What rationale is there to rate Dempsey higher than Marciano?

Well also Marciano got the title shot at 28 years of age. Dempsey got it at 24.

 

..I've seen the films Mendoza mentions and they are highly informative.

Sometimes i think of Dempsey as being a great fighter and then at others I don't rate him so high...the pros are convincing but the cons have good arguments too. But whether I'm in a pro or con Dempsey mode, I always rate him above Marciano.

I've still not got around to reading all the posts in tis thread but I will eventually. I've not been in a hurry because frankly I don't see the two sides to this issue.

There was one comment i picked up,a nd that was about how Dempsey deserved a rematch against Tunney. He didn't want one. In his various autobiographies and biographies he is consistent in saying he was afraid if they had a third match he could lose his vision. As another writer said here his eyes were so battered in the second fight he had to be led to Tunney so he could shake his hand.

Marciano was uncommonly strong, especially for a heavyweight his size. He was always in top condition and had unlimited courage. He was also very shrewdly managed. When it comes to fouling he and Dempsey both rated hiigh for that honor. But there is no way that Maricano was an all-time great fighter.

 

Chris:

WHile not all of Marciano's foes lost when they stepped up in comp, you did however fail to mention Walcott's age when he met Marciano

 

Dempsey's inactivity after 1923 is irrelevant in a comparison with Marciano since Marciano faced top level competition for a shorter period of time than Dempsey did if we only go up until 1923. Marciano was only fighting highly ranked guys from 1951-1955.

 

Marciano's title defenses were against worthy contenders but to argue that he faced everyone is not correct since there were plenty of good contenders he never fought like Nino Valdes, Bob Baker and Clarence Henry.

 

good post and i agree. Dempsey fought contenders from 18-23 and Marciano from 50-55

 

Marciano did not face as many god hitters as Dempsey did. Fripo, like him or not, easily hit harder then anyone Marciano faced. Therre were, however big hitters like Valdez, Baker and Henry in Marciano's era. Not just that but please don't argue Marciano did not "struggle with boxers" but Dempsey did. Marciano may have lost his first fight to Roland LStarza, he may have lost to Ted Lowry too. And he was well behind on points vs Walcott before the ko

On the other hand, Dempsey showed he could handle someone like Gibbons, but outboxing him for 12 out of 15 rounds. Discounting his fights with Tunney and Sharkey, Dempsey showed that he could outbox a good boxer instead of wearing him down like Rocky did. It's not like Rocky did not have trouble with Walcott and Charles, he beat them both but he also had trouble with both of them.

Now Marciano never really faced plus 210 pound hitters like Morriss and Fripo, except Joe Louis who had only 3 ko's in his last 8 wins

As far as power is concerned, you can say Rocky hit harder but probably by not much of a margin. Dempsey was the first one to stop Brennan, Levinsky. Fripo, again like him or not, was tough as nails and was only stopped by Dempsey if my memory is right. Even Wills, a hard hitter, completely out fought Fripo but failed to put him away. Miske was only stopped once in well over a 100 fights, unlike Walcott or Charles. Sure you can say that Walcott and Charles may have faced better punchers then Miske, but Billy also faced big hitters like Fulton and Morris. In any case Miske did indeed face harder hitters then some of the guys that stopped Charles and Walcott. How many of Rocky's best oppoents had never been stopped before?

Some of Dempsey's best ko's have never benn filmed, so he's a bit unlucky there. However he had far better handspeed and combinations, and wasted less punches, therefore he is more of a "complete" puncher, if not harder. :good

 

and i will happily agree that Marciano was a better champion, and beat the best contenders around. That's fine with me .

 

No I am picking Calzaghe but I consider your ass to be as much on the line as his if you are claiming that he would beat fighters like Tunney and Greb.

 

Another good post ! When Jeffries isnt the subject your replies are objective and informative. Actually I think Dempsey looks more modern in his style against Sharkey and Tunney especially the 2nd Tunney fight ,than he does in his tear in let it al, go fights with Firpo and Willard,but that may be because of the difference in the opponents.I make Dempsey the superior fighter,he is quicker,[very important] more agile,hits harder with his left ,throws shorter punches,has a greater repertoire of punches,better defence,and is the more skillful boxer,has better cut resistance,plus he is the bigger man.Marciano probably hit harder with a single punch ,certainly his right,and was possibly the stronger man,I dont see any other advantages for him.I have Ring magazines from the 50s calling Rocky a poor imitation of Dempsey ,citing his slowness of hand and foot ,his reputation has grown as Dempseys has receded,that is the nature of things.

 

I think I put Firpo with Rex Layne in regards to hitting power.

 

but as i already pointed out, some of Dempsey's opponents were never stopped before despite facing good hitters. On the othe hand guys like Walcott and Charles, as good as they were, were stopped more often and often by lesser fighters. There is the difference.

I already pointed out that Dempsey showed he could "outbox" a quality fighter, ie Gibbons. Again You can criticise Dempsey for being inactive, but i just don't see the point of judging Dempsey on his fights with Sharkey and Tunney given the amount of inactivity. If Marciano beat Walcott in 1952, came back staright in 1955 to face a peak Tunney, would you expect him to win? No. Yes Marciano was a better champion. Yes he should not be blamed for fighting the best available fighters. However judging Dempsey for fights when he was nowhere near his best isn't entirely fair either.

The reason i gave for Dempsey being the better puncher was because he was more "complete". That means that while Marciano may have hit just as hard, or perhaps harder, there isn't much of a difference in power. But there is a huge difference in terms of handspeed and combinations. That's why he was a more "complete" puncher, and that does not necessarily mean harder.

Dempsey started facing many of the top contenders from 1918-23, five years. Marciano faced them from 50-55. Of course Dempsey failed to meet Wills (mainly due to politics), and Marciano was a better champ. But it's not like Rocky faced top contenders for a decade or something.