Best defence Dempsey or Marciano

Fleischer wrote extensively as you know. He did not rate Louis as the best. He rated Johnson as the best, Dempsey 4th and Rocky10th all time hwts. He did not rate either Ali or Frazier in his top 10 but understand he died in 1972. At that time Ali was thought of as a fringe ATG. In addition historians rarely rate any fighter until their career is over or nearly over.

 

And this proves what exactly?

 

No he took it, as his face showed after the fight.

 

Yes Bummy he put Marciano in his top ten ,at number ten.
I repeat my question to anyone and everyone,who of the respected sportswriters who saw both of them ranked
Marciano over Dempsey?
Not.

Fleischer
Loubet
Daniel
Rice
Rose
Runyon

 

when a fighter is aggressive and has the will to go in, he will be hit, Marciano always had a bruise or some abrasions because of his aggressive style but I would not say the damage was too bad after marching through Joe Louis's ****nal and reaching the off button

 

Marciano was cut in several fights:
Moore
Simmons
Charles 1
Charles2
Walcott 1
Shkor

And marked up around both eyes after the Louis fight he didn't march through Louis's ****nal ,Louis had only the remnants of his jab and an occasional left hook to offer, he rarely used his right, and never threw it with any commitment
Marciano was no more aggressive than Dempsey, he was just easier to hit.

 

Dempsey wasn't entirely unmarked in fights against Tunney, as well as against Sharkey.

Do you think Firpo reaches Marciano, mac..? :think

 

Proves that Marciano dealt with tougher opposition than Dempsey.

 

At least Louis knew how to jab. Dempsey never faced an opponent who knew how to jab until he met Tunney.

Louis busted up the face of a prime Ezzard Charles in 1950 with his jab. You criticize Marciano for taking a few left jabs from joe Louis. Who else was stopping Louis jab around that time?

 

No he doesn't, and the opponents hitting him back weren't exactly fundamentally sound until he got to Sharkey and Tunnry

 

Here is Nat Fleischer's all-time rankings at light-heavyweight

1----Kid McCoy
2----Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
3----Jack Dillon
4----Tommy Loughran
5----Jack Root
6----Battling Levinsky
7----Georges Carpentier
8----Tommy Gibbons
9----Jack Delaney
10---Paul Berlenbach

So Archie Moore isn't even in the top ten. Neither is Billy Conn. Nor John Henry Lewis.

Nor Ezzard Charles.

Should we all rate the light-heavyweights like this?

And just pack it in because Nat Fleischer has spoken?

The best Sugar Ray Robinson could do was #5 at middleweight.

Henry Armstrong #8 at welterweight.

Ike Williams and Carlos Ortiz did not make Nat's top ten at lightweight. Nor Sandy Saddler at featherweight. Pascual Perez barely cracked the flyweights at #10.

 

In fairness, Gibbons looked to be a good technician; and I'd actually argue that's the fight where Dempsey looks to be at his best on offense and defense.

But, to me, he still doesn't look any better than Marciano. A little faster, maybe...but not any more refined.

 

Ed. These rankings were developed in the late 50's. Conn being considered an ATG is recent history. You don't know how good these fighters were he choose for his top 10. Charles would be ranked at hwt not lt heavy. Again ranking Charles, Tunney etc as lt heavy is recent thought. In Nats time both these men were considered hwts since they won the hwt title.

 

"These rankings were developed in the late 50's."

Eder Jofre is #4 at bantamweight. Nat was clearly still shuffling his ratings in the late sixties.

"You don't know how good these fighters were he choose for his top 10."

Well, do you rate Jack Root ahead of Archie Moore? Or for that matter Harold Johnson?

If you do, okay.

But I don't and can't see any reason to kowtow before these opinions.

Conn had been retired for about 25 years before Nat died. The Boxing Writers of America poll done by HBO around 1980 rated Moore and Conn the top two light-heavies.

 

Gibbons got the title shot against Dempsey by losing a title eliminator to Harry Greb 10 rounds to 0