Compare Rocky Marciano and Jack Dempsey?

:good

 

Marciano would stand up the early rounds for ko late jack dempsey.

 

actually i don´t know what are you doing in this forum, you are one of the dumbest and most ignorant boys on youtube, your english is pure crap, and you don´t know a single word about boxing, your comments are ******ed and short because you don´t understand english or boxing, your comments in spanish are even worse, you are pathetic, simpleton, get out of here.

 

Metinks you're not thinkin' at all here, burt.

I could scarcely dismiss the scribes you mention if I wasn't familiar with them. You seem to equate disagreement with their viewpoint as lack of familiarity with their take. I'm sure if you pause to think things through, you will grasp the fallacy there.

Secondly, I have explained why they might have concluded as they did at the time, without dismissing their overall loftiness in the stratus of boxing scribblers and aficionados.

Finally, to further buttress my point regarding nostalgia/rose-tints/era-ojectivity, let me post the venerable Nat's ATG list of HWs and LHWs from 1970.



Heavyweights:

1 - Jack Johnson
2 - James J. Jeffries
3 - Bob Fitzsimmons
4 - Jack Dempsey
5 - James J. Corbett
6 - Joe Louis
7 - Sam Langford
8 - Gene Tunney
9 - Max Schmeling
10- Rocky Marciano

Gene Tunney ahead of Joe Louis ? (stretch)
Max Schmeling ahead of Liston and Ali ? (borderline comedy)


Light Heavyweights:

1 - Kid McCoy
2 - Philadelphia Jack O'Brian
3 - Jack Dillon
4 - Tommy Loughran
5 - Jack Root
6 - Battling Levensky
7 - Georges Carpentier
8 - Tom Gibbons
9 - Jack Delaney
10- Paul Berlenbach

No Archie Moore.
No Ezzard Charles.


Still sure there was no era-bias there ?[/QUOTE]

It is precisely because of that conclusion that you so erroneously reached that I highlight your sensitivity.

As far as I know, the poster you attacked is of the same race (or at least colour) as yourself.

It was in jest. You might consider lightening up a little.

He certainly would, IMO.

I'm, relatively speaking, an oldtimer myself, having followed the game since Ali-Liston days. It's possible I haven't seen as much of the lore as you have but that in no way affects the points I have raised here.
Cheers.

 

It is precisely because of that conclusion that you so erroneously reached that I highlight your sensitivity.

As far as I know, the poster you attacked is of the same race (or at least colour) as yourself.

It was in jest. You might consider lightening up a little.




He certainly would, IMO.




I'm, relatively speaking, an oldtimer myself, having followed the game since Ali-Liston days. It's possible I haven't seen as much of the lore as you have but that in no way affects the points I have raised here.
Cheers.[/quote]

 

Not sure what you're up to here, burt.

You've quoted my post in its entirety, and without comment.

Is that what you meant to do ?

 

[/quote]
The opinion of Nat Fleischer on his alltime list of fighters ,some who fought 40 years before he posted his list, has NOTHING to do with the
writers, trainers and ex boxers who were polled in 1954 during Marciano's reign. One man's opinion {Fleischer] doesn't hold the same weight of
expertize as dozens polled who overwhelmingly chose Dempsey to beat
Marciano. You are entitled to your opinion for sure about the outcome of that Fantasy bout, but to say that the unmentioned pollster, who for no
tangible reason brings up the appellation "whitey", [ a self loathing term]
whilst you say he would use the vulgar term "blackie" just as well is baloney, and YOU KNOW IT...I joined this forum 3 years ago to share my experiences in boxing with self-minded posters who love it's history and not to indulge in disparaging one race thinking that it is cute or witty.
Deplorable...

 

Your large NOTHING is misplaced. That's not even debatable. I used Nat's list as an illustration of how boxing gurus (and many regard Nat in that light) often miss what's in front of them by way of the very nostalgia I mentioned earlier.

That one man was of the same mind as the 'dozens polled' and typifies the group to some extent. It's perfectly valid to pick one of the group and examine his thinking and priorities in this case.

No, it's in no way a self-loathing term. The man was speaking tongue-in-cheek.

Nonsense, burt. You are way off base here. It's very probable that your first language isn't English (English speakers don't use the term 'blackie')

I could imagine the 'unmentioned poster' using the far more charged term n----r, and still in a non-racist sense, in the right circumstance.

And I joined this forum nearly seven years ago to discuss boxing and a host of other topics (sadly gone with the passing of the lounge). I occasionally try to inject a little humor into things, perhaps not as wittily as the 'unmentioned poster.'

As I mentioned, your take on the 'unmetiontioned poster' couldn't be further wrong. It is certainly laudable that you feel we all ought to refrain from insulting each other on the basis of race. However, you are not in tune with the nuances of the banter in cases like this, hence your comments and outrage.


If English IS your first language, then I'm afraid we are far too much at odds to reach any common ground here.

Regards.

 

Chuc....you have made some level of error in your assessment of the info your presented.

Fleischer published his top ten lists in the mid to late 50s within his book.....50 years at ringside. I have a tattered first run copy of his book...it's a great read.

As publisher of the Ring he saw no reason to change his hwt list and for valid reason. His listing was derived right after Marciano retired so it encompassed the hwt division up to that time. From that time to his death in early 1972 you had Patterson, Ingo, Liston, Ali and Frazier as hwt champions. Certainly the first three were not on any historians all time listing. Ali and even more so Frazier were still in the midst of their careers. Historians generally do not list champions as all time greats until their career is over or if said fighter conclusively proves he is deserving of all time ranking. At the time of Fleischers death Ali was considered at best a fringe all time great. Frazier really had not done much to distinguish himself as an all time great either. So Nat not ranking either man is perfectly logical. Nobody else was either.

Also...you stated Fleischer rated Tunney over Louis...untrue. Louis is rated over Gene.
Regarding lt heavys Charles was regarded as a hwt not a lt heavy. Remember he won the hwt crown...he never won or fought for the lt heavy title.

Finally...any historical analysis must include expert eye witness opinion. If we had clear perfect films of Dempsey we still would need to see what the experts thought of his abilities...it's much more so important because the films of him are so poor. ALL experts from that time who saw Dempsey live and in person felt he was one of the greatest fighters ever to live. You can't push that under the rug. No one disputes Sam Langfords greatness and he said this of Dempsey...."he is the greatest heavyweight I have ever seen".

 

My main reason for getting into the fray here was to try to clarify 'the unmentioned poster's' remarks for burt, remarks to which he took some umbrage.

However, I also expressed the view that historians of the Marciano era were perhaps a little nostalgic in their assessment of the Dempsey era over that of the fifties, unjustly so, IMO.

He did, but his list was unchanged as of September 1971.

That's a matter of opinion.

That's the very point we are discussing. Sometimes a fighter of current or recent times is overlooked by the likes of Fleischer. Nowadays, Liston is on many, if not most top 10 lists, but overlooked by Fleischer, even though his career was over.

Again, it was fairly obvious to most (not overly steeped in the past) that both Ali and Frazier were worthy of consideration as of late 1971, when both were past prime. This is even more stark when you consider some of the old-timers Nat DID include.

That's not how I recall it, and I was there at the time. He was a controversial figure outside of the ring, but he was definitely considered great by a good many, hence the pressure felt by Nat to include him on the list (see next post)

Other than be the undefeated, undispited HW champion of the world for over three years with 10 defences, not that much.
Other than hand the first defeat to the boxer now most considered by the gurus to be the GOAT, no, he hadn't done much.

Logical ? Maybe when considered within the fog of nostalgia that prevented Nat (and others of the day) from forming a balanced judgment at the time.

Not quite true, as I already pointed out.

There you are correct. I misspoke (mis-typed?)

I meant to type: Gene Tunney ahead of Rocky Marciano ? (stretch)

He was (and is) regarded as both.
He never got a shot at the LHW title, but he fought at that weight and beat a number of fighters who were LHW champions.
He defeated LHW champion Joey Maxim several times at both weights, same with Archie Moore, and several other LHW champions.

You could just as easily remove the Boston Tar Baby from Nat's lofty position as he boxed at multiple weights and never held the HW title.

So we can perhaps quibble about Charles, but there's no such 'technicality' to
excuse the omission of Moore. Other than perhaps, overlooking the man on account of his recentness.

He certainly was, up till that time. And is still considered an ATG and on or close to, most peoples top ten list.

Again, no one is pushing it 'under the rug.' But it must be put in context.

Two points here.

I would never disrespect the man some rank as the greatest pound for pound of all time. However, being a boxing great doesn't always go hand in hand with being a great authority on boxing. (I draw your attention to the many ex-champs who, in retirement, earn a few bucks commenting on the sport. Some are very good, and some are...well, not so good.)

But even assuming that Sam had an unerring eye for the sport, his eyesight had failed considerably by the mid-point of Dempsey's career.

And leaving that aside, he certainly never saw Marciano or his peers fight as he was completely blind by then.

So Dempsey may well have been the greatest Sam had see, but again, up till then.



I don't know (nor does anyone else) how a Dempsey/Marciano bout would have went down. I believe Marciano would have prevailed based on the demonstrated records of both men, the levels of competition they faced and overcame (or succumbed to), and their respective attributes.

 

The following from Nat Fleischer shines some light on his thinking. His personal disapproval of Liston, his putative role in Clay's winning a gold medal, his thoughts on the future of Ali and Frazier, both of which were past prime at the time the article was penned.

It portends some caution regarding the judgment of scribes overly wedded to the romanticism of earlier golden eras.

This content is protected

 

Sir, I won't get in a catfight with a character like you who questions if "English is my first language " ?. And if you defend the derogatory word "whitey" as a funny witty word ,well sayonara :hi:...
P.S. Samuel Johnson, black is the opposite of white and it is used to disparage a member of a race and I deplore both words coming from NOWHERE in a thread about the merits of Dempsey/Wills...So long...
P.P.S. and you know in your heart that if anyone on ESB called Wills or any African American fighter "blackie", from out of the blue he would be tarred and feathered and most likely banned from this forum...
P.P.P.S. for your information I was born in Stonehenge ,England and my first language is Druid...cheerio...

 

Well then, my dear druid friend, there is little hope for common agreement on Seamus' motives and intentions (I tire of referring to him as the unmentioned poster).

I did not mean to insult when I suggested that English was not your mother tongue. This just seemed probable, given your failure to grasp the satirical nature of Seamus' whimsical post. This probability seemed enhanced when you suggested the use of "Blackie" as a corresponding slur to "Whitey."

Alas, Samuel Johnson is scarcely the reference you need to consult here, for while black is indeed, the opposite of white, Blackie is NOT the opposite of Whitey in the context used here.

In fact, if you could curb your outrage long enough to revisit Seamus' post, you would find that he never called anyone Whitey.

See ! No Whitey !

But Whiteness.

And while Blackie is NOT a slur commonly (ever ?) used by English speakers, Whitey is sometimes used as a mildly offensive monicker for the palest race.


But, as I've pointed out, Seamus did not use the term "Whitey."


If You'd been as familiar with Jack Johnson as you are with his namesake, Samuel, you might have guessed that perhaps Seamus was making a blithe connection with Ken Burns' use of the word "Blackness" in the title of his highly acclaimed, and as far as I know, non-racist documentary on the life of the great Jack Johnson.

This content is protected

Then again, it's possible no amount of common sense and gentle direction might suffice to set you straight.

But it was worth a try as you don't seem a bad sort, if a trifle stuffy.

 

Again...nobody or at least no noted historians were rating ali or Frazier all time greats at the time of Nat death in early 72. Both fighters careers were still in process and they had not achieved enough to allow bumping Marciano off his list who was listed in spot 10. generally historians will not rate a fighter while they are in the midst of their careers since there is more to be seen good and possibly bad.

Frazier did not win the hwt championship until Ali retired and Joe beat Ellis. He had four defenses of that title one of which was against the former champion Ali which cemented his claim to the title.

Beautiful article by Nat which underscores his very logical thoughts on the matter. Most feel had he lived to see Ali regain his championship and beat Frazier in Manilia that his ratings all time would have been revised.

 

"There are none so blind as people who have eyes, but do not see ".If you think the word whitey is not an unfunny slur that is bandied around by a person on this forum, whilst never using the opposite word 'blackie' is a mere coincidence, you are sadly deluding yourself...And sir, I have been around the block a few times and I have a smattering of "common sense". I will let others judge me, NOT YOU...
P.S. And I don't need the likes of you to "set me straight"...