Let's face the facts, Marciano was a Cruiserweight

Resumes are only half of the equation. Even if Rocky faced better competition relatively speaking, it still doesn't prove that he would beat Dempsey....or any other similarly sized great HW for that matter. At that point it boils down to each fighters style, strengths and weaknesses pitted against the other's in a h2h battle. In this context I can envision someone like Dempsey beating Marciano...The same goes for Louis as well as Holyfield. I'm not saying that each would definitely win but they certainly could and I would not dismiss thier chances. In fact I would favor all 3 in a match against Marciano tho it could certainly go either way. All 3 were faster with significant reach advantages and all 3 could punch...especially Louis and Dempsey. Rocky would have to work his way inside while avoiding heavy punishment at the same time and that would not be easy.

 

Why not


185-224=heavyweight
224+=super heavy

i do not see why cruiser weight has to exist in a historical sence, isn't cruiserweight a halfway house by definition? how many champions outside of holyfeild brought any prestige to that division? how many decent cruiserweights have not used a cruiserweight title as a vehicle towards the heavyweight title?

 

Well anyone less than 200 today would be a cruiserweight.

Super heavy is a vague term. I use it for those who are bigger than foreman so anyone above 220 and 6'2 can be a super heavy by my reckoning.

 

but throughout history 180-200lb men did not just fight each other, bigger men were included within the division they fought at. Foreman was less than 220 for some fights and 99% of all champions over 180lb scaled below 224 at some point. Does 1% deserve its own division?

I understand that for the sake of categorizing heavyweights the term superheavyweight is useful but should it exist? In most cases what you would call a superheavyweight fighter is a built up version of what you would also call a normal heavyweight.

a cruiserweight is someone moving through the weight divisions. a stepping stone for a lightheavyweight considering growing into the heavyweight division. its not a seperate species of human.

 

You're not understanding the argument though... Burt is saying Dempsey would not only beat Marciano but that he was BETTER than Maricano both all time and in terms of skills. That is my problem and what I'm commenting on. One PROVED so and was head and shoulders above Dempsey in resume and accomplishments. This means he's head and shoulders above Dempsey in an all time sense and in terms of proven skills against the best of the best all time. One might believe Dempsey could beat Marciano.. but don't for a second try and convince me Dempsey was greater than Marciano.. See the difference?

 

As Joe Pesci asked in Goodfellows, "you talking to me "?. My name is not buddy, it's Burt... It is possible Marciano beat a better crop of name heavyweights as Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore etc, but let us nor forgot these 3 fighters were well into their 30s,and ALL past their peaks.
Lest we forget...Marciano who I saw live and admired had 2 tough bouts with Roland LaStarza, and hit a beefed up roly-poly Don Cockell with every punch in the book for NINE rounds before the ref intervened...Dempsey at full sride flattened Carl Morris, Fred Fulton [half a minute], Gunboat Smith , Billy Miske, Jess Willard [never dropped before], Bill Brennan, Carpentier, all ko's, outboxed a terrific defensive fighter Tommy Gibbons in a 15 round bout in a 100% hot sun, flattened a bullish Luis Angel Firpo, at the age of 32 dropped the great Gene Tunney for 14-17 seconds in the "long count", and wore down a prime Jack Sharkey,and ko'd Sharkey in the 7th round at the rusty age of 32...So Dempsey did alright beating everyone he fought from 1918 to 1923 when he went Hollywood...On a H2H basis Dempsey beats Marciano to the punch anytime and anyone Dempsey hits first he hurts...I am not a fuddy duddy but Dempsey kos the wild swinging Marciano, and has far more trouble with a Tyson, Louis as they hit with great force and speed too...Because Dempsey was born in 1895 fighting fighters only of his era, doesn't mean he should be penalized for fighting fighters of his own era only, anymore than Marciano should be penalized
for not fighting better contenders that Ali fought in his era...No boxer
can pick the date of his birth...Boxing is all about styles and Marciano
would have lost to the much faster punching Manassa Mauler as the
boxing poll in the 1950s, by a great majority concluded...

 

Can't argue with Burt's post. I think he pretty much nailed the argument down for good.

 

The natural and obvious choice is Holyfield. I don't think there is a better match between 180-200 than Marciano v Holy. It would be an atg tear-up.

 

Any wild guesses about anyone defeating MARCIANO is just that a wild guess.
Logic may argue that the heavyweights of now would beat Marciano, but who
can say what would happen when he lands the big right hand, and he would land
it.

 

Marciano Holyfield would have been one hell of a dream fight.

Ofcourse I can't look past Marciano in this one though, probably win at KO.

 

Marciano fought and beat every fighter put in front of him including the best of his era, never ducked anyone, was never beaten and never seriously hurt in the ring, none of these accolades can be extended to Dempsey. Rocky was 6-0 against HOFers with 5 KO's and 12-0 against top 10 rated contenders with 11 KO's. All of the best opponents Marciano beat were better than the best Dempsey beat.

The only advantage that Dempsey has is speed and footwork. Marciano was more durable, harder punching, had a better workrate and more stamina, had a better record, I'd say better defense and was more proven against a higher quality of fighter than Dempsey.

 

Holyfield for me is a top20 P4P ATG and I think he is the best from 180-200lbs that we've ever seen. His solid boxing skills compliment an insane workrate with his very quick hands and feet. It's a great all round package and his run from '86 through to Bowe in '92 is the most underrated unbeaten run in boxing history. I think it's partly that he was in Tyson's shadow for so long, alongside it being recent and alongside him not being quite as flashy as some.

Holyfield did improve his ring smarts and strength and power allot between Qawi 1 and 2 but I think the first performance was a very good one against a fighter I'd consider an ATG. He was generally in control outspeeding and outworking Qawi in a fight where he fought the opponents fight

Qawi may well have held his own against the great 50s fighters Marciano fought himself. While not better than Marciano overall, he was better than Marciano at certain things

 

MM,how can you say Marciano was "harder "punching than Dempsey ? Not true,as Dempsey hit better with BOTH hands, could flatten a man from
6 inches, and walloped with much greater speed and accuracy than Marciano did...Marciano won by sheer stamina and attrition,throwing everything at his opponents, MISSING half the time...A man throwing grenades, could be countered by the much faster Dempsey who hit inside with great force and accuracy,and ANYONE Dempsey hit in his prime,
1919-23 he kos. Today we watch films of Marciano at his best, but we don't see films of the Dempsey who flattened Carl Morris, Fred Fulton, Gunboat Smith, Billy Miske etc. This was not the old rusty Dempsey who didn't fight
for 3 years against a Gene Tunney...A slow shell of his prime.
I've always observed when there is a bout between two poweful punchers
the faster more accurate hitting fighter usually prevails...So with Dempsey
against Marciano...

 

What does listing a whole bunch of fighters who couldn't hold Marciano's jock strap prove? I mean really, you just list a whole bunch of ham n eggers and I'm suppose to be impressed by him KOing them in a round or two? I'm not, and nobody is. The only person of note you listed was Gibbons and he wasn't even a HW for God's sake, let an all time great one. Maricano beat 4.. count em.. 4 ALL TIME GREAT FIGHTERS. That poops all over Dempsey resume. I don't know why you keep repeating this nonsense about what writers were saying about Dempsey. WE GET IT BURT.... WE GET THAT DEMPSEY WAS MORE A PRODUCT OF HIS TIME THAN SOMEBODY WITH ACTUAL FEATS WARRANTING SUCH ACCOLADES. Just because the same writers who used HYPERBOLE in describing Dempsey back then, were allve during said pool, PROVES NOTHING. They just repeat the same nostalgia over and over, Nothing new there. Look, what can't be gotten around is that MARCIANO PROVED his hyperbole against ALL TIME GREAT FIGHTERS.. Dempsey on the otherhand NEVER proved the hyperbole was warranted with the same kinda quality wins. in the court of law.. which counts for more... DNA evidence or well he said he was gonna kill him during an argument 2 montsh prior? That is what we have here... Beat everybody and never losses and does so against all time great fighters OR wait for it.. wait for it... another KO's a bunch of ham and eggers and has writers who were infatuated with him. There is no getting around the evidence here burt

 

Do you K believe you know more, saw more than a Ray Arcel, a Nat Fleischer, a Dave Shade, a Jack Sharkey, a Max Schmeling, a Gene Tunney,
all who saw Dempsey at his best and Rocky Marciano at his best...?
If you do, GOOD LUCK !. I rest my case...:happy