If we switch Dempsey and Marciano, does anything interesting pop up?

To me the big question is, if we're going to make Rocky a destitute, malnourished fighter, then are we going to put Dempsey in the army from age 20 to 23? Think of how big a period of development that was for Dempsey.

 

You have corectly identified the biggest issue here.

In Dempseys era it is far from certain that Marciano would navigate his way to the top. At the verry least he would have needed to get a good manager and trainer like Dempsey did.

In Marcianos era Dempsey might not even have chosen a career in boxing and if he did it is uncertain how he would have developed as a fighter.

 

This post is making me think too much so I'll take a bye on this one....Hold it a sec..there is one thing I have to say....Jack Dempsey would've annialhated the version of Louis that Marciano fought in 1 or 2 rounds and would have been arrested for assault and battery on an eldery man.

 

Perhaps. But do you think the Bill Brennan of 1920 or the Tommy Gibbons of 1923 beat the old Louis of 1951? I don't think so, and they went 12 and 15 rounds with Dempsey. In fact, I don't see any of Dempsey's championship opponents prior to Tunney handling the old Louis of 1951.

 

Dempsey beats everyone in Marciano's time in my book.
I do not see Rocky beating Tunney.

 

"Dempsey beats everyone in Marciano's time in my book."

Marciano did beat everyone in Marciano's time.

"I do not see Rocky beating Tunney."

Neither did Dempsey.

 

Ten rounds favors Tunney, especially if Marciano is 31 at the time of the fight. One difference between Dempsey and Marciano, though. Off everything I have read about both the Tunney-Dempsey fights, Dempsey was spent at the end of ten, and probably could not have lasted fifteen. I think Marciano is likely to come on at the longer distance. Marciano is much more likely to make a close fight of it in ten and is at least even money to win over fifteen.

Off the films of Dempsey and Marciano, it was easier to consistently jab Dempsey. No one kept Marciano at the end of a jab. Brennan, Tunney, and Sharkey did pretty much work Dempsey over with their jabs. Marciano not only slipped jabs, but held his hands higher to block them, while Dempsey carried his hands lower. I think this would help Marciano against Tunney.

 

How they would perform would depend on one hand on how Dempsey deals with superior boxers (superior to those of his own era) in Walcott, Charles, LaStarza, Moore and Louis. On the other hand, how does Marciano perform when fighting under horrible circumstances? I doubt he'd go undefeated during his early years of poverty..... on the other hand, also realize that Marciano barely had any amateur experience when he turned pro, and never lost. Fought an 8-0 and 16-1 guy in his 3rd & 4th pro fight, so it's not like his road to the top was that easy.

Once he has established a name, money to train, etc, i don't see him losing to anyone up until Tuney. Wills has a good shot of beating him, although it's hard to judge without film. Does Dempsey draw the color line? Does he duck Greb as well? If not, i think Tunney would be the only real threat to him as he fades past his prime. Still, i'd make the Marciano of the Moore fight a favorite against Tunney.... assuming that they don't have those ridiculous rules of a 10 round world championship fight. Tunney probably takes the majority of the first rounds, but not without a price, and he'll slow down while Marciano keeps going stronger and stronger.


As for Dempsey, i'd favor him over all of Marciano's opponents in a prime-for-prime situation, but in reality, upsets (small or big ones) always happen and i think it's a realistic scenario that either of Walcott/Charles/Moore/LaStarza gets to him; especially if he takes 3 year off to make movies. LaStarza aside, they are all on Tunney's level.

 

Only looking at Marciano's list of opponents, i'd like Walcott best. He is slick, durable, has plenty of power and is far more advanced than any of Dempsey's opponents.


However, if he follows Marciano's timeline, then Dempsey would pretty much be at his peak when facing an aging but more than game Walcott. I wouldn't make Walcott a favorite under those circumstances. I'd like Archie Moore in that respect. Charles also has a good chance. But since we're talking about an upset here, it could be any of those; i wouldn't say i have one clear favorite to pull an upset (which is a contradiction anyway).

There's also a good possiblity that Dempsey loses to LarStarza early in his career.

 

Everyone I have ever talked to that saw Dempsey box told me that he was a beast, and the best they ever saw. Here's what some of them say.

By Monte Cox with Eric Jorgensen

Ray Arcel, who was one of the greatest trainers in boxing history working corners from the 20’s to the 80’s. He worked with 18 world champions including Barney Ross, Tony Zale, Ezzard Charles, Roberto Duran, and Larry Holmes. He was in the opposite corner from Joe Louis in 14 of his fights, he knew Benny Leonard, and if anyone knows the strengths and weaknesses of fighters it is Ray Arcel. He has stated that he considered Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey to be the three greatest heavyweights in history and hedged on picking between them, but here is what he said about Dempsey, “He should’ve been the only heavyweight anybody ever thought of when they thought about the greatest heavyweight champion. I mean he had everything. He could punch, he could box. He was mean and determined.” (Anderson 127)

Our next eyewitness is longtime Ring Magazine correspondent and boxing book author, Gilbert Odd who saw them all from Dempsey to Tyson, he first became a boxing correspondent at age 18 and wrote numerous books about his beloved sport. Odd wrote in 1974, "Jack had the upper body strength of the old school fighters but could move on his feet like the new. Tipping the scales at 190 pounds, his upper torso was equivalent to that of a 210-pound man. He was lean and mean with the skill and the will..." (Odd 25)

Our third eyewitness is Jersey Jones, another longtime Ring Magazine correspondent, “At his peak Jack Dempsey was the most dynamic and devastating heavyweight this commentator has ever seen…Manassa Jack had speed, strength, better than average boxing skills, lusty punching power and a blazing spirit. His bobbing and weaving style made him a difficult target to hit solidly, but when he was, he had the “ruggedness” to take it. Lithe as a panther and just as savage, Dempsey packed one of the most powerful punching combinations in the game…”

Our next witness is one of Dempsey’s opponents and his final conqueror, Gene Tunney, Who said of Dempsey in 1952, "Dempsey Could Flatten Today's Heavies All in One Night," (1952 pp 36-38)Gene also said, "Jack could recover faster than any man I ever fought. He was dangerous with a five-second interval." Dempsey’s ability to recover quickly should come as no surprise. Dempsey, as we have learned, from the time of his youth was fighting to literally be able to eat, he had to get up and fight while hurt. He had to. Dempsey won a number of fights in a “proverbial fog” not even remembering what happened but battering his opponent’s until they fell. Dempsey’s will to win is unsurpassed by modern fighters and should be classified, at the very least, with that of Muhammad Ali.

Backing up Gene’s testimony is newspapermen Frank G. Menke’s retelling of the Dempsey-Firpo slugfest (1999, 241) that Dempsey, fighting hurt, won in exciting fashion by knockout,
“Every ounce of the South American’s (Firpo's) gigantic body was concentrated in that one blow-one of the hardest ever landed, in the annals of the ring. The knees of the world’s champion buckled and he pitched forward…but as Dempsey pitched forward, Firpo was so close that the champion fell against the body of the giant. Instinct made him grab and hold. Firpo tried to shake off Dempsey. But before he could achieve his purpose the brief rest saved Dempsey. Strength and power came back to Dempsey’s legs and the floodgates of reserve energy refreshed and revived him...Dempsey afterward said he remembered nothing after that first pile driver blow. He had been hit and hurt by the rushing, tearing form before him. And that form must be destroyed!”

Clearly those who actually saw Jack Dempsey fight considered him one of, if not the greatest heavyweight champion of all time. He was every bit the terror of the ring that a young Mike Tyson was. They described him as they saw him. He was fast of hand and foot, could take it, was very quick to recover when hurt and could dish it out with the best. He was also an under-rated boxer as Arcel and Jersey Jones both pointed out. Dempsey, according to eyewitnesses, was highly regarded for his fighting prowess.

 

Cont:

One must consider established opinion when trying to rate the heavyweight greats. As late as 1962, in the Dec 1962 Ring Magazine, a panel of 40 boxing writers tabbed Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight of all time. When considering what has taken place since 1962, just before the Ali era began, one must still consider established opinion when viewing everything that has happened since that time. In other words one must consider the opinions of those who lived in the time and saw those fighters when trying to form a new opinion. Don’t radically alter established opinion, because you are too far removed from that time to change it honestly. That is the essence of “revisionist history.” It is better to consider the opinions of those who saw the fighters prior to the Ali era, and then form new judgments using established opinion as a backdrop.

Add in the new but don’t change the order of the old, at least not drastically. Obviously everyone has a different opinion but for instance in the Dec 1962 Ring magazine Jack Dempsey was rated #1, and Joe Louis #2, Jack Johnson #3 and Marciano was a distant #6.

Today on most lists, includind both Eric and I, Ali/Louis are in the top 3, which is not a drastic change, but to leave off Jack Dempsey in the top 10 is just wrong and completely revisionist. Today it is common to see Rocky Marciano high on an all time list and Dempsey not on at all. This is a gross change in established opinion of those who saw them both fight.

Marciano is rated highly today almost completely because of his undefeated record. Marciano’s record of 49-0 appears impressive at a glance, but his competition is not inspiring. The argument that Rocky beat four Hall of Famer’s is laughable when one considers their ages when he met them, Walcott was 38-39 years old in their fights, Charles was past his peak at 33, and Moore was 42. Moore was older than Holyfield when he lost to Toney but yet he put Marciano down.

Also consider the fact the "Rocky was floored by the 2 strongest punchers he ever faced, Moore and Walcott, as Joe Louis doesn't count since he had long since lost his once devastating punch" -Nat Fleischer Dec 1955 Ring.

Virtually no one who saw both Dempsey and Marciano would tab Rocky over Dempsey in a match. Recall, that Marciano finished a distant 6th in the Dec 1962 Ring magazine rating of the all time great heavyweights, far behind #1 Dempsey. Anything Marciano could do, Dempsey could do better. Jack hit just as hard with his right, was a much stronger puncher with his vaunted left, had superior hand speed, was more maneuverable, was a better boxer, had a better jab, and had an equally good chin, and better cut resistance.

In another comparison of a similar fighter, Jack Dempsey would most likely have little trouble with Joe Frazier. Joe was a much slower starter than Dempsey. Dempsey would beat Frazier because Joe would have taken too long to hurt the Mauler. Frazier warms up to his task before he starts “smokin” and he usually didn’t get to that point before 3-4 rounds. Dempsey was a fast starter. The bell rang and he went to work. He had better hand speed than Frazier and is very similar to Mike Tyson in many respects. Frazier was vulnerable early, he was down in the second round against Mike Bruce (Frazier 40), down 2 times in the second round against Oscar Bonavena, destroyed early by George Foreman, and almost dropped by the relatively lighter hitting Muhammad Ali in the second round of their second fight when he was saved by an early bell. Dempsey would explode early against Frazier and end things quickly and he had the speed, power and killer instinct to do it. If Bonavena could down him twice in the second round then Dempsey, one of the greatest finishers in ring history, would certainly do the job.

 

I've always felt that out of all the pre-1950-1960 HW's, Jack Dempsey was the one fighter who would stand the best chance against the modern age heavies. He was fast, mobile and powerful and at his best difficult to hit cleanly. I too think it's somewhat unfair to rank Marciano in the top ten and not Dempsey as well. Dempsey at his best was a killer.