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

Yup, Greb would destroy Jack. Greb was after all considered one of the greatest heavyweights of all time.

and suzie, its also dempseys fault that after his reign ended, no black fighter would fight for the world hw title for another 11 years? Somehow thats his fault as well right? is it also dempseys fault that race riots happened after the Johnson-Jeffries fight and people died right? I bet jack is also responsible for all of this.

 

My major observation here is that there seems really to have been no reason for Marciano to have ever become a fighter. Greatness was simply out of his reach. Who were the best lightheavies of the Dempsey era? Tunney and Greb. Who were the best heavies? Willard? The champion, yes, but his only victory after 1916 was over Floyd Johnson, a one round ko victim of Harry Wills. Fred Fulton? An early ko victim of Wills. Firpo? A man who lost every round to Wills. Wills? Tunney? Perhaps. And maybe Sharkey, despite losing twice to Weinert, being ko'd by Romero-Rojas, losing to Maloney and lucking out in a return when Maloney was DQ'd after scoring six knockdowns over Sharkey in the 8th and 9th. So of the best lightheavies and heavies of the Dempsey era--Dempsey lost to Tunney, and did not fight Wills and Greb. He ko'd Sharkey, probably not as good a fighter as Tunney.

What about Marciano's era? The champions were Louis, Charles, and Walcott. Moore was probably the top man from 1953 to 1955. The top lightheavies? Charles and Moore. So the best heavies and lightheavies of the Marciano era were Walcott, Charles, Louis, and Moore. Marciano ko'd them all, won all his fights, and ko'd every ranked or ever ranked contender he fought.

Now who exactly could do better? Liston? No, he could only win them all. Dempsey? No. He could only win them all. Ali? No. He could only win them all. So, if Ali, Dempsey, or Liston fought in the Marciano era, you are saying they could not have been great fighters either. They, after all, could not have done significantly better than Marciano did. I guess that is the lesson I am supposed to draw from this.

Obviously, the standards are a bit different in the 1920's. Despite not fighting Wills at all, and losing to Tunney, as well as having quite a few embarressing fights---why is it so awful that Walcott and Moore had Marciano down for short counts when Firpo knocked Dempsey out of the ring and mediocre middleweight Johnny Sudenberg had Dempsey down NINE times?---Dempsey by your lights and the lights of the "experts" you quote achieved a greatness that was simply beyond the reach of Marciano (and by extension anyone who fought in the Marciano era) regardless of accomplishments.

 

I dont think that Dempsey would have been alowed to draw the colour line in Marciano's era.

If he had he would probably have been stripped of the title.

I also think he would have had a hard time getting a title shot without facing at least one top black contender.

 

DMT I dont question Jack Dempsey talent/skill level. I question how much he accomplished during his career

 

Seriousely doubt it. On the flipside, if Meehan can beat a near prime jack dempsey, then a tricky experienced fighter like Tiger Ted Lowry could beat Dempsey too.

Not a chance in Hell. Embarrasing loss for Dempsey against a 37 year old C level journeyman, one punch knockout loss.

And I cannot see Dempsey going 11-0 with 10 knockouts against top 10 rated opposition the way Marciano did. I also fully expect Marciano to absolutley clobber Fulton and 1919 version of jess willard. Afterall look what Marciano did to Joe Louis an Rex Layne on his way up. Layne and Louis were better than Fulton and Willard.




Tunney vs Marciano over 10 is a tough one for the Rock. But over 15, Rocky is the clear favorite.

 

For a boxing historian, that article by Monte Cox is bordering on ignorant and very biased against Marciano, as all his Rocky-articles are.

He's calling it "historic revisionism" when Dempsey was no longer ranked in the top3 post-60's, but perhaps the reasons is that people knew more about how mediocre his opposition was, how long he sat on the title, how he avoided the best challengers, etc.

 

People never apreciate hidden mediocity in an era with the passage of time.

Only the reverse.

 

Dempseys most impressive victim is by far Jack Sharkey, a Great fighter in my book, who was at the peak of his powers. Dempsey was past his prime. Though Sharkey did clearly win 5 of the first 6 rounds, beat the hell out of him, jab him to death, and nearly knock him out in round 1, Dempsey still managed to score a one punch knockout victory. Even if its tainted by Dempsey pulling a golota esq combintion prior to the big left hook, he still gets credit. I am not impressed with most of Dempseys victims, but Jack Sharkey was legit. Also one could give Jack Dempsey the 7th round knockout victory over a prime Gene Tunney since Tunney was on his arse for 14 seconds.

 

I guess you didn't read what I put up before and most boxing people agreed that Dempsey took a dive. in this bout. A year later he stopped Flynn in 1 round.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/dempsey_dive.html

If he was brought along the way Rocky was I think Dempsey would have done just as good because he would have had better training then he did back when he fought. As far as Rocky beating Fulton and Willard, I agree he would BUT remember, Rocky never fought any top 10 contender besides an over the hil Louis, that weighed over 200 pounds and was over 6 feet tall.

I don't know how anyone can say that because Tunney went into the 15th round 6 times, he only lost to Greb in 1922. Rocky went 15 rounds only once. That is not a knock on Rocky, as he KO'ed everyone else. This would be a hard one, BUT the rounds wouldn't have any thing to do with it, as Tunney was also in shape all the time.

Tunney had the boxing skills to stay away from Rocky and earn a hard fought decision, BUT Rocky would always have that 1 punch that could win it for him at anytime.

 

"Most boxing people consider the Flynn fight to be a dive" - yes, several years AFTER the actual bout. During the actual fight there weren't screams of "FAKE!", which says quite a lot considering that often happened back then, even during legit knockouts. Eye-witness accounts that were reported 3-4 years later is laughable. They didn't have multiple TV-angles. They didn't have slow-motion replays. Blink your eyes and you miss it. And even if you see it, far from ringside, there is no way you can remember it coherently for a few months, let alone years.

 

I agree BUT many thought it was not on the up and up when it happened. Flynn's KO% was below 30%, I can't see him stopping Dempsey on his best day.

 

Who had Dempsey been fighting? Who had Flynn been fighting? Dempsey was stepping way up in class.

 

Greb was an All-Time Great BUT I think Dempsey would have been too powerful for him.

March 27, 1925:
"Tunney gave Greb as thorough a beating as he has ever received. So completely was Greb outclassed and outfought in six of the ten rounds that he resorted to a defensive fight after the third and thereafter was guilty of persistent holding and stalling varied only by rare flashes of offensive fighting, which Tunney quickly terminated by a devastating attack. Tunney concentrated his fire almost entirely on Greb's heart and body, landing with deadly accuracy and telling effect. After a flashy start, Greb went on the defensive and let entire rounds go by without making more than a weak show of attack, without landing a decisive punch, even on those rare occasions when he undertook to do the leading." (Associated Press)