Question:Why some have Rocky overJack?

dempsey in the early 50s was considered a god.rocky at that time was more or less unappreciated so the so called experts thoughts dont mean much at least to me.lets look at several things.1. punching power.rocky hit harder.period.this dempsey told me himself on st paddys day 1960 .2.chin.theres no comparrison.rocky by a mile.rocky was down twice.if you look at thoses knockdowns the walcott one rocky had his feet squared off.vulnerable to a kdown and walcott hit him with 2 left hooks that took charles out.rocky gets up early.2. moore.a rare time rockys balance caused a knockdown.his right foot was off the canvas in the air when he was moving foward and got hit..dempsey was down in the first 15 seconds of the first round of the firpo and down 3 times in that fight..against a bum called johnny sudenberg in there first 2 fights dempsey was down 10 times.9 in the first round in thoses fights.he was knocked cold by fireman jim flyn in one round.out cold for 30-40 seconds.years later lol folks said maybe jack took a dive.not realy..tunney decked him in the long count fight.carpentier staggered him..chin no contest.3.knowledge of distance.rocky again.he was so underated in this but made excellent fighters miss a punch by a inch or so..stanima.please lets get real here.dempsey at one time had good stanima rocky at all times had great stanima and endurance.4.determination and will to win..rocky again.rocky went all out battering charles the last 2 rounds in there 15 round fight.dempsey against gibbons showed nothing like that.5. strenth.again rocky.walcott decades later said rocky was the strongest roughest toughest heavyweight ever.5.rocky at times missed punches and looked bad.most of the time he was on the money.look at dempseys wild swings in the firpo fight or even the willard fight etc etc6.heart.both had it but rockys was in a class that was well above jacks..i can go on and on.6mental toughness.a intangible that ill give to rocky..7. defense.rocky did so many things well that go unnotriced.like attacking moore yet sliping punches ny knowledge of distance with headmovement and countering..rocky was a underated counterpuncher also..look both were great fighters.to say otherwise truly is a injustice to both.this is a fight between 2 guys that weigh the same.jack was great yes rocky greater.period.to downgrade either fighter is total bull**** and as a several decade fan im tired of that nonsence.again rocky has a advantage in several areas weather anyone likes it or not.

 

Only it isn't. He probably lost to Castellani too. Who considers Robinson the greatest middleweight? His inconsistentcy post-comeback is plenty scrutinized and hurts his H2H standing significantly. Many on ESB don't consider him the greatest fighter, as that's been occupied by Greb or Langford. Depending on who you ask, and if the fight is 12 rounds, Robinson may not even be the best H2H Welterweight even though he'd cave Hearns ribs in and shatter his jaw before it even gets past the mid-rounds. :hi:

 

The only reason is because "Rocco!" has a nice goose egg on his record.
No other reason really.
Muhammad Ali came out and said it "he dont even rank in the low fighters in the gymnasium...all he could *whoop was old men"

Dempsey was by all accounts the better fighter, as strong or actually stronger, faster, blah blah blah on and on Rock gets rated over Dempsey because of the goose egg that sparkles in some peoples eyes, thats all.

Prime for Prime Dempsey batters and bruisers Rock in a UD or a mid round KO.

*and he could barely do that

 

I'm always reasonable. :yep

 

The power of the emerging American Sports Media, and the latter nostalgia for pre-Depression times, vaulted Dempsey to ridiculously overblown status. He had a decent one year run to the title (including a loss to Willie Meehan), an emphatic performance against an aged, overly confident part-time champ, and then periodically defended against a collection of lightheavy, infirmed and hopelessly amateurish challengers, mixing in a 3 year lay-off in the interim. And this is the legacy that deserves such hyperbole? Please, a little objectivity is in order here. All the pretty, titillating language about his ferocity and sinewy muscles should not prettify a fairly paltry career. And I love the imagery of Dempsey as some unique sort of hungry, untamed animal released from poverty to take over the sport... as if Harry Wills, Sam Langford and the like stepped out of a parties with the Hearst's and Rockefeller's to enter the ring. Pure, sentimental hogwash.

 

They were prisoners of their own era, largely befuddled by the emerging media machine that overwhelmed society at the time, along with the complimentary nostalgia for the pre-Depression day, better days when they were younger, life was easier, the Aspirin Age between the World Wars. It's understandable but not objective. Objective analysis of Dempsey's career shows it much less flattering light.

Congratulations on reading, and reading history. I am impressed. I wouldn't think such a forum would have readers of history. It seems so irrelevant to the discussions.

And as I stated earlier, Dempsey did have a nice run of about a year when he took out Morris, Fulton, healthy Miske, Brennan, Smith, Morris and the like. I think we are in agreement there. It was a good to great run, but a very short run, followed by an underwhelming stint as champion.

I fully love and embrace Dempsey, but as time goes on and the misty eyed remembrances are replaced by a more objective analysis of his career, I feel a bit duped. He had a fine career.

Does a prime Joe Louis lose to Meehan over 4? Does a prime Marciano? Liston? Ali? Holmes? Tyson? Holyfield? Lewis?

 

Touching stuff, Burt.

 

I think Cockell has a good chance to win, actually.

So, we want to rave about him stopping Willard in 3 and claim that Willard was anything but unskilled and physically washed-up but in 4 rounds he can't dent Meehan? And Langford was well past it at 36 years old, losing to guys he had beaten before... so that's pretty irrelevant.

And what they did NOT see, or did NOT see with any perspective that was unaffected by a prejudice for their halcyon days were the REAL heavyweights that were still to arrive, guys like Louis, Marciano, Liston, Ali... etc. Now we have the perspective provided by 85 years of film and concurrent developments in boxing and other sports to rationally judge a fighter like Dempsey on a head to head basis. Rationality and objectivity rarely flatter sentimentality.

 

:rofl Amazing work.

 

How can you possibly conclude that Marciano has the stylistic edge?

You have two come forward fighters and one of who is a much faster faster starter, better fisher and more polished defensively.

What do you think is going to happen?

Obviously anything can happen in this type of fight, but Marciano is going to take horible damage in the early rounds, and I have to seriously doubt whether he lasts long enought to break Dempsey down over the distance.

However much the idea might offend some people, the reality is that styles point to Dempsey as the probable winner.

 

Caruso was a hack. He never even had auto-tune.