I could see Walcott beating Dempsey over 15... Dempsey didn't bring it all to every fight, far from it.
And that's all that matters here. Who sees him losing to Flynn on paper? Struggling with Firpo on paper? But both happened. He'd drop a loss... no doubt. That's how the 49-0 might get underrated. The consistency and constant hunger needed are top notch.
Yes, I agree, that is how it gets underrated ..... but how didn't Dempsey demonstrate the same consistency and consistent hunger ? I say he's one of the fighters that clearly did. If you look at Dempsey's record he has a pretty good run at his peak too. If he was given the same connections, manager, trainer, opponents and schedule as Marciano I think he certainly had the grit and commitment to emulate the 49-0. He's not going to be given 4-round bouts with Willie Meehan if he's managed by Al Weill !
I see Dempsey having trouble with Walcott, Charles and Moore,Lastarza as well as some of Marciano's earlier opponents, Like Rex Layne at that point in time. He may win but no sure bet especially if he had to fight Walcott and Charles 2 times and with Archie you had to put on the pressure.
Dempsey didnt go undefated against inferior opposition Walcott/Charles/Moore all could potentially beat Dempsey, all bring pretty much the same problem Tunney brought and all are better than any man he beat. Old Louis isnt a push over either. Lastarza/Layne are potential bannana skins
The 49-0 gets overrated based on the fact about 35 of those 49 are knock over jobs and he was only fighting at the top level for about 4-5 years. Still takes some doing and Marciano took on most of the best of his era but if he stayed there for much longer the Zero was going to be lost
Are you kidding me? Just look at his title defenses. He lost his fury as far and away as you could... more so than Tyson and Frazier.
Another question would be how does Marciano do in Dempsey's era with the same circumstances, opponents, trainers, and everything ?
He had a hard road to the title. He showed enormous grit and hunger just to get that far. Marciano didn't have it easy, but in a way, Marciano was mollycoddled in comparison. Marciano was certainly afforded better matchmaking and management and training far earlier in his career. Dempsey showed good consistency when he was teamed up with better people, and even then they didn't have the instant clout in boxing that Al Weill did when Rocky got with him. And Dempsey earned bigger money than Rocky when he made it, so there's no reason why we should be sure Rocky would have stayed any more hungry and active as champion if they swapped places. I give both men their dues. And recognize the difference is circumstances before making claims that one was better than other in any regard.
Yeah. I don't think Rocky would reach 66 wins under those Dempsey circumstances, but I could see Jack reaching 49 wins in Rocky's shoes.
Who of Dempseys opponents do you think would beat Marciano...I dont see any and there were quite a few 4 rounders in there, now that may be a problem for the Rock because he took some time to warm up but I dont see anyone that would be a problem but I see Walcott, Charles,Layne Lastarza and Moore doing damage in the 20's Don't get me wrong I think J.D. is highly competitve in any era but I also think Walcott, Moore and Charles would do there share of damage in any era, especially going backwards
Lastarza or Moore would get him I think. Lastarza reminds me of Tunney on film although I’m sure Gene hit a little harder. Who knows though depends how serious he took his training too. Was good enough to do well in any era
There's too much happenstance involved over the course of 49 fights to make a prediction that Dempsey could go undefeated during those years. Heck, I doubt that Rocky could run that gauntlet again successfully if he had to re-live his career.