200 LBS or less : Marciano Challenge

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Balder, Jul 15, 2015.


  1. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,575
    27,221
    Feb 15, 2006
    Dempsey was a faster starter, and a better finisher, and Marciano would get taken out first.

    Much as it might offend some people, this is by far the most likely scenario.
     
  2. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,529
    46,096
    Feb 11, 2005

    Dempsey was also reckless and sloppy. Neophytes found his chin.

    Also, I'm not sure how much success he would have at backing up Marciano.
     
  3. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,575
    27,221
    Feb 15, 2006
    He was a defensive wizard compared to Marciano, and it would hardly matter whether he backed him up or not. As long as Marciano comes at him, he is going not get his brains scrambled. Styles make fights, and the styles favor Dempsey here.
     
  4. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    38 years old, reigning heavyweight champion of the world, coming off best career wins over a prime ATG champion

    32 year old former heavyweight champion who was currently the RING magazine number 1 heavyweight contender and NBA most logical

    See how I can spin it? Neither of these two were washed up not even close, especially Walcott, geez you have to be snorting crack to think Walcott was washed up when he won the heavyweight title at 37 by knocking Charles out with that amazing left hook. And then that performance against Marciano? Washed up? :shock:


    Was Bernard Hopkins washed up when he fought Trinidad Joppy and De La Hoya?
     
  5. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    Walcott won the heavyweight title in 1951 clearly his best days weren't over. Maybe you should read Walcotts book
     
  6. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    Mr Kool Kevin you don't know what your talking about when it comes to Marciano

    Please I'd love to hear your opinion on when Moore and Walcott were at there best? Give me there 5 best years and state why?
     
  7. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    I can't wait to hear!:good
     
  8. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,724
    29,075
    Jun 2, 2006
    You may be right whose to say?

    I agree about Charles and possibly Walcott would have
    retained a bit more spring in his step, had he been the guy that faced Louis first time around? I say possibly.
     
  9. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    Styles favor Marciano.

    Brains scrambled? There is no evidence Dempsey hit harder nor was a better finisher. We know Marciano had the much better chin than Dempsey. That usualLy wins when two sluggers collide. Dempsey is going to get broken down then get his clock cleaned by Marciano.

    Marciano was much more proven against higher quality opposition than Dempsey. Dempsey wasn't joe Louis, not even close. Marciano could come right into Dempsey and out slug him and break him down for a stoppage. He could knock Dempsey out with 1 punch too if he lands right. Marciano hit just as hard, was stronger, better stamina, better chin, better on the inside, and at times I think Marciano showed better defense in exchanges than Dempsey did, Dempsey was careless at times and a sucker for a right hand.

    Marciano had the better chin, we know Marciano can take it better. Marciano knocked out much better fighters than Dempsey did
     
  10. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,575
    27,221
    Feb 15, 2006
    Do you even believe this in your own heart?

    However you try to spin the usual soundbites, Marciano was a pressure fighter who broke his opponents down over the course of a fight, while Dempsey took people out early.

    Marciano might have been the better fighter, the guy with the better resume, the nicer man outside the ring, but Dempsey was unequivocally the better finisher.
     
  11. gentleman jim

    gentleman jim gentleman jim Full Member

    1,640
    56
    Jan 15, 2010
    I would certainly favor Louis to take Marciano either by decision or TKO but it wouldn't be easy. Dempsey is another one I'd give a good shot at beating Rocky tho I'm not sure about it. Holyfield if he fights smart could pull it off too.
     
  12. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,724
    29,075
    Jun 2, 2006


    I disagree with the term ATG champion

    No they were.


     
  13. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,724
    29,075
    Jun 2, 2006
    How do we know Marciano had a "much better chin," than Dempsey?
    Marciano was dropped by both left and right hands.
    Dempsey was far more resistant to facial damage.
    Quicker of hand .
    Quicker of foot.

    Marciano had better defence ? I don't think so!
     
  14. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,429
    9,409
    Jul 15, 2008
    Johnson, Langford, Tunney, Louis possibly Dempsey, Fitz and a younger Walcott ...
     
  15. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,578
    Jan 30, 2014
    Oh snap! Almost missed this. I'd put Walcott's prime around 46-49, as evidenced by his great performances against Louis and some of the other top fighters of the 40s. Moore's, more like '48-52.

    A great cruiserweight and a great light-heavy in their respective primes and still live enough to give Marciano problems when they fought him, but the idea that beating them proves Marciano would beat: a) 80s heavyweights; or b) all of the toughest sub-200lb fighters of all-time doesn't really fly.