Dempsey vs Marciano

I see Rocky stopping Dempsey between the 6th or 8th rounds.

 

Quite credible but could just as easily go the other way. Both men were beasts who could bang AND take it

 

This would be an atg slugfest, with both guys rocking each other with devastating shots throughout the fight. I would put my money on Dempsey, but I think the Mauler would stop him on cuts, as I can't see him putting Marciano down for a ten count.

 

I have to agree, Dempsey's left hook was likely the equal of Rocky's big right hand. Both knew how to get inside and hurt an opponent with short shots and both could bring up the finisher from that position.

 

You're right, altough I would prefer to get hit by Dempsey's left hook rather than Rocky's right hand haymaker.

 

Having seen Rocky Marciano ringside and sparring camp from a few feet away
I have tremendous respect for Marciano's two handed grenade punching, but
I think that a peak Jack Dempsey stops Rocky with very little trouble...
Dempsey, so vastly underrated mainly on this site,was a vicious close range
puncher who hit twice as fast as Rocky did and with much greater accuracy, and whoever a young Dempsey hits he ko's...It bears REPEATING once again,
that when Marciano was champion in the early 1950's, a poll was conducted
in wich a large amount of veteran boxing writers who saw Dempsey at his best fight,was asked to pick the winner of a fight between a prime Dempsey
and the current champion Rocky Marciano ? The result of the poll ? By almost
unanimous vote, they chose Jack Dempsey because they said of his greater
TWO handed punching, greater speed on the attack and much greater accuracy with his punches...These boxing writers who saw them both fight
had to know better than we do, 90 years later...And I have to agree...

 

Marciano had better endurance and gained strength as fight progressed so Dempsey would have to end this early. Either Dempsey on cuts early or Marciano by stoppage late. Hard to tell because it is a very evenly matched fight.

 

Dempsey by KO.

 

A survey of writers at the time of one fighter's peak, vs. a man whose peak was over 3 decades earlier, will almost always be biased towards the old timer. Due to nostalgia & bias towards "their" gighter that originally excited them & they identify witrh. Especially a massive cultural phenomena like Dempsey.

So that holds no water. Though he could still have been better.

His record though was MUCH more checkered. Even his signature win was against an out of shape over-confident man who had hardly boxed at all for 3 1/2 years. Besides his losses, there were things like Sharpeky winning & Dempsey only winning when Sharkey complained about the low blows & left himself unprotected.

Though Rocky could have been better as a fighter, more consistent, & still lose head to head. Yet so many were faster & more accurate than Rocky & all lose. Add Dempsey's power & it becomes a real question. Though Dempsey himself said Rocky had greater power, he could execute the 1 punch KOs.

If it goes long Rocky is winning. The endurance is a big difference.
We just do not know how well Rocky could stand up against his assault.
The best guys Rocky fought were boxers, not a great swarmer.

 

If its a foregone conclusion that veteran boxing writers during Marcianos reign would pick Dempsey to beat him (because of nostalgic bias)... then Im wondering how Dempsey was judged in his OWN time? What did seasoned fight people (journalists, trainers, boxers) think of him at the height of his career? Guys who had followed boxing for many years, maybe all the way back to Sullivan... what did they have to say when asked to compare Dempsey to the great fighters that preceded him? Do we have any records of that? Presumably (if the nostalgia theory can be applied to all eras) they would have favoured champions like Corbett, Fitzsimmons and Jeffries over him... because they had been influenced by those fighters when they were young men, years before Dempsey came on the scene. Was this actually the case... or did they, like reporters 30 years later, think Dempsey was the greatest they had ever seen?

 

Good question Mango...Some posters call other posters "Nostalgic", when the posters DON'T agree with THEIR choice...
As far as your question regarding how contemporaries of Dempsey perceived him in the heavyweight pantheon, of what
I have read in old ring mags of that time, Dempsey prior to his 3 year layoff was generally regarded as the greatest offensive heavyweight up to that time, and Nat Fleischer called Dempsey the best 2 handed puncher and the roughest and toughest of them all...But Fleisher regarded Jack Johnson as the best
of all heavyweights with Jim Jeffries a close second, in his
opinion...Yes sentiment clouds some of our opinions, but we may all be guilty, but I go by the vast consensus of seasoned
boxing figures as Sam Langford, Mickey Walker, Gene Tunney, Jack Sharkey, Max Schmeling, all who regarded the prime
Manassa Mauler as the greatest heavyweight they had seen...
H2H, Jack Dempsey might very well have been a tough nut to crack when in his prime....He had unusual speed for a heavyweight, great two handed power, a great chin tucked into his shoulder, a ferocity of a smaller and later Roberto Duran,
and was widely considered the best rough and tough heavyweight of all times...He could be outboxed at times, but at his best he always got the job done....

 

I think Dempsey's endurance was just as impressive. He looks fast and fresh in the 15th round against Gibbons.

 

I see this one every year or so, and its always a good thread.

Who hit harder is debatable. I think Dempsey hit harder in the early rounds, but Rocky carried his power better in the later rounds.

Who had the better chin is also debatable. I’d side with Marciano here, but not by a big margin.

But what is not debatable is Dempsey was taller, had a significant reach advantage, had much quicker feet & hands, and under rated head movement skills. If Jack kept Rocky on the outside and used his legs, Rocky’s in trouble. Both guys could in-fight and if needed fight dirty.

Marciano had the better stamina., but he was also cut prone which could make things difficult for him in the later rounds.

Who wins? I’d side with Dempsey via mid to late round TKO (rounds 9-12 ) with Rocky making a good showing perhaps even scoring a knock down before the ref has to stop it. It would be an epic fight.

 

This is a great battle and a war for both men. I think Dempsey starts faster and may even drop Marciano early but the Rocky momentum builds and his proven strength and stamina prevail. Jack was the original hands of stone and both men got off the floor to win and had 2 fisted power and went to the body,arms,neck and could be dirty. Marciano by KO after the 10th in a war that depletes both men