Comparing boxing best swarming heavyweights from Dempsey to Tyson

How bout adding intangibles to the discussion. I would rank Marciano 10+. With this guy the sum was exponentially greater than the parts.
I'd give Frazier and Dempsey an equal rating of about 7.5 and Tyson about 6.
His power is underrated here, I think although not as explosive, it's very close to Tyson. The comments on defense being underrated are true too. Watch him against Moore (I think). He gets so low that his head is often at the level of his knee and it's contiually moving in all directions.

 

I see an improvement, he does like a wrist flick at LaStarza's jab sometimes. I wouldn't qualify it as "big" or "great".

It not even close to this level of activity (the video might be slightly sped up but it's still good)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckGTEYKggww

Or this (watch the brilliance at about 0:40 seconds, amazing)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N75Qgi6wfng

Marciano's defense is just not even in the same league.

 

Well first Dempsey and Tyson's defenses look better because they were faster than the Rock. 2nd, the defense impove bit by bit, by the time he got to Archie Moore, it was better than Larsarza's. Also Rocky had a pretty bad start, at first vs LarSarza, than he warm to his task. By the time of the Charles, and Moore fights, Marciano was pretty much as complete as he was going to be.
If you notice, if you seen the FULL fight, and not just ten mins, LarSarza miss a lot of punchings, people get onto Rocky for missing, but here a pin point guy like Roland was missing a good number of punchings.

Ezzard Charles in the 2nd fight would miss a good number, and so would Moore. It was not like evey time they thown, they landed. I think Marciano had a better slip miss rate vs Moore and Roland, than Fraizer did in the first Ali fight. I give Marciano a 5 or 6 in that defense department, than the 1 or 2 you give.

 

Regard the activey, Tyson slip BEFORE they thown the punch, same with Dempsey, while Marciano slip or lead WHEN they punch. He didnt waste as much enegry in useless bobbing and weaving.

 

"Marciano's defense is just not even in the same league."


Actually it is better. Two things about Tate. He was an ordinary fighter--that is why he worked as a sparring partner. Secondly, Dempsey sparred with him every day. He knew his style and moves so well that he could probably anticipate them. That is quite a bit different from being in the ring for the first or perhaps second time ever with a man.
It works like that in almost any sport. If a hitter in baseball sees a pitcher day in and day out for at bat after at bat, he would have a great advantage over a better hitter seeing the same pitcher for the first time.

 

Maybe they slipped before the punch came because they read the punch coming... maybe marciano does that because he has a slow reaction time

 

Most of marciano's opposition, IMO, was ordinary as well.

Your point about Tate being Dempsey's sparring partner is good, however. But you can look at any of Dempsey's other fights and see the same defensive characteristics and styles. Try to find a rhythm to Dempsey's movements, I dare you....

true defensive genius (for a swarmer style)

 

ya I agree. I mean Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott, Archie Moore... ya those guys are nothing special.:roll:

roland lastarza, nino valdez, rex layne ya those guys are all bums right?:roll:


Marciano had very solid defense. He worked out of a very mastered well turtored crouch, which he used to dip and roll around at all athletic unpredictable angles that made him hard to hit, and he parryed a jab very well, and if you watch the louis fight you can see him get into a standup slugger bob and weave style that worked effectivly against louis powerful jab. Marciano was the best at being able to make his opponent hit him, but not land a hard clean punch.

Angelo dundee said marciano was the only fighter he ever saw the could "punch out of a slip"


ali remarked that marciano slips a jab alot better than he thought

 

I wouldn't call Louis, Walcott, Charles, Moore, Matthews, LaStarza, Layne, etc ordinary. In fairness, Dempsey's best opposition was much better than Tate, also.

On filmed sparring--I think the points I in my first post were true, but I didn't really go far enough. Why was a sparring match filmed in the first place? Probably to publicize the upcoming Willard-Dempsey fight. The object would have been to show Dempsey in the best possible light. Put baldly, Tate most likely was paid to make Dempsey look good. If he gave Jack a tough time, they would have used someone else.
Bottom line for me--for all the reasons I've mentioned, I wouldn't use sparring sessions to evaluate fighters, and I think it particularly egregious to compare a sparring session of one fighter with a real fight of another, in which the opponent is trying his best to not only make his opponent look bad, but to actually defeat him.

It is not that I think less of Dempsey defensively, but that I think more of Marciano. Dempsey's bob was a decisive improvement over any previous aggressive slugger. His head movement, while excellent, was slightly predictable. His head generally moved in an up and down line as between the six and the twelve on a clock. Marciano bobbed also, if less frequently, but also used a crouch, and a dip and roll. He carried his hands higher and was better at using his gloves to block punches. He had a great deal of head movement also, not as often between the six and twelve, but much more frequently between the eight and the four. He had more, and more confusing, head movement. No one really worked him over with jabs on film.
There is a second criticism I would make of Dempsey and a criticism I would make of both of them. Observers in his time noted that Dempsey was excellent defensively when on the offense, but when his offense was checked and his opponent threw a flurry of punches, Dempsey had no answer. This is clearly seen on film. Carpentier, Firpo, Tunney, and Sharkey each drive Dempsey back and hit him punch after punch. He takes them standing straight with his hands low, showing scant defense. Marciano against Walcott in the 11th round when hurt makes Walcott miss punch after punch via a dip and roll. He makes Moore miss a great deal after the second round knockout. Marciano has a strong edge in fighting on the defensive.
Both Dempsey and Marciano threw defense to the wind at times when they had an opponent going and were on the attack. This is where the idea that either man had no defense probably comes from. One could argue that someone might have made them pay, but on film, except for perhaps to some extent Firpo, no one does.

 

Marciano is underrated in my, opinion, especially defensively. The last two posts do a great job of pointing it out. That head and upperbody, and arm, movement of his was unpredictalbe, seemingly random. Alot of bob and weavers rely on a few movements and they get adapted to by the opponent.

I'm starting to think many don't appreciate the man because he was so unothodox and, again random. It's hard to follow somone who really does not have that much of a pattern. Let's face this fact too, he wasn't the most graceful guy in the ring shuffling forward, but hey this ain't gymnastics or iceskating.

 

Here's how I'd score these:

Power: Tyson 9.5, Marciano 9.5, Dempsey 9, Frazier 8.5

Tale of the Tape: ( height, weight, and reach ) Tyson 5.5, Dempsey 5, Frazier 5, Marciano 4

Hand and foot speed. Tyson 9, Dempsey 8.5, Frazier 8, Marciano 6

Boxing ability and versatility on OFFENSE ( Jab, hook , cross, body punch, uppercut, in-fight out fight, combinations, feints ) : Tyson 8.5, Dempsey 8.5, Marciano 8 (aside from his short reach causing him to pretty much relinquish long-range fighting, he's pretty much got the whole repertoire), Frazier 7 (not enough of a right hand to get higher)

Boxing ability and versatility on DEFENSE ( avoid getting hit…..block, slip, duck, clinching power and technique, parry, footwork to get out of the way ) Dempsey 6.5, Tyson 6.5, Frazier 6, Marciano 5.5

Stamina: Marciano 10, Frazier 10, Dempsey 8.5, Tyson 7

Durability: Marciano 9, Tyson 9, Dempsey 8, Frazier 8

Heart and will to win: Marciano 10, Frazier 10, Dempsey 9, Tyson 5

Ring Generalship, Smarts, and Poise in the ring: Marciano 9, Dempsey 8.5, Frazier 7.5, Tyson 6

Quality of opposition fought: Frazier 10, Tyson 8.5, Marciano 7.5, Dempsey 6.5

This content is protected

Intimidation ability and killer instinct: Tyson 9.5, Dempsey 9, Marciano 8, Frazier 7

Total score:

Frazier 87
Dempsey 86.5
Marciano 86.5
Tyson 84

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

this is a ability thread, and i don't see quality of oppostion have anything to do with it

 

Yes, "quality of opposition" seemed out of place on this list in the first place, but even moreso when it's quality faced and not quality beaten, since it's clearly the latter which is what actually reflects on one's ability as a fighter. Why should Tyson get an extra couple points over Marciano because he got smacked around by Holyfield and Lewis and Rocky didn't?

 

For the record I strongly disagree.

I think that Tate at his peak was a verry good fighter who was unlucky to be around when the likes of Langford, McVean and Wills were dominating the division.

He held the coloured title and could at least be considered comparable to a modern alphabet champion like say Greg Page who became a sparring partner later in his career when he had ceased to be a contender.