'19 Dempsey vs. '52 Marciano.... Take it or leave it?

I think the debate over each man's opposition and who fought the better fighters is somewhat irrelevant when discussing a matchup of this magnitude. What's more important I feel is comparing each fighter's strengths and weaknesses and guestimating who would come out on top. We'll never know for sure but we can speculate so if you'll allow me to speculate taking each man at his very best and pitting them against each other I'll go with Dempsey in 3 rounds of Mayhem. Longer reach, faster hands, faster feet, and an edge in two handed power when you throw in Jack's vicious left hook. This would be similar to Hagler/Hearns in violence and intensity and each man would be hurt often. Jack would pounce on Rocky from the opening bell...no feeling out at all. Kind of like how Walcott did against Rocky in thier 1st fight and probably drop Marciano early like Jersey Joe did. I think we all agree here that the longer this fight goes the better Rocky's chances are. He is a grinder more than an early KO fighter while Jack preferred to end things early. If we know that then Jack would too. The big question is this....could Rocky survive an early fast onslaught from the hardest and fastest 2 fisted puncher he would ever face? If I was betting everything I had on the likelyhood of that happening I would say no. If Jack can't put Rocky away in 3 or 4 rounds though it's safe to say that I've lost everything.

 

^ One of the most ill-informed and ludricrous statements you've made in a Dempsey thread. And you've certainly made your fair share of clangers. :good

 

I did not initiate this outrageous statement. I responded to it ...This one belongs to Chris ... strongly seconded by SQ ... let them defend it with fact or simply own it .. either way it stands for itself.

 

You really don't know what you don't know ... it's funny and pathetic at the same time. I'll let someone bother ...

 

HeGrant...Are you denying Dempsey ducked the two best heavyweights of his era and took on losers of title eliminators?

 

Dempsey would stop Marciano inside 6 or its gonna be the Rock in the latter rounds.

 

Oh, we can bring people back to life but we can't have them fight a great fight??? I better change the description of the fight or some people might think that it's bull****!!! lol Just giving you a hard time:good

 

I actually saw it not too long ago ... it really was a cheesy Hollywood T.V. movie but they did some things good like positioning Dempsey in the ring in certain spots that closely resembled actual fight films .. some pretty cool art direction ...

 

Wait, wait...what evidence do you have that says Dempsey could take a punch like Rocky? I know he had a great chin by the era's standards but I'm not so sure his beard holds up under scrutiny...It's sort of like comparing Tyson's chin to Tua's. Yes, Tua has a great chin statistically but Tyson(past his prime!) took sustained punishment from Bruno, Ruddock, Holyfield and Lewis without flinching.

 

First of all, I'm talking about opponents he actually beat. Yeah, he had the living **** kicked out of him twice by Tunney. But you don't define how good a fighter is by his losses, do you?

I'll enter Marciano's left, Dempsey's right. Now, in 2008, I created an ESB-consensus heavyweight top100. Loads of people contributed. Read about it here:
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97049&page=13

I will list their ranking on that consensus top100 to give you an indication:

Walcott I (#17) - Willard (#80)
Walcott II (#17) - Fulton (#79)
Charles I (#16) - Sharkey (#26)
Charles II (#16) - Brennan (>100)
Moore (#29) - Miske (#87)
LaStarza I (#64) - Gibbons (>100)
LaStarza II(#64) - Carpentier (>100)
Old Louis (#4) - Morris (>100)
Layne (#57) - Levinsky (>100)
Cockell (>100) - Smith (#99)

As you can see, only one opponent ranks higher on the consensus top100 (which is not my list!), and even that one is close.

As Louis was old when Marciano fought him, he should not count at #4, but he was still very good and losing only to champions - the same can't be said of Morris. Likewise, Charles, Moore and Walcott were still very good and at the top of the rankings.

Watch the film. Dempsey vs Willard. Dempsey vs Firpo. Dempsey vs Carpentier. Dempsey vs Gibbons. Hands low, wild swings, etc. These guys would've seriously outmatched by Walcott et al, by the simple fact that gloved boxing had developed 30 years since then.

 

I have to go with Chris on a lot of these points. Dempsey was a dangerous fighter, but its easy to look ferocious against men who are stylistically made for you. At one point, Tommy Morrison looked like he might be the next champ, but then he ran into a guy who could actually take his punch while fighting back. One can say what they will about Marciano's best opponents in Walcott, Charles, Moore, etc.. But on film, the technical skills of these guys are noticably superior to that of Willard, Miske, Brennan, Sharkey etc... The only man who Dempsey ever fought that had even remotely comparable skills to the lesser list, was Gene Tunney who handedly outboxed him, ( albeit Jack was past it. )

 

Chris, you mean to say you cannot tell the quality of a fighter by his losses ? Are you serious ? This is almost as outrageous as saying none of Dempsey's opponents knew how to fight. I think your so passionate about trying to win a debate that you're sacrificing the quality of your argument ...

Without question Dempsey was a shell of his former self when he fought both Tunney and Sharkey. Inactivity robbed him of his legs, just like it did to Ali post exile and to both Walcott and Charles v.s. Marciano ... without your legs you cannot catch your opponent or get out of his way the same as you would in your prime. In Dempsey's case he simply could not catch Tunney and Sharkey. In return he as the older fighter took terrific beatings from two superbly conditioned fighters who were great when he fought THEM. UNlike Marciano, Dempsey was the old man fighting young men.

In Dempsey's fights with these two men he proved his incredible heart, his indominable fighting spirit, his ability to take extensive punishment and bounce back and his power. So much is made of the lopsided round totals of Tunney - Dempsey but if you carefull watch each round possible in slow motion to help clarify the skipping footage you will see most of the rounds were very close. Dempsey was right in there and no one knew it better than Tunney. As far as Sharkey goes, prior to the controversial KO, Dempsey was clearly fighting his way back into the fight with a consistant, gutsy body attack that was tiring Sharkey out ...

I have said on many occassions that to me Dempsey proved far more in his two losses of what might have been if he remained an active fighter instead of a worldwide celebrity ... you can definately gage a fighter by his losses.Other than against a 38 year old Walcott I've never even seen Marciano really tested. He never fought a great fighter in his prime or a really talented large heavyweight. I agree that Walcott, Charles, Moore and to a much lesser degree Louis were still good and cagey fighters when Rocky fought them but they were great in name only ... they all had shot legs and that weakness played directly into Marciano's strengths .. they lacked championship caliber stamina to keep away and were forced to slug with the younger , stronger man ...