What rationale is there to rate Dempsey higher than Marciano?

I get so tired of that nonsense about how Marciano hurt Ali in that silly computer match . The match itself is a joke with both guys making movements and forming stances they never used in their real fights. Plus, to get the various shots they needed to make the show, each guy was allowed to pound on the other one as the script fit. So Marciano hurt Ali, right? So did Frazier, Shaver, Lyle and others, but they didn't beat him.

In a real match prime Ali would make a fool of Marciano, doing his rubber leg act, his shuffle, his mugging for the crowd, all the while peppering Marciano with punches in bunches.

 

Yet another testimonial from a knowledgeable source...

Max Schmeling, always a very astute observer and commentator on the game, was similarly fascinated by Dempsey’s almost mystical qualities. In his twilight years, Max was asked to name the boxers who had impressed him the most down through the decades. “Trying to name them all would be a little too much,” Max replied.
“But, in alphabetical order, my short list of those boxers who will never be forgotten includes Muhammad Ali, Henry Armstrong, Georges Carpentier, Julio Cesar Chavez, George Foreman, Harry Greb, Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, Jack Johnson, Ray Leonard, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Carlos Monzon, Archie Moore, Willie Pep, Ray Robinson and Mike Tyson.
“But now I want to add, all by myself, one more name: Jack Dempsey. Despite all the class shown by the others, Dempsey was not only my own idol, he remains for me to this day the greatest of them all. He was the big daddy. He embodied the complete perfection of a professional boxer.
“Jack, the ninth of eleven children of an impoverished family of Mormon itinerant workers in Colorado, welded brilliant technique and strategy with a stupendous punch like no other boxer. His punches came packed with the full power of his entire shoulder span. He was a nightmare of an opponent. He hated sharing the ring with anybody else. He appeared to be a fist fighter from another planet. It was no coincidence that they called him ‘the man killer’.

Like Larry the cable guys says - I CAN DO THIS ALL DAY.

 

Here is another

Lou Stillman’s verdict
Gruff, strict and taciturn, the legendary and brilliant Lou Stillman ran his famous New York boxing gym with a rod of iron. Like Ray Arcel, Lou could be shy and guarded in giving his opinion of different fighters. One has to remember that such special men – along with the likes of Angelo Dundee, Manny Steward, Buddy McGirt and Teddy Atlas today – are constantly quizzed on which fighter they think was the best. They are so wary of getting into endless arguments on the subject. Many fans don’t react kindly when a trainer’s verdict doesn’t happen to dovetail with their own.
Stillman saw thousands of fighters over a great span of years: champions, contenders, preliminary boys, ordinary men just working out. But one day Stillman saw one thing he never forgot. It was the angry punch with which Dempsey knocked out Tony Galento in a sparring session. The sight and sound of that mighty blow being driven home was hard for even Stillman to believe. Right to the end, Lou maintained that it was the hardest shot he had ever seen and that Dempsey was the greatest heavyweight.
Ray Arcel was also a witness to the chilling incident and recalled that the punch nearly decapitated Galento.

Like Larry the cable guy says - I CAN DO THIS ALL DAY

 

How about this one

Mike Hunnicut recently told me that the ‘real time’ film of the Dempsey-Willard fight (not the familiar, herky-jerky version by which Dempsey is so often misjudged) remains the most terrifying vision of a destructive fighter he has seen in all his years of studying motion pictures.
Says Mike, “When you watch the films of Joe Louis and zoom in, it’s incredible to behold what Joe could do – fantastic.
“But a real close-up view of Dempsey in real time has an almost surreal quality to it – his incredible animal-like moves and co-ordination, his terrific punch and all-round toughness. It absolutely floors the viewer. These are the qualities that the Lou Stillmans and the Ray Arcels were referring to.
“Jack’s many illustrious opponents were rightly proud of their own toughness and fighting abilities, yet look how many came in praise of him. They would talk of him as a man apart.
“Dempsey’s footwork, his overall boxing ability and his reflexes were genuinely exceptional. You can’t conveniently group that man with anyone else.”

Like Larry the cable guy says - I CAN DO THIS ALL DAY

 

Here we go again

Fortunately, the evidence in Jack Dempsey’s favour continues to pile up, as old and new testimonials and transcripts come to the fore and re-introduce him to us as the exceptional natural born killer he was.
They come from men like legendary trainer Ray Arcel, who saw all the great champions through Mike Tyson
Did Arcel dwell in the past as an older man? Well, he trained modern fighters like Roberto Duran and the vastly underrated Argentine master, Nicolino Locche, and couldn’t speak highly enough of those greats. In the brilliant wizard Locche, Arcel saw a man he described as being even cleverer than Willie Pep.
So how did the great Ray assess Dempsey and the other heavyweights? Mike Hunnicut interviewed Arcel at length on different occasions and picks up the story. “You have to understand,” Mike explains, “that guys like Arcel are very measured and understated in their descriptions of fighters. It takes a lot to impress them, because they get to see and handle so many quality operators. If they tell you a guy was ‘pretty good’, they usually mean ‘excellent’. They may also take some time to warm to you and therefore warm to the subject.
“Arcel was a very quiet and polite man by nature, unbelievably knowledgeable about the fight game, yet never one to brag about how much he knew.
“But when we went deep on Jack Dempsey, Ray’s eyes lit up. For him, there was no other fighter past or present who could compare.”
Arcel’s verdict on the Manassa Mauler was thus: “Dempsey would have absolutely beaten any fighter who came after him – without a doubt. I know all about Joe Louis and how he knocked guys’ teeth out. I have every respect for Joe – I rate him number two. But Dempsey would have killed Louis, George Foreman, any of those guys. What Jack had was God-given – you can’t develop the kind of talent he had.
“Marciano? Same result. Dempsey would have murdered Rocky. I tell you, Jack would have chased everyone out of the ring. I trained Max Baer a couple of times and often got asked how good that booming right of his was and whether it was as good as anything Dempsey had. Are you kidding? It wasn’t even close."

Like Larry the cable guy says - I CAN DO THIS ALL DAY

 

Once more with feeling - after Tunney and Schmeling we add a Third Heavyweight champ that picks Jack over Rocky

Former heavyweight champ Jack Sharkey expressed similar sentiments in a 1986 interview. Mike Tyson had just surged to the head of the division and Sharkey said of Mike, “There is only one heavyweight that I can see who would fit into the old school and that’s Tyson. They’re all cream puff punchers today except Tyson, and his secret is that he doesn’t waste many punches.”
Then Sharkey turned his attention to Dempsey and others “Jack Dempsey was the best because he was a real fighter, and if he hit you in the shoulder he could dislocate it. Rocky Marciano was very good and I almost put him up there with Dempsey. It would be a tough fight between those two but Dempsey, I’d say, was a better puncher.”


Like Larry the cable guy says - I CAN DO THIS ALL DAY

If the question really is: What rationale is there to rate Jack Dempsey higher than Rocky Marciano this question has been exhaustively answered.

There is the expert opinion of the vast majority of sportswriters and boxing columists that saw them both in their primes - the first hand witness and testimony of the great trainers who saw them both first hand, the historians that researched the records and historys of both men, the film studys of an expert Kineseologist and the informed opinion of THREE world champions.

If this isn't enough then nothing is.

Believe what you will and peace be with you.

 

Billy Miske was a great fighter.

You can take that to the bank.

 

I would say that he was a great heavyweight.

His body of work is incredible before you even consider that he did some of it while terminaloy ill. He efectivley converted himself from a technician to a knockout artist in order to stay on top while he was physicaly declining.

It is not incredible that he could be compared to the likes of Walcott and Charles.

 

Dude, I'm drunk right now, but is seems like you mistake me as a Marciano supporter, I'm not. In this argument I'm behind Dempsey 100%

 

ChrisPontius - I am not trying to be an ass about this although it may seem so, I want to apologize in advance for this poor example - but I know no other way to make this point.

What would you say to the argument that SVEN OTTKE is the GOAT of his division?
He has titles
~ WBA super middleweight title
~ IBF super middleweight title
~ WBC International light heavyweight title
~ German BDB light heavyweight title

AND A GREAT RECORD

won 34 (KO 6) + lost 0 (KO 0) + drawn 0 = 34

Based on his record it is hard to argue against perfection isn't it?

After winning the IBF SMW title his next 22 fights (until retirement) were against boxers with a combined record of 642-26-10.

You will be VERY hard pressed to find any champ anywhere who can match that number of bouts and winning percentage in his quality of opposition over a 22 fight period.

Why then doesn't he top the ALL TIME charts?

What rationale is there to rate a 19 fight loser like Ray Robinson anywhere near him in the middleweight area?

Because we all know Robinson is the far greater fighter.
Exactly how do we know that? I rather doubt that anyone posting here saw Ray fight during his prime with their own eyes AND saw Sven. So how do we know? Well we researched and talked to people who knew the fighters and had a good read on them, people like sportswriters and boxing analysts. We examined the history and records of the people each fought, we saw the rankings of the time and talked to professional boxing trainers and got their opinions. We talked to the champion level fighter who shared the ring with him and got their stories and opinions. They talk about Ray's speed and his smooth movement, great footwork, good defense, outstanding courage, punishing power and dogged stamina. They all pick him head-to-head. He tops the lists of greatest of his time and some pick him greatest of ALL TIME. He even looks faster on film. We find reason to excuse the losses and honor this fighter with a higher rating - even over the one with the 'perfect' record and that is how it should be.

A record tells you "something" but you must "evaluate" its meaning. That evaluation is subjective and there is no real getting around it I'm afraid. If you go purely by record alone you wind up with this sort of mess.

http://www.boxrec.com/ratings.php?country=&sex=M&division=Welterweight&status=E&SUBMIT=Go

Who agrees with that?

You evaluate the records of Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano differently than I do - that is your right and you have good reasons for your objections to Dempsey and elevation of Marciano.

I freely grant that you have a well thought-out position and have given consistent evidence for your opinions.

As you may have gathered I don't share them. Restating things like the advanced age of his best competition (which I KNOW is not Rocky's fault but it is a fact) is beating a dead horse and as I said I don't mean to insult you... Far from it - in fact I read almost everything you write because I find great value in it. You are - from everything I know of you, a reasonable and rational man who is very knowledgeable about the sport I love and you bring up great topics. I have learned a lot from several of the posters here and you, sir, are one of them. You have treated me with respect during this entire discussion and I appreciate that. You have the capacity to disagree wholeheartedly without resorting to insults and slander - which is sadly becoming rare on this board - I honor that and hope to live up to your example.

Sir, this may simply be an area where we must agree to disagree...

With respect from the loyal opposition,
Victor Von Vockerman

 

Savold was better then Levinsky and Fulton? How come?

 

Not when Dempsey blasted him out with Brights.