantly make their opinions true.

 

Unforgiven received a completely unprovoked lifetime ban yesterday night.
He won't be able to respond to you.

 

In all do respect, I put out the list of boxers in the modern and old-timers division, that were listed the last couple of years for the IBHOF and you can see for yourself, who some of them picked. People don't really do the reserach when it comes to this. This is why all the Hall of Fames pick the experts to do the voting.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=347963

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=347964

If we left it up to the fans, well just look at this list that was taken by ESPN.

ESPN.com: Fan Poll
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Alexis Arguello
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Sugar Ray Robinson
5. Joe Louis
6. Roy Jones Jr.
7. Julio Cesar Chavez
8. Abe Attel
9. Ray Leonard
10. Rocky Marciano
10a. Wilfred Benitez