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

Sharkey and Gibbons could box. Firpo and Willard were still better than the likes of Shkor and Wilson, about the only true big men that Marciano fought.

True Dempsey couldn't beat arguably his best opponent Tunney, but I could imagine a young, hungry Dempsey beating an aging Tunney as a young, hungry Marciano beat aging Walcott and Charles.

The biggest criticism of Dempsey to me will always be the Harry Wills situation, but then he'd probably be classified as another unskilled brawler by the modern era Dempsey critics. I'm a critic of him myself and consider him overrated by some, but it's an exaggeration to say that none of his opponents could box and that Dempsey couldn't box either.

 

Interesting point ... Imagine a prime Dempsey fighting a 37 year old Tunney or Sharkey ...

 

I disagree. Dempsey threw less "wild swings" than Marciano did, if you want to characterize championship-calibre punching in those terms.
Gibbons had tremendous footwork, balance and boxing mobility.
I dont think low hands signify inferior boxing at all, I think some fighters with the high guard and peekaboo are downright amateurish, it's not indication of advanced boxing.
Firpo was certainly incredibly raw and was deemed as much at the time, he was not typical.

Jess Willard was a big guy with a basic style but he threw straight punches and used elbow blocks and parries, he was no Sugar Ray but he wasn't some wild-swinging palooka either. Against Frank Moran almost all he throws is the straight left jab, clearly his weapon of choice, something he'd be commended for if he was a post-1970 giant. ....

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpZdSNB93Mo[/ame]

And there have been big guys with basic styles like Willard who get in the world's top 5 these days, described as "modern super-heavys".
By the way, I dont even think Willard was much good at all, but it's wrong to exaggerate his faults just because he worked in an earlier time.

The alleged advancement of gloved boxing over the 30 years you mention just doesn't ring true at all.

1920 :

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFxcNfXMA60[/ame]

1951 :

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5chxdyedNw[/ame]

Here's Walcott and Charles, the two great slicksters/technicians of the day, and in truth they are doing their fair share of holding/clinching/mauling and throwing a good deal of "looping" shots on the inside. I respect their judgment 100% though, just as I do the vast majority of the 1920s, all these guys were very brilliant scientific fighters who knew a lot more about boxing than you and I !

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VfAlEwl35w&feature=related[/ame]

I have equal respect for Gibbons and Tunney :

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs45EQEHmDs[/ame]


As a bonus : The entire Dempsey-Gibbons fight (with pre-fight) :

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uDuNfZGC7g&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLpjNT9ph18&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG7GU342Fro&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9Af2Brx8VI&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0g0tQpVii4&feature=related[/ame]

:good

 

The fight is a matchup of two punchers who would duke it out. In fights like that you have to factor in chin, defense, and condition. I give Marciano the slight edge in all of these areas, and therefore, I see him defeating Dempsey.

 

Those men weren't fighting at that age.

Dempsey did fight men that old. He won the title from a 37 year old Willard who had been inactive for three years.

And he was knocked out by a 37 year old Fireman Jim Flynn in 1917.

 

Also, People forget Gibbons was 32 when he fought Dempsey too. Same age as Ezzard Charles when he fought Marciano.

How Embarrassing. Knocked out cold by one punch.

 

But Firpo and Old Willard weren't better than Old Louis in 51. Louis at 6'2 214lb in 1951, would have decisively beaten Firpo and old Willard. I would classify Louis as a big man for the era. I don't see how Willard and Firpo would have the skills to match Louis.

Was Walcott aging(outside of years)?. Walcott was heavyweight champion of the world in 1952, coming off two career best wins over a near prime Ezzard Charles. Walcott also fought the fight of his life for 13 rounds against Marciano. He seemed to have slipped after that first war with Marciano, but I see no indications of him slipping pre fight.

I think the bigger question is would Gene Tunney have beaten The Walcott and Charles of the first Marciano fights? I don't know. Those fights would be close. I don't know why gene tunney keeps getting brought up. Dempsey got his **** tossed against tunney. TWICE. How does bringing up Tunney help dempsey's case?


Also,

You call Ezzard Charles aging at 32, but not Tommy Gibbons aging at 32? What's up with that?

 

I fail to see how the Tunney losses enhance Dempsey's legacy. :huh

If it was about "best opponents fought", then a journeyman like Darrol Wilson might be one of the greatest heavyweights of all time.

Yes, Dempsey was inactive.

So what?

How does that help his career?

Dempsey's heart cannot be questioned, that is sure. But the Sharkey fight was very controversial and he was well behind. The Tunney fights don't require much comment..

Marciano broke them down or knocked them out. Charles, Moore, Walcott and even Louis had gone 12 rounds or more and won their fights. There is nothing to suggest that it was simply their mileage that broke them down.

Young guys like Layne, Savold, Vingo & LaStarza were beaten down just the same, despite their youth.

 

Louis in his previous fight weighed just 203 lbs. He would have probably beaten Firpo and Willard but didn't necessarily present the same match-up. Not that I have Firpo or Willard beating Marciano but I don't see why Dempsey fighting them is being ridiculed when Marciano didn't exactly fight too many big sluggers himself.

At 39 he was certainly aging. I wouldn't call this the best version of Walcott, I see the hard-hitting and fleet-footed Walcott of the first Louis fight matching up better against Marciano. Walcott had to stand his ground and trade punches while trying his best to pace himself. You can't get away with that against Marciano for 15 rounds.

It doesn't help his case as people constantly bring it up to diminish Dempsey. However he nearly put out Tunney while clearly not at his peak, yet Tunney was in his. Reverse the roles and the opposite could happen.

Tunney would match up well with Charles and Walcott.

I never said Gibbons wasn't aging either. I only brought him up as a Dempsey opponent who could box. Charles too could surely box at 32.

You must read the post in context to understand what I'm talking about here. I'm no defender of Dempsey most of the time but people are being overly critical and also hypocritical here.

 

Are you imagining things? I had sharkey up 5 rounds to 1 after 6. Sharkey was taking Jack to school. Dempsey was lucky to make it out of that first round. There was a reason why Dempsey hit shark in the balls, because it was the only way he thought he could win. Dempsey got desperate, so he got dirty. I got to give Jack credit, he planned it out wisely. He hit sharkey with a wicked short combination to the balls, and waited for that split second where Shark would clutch down toward the south pole, and thats when dempsey wrecked him with a nice left hook(albeit illegal one).

 

This does not support your arguement. Louis has claimed many times he came in too light for Bivins at 203lb.

Here is some evidence

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...6824,3568647&dq=joe+louis+203+lb+bivins&hl=en

Louis best fight in his comeback was vs Lee Savold in 1951. Joe weighed in at 211 1/2lb for that one.

 

Walcott and Moore had shot legs? Care to elaborate? Walcott was heavyweight champion and had just beaten a near prime Ezzard Charles 2x, and Archie Moore was 45-1 in his last 46 fights and would go on to reign as champion for another 7 years after the Marciano loss.


Walcott and Moore were absolutely still great fighters in 1952 and 1955 and fighting near there best they ever were. Especially Archie Moore. If you think otherwise, please use specific filmed evidence of their earlier fights to show when they looked prime. Particularly Moore.

 

Walcott was 38, not 39. The Walcott who fought Louis was 33, 34..not exactly young there? I don't see what age has to do with this. Walcott was a well known late bloomer.

Certainly close to it. How come so many sportswriters claimed this was perhaps Walcott's finest fight? We also have our own two eyes to see. Walcott's skills, jab, punching ability, aggressiveness, handspeed, stamina were awesome in this fight.

Quite Possibly..Walcott was a little faster and more mobile in Louis I. However, I disagree on the punching part. I have never seen Walcott so aggressive, so hard hitting, i have never seen him let his hands go like he did in the Charles III and Marciano I fights. He looked great in both of these fights.

I disagree. Walcott was sticking and moving most of the fight. He really got his jab going on the outside, sticking and moving. Sure, at times, he would stand and trade(and have good success in doing so)...but for the most part Walcott boxed, jabbed, countered. Watch even round 13, Walcott is backpedalling sticking moving jabbing and boxing before Marciano tracks him down on the ropes. As for his stamina, Walcott pounded the dog**** out of Marciano in rounds 11 or 12..I doubt he was trying to pace himself.

But would he beat them? I think charles and walcott match up well too. Tunney never fought men of their skill calibre before.

 

Chris,

HeGrant gives Marciano flack for beating on "old men" instead of "young guns", but when we bring up the young top contenders Marciano smashed(Layne Lastarza Matthews), he dismisses them as average.