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

Phil Muscato (December 1949) was last rated in the top 10 in June of 1948, he fought Rocky the next year after losing 4 in a row and 5 out of his last 6.

Look I don't know who would win between these two Greats, BUT most old-time boxing historians go with Dempsey.

As far as the opponents Dempsey faced, you and I both know the records are far from complete, especially back when Dempsey fought. I have 1,000's of matches to put in BoxRec that aren't in their already.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

"I don't know who would win between these two Greats"

I don't either, but Marciano has the more outstanding and unique record and that is history and that is what I base my judgement on.

I guess it boils down to something like this. I don't know who was the better general between Grant and Wellington, but I do know that it was Wellington who defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, and I would consider that a greater achievement than any of Grant's victories.


As for the old-time boxing experts, most would have picked Dempsey over Louis also. I have doubts about their judgement. There is a normal human tendency toward good-old-days old fogeyism, if you will pardon the expression.

Just as an aside, that 1950 poll somewhat bothers me. I heard plenty of experts questioned back in the fifties about who was the greatest heavyweight, and there was by no means a consensus for Dempsey, as far as I remember. Johnson and Jeffries got plenty of support. They got next to none in this poll, though. Was this a poll of boxing experts or just sportswriters, most of whom were young and with primary interest in baseball, college football, track, or the like. I don't know. The poll of the Boxing Writers of America done by Home Boxoffice in the late 1970's had Louis, Ali, Marciano, Dempsey, and Johnson in that order.

 

Lets say that we are going to fight and that you plan to throw the fight.

To maximise the profit (for your backers) you must say exactly which round you will go down in.

Lets say that you specipy round 8.

If the bet calls for you to get knocked out in the 8th round then you have to defend yourself untill the 8th round without knocking me out.

I dont know that you are going to throw the fight and cant be alowed to know. Therfore I am looking for a knockout win. I am going to go against you as if you are fighting back to win.

If I happen to knock you out before the 8th round then you end up in the bay with concrete boots.

If you defend yourself too vigourously and knock me out then you end up in the bay with concrete boots.

Just go down in the first round.

 

You are making an assumption that the betting in 1917 Salt Lake City would have been connected to rounds. Was it? I don't know if it would have been all that sophisticated.

I myself don't know about flopping in the first round and screwing a whole bunch of tough frontier types, who probably carried two or three guns and a fifth of whiskey around with them at all times, out of a lot of money. I think I would try to at least make it look like I was trying my damnedest, even to having my corner do a little slicing with a razor blade to make it look like a bloodbath.

 

I agree BUT like I stated many times before, the top boxing historians back in the 1950's and 60's rated Dempsey much higher then Marciano. Even today, Dempsey holds an edge over Rocky by the historians.

I have a list of approx. 40 top boxing historians, and over the years, it has gotten a lot closer, BUT Dempsey still rates higher. Rocky had 2 Historians that rated him #1 and that was my 2 good friends, Lou Duva and Al Certo.

Rated-Boxer----Rated---Boxer----Rated
--1. Dempsey----2----Marciano----2
--2. Dempsey----2----Marciano----3
--3. Dempsey----9----Marciano----4
--4. Dempsey----5----Marciano----1
--5. Dempsey----3----Marciano----6
--6. Dempsey----5----Marciano----6
--7. Dempsey----2----Marciano----6
--8. Dempsey----4----Marciano----4
--9. Dempsey----2----Marciano----4
--10. Dempsey---2----Marciano----1

NR---Dempsey---4----Marciano----3

 

Selected "historians" though. The 2000 panel of experts who rated the 20th century heavyweights for the AP ranked Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, and Johnson in that order.

Not bad rankings if you go by historical impact, and the same as the Boxing Writers poll of the late seventies except for the switch of Ali and Louis. I more or less would agree with these rankings. My biggest issue might be whether Jeffries should have replaced Dempsey, but I can also accept that there had been quite a bit of progress in the development of boxing between the 1890's and the 1920's.

I myself don't see ranking Marciano ahead of either Ali or Louis. Nor do I see ranking Dempsey ahead of Ali and Louis, obviously.

 

I mostly agree BUT IBRO had Dempsey ahead of Marciano and Ring Magazine had Marciano over Dempsey. I can list many that have one over the other.

I have to go by what people told me. Guys like Ray Arcel, Bert Sugar, Herbert Goldman, Nat Fleischer, Charley Rose, Nat Loubet, John Durant, Tracy Callis, Mike Casey, Monte Cox and others

 

I spoke to Nat Fliecher many times...he rated Corbett and Johnson and Jeffries high and did not think much of Ali, In fact he did not rate Ali, he also had Max Schmeling in his top 10 and he was kind of stuck in the past. Monte Cox made some very dumb statements and a little Biased...I wonder IF WE would really call him a historian or a boxing fan with a strong opinion...I really think some of the people that post here are capable of making solid posts and great opinions...guys like BERT SUGAR, MONTE COX....ARE GREAT BOXING FANS BUT THERE OPINIONS ARE LIKE ASS HOLES EVERYBODY HAS ONE

 

I'm not trying to be a dick, but how can you watch Dempsey and call him primitive (watch the damned Tunney fights at least) and see Marciano and say otherwise? Dempsey was a much greater boxer than Marciano, Rocky was more of a brawler and puncher with a style that suited him and better defensive chops than he is given. Dempsey was an outright boxer-puncher with great footwork, tremendous handspeed, power and a good defense.

I feel (gut feeling from seeing the fighters) that Marciano would have a better go of it against Tunney. I feel in those fights Marciano's pressing, relentless style with two-fisted bombs flying would catch up to Tunney and vanquish him. Honestly I feel Dempsey was too much the cautious boxer in much of that fight and should have fought for an opening in the mid-range looking to land a shot of significance, to follow that up with more devastating shots. He wasn't going to outbox Tunney swarming like that and getting inside wasn't working. Rocky on the other hand was tailor-made for this style of fighting, swarming in with his awkward crouch and throwing huge punches, missing plenty but wearing down his foe and eventually knocking guys out cold. I just don't think a boxer as small as Tunney can be expected to survive Rocky, I feel you need to be a bigger man to box Rocky away.

Just my thoughts, I admit I'm not a boxing expert so feel free to correct me as you wish.

 

Well, at times he looks like a God of boxing on film -- stalking his opponent, using great footwork and moving his body well, often slipping punches like it's nothing and showing tremendous punching aptitude... and at others he looks like a talented barfighter. It's a sign 'o the times I feel, and I don't hold it against these fighters except in a h2h sense. At his best Dempsey was amazing. He is rightfully a legend. When random people think of boxing, his name is up there with Ali, Foreman, Louis, Tyson etc.

Well... I certainly think Willard would be Valuev's superior. I'm not terribly familiar with Willard but another lame giant, Carnera I see as being terribly underrated. I think he'd be very successful today, though he wouldn't have much chance to topple the K brothers.

I agree absolutely. Tyson definitely has faster hands but Tyson was a freak regardless. Dempsey was an amazing prototype and I can only imagine what he could have been coming along later. I feel Dempsey is among the most talented athletes the sport has seen, a freak in the same respect as Tyson, Ali or Hearns. I think that alone would allow him to become a monster. Marciano is not an athlete like these men, he was undoubtedly a great athlete, but not in the same sense. Dempsey, Hearns or Ali could have been stars in any sport... Marciano not so much IMO.

 

Bert Sugar is an entertainer. Not a boxing historian. And his opinion should be taken as such.

 

Bert Sugar is a moron. He is not a real historian

 

Most people in boxing would disagree with you on Bert Sugar. Most boxing people wish they knew a tenth of what he knows. He is still one of the most respected boxing historians in the business and I am proud to call him my friend.