Boxing New: Marciano versus Dempsey

Fred Fulton was known for having "rapier-like" left jab, and had something like an 83" wingspan.
Dempsey slipped his jab and knocked him out in about 20 seconds.

It's a bit harsh to criticize the fighters of Dempsey's era because they couldn't jab as well as Joe Louis. Who the hell can jab like Louis ?

You call Dempsey's opponents "big lugs who couldn't fight". Well, maybe they could fight ..... would you consider that possibility ?

 

:good:good So true that - it bugs the hell out of me to be honest - genuinely I don't think guys like these should be covering boxing - boxing needs a boost - especially in mainstream media aswell - and generally the standard of journalists who cover boxing is dire - most of the time I'm reading stuff going "what the hell??!! Is this guy even a boxing fan??"

I remember when I met Jake LaMotta last October at an evening with him and in the bar theres this guy from the local wrag trying to conduct an interview (and coming out with some highly embarrassingly historically inaccurate stuff) and I'm there interjecting every chance I can get and at the end of his interview Jake's wife and Jake are asking who is that guy - they had no clue who he was - they thought I was the guy from the newspaper!!! :rofl

 

Do you think the active prime Dempsey who destroyed Fulton would have have had the problems with Tunneys jab the older inactive Dempsey did?

 

Well spoken U. Some posters are under the illusion that before "their birth",boxers of the past were neanderthal men,so to speak. It seems to me some of these people are pointing their fingers in the wrong direction !

 

I never said fighters pre 1930 couldn't jab. All I said were the big lumbering oafs Dempsey fought couldn't jab. Sharkey and Tunney had top notch jabs and they gave Dempsey huge fits. Benny Leonard did as well. I am a fan of a lot of fighters pre 1930. I just was not impressed with the talent of any of the big men Dempsey destroyed.

 

Any footage on Fulton to confirm this?

Fair Enough

Maybe Fulton. I have never seen film of him. However, Willard(especially the toledo version) and Firpo look awful to me. Very unskilled. Powerful? Sure, but skills are sorely lacking.

 

Yes Mc, Dempsey when younger was bobbing and weaving,rolling from side to side, jaw ALWAYS tucked in. He was a difficult target for a jab,and was very, very seldom cut around the face. After a three year layoff and at age of 32,he became much easier to connect on,as proven in theTunney fights ! Age is our greatest enemy in boxing...:good

 

The article is a bit inaccurate, and sloppy with it's reasoning but I think we can all pick this spots out if we wanted to. Some have already... but the article does finish strong in spirit and comes to bring about its points better. I think Rocky winning 7/10 times against Dempsey sounds pretty fair. Or am I confusing 7 out of of 10 times for 7/10 odds? In which case Rocky would be like a -140 betting favorite in American odds which says he has a 58% chance to win. That's reasonable too, in which case I'd be betting on Marciano. For all these "It's a bad style matchup" for Rocky which you hear from almost everyone Marciano fantasy matchup... this is just not one of them. In fact, I think it's a favorable style matchup for him (Not that Dempsey poses zero problems).

 

M,what do i think of Dudes like you,who on one hand "love" Ketchel Greb, Wills,Elbows McFadden[Gan's great rival] and kid Lavigne[a minuature Marciano] ,and don't rate Jack Dempsey highly ? I call it inconsistent .
You Mc have never seen films of McFadden,Greb, Wills, Ketchel [ only against JJ @ Billy Papke#4 ],and yet Dempsey, by all who saw him, and the above
fighters you admire, rated Jack Dempsey,in a 1950 poll of 200 boxing people,
as the greatest fighter from 1900-1950,by a LARGE margin...You evidently trusted the opinions of experts who rated your above favorites,though you never have truly seen them fight on films,except for less than 1% of their
fights available on film today, whilst not trusting the opinions of these same
boxing people who SAW and lauded Jack Dempsey to the skies,and I am not speaking of the Dempsey ,after the 3 year layoff,against a razor-sharp Tunney
in 1926-1927. I am speaking of the young prime tiger who flattened the
dangerous punching Fred Fulton in less than a minute, who flattened a wily
Battling Levinsky for the first time,who absolutely destroyed big Jess Willard,
who was NEVER dropped before, who pulverized a crude but powerful man Luis Angel Firpo ,with a blistering one-two in the second round, and even after a three year layoff ,almost kod Gene Tunney in the "long count",1927,
and though old and rusty wore down a young prime Jack Sharkey,and kod
the Boston Gob with a left-hook in 1927,when way past Dempsey's tigerish prime 1919-1923...M, were these boxing writers who WATCHED him and raved about the prime Dempsey,somehow less informed about his greatness
than ,with respect ,your evaluation, eighty years LATER.? I THINK NOT....
Yes Mc that is me at a communion several weeks ago. What the hell !!Cheers.

 

Firpo was flabby for Wills but he was in much better shape for Dempsey ..

 

Hopefully McGrain can edit that portion out.

I like Dempsey here. He's faster with his hands and feet, taller, and has a significant reach advantage. I would say Dempsey's skills on offense and defense are better, and to me he's a better finisher whose chin was tested by a pretty good mix of punchers.

 

The height and reach advantage is nullified by the fact both will fighting at close quarters.

He was certainly more flashy, but more effective? Rocky hardly got hit flush in his crouch defense. Dempsey was very mobile and had a nice bob and weave, but he seemed to get hit flush an awful lot more than Marciano. Extremely unskilled Firpo floored Dempsey 3x, Carpentier hurt him badly, Brennan gave him huge fits, Sharkey had no problem hitting his chin, and tunney tattooed him all night. I would give Dempsey the edge in defense, but not my much. I also think Dempsey's defense got a lot worse when he got into "brawling gear"(low hands chin sticking out), while Marciano even during exchanges kept tight defense. I don't think Dempsey's offense was any more effective than Marciano's.

I don't know about that. Marciano went 11-0 with 10 knockouts against Ring Magazine top 10 contenders. Dempsey did not put up anywhere near this kind of production. Dempsey was great at finishing guys early because he was explosive, but he seemed to need a lot of knockdowns to put guys away, and didn't produce many one punch knockouts. Marciano was a bit more consistent with top competition and if he didn't kayo you with his big suzy Q right hand, he could still break you down late. Dempsey didn't seem like he had much in the tank late with the exception of Brennan II.

Dempseys chin was tested by a lot of unskilled punchers. He was knocked out in 1 round by a 37 year old journeyman Flynn, knocked down 3x and nearly out by Firpo, put on rubber legs by georges carpentier, and stunned badly by Sharkey. I think Rocky has the edge in durablity.

I think Marciano has the edge in durability, strength, and stamina with power being even. In a battle on the inside of attrition, I think these key factors will see Marciano to victory late. Marciano also beat the better competition, and has also proven himself against the best of his era, the same cannot be said of Dempsey. Dempsey never fought Wills or Greb.

 

I've seen no footage of Fulton. But reports of several of his fights mention his long left and the damage he inflicted with it.
It's fair to assume he had a least a decent jab.

I agree. But Firpo was obviously very strong and his crude approach was good enough to overwhelm some rated fighters. You get crude strong swinging brawlers at HW in every era, Firpo was at the extreme of that.

Willard was okay. He wasn't great but he was good : good enough to be world champion. He used his height at reach well so didn't need a load of "skills". Yes, he was old and rusty in 1919.