jack dempsey vs rocky marciano

the Mauler in 2!

 

I wish people would listen to this.

I go with late KO/TKO for Dempsey after a brutal war.

 

People won't listen to it because he's wrong. Dempsey has known to be tired at the end of fights in comparison to Rocky. In fact, he said he was lucky the fights with Tunney went 10 rounds. You don't need as much stamina if you can just beat the opponent down and not let him get up. And Dempsey got KOed by Flynn. He's definitely not as durable, and his stamina can't be compared. People need to watch more Rocky film if they think their stamina is comparable. Brennan and Gibbons were his best showcases of stamina. But even in the Gibbons fight, people say they didn't see the ferocity he had a few years back (He was off for 2 years).

 

prime dempsey would start fast and never stop ,tko within 7 this era dempseysera could go either way

 

It's common sense that when judging fighters you should judge them based on how they performed in their prime. Dempsey was not prime against Tunney, his stamina in those fights don't have any affect on the stamina he showed when he was closer to his best, and at his best Dempsey showed exceptional stamina whenever he had to. He was off for two years and still went 15 good rounds, looking fresh the whole way against Gibbons. He came back and KO'd the very durable Brennan in the 12th round in a hard-fought battle. As for the Flynn KO, once again, Dempsey was not prime. To gauge the quality of Dempsey's chin you have to look at how it held up at its best. So while he was shaken up a couple of times, he was only dropped in one fight when he was near his best. By a huge banger in Firpo. Nobody had better stamina than Rocky, but Dempsey's wasn't much worse, and it certainly wasn't bad, even by the standards of the all time great heavyweights. As for their respective durability: at their best Dempsey may have been easier to hurt, but Rocky's chin wasn't far better. I honestly don't understand how anyone could confidently pick Rocky to win, when any advantages he as are marginal. Slight advantage in stamina, a slight advantage in chin. That's really all he has, whereas Dempsey has huge advantages in speed, boxing ability and punching technique. I also consider him the more skilled in-fighter and the better defensive fighter.

 

Petetheprince.

You can't use the Dempsey against Tunney for anything in this debate. Dempsey was shot, thats why he supposedly said, "thank god it was only 10 rounds".

The Dempsey from 1919 against Willard could beat Marciano in my opinion, Dempsey fought like a hobo who hadn't eaten for four days and knew if he would win he would get food. The savage Dempsey who bounced on the feet is way faster than Marciano who was slow for his 184 pound size.

Why does some people think Dempsey would just brawl with Marciano when we all know Dempsey can do what Marciano can't, Dempsey could fight on the backfoot. Remember he has a 77 inch reach, i don't think it would be a "Firpo type" brawl in the early rounds, i believe Dempsey would out speed Rock and hit him from strange angles like a "Pac Type", Dempsey had shown the ability to hit in and out, while Rock was just a slugger.

 

Which is why I used other examples.

The reports don't seem to be as generous as you.

I disagree, entirely. In fact, this is nonsense. So, maybe Dempsey wasn't in peak condition so he couldn't take punches as well as he was capable of. This doesn't take his chin or way or have him get a replacement chin. Dempsey took a shot and was down for the count on his back for 20 seconds. Marciano gets ridiculed for having been hurt in his career (While Dempsey was hurt plenty) and here's a case where Dempsey gets KTFO. So does the Bonavena knockdowns mean nothing in determining Frazier's chin because he wasn't in his prime? Even a slightly overweight Frazier got up everytime from one of the most powerful heavyweights of all time. There's no real excuse in defending the KO loss flynn. Especially if "Not in his prime" is your best response. What's funny about this not "prime" garbage is it was 2 years before the Williard fight. That fight makes Dempsey a god, though.

Wow, this is really selective. Okay, I got one that's good. Ali was only dropped one time when he was champion. When you're champion you're the best, and that only happened once for Ali. By none other than Chuck Wepner.

Yep, and he had him down twice. Whether you count the push/punch. By the way, if we're going to argue fighter's "best" or "peaks" then Marciano was down only once, and that was to a Walcott left hook that had Charles out and all over the place. Rocky got up at 3. Who sounds more durable now? Firpo had power, but was very very crude. Cruder than Rocky... who did he really KO of note? An old Williard?

By the standards of all time great heavyweights it's on the good side, no doubt. But it doesn't compare to Rocky's. I have footage of Dempsey's late rounds fights with Gibbons and Brennan. His stamina just doesn't compare with Rocky's. In fact, Frazier's stamina is superior to Dempsey's. And I think in terms of pure stamina Rocky easily beats Frazier. Any objective eye would note this, too. But people tend to lavish over Frazier fights, and probably have never seen Rocky in action, though. With Dempsey, he was a very explosive puncher. Very fast in and explosive. Like Tyson, he really used a high energy. Dempsey didn't fight at such a high praise for an entire round for every round of a fight. He worked in sections, breaks, mostly. He gave up rounds due to this.

That's fair.

This is what I'm talking about here. You look at Rocky's pros and just write them off. Rocky's advantages are minimal, but Dempsey's are far better. Look, I agree Dempsey has the big advantage in speed. He has a slight advantage in in-fighting. And his advantage in boxing ability is so marginally we could just be arguing styles. What you're doing is just exaggerating. Marciano has way more 1 punch KO's of note in comparison to Dempsey. Carries his power late better, has the shorter reach and lower center of gravity which should help him in a in-fighting contest. I really just can't imagine Dempsey winning. Unless it's a fight under Dempsey rules. Again, Dempsey wore smaller gloves, and never showed the power Marciano had and he admits this too. Maybe Dempsey was more accurate, though.

 

Because Dempsey was an animal. He would probably go after Rocky. I don't envision him trying to out-box in a "Pac type" fashion.

 

Why are the same people who claim Dempsey is overrated historically, the same people that overrate him in H2H. Dempsey isn't overrated in ranking, he is overrated in H2H. And I like Dempsey, probably have him ranked higher than most here. He gets credits. And I never knew his excuses to being dropped/hurt could be limited due to him not being at his best. Is it the Tyson effect? Dempsey post-title run is so vacuous that he's hard to know how great he is in terms of H2H. Williard bout shows me nothing.

 

Is there anyone else on this board that will rate Dempsey's stamina by the Tunney bouts ? Is there anyone that thinks that doing so is an intelligent argument to make ?

Dempsey was fresh and strong after 15 rounds with Gibbons. The films prove it. He also showed both strong stamina and late round one punch KO power against Brennan.

 

Its the Marciano work rate that gets to Dempsey as the fight wears on. Rocky survives Dempsey's power but Jack can not survive R.M....15 rds, the last five tough for Jack. 12 rds the last 4 tough for Jack and I dont think he makes it till the final bell in either senario....Work rate is the KEY in this fight.

 

Rocky was proven against better, tougher world class fighters. Dempsey may have had better stuff but he stopped improving as a fighter in 1919 and did not shown enough to beat Rocky straight up. I like Jack against bigger men more but head to head it's a very tough call ...

 

Be a man and respond to me directly. It's been already referred to. That wasn't my only example, anyway.

I have those films of the Gibbons/Brennan fights. He is not "fresh." I won't upload them just to educate you, either.

Now go run along claiming Jack Dempsey has better one punch power than Marciano and use the Jack Sharkey example to prove it. Talk about an unintelligent argument. It was a ball-buster shot and that was your example. What a great signature that made for a few months.

 

would try and contribute but ya'll have it pretty well covered. such a better discourse than in the general.

good on ya fellas :good

 

Again, does anyone else on this Board build an argument for Dempsey having poor stamina by the Tunney bouts ? So far only one "expert" decided to do so based on his knowledge base. Then defies actually film footage of Dempsey/Gibbons as well? Only ONE.

See passage # 48. You wrote it , now stand by it. Then again, standing by your word is not exactly your strong point , is it?